SafeMinds’ President Supports CDC “Sock-Puppet”

Sallie

By Jake Crosby

Sallie Bernard is the president of an organization which claims to oppose the presence of mercury in vaccines and to raise concerns about autism’s association with vaccination – the Coalition for SafeMinds (Sensible action for ending mercury-induced disorders). Yet Bernard – who has not responded when questioned for this article – is still a board member of and fundraiser for Autism Speaks even after it has been dubbed a “Sock-Puppet For The CDC” by the SafeMinds-sponsored Age of Autism blog. The criticism was in response to a position statement by Autism Speaks proclaiming that vaccines don’t cause autism and urging that all children be fully vaccinated. Yet the week after the statement, Sallie Bernard was quoted in a press release about her plan to raise money for Autism Speaks’ Light It Up Blue Aspen campaign:

“Light It Up Blue Aspen raised a great deal of funds for Autism thanks to dedicated supporters like Sentient Jet. We look forward to another successful event that will have a positive impact on the families in our community and all the people living within the Autism spectrum disorder.”

Though Bernard did not respond to questions concerning her continual support of Autism Speaks, the event details shed further light on Bernard’s role in the fundraiser that was held on February 15th, 2015:

“Bid on luxury items from Aspen Magazine’s ‘shades of blue’ silent auction table or on one-of-a-kind live auction experiences while raising funds and awareness for Autism.  Hosted by Tom and Sallie Bernard along with honored and celebrity guests Olympic Gold Medalist Jonny Moseley, Dr. Laura Berman of Emmy winning CBS show, The Doctors and more!”

The ongoing support of Autism Speaks by SafeMinds’ president is less surprising when put into context. Despite public perception of SafeMinds as crusading against mercury in vaccinations, the group has done more to undermine such efforts. The organization gained notoriety for hijacking the 2012 congressional autism hearing after its lobbyist misrepresented a key organizer of the event to congressional staff that prevented him from testifying about the CDC cover-up of vaccine injury. The misrepresentation also caused the hearing topic itself to be changed away from the cover-up and to the vaguer “federal response” to autism’s rising prevalence instead. The same organizer SafeMinds effectively kept out of the congressional hearing also criticized the group for not supporting a worldwide ban of thimerosal – the mercury-based preservative in vaccines. SafeMinds was also implicated in the throwing of the autism omnibus that denied justice to 4,900 petitioners for vaccine injury claims and also tried to set up a security trap for two expert witnesses at its 2012 congressional briefing on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Back in 2004, SafeMinds was aware the Institute of Medicine (IOM) was operating in breach of its congressional charter at the behest of CDC only to later thank IOM for holding the very meeting SafeMinds initially protested against. That meeting would become the final precursor to the infamous 2004 IOM report that was produced to whitewash any association between autism and vaccines. When Autism Speaks put out a message concurring with the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report denying vaccine dangers, Bernard remained on the board without making a sound.

In 2012 shortly before the congressional autism hearing, a former donor to SafeMinds asked her to step down from Autism Speaks’ board due to the organization’s views on vaccines. She reportedly demanded $1 million in return for her resignation; the donor refused. Bernard did not reply to questioning for this article when asked to confirm the amount of money she allegedly demanded. She did not make any attempt to justify her ongoing support of Autism Speaks either.

Yet Sallie Bernard was raising money for Autism Speaks right after the organization was called a “Sock-Puppet For The CDC” by a blog that SafeMinds sponsors. If SafeMinds’ president would remain on the board of a CDC sock-puppet group and continue to raise money for it, then perhaps she is a sock-puppet for the CDC herself.

See on The Epoch Times.

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

19 Thoughts on “SafeMinds’ President Supports CDC “Sock-Puppet”

  1. Media Scholar on March 16, 2015 at 4:17 am said:

    Maybe she got her Thimerosal-persevered Swine flu vaccine and is now Autistic?

  2. Hans Litten on March 16, 2015 at 11:12 am said:

    I call this explosive reporting (it all makes perfect sense to me ):

    “She reportedly demanded $1 million in return for her resignation; the donor refused.”

    “and also tried to set up a security trap for two expert witnesses at its 2012 congressional briefing on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.” Any more details available regarding this ?

    I issue a challenge to Sallie Bernard to answer all these questions on camera for the worldwide YouTube audience ?

    • It’s explosive alright.

      The security trap was the idea of SafeMinds’ executive director Eric Uram, who said of the Geiers:

      “I would alert security ahead of time that there may be people looking to disrupt the proceedings and ask they have extra staff on hand to escort any hecklers out of the room….”

      I don’t think she’ll ever accept that challenge, Hans, much as I wish she would…

  3. Hans Litten on March 16, 2015 at 11:37 am said:

    If these allegations are true – Ms Bernard isnt a fit and proper person to run a coffee shop never mind president of an autism advocacy pressure group .

  4. sam hall on March 16, 2015 at 8:48 pm said:

    This is exactly what I believed was going on.
    I am pleased to have you confirm this Jake – but what a shame for all the other parents who are blindly following those who do not have their best interests at heart…..and all those beautiful kids are relying on us to sort this sh*te out.

    I wish the parents would question AOA and safeminds just a little harder and we might finally make the progress the children are so deserving of.

  5. Media Scholar on March 17, 2015 at 4:29 am said:

    Oh really? That’s interesting.

    What else could be the sudden on-set of her failures in the cognitive department?

      • media scholar on March 19, 2015 at 11:38 am said:

        Money is the most obvious reason. Lack of accountability is another.

        As with most NPO sharks, she’s living large, and, with a conscience seared with a hot iron, she’s delusional to the point where she believes helping herself is above the selfless responsibility expected of leadership. Banking fat checks without batting an eye at where the money comes from is just another day in the life.

        She’s living a life of society trotting down the road of gold bricks bought and paid for by voiceless, unrepresented victims. As parents of vaccine-injured children struggle on a daily basis, her denial of the causal relationship between the vaccines and the negative neurological outcomes, which do happen each and every day, becomes a glaring fixture of just exactly why the vaccine injury compensation program came into existence, and a bitter example of why the foreign-owned vaccine-manufacturing drug giants have lost the faith and confidence of the American people.

        As part of the CDC anti-litigation racket, her Combating Autism Act sell out, and the sell out of the select few inside her inner-circle of mutual promenades, stands as representative of the prostitution which took place in order to win over just enough Autism rock stars to foil the movement to compensate vaccine injury cases where “Autism” was the eventual outcome.

        The CDC receives all the backlash, yet it was the much larger pharmaceutical industry Autism Speaks combination in restraint of justice which befriended those well-heeled few.

        The effort to deceive the massive number of vaccine-induced Autism victim families, 5,000 of which held claims in the federal compensation program, was spearheaded by the likes of Sallie Bernard. They held a fake version of the Combating Autism Act. When it was clear this was no different than Neville Chamberlain flapping the “peace in our time” promissory note from Adolf Hitler, they denied it was so.

        What Sallie Bernard and her inner circle of prom figures, including NBC Universal CEO and GE vice-chairman, “Sponge” Bob Wright, held was a bogus draft of the Combating Autism Act bill. In this fake bill was explicit Thimerosal and vaccine research language. This research was to be carried out.

        Even when the real bill which was being railroaded through Congress was compared to show proof Sallie Bernard and her inner circle were lying through their teeth (the bill on the table in the US Senate H.E.L.P committed being shepherded by Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton NEVER had such research language in it) not even a protest letter written by cancer-stricken Autism Research Institute founder Dr. Bernard Rimland could convince the band of traitors to stop.

        So for Sallie Bernard and her back-stabbing, finky, self-loving wrecks….here’s Kryptonite in your eyes!

        The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland
        Dr. Bernard Rimland is the founder and director of the Autism Research Institute

        I strongly oppose endorsing “The (Pretending to) Combat Autism Act” unless it includes clear and explicit language supporting meaningful research on the role of vaccines and mercury as plausible causes of the autism epidemic.

        The proposed Combating Autism legislation is as sincerely dedicated to combating autism as O.J. Simpson was to finding the “real killers” of his ex-wife Nicole.

        The fear that failure to pass the CAA will lead to a catastrophic failure to fund future autism research vastly overestimates the value of government funded research. Most such research is only of academic interest, which gathers dust on library shelves and advances the “publish or perish” aspirations of academic researchers. Is there any evidence whatever that more than a minuscule percent of government funded research has produced any positive and useful benefits for autistic children and their families, or ever will? If you are aware of any examples showing such research is serving a truly useful purpose, please let me know.

        I was the first to announce the “autism epidemic”, in 1995, and I pointed out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research (as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during their pregnancy.)

        The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine. Real progress has been made in bringing recovery to autistic children by physicians and researchers who attend the autism/vaccine/mercury connection (see http://www.AutismRecoveredChildren.com) A few million dollars, appropriately directed, has accomplished, and will continue to accomplish much more than the tens of millions of dollars directed along paths intended to exonerate the vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, the IOM and the AAP.

        I hope our consortium will purchase, or at least threaten to purchase ads in USA Today an elsewhere saying “Defeat the (Pretend to) Combat Autism Act”. We should insist that significant resources be directed at exploiting the treatments that we know work, such as special diets, food supplements and chelation. We have a great deal to gain and nothing to lose by speaking out loudly against this sham legislation which would, in the long run, be harmful rather than beneficial to our children.

        So, whatever Sallie Bernard could possibly say to defend her own betrayal of hundreds of thousands of vaccine-injured children today and tomorrow , the words can only come across as poor, poor, poor and equally as sincere as O.J. Simpson announcing he has developed new leads while locked away on the state pen anyway.

  6. Hans Litten on March 20, 2015 at 8:31 am said:

    OJ is only suspected in the death of 2 people .
    I’m not sure his crime comes anywhere close to this (obviously as heinous as it was).

    • Media Scholar on March 21, 2015 at 6:28 pm said:

      The vaccine-manufacturing drug companies like to convince people that some vaccine-induced injuries and vaccine-induced death is the price to pay for everybody else to survive. In the medical profession is considered good science.

      The Incas of Central America believed sacrificing infants and toddlers, too. They believed that by cracking their skulls wide open and draining their blood on stone alters meant the rains would come. To them likewise, survival was predicated upon human sacrifice of infants and toddlers. They also considered this good science.

  7. White Rose on March 22, 2015 at 10:36 am said:

    About the Inca’s , is there any evidence of whose children were sacrificed – my bet is it wasnt the medicine man’s children .

  8. White Rose on March 22, 2015 at 11:24 am said:

    Google has turned on its Worldwide Internet censorship “knowledge vault” .

    And the UK is rolling out the ridiculous meningitis w vaccine , vaccinating 3 million teenagers for 49 cases of meningitis . The complete lack of any resistance should be embarassing to anyone here who allegedly says they are involved in the fight against vaccine proliferation and vaccine injury .

  9. White Rose on March 22, 2015 at 12:00 pm said:

    Would they be able to prevent the sale of books that criticise vaccines ?
    Ann Dachel “the autism cover-up” and although I havent read it yet , I bet it doesnt go far enough at all .

    They will definitely have to shut down the more interesting side of YouTube .

    why dont they just be done with it , and re-open the work camps in Poland .
    Imagine how much more efficient they would be in todays world eg faster trains , more train networks & better organisation .

    Could questioning vaccines become a criminal offence ? Its looking very draconian
    Either way the interlopers and betrayers being paid to infiltrate our side have got to be worried , I just cannot see how their “secret exemptions” are ever going to work .

  10. Hans Litten on March 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm said:

    “Republican Ted Cruz has made individual liberty the key theme of his presidential campaign announcement.”

    Does this include freedom to refuse focred medical procedures ?

  11. Hans Litten on March 24, 2015 at 9:28 am said:

    Jake – why dont you apply ? You’d be perfect (working for our side) . lol
    http://jobs.economist.com/job/9487/senior-manager/

    Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is an innovative public-private global health partnership whose mission is to save children’s lives and protect people’s health by increasing access to immunisation in poor countries.

    Since 2000, Gavi’s work with countries and Alliance partners has prevented 6 million deaths through immunisation of an additional 440 million children. Gavi’s new strategy for 2016-2020 aims to reach a further 300 million children and prevent another 5 to 6 million deaths.

    Gavi seeks a talented and dynamic Senior Manager, Resource Mobilisation to help mobilise higher levels of resources for Gavi’s core programs and specific initiatives aimed at addressing emergencies.

    Gavi’s Resource Mobilisation team has the principal responsibility for the development and implementation of Gavi’s resource mobilisation strategy. The Senior Manager, Resource Mobilisation will be involved in fundraising and donor relations, including building the investment case for Gavi, in particular in emerging Latin American donor markets; developing and implementing tailored public and private fundraising strategies in key markets, building on diverse financial instruments; building and managing relations with in-market stakeholders such as governments, parliamentarians, private sector representatives and civil society partners; initiating and negotiating grant agreements and renewals with donor governments; and responding to donor requests in a timely manner and communicating issues to Gavi’s management and across the Gavi Secretariat.

    The successful candidate will have proven experience in fundraising and financing for international, public, financial or public-private institutions, particularly in emerging markets, such as Latin America. In addition, familiarity with political and technical governmental decision-making processes and experience identifying and articulating strategic issues, trade-offs and priorities in order to provide sound advice is required. Excellent networking, negotiation and communication skills are key. Further information on the job requirements can be found at http://www.gavi.org/careers.

    To apply, please email your cover letter and CV to recruiting@gavi.org by 8 April 2015, with “Senior Manager, Resource Mobilisation – The Economist” in the subject line. Please note that the role is temporary in nature and is to last a year. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

    Gavi is committed to diversity within its workforce and encourages applications from all qualified candidates.

  12. Hans Litten on March 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm said:

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/health-consumers/distrust-vaccinations-rise-across-eu-313296

    Europeans are turning away from vaccines, amid rising distrust of immunisation for infectious diseases. France’s Constitutional Council has upheld legislation obliging parents to have their children innoculated. EurActiv France reports.

    Given the choice, not everybody would vaccinate their children. Marc and Samia Larère asked the French Constitutional Council for a “priority preliminary ruling on the issue of constitutionality” (QPC) on whether they could legally be forced to vaccinate their children.

    The response came on 20 March: compulsory vaccination is legal under the French constitution. Like many parents, the Larères feel that the obligatory DTP vaccine (against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) poses too high a risk and protects against illnesses that are virtually non-existent in France.

    The only DTP vaccine to not contain aluminium was withdrawn from the market in June 2008, and the others have been out of stock for months. The only remaining option is the hexavalent vaccine that also immunises against hepatitis B, although this is not on the obligatory vaccination list, and the vaccine has suspected links to multiple sclerosis.

    Michèle Rivasi, a Green MEP, called this “a forced sale”. “Vaccination is not benign. I am not against vaccination but I believe in moderation,” she said at a press conference on 24 March. Together with pharmacist Serge Rader, she has launched an operation to blow the whistle on conflicts of interest and corruption in the public health sector.

    For recommendation, against obligation

    If there is one domain within the sector that tends to keep its nose clean, says Selon Serge Rader, it is vaccination. In Europe, France is the only country to maintain the policy of compulsory vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

    Portugal has kept compulsory vaccination for diphtheria and polio, and Belgium just for polio. Elsewhere in Europe, Germany, the United Kingdon, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and others have all abolished compulsory vaccination.

    >> Read: Merkel’s ‘vaccine summit’ raises $7.5 billion

    The Commission’s objective in this domain is to maintain or increase rates of vaccination against preventable diseases. The Executive has committed to assisting with the introduction of vaccines against cervical cancer and promoting the vaccination of “people at risk” of seasonal flu. The Council recommendation of 22 December 2009 advised member states to aim to vaccinate 75% of their “at risk” citizens against flu by the winter of 2014-2015. Only the United Kingdom and the Netherlands achieved this target, but experts say that if it was reached across the EU, between 9,000 and 14,000 lives would be saved every year.

    “We are in favour of recommendation, not obligation,” said Michèle Rivasi. Serge Rader said it is important not to forget that vaccines can be dangerous. Thousands of cases of multiple sclerosis have been detected following hepatitis B vaccinations and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) has been linked to cases of autism. In Canada, a 15 year-old girl died immediately after her second injection of Gardasil, the vaccine against the papillomavirus, which causes cervical cancer.

    “I would like to give people two pieces of advice. Firstly, there should be no rush to vaccinate babies, as their immune systems are too fragile to receive vaccines in the first year. Secondly, be vigilant for side effects and declare them to the pharmacovigilance organisation,” Serge Rader said. “This is in the interest of public health, which today is dominated by financial interests,” he added.

    Distrust of vaccination

    According to the French National Institute for Prevention and Health Education, distrust of vaccination has risen from 10% in 2005 to 40% in 2010.

    “There has been a startling drop in vaccination in France, particularly against potentially serious diseases,” said Professor Roger Salamon. “Some whistle-blowers are very dangerous […] because they cause people to lose their trust,” he added.

    In November 2014, a panel of experts advised the EU to launch its own information campaign to counterbalance the work of the anti-vaccination lobby.

    >> INFOGRAPHIC: Vaccine R&D leaders

    The Italian Health Minister said that it was “only thanks to a new alliance between the institutions and stakeholders, including the scientific community, and thanks to a new public communication strategy that we can ensure that everybody has access to vaccines. This service is essential for public health”.

    In September 2014, the French High Council for Public Health called for a public debate on whether vaccination against certain diseases should remain compulsory in France or not, and suggested setting up free public vaccination centres.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation