Tag Archives: Nih

NOW THIS: Watch The Top Ten Moments The Vaccine People “Lose Their Sh*t”

Note: Profanity removed at the request of the editor’s mother.

The millennial fake news site Now This tweeted of recent efforts in New Jersey to curb religious exemptions from vaccination:

Watch anti-vaxxers lose their sh*t over a law that encourages critical vaccines

In response, Autism Investigated has put together a round-up of what it considers to be the top ten moments the vaccine people publicly lost their sh*t (over much, much less). Don’t see your favorite moments listed here? Feel free to share in the comments below! (Note: This list does not include direct threats of physical violence or death, though number one is close…)

10. Publication Bias

Now-former “Science”Blogger Tara C. Smith lost her sh*t when the only vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism was finally published.

Under pressure of boycott, the journal canned the study’s publication. The study has since been published in another journal.

9. Interview Decline

Credential-fabricating vaccine doc Paul Offit lost his sh*t at the idea of an interview with people he disagrees with, November 2016.

8. Not Very Diplomatic

Five years prior when challenged at NIH by Autism Investigated’s editor, Offit also lost his sh*t.

That was also when the editor was escorted out of the room, prompted by NIH doctor Tara Palmore who also lost her sh*t.

The NIH record which covered the event lied and said the editor “stormed out of the room and slammed the door.” The very end of the full video of Offit and Palmore’s exchange caught on a hot mic says otherwise:

PO: I saw him earlier. I saw him sitting there earlier.

TP: You did?

PO: I was about three slides into it.

TP: You signaled me. I didn’t realize it. I’m sorry.

PO: No, no, I didn’t signal you. It was really too late.

NIH director Francis Collins would later tell the editor at a federal meeting, “it does not sound like you were very diplomatic in your approach.”

7. Mob for Science

Vaxxed cameraman Josh Coleman trolled California Senator Richard Pan at the anti-Trump March for Science. Josh fought off a mob of triggered marchers, who all lost their sh*t.

Josh Coleman and Senator Pan

Tolerant liberal throws Josh’s sign and says, “You’re just being a dick!”

Triggered marcher confronts Josh: “Do you have any fucking evidence, you bastard?!”

6. Ultimatum

“Journalist” Brian Deer required money to be in a film, only to later get mad at that film for not including him. So he lost his sh*t and sent the following ultimatum to the producer of The Pathological Optimist shortly before the film’s release:

If by midnight, Pacific, Tuesday, I have not received your assurance in these respects, or been offered by you a credible alternative plan to remedy the damage that your “documentary” inflicts on my reputation (presenting me, as you do, as too cowardly to defend my journalism), I will publish this letter to media, as well as to senior independent film makers, festival directors, and others who may be in a position to advise me. I give you four full days to decide and tell me what you are going to do.”

It didn’t work.

5. “Get rid of all the whites”

A Texas doc came up with her own idea for dealing with vaccine refusers in 2016.

In other words, she lost her sh*t.

4. California Mom Threatened With Arrest

Watch this video and see what happens when states scrap their vaccine exemptions, November 2017.

California scrapped its vaccine exemptions after measles was brought over from Switzerland, which has open borders. Yet the entire state has since become an official “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants.

The State of California has completely lost its sh*t.

3. “Get the fuck out of here! Piece of shit!”

An absolute classic, from the editor’s third encounter with Paul Offit in 2012:

“You told American Medical News that protection from vaccine litigation improves vaccine industry profits. That’s making money off the backs of vaccine-injured children.”

Here is the exact line, from American Medical News, 2008:

“But other advantages to vaccine production have become increasingly evident, Dr. Offit noted. ‘There is a fairly beaten path in how to make them, and there is, to some extent, protection from liability in children’s vaccines,’ he said.”

Angry doctorBut he continued the abuse:

“No, that is bullshit! I don’t do this for the money! Get out of here!”

And then he said:

“Get the fuck out of here! Piece of shit!”

Read the editor’s full piece on Offit’s most epic sh*t-loss at Age of Autism.

2. “They are a hate group”

Peter Hotez is a vaccine developer and the father of a young woman who is autistic because of her vaccinations. So you can understand him losing his sh*t to a degree.

What Hotez said of the National Vaccine Information Center and Texans for Vaccine Choice, however, is well beyond that degree:

“They are a hate group that hates [our] family and hates [our] children.”

Hotez actually holds a diplomatic position where he represents U.S. interests to the State of Israel. Send this letter to the State Department and ask that he be fired.

1. “Hanging Offense”

To say the Boston Herald editorial board lost its sh*t is putting it mildly. They’ve gone full Ku Vax Klan:

These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.

A hanging offense.

Likely CDC Head Omitted HIV Research, Was Reprimanded By Army

Autism Investigated: Read the above Science Magazine article (click to enlarge, continued in embedded text below) and draw your own conclusion about the doctor President Trump will likely appoint to head  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as Fitzgerald’s replacement.

The question of how Redfield had chosen his 15 patients for analysis came up again in August 1992, after the Amsterdam meeting, when researchers at WRAIR [Walter Reed Army Institute of Research] and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the advancement of Military Medicine-a private lab that has a multi-million-dollar contract to assist the military’s AIDS research program -analyzed data from all 26 patients and found no statistically significant effect on viral load. Indeed, at an AIDS vaccine meeting sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 31 August-3 September in Chantilly, Virginia, Redfield and Vahey both made presentations about the full data set of 26 patients; both presentations showed that the viral load data from all 26 patients indicated no statistically significant change with gp160 treatment.

In addition, viral load data from the first 15 patients “were similar to those of the entire 26 patients,” Col. Donald Burke, Redfield’s boss, explained to Army investigators.

How had Redfield found statistical significance where there apparently was none? That question was first addressed by Burke in an informal inquiry. According to Burke’s statement to Army investigators, he held a meeting with key Redfield collaborators on 28 August-just before Chantilly-and the attendees “all agreed that the data analysis [for Amsterdam] was done in haste, which resulted in some arbitrary criteria and methodological errors.” 

Burke concluded there had been no scientific misconduct, only scientific error. In his statement to the Army investigators, Burke said that after the Chantilly presentations, “I was satisfied that the data were presented openly and accurately and that the conundrum regarding the Amsterdam presentation had been put to rest and the case was closed.”

The case was not closed. On 20 October, two Air Force AIDS researchers filed a formal complaint against Redfield that became the basis for the investigation. At the end of that process, Army investigator Dangerfield found that no misconduct had occurred and that any errors in Redfield’s presentation were due to haste. Dangerfield’s report cites Burke’s 28 August meeting as one explanation for that conclusion. The meeting, wrote Dangerfield in his final report, “concluded that the disparities between the analyses of [Lt. Col.] Redfield at Amsterdam and that of others arose by presenting preliminary data from less than the full study … and data analysis done in haste.”

That interpretation isn’t likely to satisfy some of Redfield’s colleagues. Three of them told Science they don’t believe haste was the reason Redfield’s analysis went awry. “I don’t think it was a silly, sophomoric mistake be- cause someone was rushed,” contends statistician William McCarthy, who until 15 July was the chief of biostatistics at the Jackson Foundation-and has resigned in frustration because of what he calls “a lack of candor” about the gp160 data. “The way the data were presented [in Amsterdam] was not legitimate, and it made the data look better than it would have looked had there been an appropriate analysis,” says McCarthy.

Two Redfield collaborators, who insist on not being quoted by name, also reject the notion that the Amsterdam presentation contained errors made in haste. Says one investigator: “I don’t think it was a presentation made by a researcher in a hurry. The presentation was sloppy and irresponsible. You go out and make a statement as an authority, as a world-class scientist, and you’re not super sure? Come on.” Another collaborator says Redfield’s presentation “was very well thought out.”

The FOIA documents, however, also reveal that Redfield has supporters among his colleagues. One of the strongest statements of support came from Lt. Col. John Brundage, WRAIR’s chief epidemiologist. Brundage, who helped Redfield with his statistical analysis prior to Amsterdam, told Danger- field he had attended the presentation and “did not feel it was inappropriate.” Brundage’s statement also said he thought Redfield had benefited from Brundage’s statistical “tutoring several days previously.”

Although the Army’s investigation of the Amsterdam presentation may not have satisfied all those close to these events, by 20 February of this year that phase of the investigation was closed. But because of concerns about WRAIR’s relationship with Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy, the Army launched a second probe–of that organization and its ties to Army researchers.

ASAP, which educates religious groups and aims to speed development of treatments, became snared in the Redfield investigation because of concerns that Redfield supporter W. Shepherd Smith Jr., the group’s president, was improperly contacting WRAIR researchers to discuss unreleased gp160 data. Like Redfield, Smith has been a strong supporter of gp160 therapy, testifying before Congress and even staging an investment seminar in Los Angeles for potential MicroGeneSys investors. Redfield is chairman of ASAP’s advisory board, which his chief collaborator, Deborah Birx, also serves on.

Specifically taken up in the Army probe was a phone call ASAP’s Smith made to Vahey on 24 August, in which they discussed the gp160 study and interpretations of the early results. Vahey was concerned enough about “the command of the data that Mr. Smith exhibited” and his opinions about how the gp160 data should be presented that she wrote a memo for the record, which the Army supplied to Science.

Smith told Science any implication he was trying to influence the analysis of gp160 data was “absolutely false,” stressing that his reason for calling had “nothing to do with the Amsterdam presentation.” Smith said he believes ASAP was brought into the Army’s investigation because “nothing was found in the first report and that wasn’t satisfactory to people who had staked their careers on finding something wrong with Bob Redfield.”

The Army investigation concluded that WRAIR provided ASAP with “scientific information that was not widely disseminated” and recommended that ties between the two groups “be severed so there is not an appearance of endorsement or favoritism.”

Severing the tie between ASAP and Army researchers, however, won’t end the questions still swirling around Robert Redfield, the gp160 vaccine, and MicroGeneSys. Although Redfield’s supporters are pleased with the outcome of the investigation, many of Redfield’s colleagues and others close to the investigation are not fully satisfied. A new investigation could be launched by a joint Army-Navy-Air Force team. Congress might also hold hearings on the issue. On the scientific front, gp160 will also come up again soon, since the military is staging a trial of the MicroGeneSys vaccine in more than 600 infected people. The trial will compare treated patients to a randomized control group receiving a placebo. A first look at the blinded data is scheduled for the fall. But, like every other new piece of information about gp160, those preliminary results are far more likely to start debate than to end it. -Jon Cohen SCIENCE VOL. 261 13 AUGUST 1993

BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

4.     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.rtf

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

14.    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/

Merry Christmas: BMJ Editor Rattled By Photo of Andrew Wakefield with Trump

trumpwakefield

Easily-triggered millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit is not the only person in the industry of unsafe vaccines – a.k.a. the vaccine industry – who is having a hard time after the election. British Medical Journal (BMJ) editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee got a Twitter surprise more unpleasant for her than a Christmas stocking full of coal.

Godlee reacted in horror to a photograph of President-Elect Donald Trump standing alongside the exonerated British doctor and Vaxxed director she libeled: Dr. Andrew Wakefield. In response to a tweet of the photo by Autism Investigated’s editor that also challenged the continued archival of her journal in the US National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Godlee replied:

Godlee made international headlines in 2011 when she reproduced two-year old, false allegations which accused Wakefield of fabricating the findings of his landmark paper on autism and bowel disease in children whose health had deteriorated following combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination. Despite accusing Wakefield of committing fraud to make money, Godlee would later admit that she failed to disclose the sponsorship of BMJ by several MMR manufacturers. She would later claim she did not even know those companies made the MMR vaccine at a talk where she also proved herself completely incapable of defending her accusations against Wakefield when publicly challenged at the NIH in 2011:

A defamation lawsuit filed against Godlee and BMJ by Wakefield would later be thrown out on jurisdictional grounds by two judges with undisclosed ties to the vaccine industry, but not before the prosecutors took depositions of the defendants that only further demonstrated the libelous nature of BMJ‘s attacks. Godlee was reminded of that fact by AutismOne – a charity that hosts annual conferences where Wakefield has been a regularly featured speaker:

Now with Donald Trump elected president of the United States, Godlee may find herself with a new problem. That problem could be with her keeping the journal archived in the US National Library of Medicine should she continue to refuse to retract her libelous, conflicted hit-pieces. Yet she could not even defend her accusations at one of the most venerated medical institutions that helps her journal reach doctors both in America and throughout the entire world.

She’d better make the right choice, or else…

bmjpubmed

Vaccines: Tantrum-Based Medicine

If there is one lesson to learn about the industry of unsafe vaccines – or as I like to say, the vaccine industry – from Vaxxed cameraman Josh Coleman’s encounter with millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit, it is that vaccines are a medicine based on tantrums, not science. Not only is such behavior the norm for Offit, but the entire vaccine industry he belongs to.

It tells people to listen to doctors, while trying to strip the medical license of any doctor that encourages caution when vaccinating. Likewise, the vaccine industry claims people should dismiss any evidence that doesn’t appear in “peer-reviewed” journals. But when yet another study showing vaccines to be unsafe is published such as the first peer-reviewed analysis comparing autism in vaccinated children to unvaccinated children, the vaccine industry throws a whiny, “throw your toys out the pram”-style fit on Twitter to get it pulled. So embarrassing was that campaign even for vaccine apologists that Discover Magazine had condemned it.

Enter the aetiology of Kent State biology professor and “Science”Blogger Tara C. Smith’s Twitter fit. She ordered scientists to boycott Frontiers journals as retaliation against its publication of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated study:

Yet after ordering scientists to stop submitting papers to Frontiers journals and to stop reviewing studies for them, this genius scientist actually complained that its journals are a “niche for science denialism” and that its peer reviewers are “unqualified”:

What nonsense. If her concerns with Frontiers journals really were scientific, the last thing she would do is discourage scientists from reviewing papers for them or submitting articles to them. What she along with the rest of the vaccine industry really wants is to whine, blog and tweet until every study that challenges her positions is retracted, every doctor who holds conflicting opinions is de-licensed, every critic is shooed away and every child who has not been subjected to the government’s iatrogenic vaccine schedule is barred from school.

Like its allies in the mainstream media, the vaccine industry has learned little from the results of this past election. The public loss of trust in vaccinations will only grow, regardless of how many studies the vaccine industry gets fraudulently retracted or how many fraudulent studies it publishes.

Paul Offit Triggered By Vaxxed: “Get the f*ck out of here!”

He’s done it again, folks. Four years after telling me to “get the fuck out of here”, he said the same thing to someone else.

This time, however, Paul Offit was caught on camera.

My entire full-length piece gives insight into Offit’s behavior:

Penn Prof. Paul Offit to GW Grad Student: “Get the f*ck out of here! Piece of sh*t!”

Three weeks after that, Paul Offit ordered event organizers for a talk he gave in Washington, DC to bar me from entering his talk. One of the organizers later claimed on tape that Offit “fears for his safety”.

The Vaxxed video is not the first time Offit was caught on tape attacking a critic for questioning him. Here is a video of him five months before he had me barred from his DC event, calling me a “stalker” for challenging him about the etiology of autism. I was thrown out of the event by an NIH employee.

One month after that, I tried asking him as question at a talk he gave at Yale. He interrupted me before I could ask my question and then demanded that I leave.

The millionaire vaccine industrialist hasn’t changed, even after Penn was forced to change its policies as a result of the abuse he heaped on me years ago.

Video: BMJ Editor Humiliated After Calling Autism-Vaccine Link a Fraud

At the NIH, the editor-in-chief of the BMJ Fiona Godlee gets stumped on video after calling the vaccine-autism link an “elaborate fraud.” BMJ Group was also sponsored by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, pharmaceutical companies that made measles-mumps-rubella vaccines – a fact Godlee claimed she didn’t know. The university that initially launched an investigation based on her allegations has since dumped Godlee’s concerns:

“the net result [from an investigation] would likely be an incomplete set of evidence and an inconclusive process costing a substantial sum of money.”

Godlee has also tried to petition UK parliament, for which she was quickly rebuffed. But years later, a whistleblower from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that it was the people who tried to dispute an association between autism and vaccinations who committed fraud. They threw evidence linking the two into a “huge garbage can.” Here is a larger excerpt of what the whistleblower said, read by Congressman Bill Posey:

“All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the coauthors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four coauthors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard-copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DoJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.”

See relevant outbound links below.

Article: Jake Crosby Challenges BMJ Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee

Full video of BMJ editor Fiona Godlee’s talk

Full video of congressional speech by Bill Posey reading whistleblower statement

The Autism Policy Reform Coalition’s Futile Fix – Under Construction?

Broken egg isolated on white background

By Jake Crosby

The Autism Policy Reform Coalition (APRC) is an umbrella organization of groups that support “fixing” the Combating Autism Act, now renamed the Autism CARES Act. APRC’s member organizations include SafeMinds, the National Autism Association (NAA), Talk About Curing Autism (TACA) and Generation Rescue.

APRC’s main aim specific to autism causation is the creation of an “Office of Autism Spectrum Disorder Research” at the NIH, modeled after the agency’s Office of AIDS Research. This proposal originated with SafeMinds, which appears to be leading the coalition.

Curious, I emailed APRC some questions below highlighting my concerns about its proposed “fixing.”

Hi,

I have several questions I would like for you to address regarding your coalition.

1. Why do you want an autism research office in a federal agency culpable for covering up and whitewashing autism causation, that supports the stifling of debate and also supports libelous attacks on scientists?

2. Why is one of your biggest political allies Biotechnology Industry Organization’s two-time “Legislator of the Year” Mike Enzi, who published a report calling clear-cut cases of federal scientific misconduct “not substantiated”?

3. Why do you ask for a greater “federal response” from agencies caught hiding, manipulating and misrepresenting research?

4. Why does the only IACC representative of any of your member groups never mention this malfeasance as she sits in committee meetings along side some of its worst perpetrators?

5. Why do your member organizations in your coalition to influence autism legislation include SafeMinds, which hijacked the 2012 congressional autism hearing by misrepresenting its original organizer to congressional staff?

I look forward to a timely response to my questions.

Sincerely,

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

I’ve received no word back, so I can only imagine how APRC could defend asking for an “Office of Autism Spectrum Disorder Research” in an agency known to cover up evidence that vaccinations are causing autism, exemplified by none other than NIH’s director of strategic planning for vaccine research, Gordon Douglas:

“Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal…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.” 

Would Act Up want an Office of AIDS Research in the NIH if it were trying to cover up that HIV is causing AIDS?

Not likely.

Weeks after my email and days after the Senate delayed voting on the Autism CARES bill opposed by APRC, the APRC website was gutted and the webpage describing APRC’s proposed autism bill was scrubbed. All that remains now is a blank homepage with a logo.

APRC supported the delay on the premise of giving the public a chance to read the CARES bill and understand what it is asking for. Yet APRC’s proposed alternative is no longer available on APRC’s website.

Addendum, July 2nd, 2014: In response to Autism Investigated, APRC confirmed it is moving to a new website that is under construction yesterday on Facebook: “Contrary to this article, we are developing a more comprehensive website resulting from the many inquiries and increased interest in our platforms and ideas. We’ll post the new improved link when it’s ready. Stay Tuned!”

Addendum, July 10th, 2014: On July 6th, I commented under the above statement, asking APRC:  “Why did you scrub your old website before the new one could replace it?” I got no answer. The old APRC website autismpolicy.org now re-directs to autismpolicy.net, which is “Password Protected.”

Addendum, July 11th, 2014: The new website is now publicly available. The National Autism Association is no longer listed as a member organization of APRC.

Addendum, January 18th, 2015: …nor is Talk About Curing Autism.

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.

Take Action: Warn Congress about vax propaganda film Invisible Threat

Editor’s Note: See how millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit – “Scientific Technical Advisor” of “Invisible Threat” – deals with critical questioning at a public talk he gave at NIH in the above video.

Take Action!

 Vaccine industry front group Every Child By Two (ECBT) kicked off a letter-writing campaign asking legislators to attend a pro-vaccine film featuring millionaire vaccine developer and industry spokesman Paul Offit. In the film, Offit calls those who question vaccine safety “evil.”  Every Child By Two posted online:

     By flooding [legislators’] offices with calls and emails between now and May 1st we can make it clear …we stand firm against vaccine misinformation that is resulting in weakened public health policies, watered-down school vaccination requirements and the resurgence of deadly diseases!… Explain that this student-film aims to uncover the truth about the anti-vaccination groups who seek to dismantle the progress made to combat deadly diseases that used to take the lives of millions of people each year.

      The “student film” was directed and produced by adults, not students, and the project has deep pharma ties. Paul Offit is the film’s “Scientific Technical Advisor.” ECBT has received millions in funding from pharmaceutical companies. Funding and other support for the film comes from the Rotary Club; Rotary International receives grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – a major investor in vaccines.

     The student who is listed as the film’s writer, Camille Posard, posted on the ECBT blog that she fears vaccine safety advocates, and she compares us to “white supremacists.”  This is not the first time the vaccine industry has resorted to hate-mongering. But exploitation of high school students is a new low.

     A woman conducting interviews for the film was “clearly not a student,” according to Shawn Centers, Autism expert and pediatrician. Dr. Centers says the filmmakers gained access to his practice, his patients and their parents under false pretenses. He was told the documentary was about autism, so he gave permission to film. But CHSTV’s own Facebook page reveals the film was about vaccination, not autism, seven months prior to the filming.

     While promoters want us to believe the teens “stumbled into” the vaccine controversy, the Rotary Club grant, Offit’s involvement and ECBT’s relentless promotion of the film are ample evidence that Invisible Threat is pharma’s most shameless PR effort to date.

     Click the Take Action link above to send a message to your legislators letting them know the “balanced” and “unbiased” film they’ve been invited to view is simply vaccine industry propaganda.

     This Action Alert is sponsored by Focus Autism, whose educational and advocacy campaign is A Shot of Truth.  Join us at www.AShotOfTruth.org

     Please share with friends and family.

Editor’s Addendum: As a result of Posard’s comparison of vaccine skeptics to racist bigots, I implore you all to click the hyperlink below, and read about the bigotry and abuse that was directed at me by her film’s “Scientific Technical Advisor.”

Penn Prof. Paul Offit to GW Grad Student: “Get the f*ck out of here! Piece of sh*t!”

Vaccine Industry Watchdog Obtains CDC Documents That Show Statistically Significant Risks of Autism Associated with Vaccine Preservative Thimerosal

gI_134518_3_logos

Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew of risks for over decade.

Charlotte, NC (PRWEB) February 19, 2014

For nearly ten years, Brian Hooker has been requesting documents that are kept under tight wraps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His more than 100 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have resulted in copious evidence that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which is still used in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and infants, can cause autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Dr. Hooker, a PhD scientist, worked with two members of Congress to craft the letter to the CDC that recently resulted in his obtaining long-awaited data from the CDC, the significance of which is historic. According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure.”

When the results of the Verstraeten study were first reported outside the CDC in 2005, there was no evidence that anyone but Dr. Verstraeten within the CDC had known of the very high 7.6-fold elevated relative risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. But now, clear evidence exists. A newly-acquired abstract from 1999 titled, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to Thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life” required the approval of top CDC officials prior to its presentation at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) conference. Thimerosal, which is 50% mercury by weight, was used in most childhood vaccines and in the RhoGAM® shot for pregnant women prior to the early 2000s.

The CDC maintains there is “no relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism rates in children,” even though the data from the CDC’s own Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database shows a very high risk. There are a number of public records to back this up, including this Congressional Record from May 1, 2003. The CDC’s refusal to acknowledge thimerosal’s risks is exemplified by a leaked statement from Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the CDC/NIH-sponsored Immunization Safety Review at IOM. Regarding vaccination, she said in 2001, “…we are not ever going to come down that it [autism] is a true side effect….” Also of note, the former director of the CDC, which purchases $4 billion worth of vaccines annually, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Dr. Hooker’s fervent hope for the future: “We must ensure that this and other evidence of CDC malfeasance are presented to Congress and the public as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence. Children’s futures are at stake.” A divide within the autism community has led to some activists demanding that compensation to those with vaccine-injury claims be the top priority before Congress. Dr. Hooker maintains that prevention, “protecting our most precious resource – children’s minds,” must come first. “Our elected officials must be informed about government corruption that keeps doctors and patients in the dark about vaccine risks.”

Referring to an organization that has seen its share of controversy this past year, Dr. Hooker remarked, “It is unfortunate that SafeMinds issued a press release on my information, is accepting credit for my work and has not supported a worldwide ban on Thimerosal.”

Brian Hooker, PhD, PE, has 15 years experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Hooker has a son, aged 16, who developed normally but then regressed into autism after receiving Thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Dr. Brian Hooker’s investigative research is sponsored by the Focus Autism Foundation.

The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information to the public that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations. To learn more, visit focusautisminc.org.

A Shot of Truth is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization and educational website sponsored by Focus Autism.

AutismOne is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that provides education and supports advocacy efforts for children and families touched by an autism diagnosis. To learn more, visit autismone.org.

Originally posted on PRWeb.

Correction: As Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs‘ Dr. Paul King pointed out, the year 1999 on the abstract specifies the year its lead investigator Thomas Verstraeten joined the EIS, but not the year of the abstract itself. The EIS conference the study authors planned to submit their abstract to took place during the year 2000.