Tag Archives: President-elect

Rick Perry – Shadow Secretary of Health and Human Services

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry salutes with officers of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps at the swearing-in of Rear Admiral Brett Giroir, Dept of HHS

While the president’s hands are tied by the CDC vaccine chief’s brother, who is behind HHS appointments? A big clue came in the form of Brett Giroir’s appointment to Assistant Secretary for Health. As CEO of the Texas A&M Health Science Center, Giroir was appointed Director of the Texas Task Force on Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response by then-Governor Perry. Guess who served on Giroir’s commission?

There he is!

Peter Hotez.

Hotez is the vaccine developer who has called Texans for Vaccine Choice “a hate group.” He is also coming out with a book denying his daughter’s vaccine injury. At the pediatricians’ annual legislative conference, he was praised by Giroir who said  “there are no [vaccine] safety issues, especially not autism.”

Governor Rick Perry has given that same opinion all the way back in 2011:

You heard the same arguments about giving our children protections from some of the childhood diseases, and they were.. autism was part of that. Now we’ve subsequently found out that was generated and not true.

That was all the way back when he was defending his decision to mandate the HPV vaccine Gardasil for Texas schoolgirls. That decision may very well explain the positions of other top officials at HHS. The Deputy FDA Commissioner during Gardasil’s FDA approval and the Deputy HHS Secretary who announced it are now the FDA Commissioner and the HHS Secretary.

VACCINE CHIEF’S BROTHER APPROVED THE RAID ON TRUMP LAWYER

Rod Rosenstein is the Deputy Attorney General who appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller and approved the infamous FBI raid on President Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen. Rosenstein is also the brother of one of the federal doctors who President Trump has by-extension accused of lying about “massive vaccinations.”

According to a bio of Rosenstein’s shortly after he was appointed Deputy Attorney General:

His sister, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, is the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases [NCIRD] at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Messonnier has a long career at the CDC going all the way back to 1995. For the past decade, she has consistently held leadership positions as a vaccine official. She has been director of NCIRD since March 2016 after serving as deputy director from October 2014. Before that, she was chief of the Meningitis and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Branch in NCIRD’s Division of Bacterial Diseases.

Messonnier was already NCIRD director at CDC when agency employees were “crying in the hallways” over Trump’s victory. And Trump’s statements over the years have given them plenty of reasons to cry.

Just look at the contrast between Trump’s tweets and that of Rosenstein’s sister that same year.

The papers cited in the report included none other than fugitive Poul Thorsen’s fraud. While Messonnier would rise through the ranks of the CDC to eventually become its NCIRD director, Trump would continue to broadcast his vaccine skepticism.

Months before declaring his candidacy, Trump reiterated his positions about vaccines on The Hugh Hewitt ShowMonths after his campaign announcement, Trump expressed support for those same positions in the second GOP debate.

Then during the primary contests, he would again reiterate those positions to journalist Sharyl Attkisson while calling other candidates “bought off with campaign contributions.” He would later meet with Dr. Andrew Wakefield as GOP nominee and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after becoming President-Elect. Surely anybody sympathetic to CDC’s vaccine officials would want to put a stop to such progress. Who better than one of their brothers?

How ironic that Rosenstein has the power he has because of the recusal of the comparably far-less conflicted Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He recused himself from the Russia investigation for just meeting with the Russian ambassador on two occasions. The first time was a meeting with a group of foreign ambassadors and the second culminated in an argument between Sessions and the ambassador over Ukraine. If that counts as a conflict of interest, surely Rosenstein’s sister being a top vaccine official during all of Trump’s vaccine remarks counts big time.

President Trump must fire Rod Rosenstein.

H/t: greenhearts

Vice Reporter Blows Off Autism Investigated and Does One-Sided Hit-Piece

Arielle Duhaime-Ross, Vice News Tonight Reporter

After President Trump’s election, Autism Investigated got a little message from Vice News Tonight‘s Arielle Duhaime-Ross. She is a Canadian science reporter whose most notable story has been her smears of an astrophysicist for his “sexist” shirt.

After Duhaime-Ross requested to contact Autism Investigated and speak on the phone “informally”, Autism Investigated responded by requesting permission to tape-record the conversation. She agreed and even said she would tape-record too…only to never call as she said she would.

Then just this week, she produced a craptacular piece of “journalism” that is the perfect combination of left-wing, anti-Texas snobbery and vaccine-shilling propaganda. Way to lie to sources and blow them off, Arielle!

See our below exchange:

Hello Mr Crosby, 

I’m a correspondent for VICE News Tonight, a nightly news show that airs on HBO. As I’m sure you know, President-elect Donald Trump has expressed his support of the anti-vaccine movement in a series of tweets. Given that he’s now been elected, I’m curious if organizations or groups who oppose strict vaccine schedules for children or who oppose vaccines altogether are doing anything to prepare for his tenure as President. If you have some time, I’d like to chat with you on the phone, informally. Let me know if that works for you. Thank you.
11/22/2016 1:10AM

Autism Investigated
Hi, thank you for writing. I am willing to talk to you and plan on tape-recording our exchange. Look forward to talking. -Jake
Number is [REDACTED]. What day/time do you plan on calling?
11/22/2016 10:08AM

Arielle Duhaime-Ross
That’s fine. I’ll record the exchange as well if that’s alright with you. What time would you like to chat? And do you have an email address I can use to reach you?
11/22/2016 12:43PM

Autism Investigated
Not a problem. I could do before 5 today or after 2 tomorrow. You can reach me through the AI address: info@autisminvestigated.com

Arielle Duhaime-Ross
Thanks for sending me your email! Something has come up at work and I won’t be able to chat with you for a while. May I contact you again in the future when my schedule frees up?
It might be a while.

Autism Investigated
Sure, no worries.
Seen by Arielle Duhaime-Ross at November 22, 2016 1:30 pm

Arielle Duhaime-Ross
Thank you.

FIVE MONTHS LATER

APR 11TH, 12:55AM
Autism Investigated
Whatever happened to our phone call?

No response. She must’ve backed down when she realized she just lost her opportunity to quote-mine and misrepresent Autism Investigated.

It’s probably for the best that she never called. Just look at what this “science” reporter thinks of the biology of gender, for example:

 

 

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part II: The Ghostwriter Behind The Kennedy Retraction

static2.politico

Scott Rosenberg, ghostwriter behind Kennedy retraction

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunitywhere he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of Deadly Immunity didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on Salon.com. The first part of the series provided proof that he didn’t, this second part reveals who did.

That person is the MediaShift blogger whom the editor-in-chief misrepresented Kennedy’s article to in Part I: former Salon.com managing editor Scott Rosenberg. Rosenberg attended theScience Online 2011 annual conference with the Rolling Stone rumor-starter Seth Mnookin. The event ran from January 13-15 right before the article was retracted on the 16th. Both Mnookin and Rosenberg had books of theirs featured at the conference:

Scott Rosenberg – Not Kerry Lauerman – Interviewed Seth Mnookin

Rosenberg was also still contributing to Salon through 2011 when Kennedy’s piece was retracted. Yet Rosenberg would never disclose that in his MediaShift blog about Salon’s retraction of Kennedy’s article weeks later. Seth Mnookin’s first tweet about Salon’s interview used Science Online 2011 hashtag #scio11 – specifically for tweets Science Online meeting commentary and follow-up discussions – even though Lauerman was never at the conference while Rosenberg was:

 That was the first and last tweet by Mnookin about Salon’s coverage of his book and the removal of Kennedy’s article using the #scio11 hashtag. The purpose of the #scio11 hashtag according to a conference attendee was to denote tweets about Science Online 2011 “meeting commentary and follow-up discussions” by conference participants:”One goal of the conference was to be as inclusive as possible by livestreaming several of the sessions online and encouraging liberal use of the Twitter hashtag, #scio11, for meeting commentary and follow-up discussions.” Mnookin was also trying to score interviews at Science Online 2011 to pitch his book prior to the conference:

A Twitter search for both Mnookin and Rosenberg’s Twitter handles reveals substantial interaction between them at Science Online 2011, as well as Rosenberg tweeting about Salon’s retraction of his piece almost immediately after it happened. In contrast – Lauerman had no participation in Science Online 2011; a search with the #scio11 hashtag and his twitter handle yields nothing. Lauerman was not even in virtual attendance, despite it being an option for conference participants who could not physically be at the conference. He simply was not there at all.

Lauerman’s Motive For Retraction: Payback to Rosenberg in Exchange for Career Advancement

Kerry Lauerman had quite a rapport with Scott Rosenberg going back many years, specifically concerning the project Lauerman launched that was Rosenberg’s idea. This is what Rosenberg said about Lauerman in 2008:

“The Open Salon that opens its doors today — it’s been in private beta for a while — is an outgrowth of the work I did back then, but of course over the past year the project has evolved much further…It’s the work of Kerry Lauerman and his team — and, now that the participants are using it, it’s in the hands of Salon’s readers the people formerly known as Salon’s readers, to make of it something new and exciting.”

The implementation of Rosenberg’s idea by Lauerman was followed by his rapid accession to editor-in-chief just two years later. So naturally, Lauerman would feel indebted to Rosenberg which would in turn be a motive for Lauerman having Kennedy’s article retracted to please Rosenberg if Lauerman felt Rosenberg’s idea got him the highest editorial position. Lauerman not having personally interviewed Mnookin, read Kennedy’s piece or wrote Salon.com‘s retraction statement would also explain why Lauerman refused to even take Kennedy’s calls the night Lauerman told Kennedy via email that Salon.com would retract his piece on the night of the 15th – the last night of the conference attended by Mnookin and Rosenberg. 

Interestingly – following the retraction – Rosenberg went on to run the annual Science Online conferences regularly attended by Mnookin until the organization became insolvent and shut down in 2014. Lauerman did not read Kennedy’s article when it was pulled, did not interview Mnookin and likely yanked “Deadly Immunity” as a favor for a friend with strong Mnookin connections. Yet now years later, the result of this crooked behavior is used as justification to block Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from becoming chair of a badly needed commission to stop the ongoing harm being committed against innocent infants. Fortunately, the president-elect and the vice president-elect both seem pretty happy to have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on their team.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*

FAKE NEWS REVEALED, Part I: Salon Editor Who “Retracted” Kennedy’s Article Didn’t Even Read It

KerryLauerman_writer

Kerry Lauerman, Salon.com editor-in-chief who deleted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ‘s article without even reading it, is now executive “news” editor of Mic.

With President-Elect Trump’s consideration of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as chair of a committee on vaccine safety and scientific integrity, the shills of fake news have been relentlessly trying to convince Trump’s team to reconsider. The most widely circulated argument has been Salon.com’s retraction of Kennedy’s article “Deadly Immunity”where he wrote on the government cover-up of the dangers of the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. The retraction was based on a bogus rumor that Rolling Stone secretly retracted Kennedy’s article and was later condemned as editorial cowardice” by Salon.com’s founding editor-in-chief David Talbot. But now there is even more news that should bury the retraction of Kennedy’s work once and for all in this exclusive two-part series by Autism Investigated: the Salon.com editor-in-chief who took credit for the retraction of “Deadly Immunity” didn’t even read it, didn’t write its retraction statement and didn’t interview the person who started the rumor as portrayed on the site. This first part of the series provides proof that he didn’t, the second part will reveal who did.

That editor, Kerry Lauerman, has since made quite a career out of running outlets that delivered fake news. In 2014 he was hired by The Washington Post and in 2015 was made the newspaper’s National Projects Editor. Among Lauerman’s roles, according to the newspaper, would be “the planning, execution and coverage of some critically important events during the political year, such as the presidential debate and forum we’re co-sponsoring with Univision, and in guiding our preparations for the political conventions.” During that stint of Lauerman’s at WaPo, the now-president-elect stripped the newspaper of its press credentials because of its dishonest reporting.

Then the month before the election, Lauerman left the newspaper to become executive “news” editor of Mic – a creepy far-left site aimed at millennials that makes sensationalized stories out of the way men sit in subways. He still edits Micwhere he now pushes garbage rumors about the president-elect while he still attacks Kennedy.

Proof Lauerman Didn’t Read “Deadly Immunity”

A blog post for MediaShift dated January 24, 2011 provided a quote of Lauerman’s following the retraction. It proves Lauerman’s basic grasp of both the article and the context of the Kennedy quote he provided was so poor, Lauerman could not have read the article he censored:  

“It’s a seriously flawed story we feared could do real harm. People who have bought into the anti-vaccine panic have created a health crisis, and a flawed report that feeds that hysteria poses a real threat. With this particular story, the unproven logic that animates the piece — as when Kennedy says the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real’ — is not easily excisable, and no matter how many editor’s notes or Drudge-like, red-flashing sirens you place on a story to warn readers, there will be those who will take a well-known, respected American at his word. We simply didn’t think it was worth that risk.” (boldface mine) 

How Lauerman quoted Kennedy’s article to justify its retraction completely contradicts how the retraction statement quoted that same sentence in his article on Salon.com:   

In 2005, Salon published online an exclusive story by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that offered an explosive premise: that the mercury-based thimerosal compound present in vaccines until 2001 was dangerous, and that he was convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.” (boldface mine)

The intro to Salon.com’s interview with Seth Mnookin – news fabricator extraordinaire who started the rumor that Rolling Stone canned Kennedy’s article – also contradicts the context in which Lauerman quoted Kennedy:  

In 2005, we published a report, “Deadly Immunity,” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (Salon had a co-publishing arrangement with the magazine at the time), in which Kennedy wrote that he became convinced that the link between thimerosal [a mercury-based compound once used in vaccines] and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real” (boldface mine)

The only apparent place that misleadingly quoted Kennedy’s article the same way Lauerman did in 2011 was a CBS Moneywatch piece that also helped spread the false rumor that Rolling Stone pulled Kennedy’s article. That would mean Lauerman only read that piece instead of actually reading Deadly Immunity”.  And as one can see from a search result, there do not appear to be any other January 2011 sources that chopped the quote from Kennedy’s article to look like an absolute statement the way Lauerman did. The only way for Lauerman to have reasonably misrepresented Kennedy’s piece and quoted it out of context the way he did would have been for Lauerman not to have read his article and to have only read the CBS Moneywatch article with the chopped quote from Kennedy’s piece. Had Lauerman even bothered to read “Deadly Immunity”, he would know that his whole claimed pretense for retracting it was totally false. But the facts didn’t matter to him, as they continue to not matter to Salon.com. 

Since his reasoning is contradicted by both the retraction statement and the Salon.com interview as well, that would mean Lauerman did not write or conduct them either. But if he didn’t do either for Salon.com, who did? That will be revealed in Part II of this series, where the ghostwriter will be outed.

TrumpKennedyPence-590x443

*Please send this article to the president-elect and vice president-elect*

BREAKING: RFK JR. ASKED TO HEAD VACCINE SAFETY COMMITTEE

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Trump Tower.

Read Autism Investigated’s below review of Robert F. Kennnedy Jr.’s book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak for The Epoch Times.

Letting the Science Speak Against Mercury in Vaccines

Review: ‘Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak,’ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Skyhorse Press)

By Jake Crosby

The vaccine preservative and title subject of the book “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak” may not be as well-known as the book’s editor, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer and son of the late attorney general Robert F. Kennedy. Yet the public’s lack of knowledge about thimerosal is perhaps all the more reason why this book is so important, especially since the paperback edition (to be released Sept. 1) now contains 17 previously-written chapters that were excluded from the hardcover edition for being “too combustible,” according to Kennedy.

Roughly 50 percent mercury by weight, thimerosal is labeled “very toxic.” Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element on earth and second overall. One would think those facts would be enough to end its use in any medicine once and for all, but if that were the case this book would never have been written. Despite the toxicity of mercury, it remains present in many routine vaccinations in the form of thimerosal, and its ongoing use remains staunchly defended by the vaccine industry.

The book’s subtitle, “The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines,” makes clear this book is more than just a case for why thimerosal is dangerous. Kennedy makes a compelling argument for vaccines to no longer contain thimerosal, from its toxicity, to its lack of necessity, to its association with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, and finally to the neglectful and even fraudulent attempts to hide that association by government agencies and media outlets.

As a result of mercury’s ongoing use in vaccines, “we are gambling with population health through the same intervention that we use to protect it,” as Harvard neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert concisely stated in the book’s introduction.

Some chapters such as the one on the biological basis for thimerosal causing autism contain scientific terms that may be difficult to follow without knowledge of college-level biology. Such is the challenge of making a case for causality of a behavioral disorder at the cellular level. Yet this is a challenge the book takes on commendably.

There is a new chapter on Dr. William Thompson, the senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who blew the whistle on his colleagues for hiding evidence of vaccines causing autism. There’s also a new forward by Congressman Bill Posey who recently read an explosive statement by Thompson to Congress.

The paperback edition of “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak” has some of the same weaknesses as its hardcover predecessor. It is simply counter-intuitive to write a book outlining the proof for thimerosal’s role in causing autism only to cast doubt on that proof, as is done in the book’s preface by Dr. Mark Hyman. Kennedy and the other contributors to the book also still fall for the age-old trap of trying to prove they are not “anti-vaccine,” a burden no critic of the vaccine program should face or bother satisfying.

Overall, however, the book delivers well on its promise by making the case against the use of thimerosal in commonly administered, routine vaccinations by letting the science on the subject “speak” so to speak. That is something federal health agencies, media outlets and a myriad of special interests behind thimerosal’s continued use do not allow. For that reason, readers now have a unique opportunity to let the science supporting thimerosal’s immediate removal from vaccines speak to them by giving “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak” a well-deserved read.

Jake Crosby is editor of the website Autism Investigated. Crosby has a masters in Public Health in epedemiology and is now pursuing a Ph.D. in epidemiology.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Epoch Times.

Happy New Year: The Lancet Acknowledges Dr. Andrew Wakefield Is Exonerated

While The Lancet ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux refused to reverse the retraction of exonerated gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s landmark paper on post-vaccination autism, Dr. Molyneux did acknowledge that the UK General Medical Council’s findings of misconduct against Dr. Wakefield had been overturned.

When told that the 2012 High Court decision in favor of Dr. Wakefield’s colleague Prof. John Walker-Smith “would kill the GMC findings on which your journal’s retraction was based”, the ombudsman Dr. Malcolm Molyneux replied:

Dear Mr Crosby,

Thank you for your letter of June 13, 2015, in which you request that the Lancet Editor reinstate the retracted paper Ileal-lymphoid-nodular-hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children.

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 [sic] procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.

Having considered all of the relevant material, I can see no sufficient reason for reinstatement of the Wakefield paper. I do not believe that COPE’s guidelines have been violated by retraction of the paper in question, or by failure to reinstate it.

I do not believe there is justification for any further debate about this extensively discussed article.

Yours sincerely,

Prof Malcolm Molyneux, Lancet Ombudsman

Despite Molyneux alluding to “other elements” which he did not name, at least both The Lancet and Dr. Andrew Wakefield agree that he was exonerated of the disciplinary findings against him now that they have been completely overturned. The British Medical Journal had better have a strong enough relationship with the drug company Merck to offset the expulsion from the National Library of Medicine that journal may now face as a result of defaming Dr. Wakefield. Now that The Lancet ombudsman has acknowledged that elements of its own retraction of Dr. Wakefield’s paper have proven to be false, The Lancet had better hope the same for its own relationship with Merck as well.

There is another choice The Lancet can make, however, which is to do the right thing by restoring Dr. Wakefield’s paper to its rightful place in the medical literature. And then maybe – just maybe – The Lancet editor can get that five minutes with Donald Trump he’s been begging for…

 

 

Here’s to a Happy New Year!

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.

Discover Magazine Rips Attacks on Vaxxed/Unvaxxed Study

dsc_logo

Editor’s Reminder: Send this letter to Frontiers in Public Health to tell them to reinstate the study that showed unvaccinated children had significantly fewer diagnoses of autism and other chronic disorders if the journal wants to keep its National Library of Medicine index. You can write them here: editorial.office@frontiersin.org

For years, Discover Magazine has been a mainstay of extremely dishonest “science” reporting on the vaccine-autism connection. So it was very surprising to see an article featured there that correctly called out the “selective skepticism” of the Twitter campaign against the only peer-reviewed vaccinated versus unvaccinated study of autism. The author of the piece had previously slammed the study’s deletion on Twitter.

Should We Defend the Scientific Consensus?

By Neuroskeptic | November 30, 2016 1:11 pm

Earlier this week, Frontiers in Public Health published the abstract of a paper called ‘Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports’.Based on an online survey of 415 mothers involved in the homeschool movement, Mississippi-based researchers Mawson et al. reported that vaccination is associated with a much higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

dreams

Hoo boy.

The Mawson et al. paper led to a lot of controversy, not least on Twitter. On Monday, many people, myself included, tweeted concern over seeing such a piece in a peer-reviewed journal. Frontiers, the Swiss publisher of the journal in question, took to Twitter to say that the article “was provisionally accepted but not published” and that “In response to concerns raised, we have reopened its review.” Minutes later, the paper disappeared, and if you visit its URL now, you will find nothing but an error message. (Here’s a copy, though.)

untitledSo, mission accomplished? Is the removal of this paper a victory for good sense over the irrational theory of vaccine denial? Or is it, on the contrary, censorship of a brave dissenting voice?

I don’t think it’s either, really, but this case does raise interesting questions about how we judge science. Is it right to object to a paper just because its results fly in the face of most previous research?

Everyone agrees that it is fair to critique a study on the basis of the methods. And many people did criticize the methodology of the Mawson et al. study, pointing to serious problems such as the small sample size (relative to the huge studies showing vaccines are safe [Editor’s Note: will post follow-up article dismantling said “studies”]), the purely self-report measures, and the potential for recall and selection bias

Yet I don’t think that so many people would have been so critical of Mawson et al.’s methods if it weren’t for the nature of their findings. Studies suffering from the same flaws, or worse, get published all the time across many fields. Twitter doesn’t explode over every bad study. So isn’t there a risk that scientists are selectively sceptical, scrutinizing studies that challenge the consensus?

On the other hand, it’s true that the scientific consensus exists for a reason. As I said in one of my first-ever posts, we should beware the myth of the Galileo-like lone scientist who turns out to be right while everyone else is wrong:

All of our most popular myths about science are Robin Hood stories – the hero is the underdog, the rebel, the maverick who stands up to authority… the hero is a denialist. Once, this was realistic. Galileo was an Aristotelean cosmology denier; Pasteur was a miasma theory denier; Einstein was a Newtonian physics denier. But these stories are out of date… Science has moved on since the time of Galileo, thanks to his efforts and those of they who came after him, but he is still invoked as a hero by those who deny scientific truth. He would be turning in his grave, in the earth which, as we now know, turns around the sun.

In fact, it’s fair to say that if we were to reject everything that challenges the scientific consensus, we would be right to reject them in the vast majority of cases. But however accurate the consensus is, science is not supposed to be a matter of consensus, but a process of observing the world. The only thing that should matter, in judging science, is the quality of those observations, i.e. the strength of the methodology.

Two days before the date of the article, its author criticized the journal’s misconduct in removing of the study from its website:

Indeed, it isn’t. Please send Autism Investigated’s letter to Frontiers in Public Health to have them reinstate this study as soon as possible if they want to avoid losing their National Library of Medicine index.