No More Federal Research Fraud – OPPOSE HR1757!

KillTheBill_thumb

By Jake Crosby

Yesterday, Age of Autism ran an action alert from its sponsor, SafeMinds, urging readers to ask their congressional representatives to support HR1757, or the “Vaccine Safety Study Act.” SafeMinds describes HR1757 as follows (boldface mine):

“Also known as “The Vaccine Safety Study Act,” this bill, introduced by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), directs the National Institutes of Health to conduct a retrospective study of health outcomes, including autism, of vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated children…”

In other words, this bill aims to mandate the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study of autism and other disorders before the NIH and other federal agencies are forced to clean up their act and stop engaging in the institutional research misconduct that causes the vaccine-autism cover-up to persist. Although the initiatives of congressional representatives like Bill Posey and Carolyn Maloney to investigate malfeasance by government agencies should be commended, HR1757 only helps to legitimize and facilitate federal research misconduct by agencies like NIH, while distracting from efforts to expose government corruption. Autism Investigated supports vaccinated versus unvaccinated research conducted by independent researchers at academic institutions, but not conducted by federal agencies that merely pursue predetermined results. NIH is one of those agencies. According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his Rolling Stone article “Deadly Immunity”:

“Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks.”

That alone should disqualify NIH from conducting research on vaccines and autism, but there’s more. When I had an opportunity to speak to NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins at the July 2012 IACC meeting, he defended the 2004 Institute of Medicine report his agency co-sponsored for which the decision to reject autism as a side effect of vaccination was determined before the review of any scientific research. Dr. Collins also defended his agency expelling me from a talk by millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit, after Offit libeled me. Additionally, NIH destroyed video footage of my removal and then ran an article in its weekly newsletter repeating Offit’s libel. Most egregiously, in 2011 BMJ editor Fiona Godlee was invited to libel Dr. Andrew Wakefield at NIH. I asked her questions during her lecture, and none of her allegations held up to questioning.

The action alert itself, written by SafeMinds’ Executive Director Eric Uram, is wrong on multiple levels. He gives his organization full credit for CDC data obtained through FOIA showing cumulative thimerosal exposure from vaccines multiplies the risk for autism and other disorders exponentially, when in fact that data was actually discovered by Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs‘ Vice President David Geier. Uram also repeats one of the vaccine industry’s major talking points – that prospectively studying unvaccinated children would be unethical. In fact, there is no way one could argue a prospective study would be unethical as long as the study investigators have no control over the exposure.

A prospective study would be more rigorous and possibly more feasible to conduct with the increasing numbers of unvaccinated patients. Yet there is data obtained through FOIA showing significant harm done by just one ingredient in vaccines coupled with the fact that the vaccine schedule as a whole has never been tested. So a randomized controlled trial would not only be ethical, but necessary and way overdue. A retrospective study like the kind SafeMinds is asking for would be much easier for NIH to manipulate than a prospective study, whether experimental or observational. It is especially unfortunate that SafeMinds has succeeded at convincing congressmen like Bill Posey that such a study is the way to go.

To ask your representatives to oppose HR1757, follow the steps below:

•    Find your House Representative: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/.

•    Call and schedule a meeting at their district office and urge them or their staff to oppose this very destructive bill, knowing the outcome of any NIH vaccine study.

•    Contact the offices of Rep. Posey and Rep. Maloney. Explain to them very politely that while you support vaccinated versus unvaccinated research, you do not support such research being done by federal agencies that have committed scientific misconduct to cover up adverse side-effects from vaccines. Ask that they work instead to expose the research fraud committed by government agencies like NIH, not ask for more research from NIH.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated and is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. He is a 2011 graduate of Brandeis University with a BA in both History and Health: Science, Society and Policy. He currently attends The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services where he is completing his candidacy for an MPH 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

28 Thoughts on “No More Federal Research Fraud – OPPOSE HR1757!

  1. Andrea on August 3, 2013 at 4:54 pm said:

    You are very correct to point this out jake. Why support a study if the agency behind it has notoriously supported/produced bad and fraudulent studies before? Nothing has changed so we will get the same suspect and flawed results. That is the definition of stupidity…doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  2. Kelly on August 4, 2013 at 4:10 am said:

    Jake, this is one of the greatest and spot-on pieces of yours to date. I was not excited when this bill first started making the gossip rounds on the internet. Something about it just did not set well with me. Now I know why. Keep up the good work, kid.

  3. White Rose on August 4, 2013 at 10:40 am said:

    Jake , you are simply the business . I am a little tired of the longer term campaigners in this vaccine autism holocaust , who actually think they own autism ! And yes some of them have tried their best but it’s looking like their sell by dates are almost up . We need fresh ideas , new ideas , more determination , a clear out of anyone who might be sub diverting the truth (as looks possible in this case)

    The one thing good I will say about this new proposed study however is it once again opens the matter up for debate . Which amuses me greatly because the authorities have told us repeatedly the matter is resolved and is closed ….

    Do we have any pictures of dr Gordon ? Searching now

  4. Cherry Sperlin Misra on August 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm said:

    Good comments by White Rose. Who is Eric Uram to tell us that a prospective vax/unvax study would be unethical. Could he please get some good , independent scientists to explain the situation before he takes up the talking points of big pharma. Thanks for explaining it, Jake. This bill sounds like the silver platter which the NIH can put their fake cake on. A retrospective study would be better in that mercury levels were far higher in past years, but would have to be done by independent researchers- Are there any of those anymore? and am I missing something here. There are all these good scientists who can talk about mercury and vaccines, but we dont seem to be hearing from them on the autism sites. Why not?

    • Good point about the retrospective study, although the new DSM changes to autism criteria would further complicate that. With a prospective study, everybody would be judged according to the same criteria until whenever the next DSM change occurs, if it occurs. Thimerosal is still in flu shots, so a prospective study of thimerosal exposure would still be possible. Prospective data is generally more reliable and less susceptible to bias than retrospective data, anyway.

  5. colin on August 4, 2013 at 6:02 pm said:

    Well done Sir, this needs to be spread.

  6. Rebecca Fisher on August 5, 2013 at 8:02 am said:

    Hmm. I don’t think you’ve read this very clearly, have you Jake?

    The proposal specifically states that the investigator should be:

    (3) is not currently employed by any Federal, State, or local public health agency;

    (4) is not currently a member of a board, committee, or other entity responsible for formulating immunization policy on behalf of any Federal, State, or local public health agency or any component thereof;

    (5) has no history of a strong position on the thimerosal or vaccine safety controversy; and

    (6) is not currently an employee of, or otherwise directly or indirectly receiving funds from, a pharmaceutical company or the Centers for Disease Control.

    But you’re right. It’s a waste of time. The money and time involved could be so much better used to improve the lives of today’s autistic population.

    Kind regards,

    Becky.

    • There is no point in stipulating that the investigator must not be employed by or involved in policy-making for a federal public health agency when the bill also stipulates that NIH must conduct the study. That language just further goes to show how badly crafted this bill is.

  7. Cherry Sperlin Misra on August 5, 2013 at 6:52 pm said:

    Actually, thinking this over, I think that the prospective study would be clearly unethical. Not because of the unvaccinated kids , but because of the vaccinated. What kind of scientist , doing this study, would be able to watch kids vaccinated with two mercury-containing flu vaccines at age 6 months and not say to the parent, “You know, Its amazing- If you were a toxicologist, you would assault that nurse rather than let her give your child a mercury -laden flu shot ” The situation we are in today is completely absurd. 90 plus studies show that mercury is a terrible poison, most likely to be the cause of autism, and we are still talking about puzzle pieces and more studies? this study would have one single purpose- to enable the CDC and all the other fraudulent “health” organisations to ignore the 90 studies and wave this new one around, saying, “See, mercury in vaccines is safe! We looked at it”

    • Hi Cherry,
      The definition of a prospective study is simply selecting participants by exposure in the present and following them up over a period of time. As I stated in my article, the study investigators do not necessarily have to determine who gets exposed to what. If one population of children of parents who’ve already decided not to vaccinate are followed up over a period of time for autism and other diagnoses and compared to those of children whose parents decided to vaccinate and who were followed up the same way, you cannot even make an argument that such a study would be unethical. As long as the study investigators have no control over the exposures of their participants, such ethical considerations would not be an issue.

      The only kind of prospective study where this would even become an issue is in a randomized-controlled trial, where participants would be randomized to exposed and unexposed groups. But your point about exposing one group of children to mercury vaccines is interesting – as the vaccine industry claims withholding vaccines would be unethical because it would put unvaccinated children at risk of infectious diseases, one can more easily argue such a study would be unethical because it would be deliberately poisoning the vaccinated children with mercury. And while all vaccines carry some risk to recipients, mercury-free or not, exposure to mercury from vaccines can only cause harm as opposed to help.

      Observational data obtained from CDC via FOIA has already shown mercury in vaccinations increases the risk for autism by more than 7-fold, similarly multiplying the risk for other diseases, too. It’s scary to think how high that risk might be in a study where the investigators controlled the exposure, thereby yielding findings much less susceptible to bias and more accurately representing the real-life risk.

  8. Cherry Sperlin Misra on August 5, 2013 at 6:56 pm said:

    Hey Jake, I would love to hear what Tim Bolen would have to say about the proposed study. Could you ask him to do an article for your website? Sometimes one needs some light relief from the insanity of poisoning little children . sort of joking here, but it would be nice.

  9. Sam Hall on August 5, 2013 at 8:25 pm said:

    I think many people like me will see the headline and think it sounds great… and only latterly look into the details. It cannot be conducted independently by NIH…..in fact I agree with another poster on AOA who made the point that he is less interested in another study but much more interested in lifting the confidentiality around the vaccine courts which would prove vaccines cause autism. While we are at it lets push for more accountability/prosecutions for those who have been party to the injury of so many children. Ignorance is no longer a good enough excuse for the doctors, nurses who willingly go along with the sharade.

    • Agreed Sam, there are so many things we could be doing that are more productive than pushing Congress to pass a bill that would get a federal agency we don’t trust to conduct a study designed less rigorously than a study that could be conducted entirely independent of federal government anyway.

  10. Cherry Sperlin Misra on August 6, 2013 at 6:54 pm said:

    I understand what you say,Jake, and Perhaps there is some ethical manner of doing such a study, but I really cant get over the feeling that on some level it is unethical to have anything to do with the deliberate poisoning by mercury of little babies.

    • You definitely have a point, Cherry. While one can argue that countless infants are being exposed to mercury from vaccines on a daily basis in the form of a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the human population anyway and that results of such a study might help curb that, the fact that such a practice is commonplace does not justify it being done in a controlled study even if the intentions behind that study are good. From an ethical standpoint, it would be better to use CDC’s original, unpublished results as evidence for thimerosal’s role in autism causation. The problem there is that CDC wanted to bury that data and hide it from the public. Now, CDC will just dismiss the data as preliminary and inconclusive and that better analyses made the association go away, even though its own researcher at the time said he would conclude that thimerosal causes harm including autism. Meanwhile, CDC has consistently barred outside researchers access from being able to see how the federal agency made a 7.62-fold risk for autism just go away. That’s why exposing corruption in Congress should be the focus of all our congressional activities, as opposed to wasting so much time asking for a federal agency we can’t trust to study a research question for which we basically know the answer already.

  11. White Rose on August 7, 2013 at 12:43 pm said:

    Baron-Cohen the scientist , not the comedian , although the two are regularly mixed up , (and likely have been again on this occasion) has spent smthg like 10+ years now at Cambridge University spending god knows how many millions of research £’s into (not) looking for the cause of autism ……& his latest conclusion .

    To link autism to anorexia ….. Seriously Simon . Give it up son . you are clueless !

    Sacha , if you arent doing anything , there is a vacancy up at Cambridge University for you , you cant do any worse than your cousin Simon has .

  12. Thank you for giving a voice to the anti-vaccine movement. I think you are the perfect representative.

    • Thank you, Ken. While I don’t appreciate being the target of ad hominem attacks like “anti-vaccine,” it keeps me informed that you have nothing better to say as usual.

    • Reibelwatch on August 15, 2013 at 7:12 pm said:

      And thank YOU for being the voice of the anti-vaccine movement, Ken Reibel. I think you are the perfect representative considering that your hateful rhetoric, your clear and evident bigotry, and your complete lack of understanding of how science actually works turns so many people away from vaccinating. After looking at your hate-filled rants, most people will simply dismiss your views and start doing the research for themselves. You are, I think, one of the anti-vaccine movement’s best “stealth” agents.

      But we all know what you really are, brother. Keep up the good work!

  13. Pingback: Listen to Jake Crosby on Linderman Unleashed - Autism Investigated

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation