Tag Archives: Cnn

PRESIDENT TRUMP ON VACCINE SAFETY COMMISSION: “I’M NOT GONNA BACK DOWN!”

104287340-RTSZ0MZ.600x400

President Trump at his latest press conference calling CNN “very fake news”

From Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at his press conference:

I got called by the transition team on December 4th, and they asked me. They said that the administration wanted to reach out to me, the president wanted to reach out to me to see if I wanted to chair and populate a commission. And they wanted to make sure that before they made me an official offer that I was willing to accept it. 

I ended up talking with members of the transition team many times over the next month and trading documents about what the commission would look like. I was told the president-elect would call me over Christmas, he ended up calling me on January 4th. We talked for 20 minutes on the phone; he asked me to come in on January 10th to talk to him and I spent an hour talking to him that day. He said he knew many people who had been, he thought, and who believed their children had been injured by vaccines. And he wanted to make sure we had the safest vaccines and we had a regulatory process with integrity. They instructed me at that time – members of the staff – to talk to members of the press about what we had said. Since then, an hour later, it had been walked back.

I’ve been contacted three times by the administration since then, and they tell me that they’re still going forward with a commission. I don’t know what’s going to happen, and I think what happens in the administration sounds very obscure to anybody. 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 uproar about this and was going to 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.” (boldface mine)

But I can’t tell you what’s gonna happen. All I can tell you is I will be here fighting this issue whatever happens.

Related:

BREAKING: ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. TO ADDRESS PRESIDENT’S VACCINE SAFETY COMMISSION IN DC 

BREAKING: RFK JR. ASKED TO HEAD VACCINE SAFETY COMMITTEE

AI ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

Herd Immunity is a Myth, Just Ask Crooked Hillary

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and . Let’s protect all our kids.  – Crooked Hillary Clinton, Twitter, February 2, 2015

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends all adults over 65 receive a pneumococcal vaccine to prevent pneumonia. Yet shortly after collapsing during an early exit from a 9/11 memorial gathering over what her campaign blamed on the illness, 68-year old Crooked Hillary Clinton was photographed hugging a young girl. Despite her proclaiming that “#vaccineswork”, the pneumonia vaccine obviously did not work for her in that instance assuming she even followed the CDC’s advice as she wanted everybody else to do. And after mocking and belittling skepticism of vaccines for which the federal government routinely lies about their safety, Crooked Hillary and her security detail did not care to protect a small child from her “pneumonia”. Assuming her campaign is even telling the truth about her diagnosis, she obviously does not practice the “herd immunity” myth used to justify vaccine policy on the basis of limiting the spread of an infectious disease. Yet the truth is the polar opposite of what she says on many issues, and her health is likely no exception.

Evidence of her ill health has been mounting throughout the course of her campaign. Bizarre facial expressions, spontaneous body spasms, coughing fits, bathroom breaks, an ambulance following her motorcade, a strange lesion on her tongue, long naps, and short speeches have all been noticed by journalists though played down in mainstream media. An article that linked to a viral video about her poor health was ripped down from Huffington Post and the journalist banned from contributing in much the same way as what happened with vaccine stories posted and then taken down over there. A well-known television doctor lost his show on CNN’s sister channel for expressing skepticism about both her health and her healthcare. And of course, vaccine shill David Gorski has hopped on the bandwagon of declaring Crooked Hillary’s health as off-limits as vaccine safety while targeting other bloggers and doctors in the process.

Welcome to the new media climate, where you can have your documentary pulled from a major film festival out of pressure from people who largely had not even seen it. You can also be permanently banned from a popular social media platform for writing a negative review of a movie you actually took the time to go and see. Nothing is surprising anymore. If there is policing of our thoughts on certain films, you can bet there would be policing of our thoughts on presidential candidates.

Indeed the below film of Crooked Hillary’s epic collapse was the target of failed suppression-attempts, but is nonetheless online for all to see. So watch the below video of her “pneumonia” collapse with amusement at all the poetic justice it has to offer, and then share it with everyone you know.

Dr. Ben Carson Endorses Donald Trump for President

repubdebate09162015-197-tmagArticle

In a press conference yesterday, former GOP primary presidential candidate and retired pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson endorsed Donald Trump for president. In the September GOP debate, Dr. Carson was asked “Should Trump stop saying that vaccines are linked to autism?” Dr. Carson said that doctors are probably giving way too many vaccinations over too short a period of time. Donald Trump stood by his position that spacing out vaccinations would diminish autism rates.

Here is a statement from Dr. Carson:

Our country is at a crossroads and in the midst of a moral crisis. We must be careful not to continue our current path, which is littered with uncertainty at best and ruination at worst. We can make changes to our system and that change starts now with, “We the People.”

We can have disagreements, but it is critical that we not allow those disagreements to divide us as a party or as a country.

It is with that in mind that I endorse Donald Trump for President. I have known Donald for many years. He is a successful businessman who has built a recognizable global brand that no one can question. His experience as a businessman is exactly what we need to move our economic engine in the right direction and empower those who have been left out of the American dream for far too long.

With our support, I am sure that we can help restore America’s values and faith.

I know there will be some who want to underscore our differences and others will wish to return to statements he has made about me in the past, but that is politics. As a man of faith, all is forgiven and we have moved beyond the past, as the future is now.

Join me in supporting and rallying around the only candidate the GOP has that can defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and return America to that shining city on a hill.

Whistleblower Contact’s Attorney: Andrew Wakefield “Hijacked The Story”

bob-reeves
In a videotaped lecture given to the group “Moms in Charge,” de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield defended his outing of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower scientist William Thompson. While silently backing off from the previously dispelled claim that the disclosure was with Thompson’s permission, Wakefield suggested the outing was in cooperation with Thompson’s first point of contact outside the CDC: autism scientist and parent Dr. Brian Hooker. But like Wakefield’s earlier claim, his claim that his outing of Thompson was in cooperation with Hooker is in stark contrast to what really happened according to correspondence with an attorney he had been working closely with.

The below August 22nd-dated email sent to Brian Hooker by Attorney Robert Reeves – who has represented Hooker during his FOIA litigation against CDC and who also sits on the Focus for Health Foundation board with him – tells a story radically different from Wakefield’s. In particular, Reeves reveals that he and Hooker were trying to bring major media coverage for the whistleblower story when it was “hijacked” by Wakefield in contradiction to what he led Hooker to believe in previous discussions:

Brian,

Hoping to talk to you about the Andy Wakefield situation – Andy revealing WB’s name on Robert Scott Bell radio. If this happens it  is about as nonstrategic as you can get.  It may kill the major media’s willingness to report this.  Don’t forget they are all owned by Phama-vaccine.

The last we need is for this to be a story to the autism community which is what Andy is doing.  Andy said on our conference call Saturday that this was your story and he did not want to appear on any shows with you.  He is doing the exact opposite.  He has hijacked the story that you and Focus Autism have worked so hard to get out.

I am sure Barry will call Andy re this is you ask him.

You have to stop him again.  As I told you late last night I will be the bad guy if need be.  You may need to go on CNN or Fox if they are interested and tell your story about the WB and hopefully not have to reveal his name.  It is already out on some Facebook pages.

We need to reveal other things WB has said re things like the flu shot for pregnancy and the false Price paper.  Have you talked to Morgan Spurlock at CNN?

I am tired of setting here stewing since 7 am, so I am going to exercise, probably play tennis.  Will have my cell phone in my pocket, but if running may not hear or feel it, so you may have to call multiple times.

Bob

Unbeknownst to Reeves at the time, Thompson was already outed in a video hosted by Wakefield and further publicized by the Age of Autism blog less than an hour before Reeves’ email to Hooker. What followed days later was the sudden deletion and eventual retraction of his study that confirmed the same results linking early measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination timing with autism that Thompson and colleagues found but omitted from publication a decade earlier. The whistleblower and the cover-up were no longer the prevailing story in major media coverage, Wakefield’s hijacking and the retraction of Hooker’s paper that soon followed were the new hot-topics instead. Rather than denouncing Wakefield for what he had done, Hooker rewarded Wakefield for betraying Thompson by cosigning a complaint with Wakefield that was sent to the CDC.

Since then, Wakefield’s hijacking has been used to push vaccine exemption-eliminating legislation. And despite Wakefield claiming in his talk that “things are going well,” no visible progress towards Thompson testifying before Congress has actually been made even though nine months have passed since his statement confirming his research misconduct allegations against CDC.

Wakefield’s solution to getting the story out is a documentary he started making and raising money for shortly after Thompson’s outing, which Wakefield promoted and continued to raise money for at his talk. In doing so, attendees of his talk were charged at a rate of $60-per-plate according to the Orange County Register. Previously, he led a two-month campaign to raise up to $230,000 for his documentary. Approximately 1% of that target sum was all that was raised by just 55 people.

Wakefield denied the documentary was financially motivated, but did not reveal the substantial amount of money he pockets from being president of the Strategic Autism Initiative that is reliant on contributions from the same community to which virtually all of his audience members belong. Keeping center stage to that community is what helps drive his financial success.

But perhaps Andrew Wakefield’s strongest motive for hijacking the whistleblower story comes from the misguided and egotistical notion that doing so will hasten his own historical absolving. Instead, it will be postponed because of what he has done.

See on The Epoch Times.

BioMed Central Breaks Policy by Retracting Brian Hooker’s Study

retraction guidelines

By Jake Crosby

Above is a summary of the reasons that justify a possible paper retraction, according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s retraction guidelines that are also used by BioMed Central (BMC). However, none of the above reasons were even mentioned in BMC journal Translational Neurodegeneration’s below justification for retracting Dr. Brian Hooker’s study, “Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data”:hookerretraction

 

Clear evidence of unreliability, duplication, plagiarism and unethical research are all valid considerations for retracting a paper, but “concerns” are not according to the very retraction guidelines BMC says it follows. Such considerations do not include “undeclared competing interests” either. Although alerting readers to such non-disclosures may serve as a purpose of a retraction according to COPE, they are not justification for a retraction.

BMC’s retraction of Dr. Hooker’s paper is only the latest of policy breaches by the publisher after it deleted his article from its website in breach of policy on the permanency of articles. Citing a then-pending investigation, BMC refused to comment on that violation when contacted by Autism Investigated. Now with the paper retracted in breach of yet more policies supposedly followed by BMC, the publisher has even more explaining to do.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. 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.

CDC Cover-up’s Ivan Oransky Conceals BMC Violation

ivan-oransky

By Jake Crosby

 

Some journalists are just ignorant; Ivan Oransky is not. He is Vice President of the “Association of Health Care Journalists” (AHCJ) – an organization of “journalists” funded by vaccine industry-tied groups dedicated to helping the CDC carry out its cover-up into the media. He also co-edits the blog “Retraction Watch,” which gleefully reported on the withdrawal of Dr. Brian Hooker’s paper that reported the very relationship between MMR and autism that CDC omitted from its original study. Oransky knows full well BioMed Central (BMC) breached policy when it pulled Dr. Hooker’s paper, but did Oransky report that, even though his blog reported on the removal of Dr. Hooker’s paper? Of course not, but he inadvertently revealed his knowledge of it in the email exchange I had with him after he vehemently defended the article’s deletion. Oransky also defended drastically altering my comment on his blog, grossly distorting what I said. (See full email exchange below)

After Oransky’s blog wrote about the pulling of Dr. Hooker’s paper without reporting about the BMC violation, CNN wrote an article from the same perspective as Oransky’s blog the very next day. CNN also added that Dr. Hooker’s paper was removed in a note above every relevant CNN iReport – without noting the BMC violation – disabled editing on the iReport CNN linked to from its article. What more can you expect when, as written elsewhere, Oransky’s wife is a writer/producer for none other than CNN?

Earlier this year, millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit – who advised CDC’s immunization program while the fraud the whistleblower described was taking place – announced at AHCJ’s annual meeting that there should be “journalism jail” for journalists who write stories about debate on vaccines i.e. who try to report on the cover-up honestly. AHCJ gave pharma PR agent Trine Tsouderos an award for her hit pieces against notable scientists opposed to adverse vaccine side-effects like Dr. Boyd Haley. Over the years AHCJ has invited other co-conspirators such as Brian Deer, Walter Orenstein, Alison Singer, Diana SchendelArthur Allen and Seth Mnookin to its annual conference. Mnookin and Oransky were old college friends; they also have dishonesty in common. Additionally, AHCJ has even teamed up with CDC to train reporters to disseminate its propaganda – no doubt in line with former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ statement about telling media outlets not to report on vaccine dangers.

As Congress investigates the CDC for fraud like that revealed by the whistleblower William Thompson, Congress should also investigate CDC’s collusion with “journalists” like Ivan Oransky, AHCJ and related people and groups who don’t abide by journalistic standards and therefore do not deserve any press freedom protections. Such people should be fully investigated as co-conspirators and any investigation that leaves them out or fails to recognize them as such will be wholly inadequate.

The below email exchange demonstrates that all the more:

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Hi,

The text of my comment was altered to make it look like I said something I didn’t:

“How come no one is reporting that I believe BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal?”

This is what I really said:

“How come no one is reporting that BioMed Central’s take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article is clearly a violation of the publisher’s own policies on article removal, which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of threatened legal claims”

I don’t want anyone to report what “I believe,” I want journalists to report what actually happened. It is clear from BioMed Central’s policies that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article was a violation of them. Reporting on the take-down without reporting on the violation lends undue legitimacy to the censorship of a scientific paper.

Sincerely,

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 7:29 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

 

What you said left out most of BMC’s actual policy, and that leaves it as your belief that they violated said policy. Your choice is to have it as is, which conforms to our comment policy, particularly the part about unverified allegations, or have it deleted altogether. You’re welcome to post whatever version you want elsewhere.

 

On Monday, September 1, 2014, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

It’s not my “belief,” you can view the entire policy on BMC’s website and see for yourself that it contradicts the excuse for pulling the paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/permanency 

I also said I wanted others to report on this – not on my opinion of it. So the wording still misrepresents what I said, even without taking verification into account.

 

Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Mon, September 01, 2014 8:18 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: “adam.marcus1@gmail.com” adam.marcus1@gmail.com
We included the entire policy, which you neglected to do and which contradicts what you wrote, along with both statements about why the paper was removed, which you also neglected to do. Your choice is still to have it as is, or simply deleted. Just let us know which you would like.

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:46 AM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

No, it backs up what I wrote, and I explain that fully. You neglect to explain how it’s contradicted at all. I included the entire policy in a screenshot on the webpage I linked to along with the statement that was more specific, contrary to your claim that I didn’t. You chopped the second half of my first sentence, making it less immediately clear how the policy was violated. It’s also misleading to portray me as asking why nobody is reporting that I believe a certain way about this issue, as opposed to simply asking why nobody is reporting on the issue itself.

By mangling my comment this way, are you trying to make me want you to delete my comment?

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 3:56 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” <info@autisminvestigated.com>, Adam
Marcus <>

The second half of that sentence, “which states such action is only done under the explicit avoidance of “threatened legal claims,” is incorrect and misrepresents BMC’s policy. The part of the policy in question: “…in the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory we may have no option but to remove that material from our site and those sites on which we have deposited the material in question.

BioMed Central therefore reserves the right to cease to make available articles that it has been advised are potentially defamatory or that infringe any intellectual property right, or are otherwise unlawful.”

The two relevant notices also make it clear that your original comment’s claim that “However, Dr. Hooker’s paper was only taken down on the excuse of ‘possible undeclared competing interests'” is also incorrect.

You continue to have two choices: Leaving the comment as is, or have it deleted.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:52 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Actually, it is correct and is an accurate representation. The reason of “threatened legal claims” is the reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles, that was not the reason it gave for striking Dr. Hooker’s article. That’s clear in this “open access” publisher’s policy you partially quoted.

The more specific notice made it clear that “undeclared possible competing interests” was the reason for the paper’s removal and that “validity” and “public interest” were concerns supposedly stemming from that. Regardless, none of these are “threatened legal claims” – the actual reason BioMed Central gives for striking articles according to policy. Since this was not the reason given for striking Dr. Hooker’s article, his article was therefore deleted in violation of that policy.

One of my readers – ironically the one who told me to contact you – said your misrepresentation of my comment as asking why no one is reporting “that I believe” a certain way about an issue makes me look “unhinged.”

Is that your intent? Either censoring me or making me look unhinged, but giving me a choice between the two so you can then claim you did one or the other with my approval? Sure looks like it.

Jake Crosby, MPH
Editor, Autism Investigated
www.autisminvestigated.com

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 7:22 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

You wrote that removal “is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: “that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.” That makes “only” incorrect, and a misrepresentation of the policy.

Our only intent is to verify claims in our comments, and the claim your comment made is incorrect. You continue to have two choices: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:41 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Well given that “threatened legal claims” are what the publisher says it hopes to avoid when taking down articles for either of those reasons, “threatened legal claims” are essentially the publisher’s only reason for taking down articles. Since none of what you quote was given in the publisher’s excuse for pulling Dr. Hooker’s article, will you at least finally acknowledge its deletion was in violation of the publisher’s policy for article removal?

Well you’re not acting like that’s your intent by treating verified facts as unverified claims. Nor are you acting like that’s your intent by giving me this ultimatum of either allowing you to keep my butchered comment up as is or having it deleted altogether without replacing it with a corrected version. As you can see from my comment submission (attached), your representation me as asking why others aren’t reporting “that I believe” a certain way is not only “unverified,” but plainly false.

commenttoretractionwatch 

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 10:51 am
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

Your two choices for this comment remain: Leave the comment as it is now, or delete it. If you want to submit future comments, you’re more than welcome to do so, but they too will be subject to our comments policy.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM, <info@autisminvestigated.com> wrote:

Why the silence on BMC’s violation of its own policy?

You clearly did not follow your own comments policy in the way you edited my comment, which I do not approve of. That said, I won’t approve of you deleting it without putting up a corrected version either.

Looks like you and BMC both have trouble following your own rules.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Mangled comment misquotes me.
From: Ivan Oransky ivan-oransky@erols.com
Date: Thu, September 04, 2014 5:55 pm
To: “info@autisminvestigated.com” info@autisminvestigated.com
Cc: Adam Marcus <adam.marcus1@gmail.com>

To repeat: You misrepresented BMC’s policy, and you misrepresented the reasons they stated for the removal. You then based the “violation” allegation on your misrepresentations, which made the allegations inaccurate. We then edited your comment so that it no longer included those misrepresentations and inaccuracies.

You are free to post a new comment, as has also been mentioned in this thread, that will also be subject to our comments policy. If that is what you mean by “corrected version,” you’re welcome to submit one. Your choices for the already-posted comment, however, remain the same as they’ve been throughout this exchange.

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Founder, Embargo Watch http://embargowatch.wordpress.com
Adjunct Associate Professor, New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

 

Finally, I responded:

Here’s what you said:

“You wrote that removal ‘is only done under the explicit avoidance of ‘threatened legal claims.'” The policy actually gives two other reasons for removal: ‘that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory.'”

In your priggish and failed attempt to correct me on BMC’s policy for removing articles, you inadvertently showed that the take-down of Dr. Hooker’s article did violate BMC’s policy. BMC provided no such reasons for deleting Dr. Hooker’s article in either statement, even if you count whatever possible concerns that were raised from the reason of “possible undeclared competing interests” as reasons as well.

Don’t expect any more comment submissions from me.

 

I’ve never heard anything back since.

 

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. 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

NAA Has “Respect” for Pharma Blasting its Fundraising Efforts with Chili’s

bazookapaul

Above: Business Insider’s Paul Szoldra – the actual “journalist” who led the smear campaign for the vaccine industry against the NAA fundraising event.

By Jake Crosby

After the vaccine industry bullied Chili’s into canceling its fundraising event for the National Autism Association’s (NAA’s) Big Red Safety Box Program to prevent children with autism from wandering off and drowning, NAA put out a statement expressing “respect” for the decision:

“Because of guest feedback about these views, Chili’s has opted to cancel today’s event. We respect their decision and ask everyone to please speak words of love and kindness.”

NAA also reiterated Chili’s statement, which concluded:

“As you know, Chili’s wants to make every Guest feel special and that includes listening to feedback from their Guests about this event.”

NAA even invoked a quote from Martin Luther King:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

Somehow I don’t think the type of response from NAA was what Dr. King had in mind. So I responded on the thread underneath NAA’s Facebook post to point out the obvious:

“Chili’s obviously capitulated to a typical, orchestrated campaign by the vaccine industry, not ‘Guests’ as you say. But go ahead, pretend that’s all it was – ‘Guests’. Pharma is happy to know you respect its killing of your fundraising events, and I’m sure is feeling very encouraged to do the same again and again.”

Reportedly, NAA President Wendy Fournier told CNNMoney:

“It was obvious that the comments [Chili’s was] getting were a fight about vaccines. Everybody was all heated up and wanting to boycott. It was bullying. It was orchestrated by a small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program.”

In other words, NAA knowingly respects a decision that was based on “bullying” and deems this “small number of people who wanted to deny assistance to families that we serve through our program” Chili’s “Guests.”

Fournier knows bullying, having been called “full of shit” by the vaccine industry’s original media go-to guy Arthur Allen at the 2008 “Green Our Vaccines” rally in Washington, DC. That, however, did not stop Dan Olmsted of the NAA-sponsored Age of Autism blog from defending him:

“In the past I haven’t agreed with rally moms at the Green Our Vaccines march in D.C. booting writer Arthur Allen from covering the event…”

Yet NAA still has no problem keeping its hyperlink logo underneath Age of Autism’s “SPONSORS” list. Interestingly, the president of NAA told the Associated Press:

“It hasn’t been answered whether or not vaccines can cause autism.”

Really? 15 years ago an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer with the CDC said he would conclude the vaccine preservative thimerosal has done “harm,” meaning a broad array of disorders that included autism. And the US Government has compensated many children like Hannah Poling who have developed autism after their vaccinations since the early 1990’s.

Yet Wendy Fournier is still not sure. So what was she even doing at the 2008 “Green Our Vaccines” rally? For that matter, what was she doing on CNN in 2011 giving a totally unprepared defense of Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Whatever the reasons, NAA is now in full retreat as pharma advances.

Jake Crosby is editor of Autism Investigated. 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.