Did Andrew Wakefield Out The CDC Whistleblower For Money?


By Jake Crosby

Five months have elapsed since senior CDC scientist Dr. William Thompson – who spoke out about the suppression of research results linking autism to early measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine administration – was prematurely outed without his permission by de-licensed British doctor Andrew Wakefield. Yet one question still lingers: why did he do it?

The answer may lie in what Wakefield’s critics have accused him of being motivated by for the last decade: money.

Much of Wakefield’s personal income comes from his role as president of the Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), a non-profit he runs for the purposes of funding autism research. However, only a small portion of SAI’s contributions actually went to autism research; the vast majority went into his pocket according to SAI’s latest available 990 form. He had also solicited donations for a libel suit he filed in Texas that was eventually dismissed on jurisdictional grounds where he was ordered to pay defendants’ legal costs.

Contributions for both Wakefield’s lawsuit and his non-profit came from the very community of parents of vaccine-injured children who Wakefield claims to be helping. His image and relevance to that community are what help him receive money from that community. As his lawsuit was winding down, his hijacking of the CDC whistleblower story gave Wakefield just what he would have needed to reinvigorate his hero role to the very people who had come to follow him so devoutly. It would also give him yet another reason to solicit money from his supporters.

What started as the release of online videos that mentioned the whistleblower by name and included surreptitious recordings of his voice became a two-month campaign to raise money for a documentary film Wakefield said he was making about the whistleblower saga. Yet only $2,325 – far below the lofty goal of $230,000 – was actually raised. And despite an ongoing campaign by Wakefield’s supporters to circulate the whistleblower story on Twitter and other social media sites, those efforts have had no appreciable impact on the story’s exposure. Nonetheless, Wakefield succeeded in galvanizing support for himself from his own community of followers even though his interference in the story likely eliminated any chance of widespread media coverage.

Now in 2015, prospects of the whistleblower William Thompson being able to testify about the CDC’s role in suppressing research associating autism with MMR vaccination before Congress appears to be supported by little else than rumors on blogs. A recent outbreak of measles in Disneyland has led to The Washington Post among other papers blaming the outbreak on Wakefield, dubbing him the “high priest” of the “anti-vaccine movement” despite never mentioning Thompson or any other examples of misconduct at CDC.

15 years after a researcher at CDC concluded a causal vaccine-autism association in email to colleagues while studying the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal, media focus remains fixed on Wakefield thanks in no small part to his own actions. Not only does that benefit CDC, but Wakefield also stands to benefit by the reinforcement of his image as a “martyr” to his support base that still provides him with sympathy and financial backing.

Tragically, the people who do not benefit at all while suffering the most from this ongoing narrative are the very community of people that is still largely misguided enough to keep following him without examining his possible motives.

Addendum: See on The Epoch Times.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPin on PinterestFlattr the authorDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon

59 Thoughts on “Did Andrew Wakefield Out The CDC Whistleblower For Money?

  1. All,

    I have decided to reverse my earlier decision to close comments on Epoch blogs. All comment threads are back open.

    Thank you.

  2. Hans Litten on January 27, 2015 at 4:49 pm said:

    It seems possible the tactics of Pharma Harma and government is to forever tie the Vaccine-Autism story to Wakefield . Perhaps it has damaged our campaigns .

    When I approached MPs here about the Thompson story , that was exactly the defence they adopted .
    They started talking about Wakefield as if they had not heard one word I had said. They are trying to undermine our message by forever associating us with one person (and then labelling this one Doctor as a kook or whatever slanderous methods they can think of .)

    Jake – I suspect if Dr Wakefield were guilty of any financial irregularities , then it would be seized by someone somewhere , the man is under a great deal of scrutiny by all sides .

    It is time to jettison Dr Wakefield . It isnt working . We dont need him .

    • That’s exactly what they’re doing, and it has done damage. I used to defend Wakefield on the principle that he was motivated by doing what was right, despite suspecting that it wasn’t the best move strategically as it took the focus off CDC’s cover-up. Now I no longer see him as worth defending.

      You are right; it is time to concentrate on the CDC and move away from the Wakefield debacle. We don’t need him.

  3. I’m sure this article will create a lot of controversy because few realize that the autism industry isn’t any less corrupt than the cancer industry. When you have autism organizations telling parents to keep vaccinating on their websites that should be a red flag that they aren’t really going to cure/prevent anything.

    When we have giant campaigns to donate for a cure for anything, look at where the money goes. It isn’t being given to parents to pay for treatment, it’s not being spend on prevention because that would mean no vaccines or delaying the age of vaccination like Japan did which actually fixed their autism problem, or getting some of the chemicals out of our environment.

    In fact many of the autism organizations that are commonly known still tell people to vaccinate their autistic children on their websites. Proof’s in the pudding folks. We can study the pathology in autism all day but if you don’t stop putting toxins in newborns and fetuses…..the problem isn’t going to go away.

    Pharma money is everywhere and the system is bought out. The government and CDC knew in 1999 that mercury as thimerosal was causing damage to infants, including autism but they did not recall those vaccines. They left them on the shelves until their expiration date while they continued to give them to babies. So that’s continued to poison infants for several more years!

    We have had congressional hearings before and they disappear into the wind and nothing changes. They go on shooting babies and pregnant women up with mercury flu shots.

    When other countries can figure out that too many vaccines too early in life is damaging their infants, and then change their vaccine schedule to fix the problem…..but we don’t do that in the U.S?

    Why? Money. The wrong people have injected tons of money into making sure that doesn’t happen.

  4. Hans Litten on January 27, 2015 at 5:20 pm said:

    However Jake , I think the 1 billion posts on Twitter is astounding . And is definitely the way to go .


  5. Hans Litten on January 27, 2015 at 7:33 pm said:

    People can dress this up anyway they like , they can pretend it didnt happen , and yet here it is :

    “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

    Proof that vaccines cause autism . The CDC has known since 2003 and has covered it up .
    They have accelerated the vaccine program , knowing full well the carnage they have caused .
    They equates to the greatest ever crime against humanity , Hg-enocide .
    The numbers are in the hundreds of millions .

    Jake , how is it you are not concentrating on this ?

    • Actually 1999, if you count the Verstraeten email. It was a CDC researcher who was the first serious scientist to conclude causality based on actual data, not Wakefield. I am concentrating on it, I just wrote about it.

  6. Rebecca Fisher on January 28, 2015 at 8:27 am said:

    Hi Jake,

    Would you now agree that, given Wakefield’s behaviour in this matter, it is at least possible that in order to hang onto those legal aid funds, and to promote his own “Transfer Factor” for measles, he misrepresented and invented data in his first MMR studies?

    Kind regards,


    • The GMC findings against that work were overturned and the later fabrication charges were not even considered worth pursuing. So no.

      • Rebecca Fisher on January 29, 2015 at 8:10 am said:

        That’s Walker-Smith. Not Wakefield. As you well know the two are completely different cases. And Walker-Smith had to throw Wakefield under the bus to get off, stating that there was no link between MMR and autism. You may wish to have a read of this: http://jabsloonies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/cognative-dissonance-and-wakefield.html and think about what bringing Walker Smith into any discussion about Wakefield does for Wakefield’s credibility.

        I’m not sure what you think that second link demonstrates, other than UCL / Royal Free have learned from their mistakes and policies are in place to avoid another cock-up like the Wakefield affair.

        What you’re actually saying is that when he’s doing something you want to be true, he’s a noble warrior for the cause, but when he’s mean to someone you prefer, he’s a money grubbing ratbag and liar. I see what you did there.

        • Walker-Smith’s appeal was not over whether or not he thought there was a link between MMR and autism, but over whether the investigations described in the paper were ethical.

          The other link I posted demonstrates exactly what I just said.

          It’s not about when Wakefield is noble versus when he’s a liar, it’s about which allegations concerning him are true and which are bunk.

          • Rebecca Fisher on January 29, 2015 at 12:37 pm said:

            No – Walker Smith’s appeal centred on whether he thought he was doing research (and effectively whether or not Wakefield had stitched him up). Not on whether the research was ethical. It was decided that there was enough doubt as to what he’d been told to reverse the decision to strike-off – and, by implication, yes, Wakefield had stitched him up.

            • The court ruled that the investigations described in the Lancet paper were not unethically approved research as wrongly ruled by the GMC, but procedures that were clinically indicated and therefore ethical. So it wasn’t just that Walker-Smith didn’t think he was doing research; he wasn’t doing research.

              • Brian Deer on January 31, 2015 at 6:38 pm said:

                You are both wrong. Walker-Smith’s appeal concerned the manner in which the GMC panel set out its findings. If you take the (somewhat onerous) trouble to read the Mitting judgment, you will see the nature of the exercise. From time to time, I have taken the trouble to explain it elsewhere.

                Most people who watch TV cop or legal shows will understand the familiar fruit of the poison tree. This is where, for example, a heroin dealer is acquitted on appeal because the police did not have grounds to search his car.

                So, to Walker-Smith. Between the findings of fact on Walker-Smith and the sentencing stage, in 2010, the court of appeal had handed down a ruling in the case of another paediatrician, David Southall. The judgment was written by Leveson J, and it materially concerned the completeness with which GMC panels were expected to set out the reasoning by which they had come to a decision to strike a doctor off. You may recall that in court cases with juries, the judge will at the end give the jury a talk, in which (s)he summarises the evidence and says things like “if you find this, then you might conclude that” etc. Also, a good relevant place to see how reasoning is done is in the Cedillo case in vaccine court (Hastings, 2009). Just have a read, and see how the special master set out his reasoning, in tremendous detail.

                Traditionally, GMC panels just gave one-line conclusions, often little more than proven or not proven. However, in the Southall appeal (led by the same lawyer who represented Walker-Smith), emerging case law was strengthened: the accused was entitled to know exactly WHY the panel had come to its conclusions: why for example it preferred one expert to another.

                In the Southall case, the panel had sided with one person’s account of a meeting, and rejected that of both Southall and another person, but did not explain why. The appeal court found that Southall was entitled to know, and he didn’t.

                Back to Walker-Smith: the high court (Mitting) found that he was entitled to know why they said he was primarily doing research, and not primarily providing clinical care. But there was no explanation from the panel (even though Walker-Smith plainly was doing research and even proudly said so in his autobiography). This would (and did) play badly with Mitting, not only because Leveson is his senior, but also because Mittting has done a lot of immigration cases, where even quite low level officials are expected to give pages and pages of reasoning (on top of the facts) as to why someone is denied entry to the UK.

                Because of the clash at the GMC over the research/clinical care issue, it was clear that, if Walker-Smith’s evidence to the panel that he was not doing research was false, then it would have to be dishonest. He also wrote a letter to the Royal Free IRB which must also have been dishonest. But the panel made no finding of dishonesty, even though there was one on the charge sheet. Mitting says something about this being at the heart of it all, and most of the rest of the panel’s ruling flowed from that.

                This was at the heart of why the panel’s decision was quashed. If you read the Leveson judgement on Southall you will see that such quashing is not exoneration. Any more than a heroin dealer is exonerated because the police had no reasonable grounds to look in the trunk of his car. The panel could have sat again, or a new one been recruited (which most certainly would have occurred if Wakefield had been in the same situation), and the deficiency corrected. But Walker-Smith is retired, the exercise would have cost a fortune, and he was largely irrelevant to the publi interest.

                So, while I dare say what I’ve explained will provoke new rounds of abusiveness, I have told you the true position. Such is the way the law works (and I’ve had a decade of legal study) that these things happen, serving a higher cause than right or wrong on some particular set of facts. The rule of law – vitally dependent on fairness and transparency – is a pre-requisite to democracy and much of what we all value. Thus, we respect it. I’ve never heard anyone argue that Mitting was wrong, and the GMC’s lawyers anticipated the result as soon as they saw Leveson on Southall in, I think, about February 2010.

                However, what I regard to be Walker-Smith’s lucky escape, has no bearing on Wakefield. Interestingly, not only did Wakefield’s legal team advise his funders that he did not have realistic prospects on appeal (he had four convictions for dishonesty, plus about a dozen involving the abuse of children), but Wakefield called no witnesses (despite his lawyers taking proofs of evidence from parents, but then deciding that these didn’t help his case), and he did not even put questions to the head of the government’s vaccine programme, or to the one parent who gave evidence.

                So there, play games around the Walker-Smith case if you want, but it is in truth that you will find freedom, and I just gave you some. I’d usually charge money for the above, but you can have it free because you make me laugh.

                • “Back to Walker-Smith: the high court (Mitting) found that he was entitled to know why they said he was primarily doing research, and not primarily providing clinical care. But there was no explanation from the panel…”

                  That’s not true according to the Mitting decision:

                  “158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

                  So according to Mitting, the GMC’s explanation was that “all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96.” But this was also not sustainable, as Mitting ruled.

                  Yet the Lancet paper remains retracted on this now-overturned GMC finding for reasons that neither the Lancet editor, nor the current or previous ombudsman would give. Horton said at the time of the Mitting decision that there wouldn’t even be any reconsideration of the paper’s publication status.

                  • Brian Deer on February 1, 2015 at 10:02 am said:

                    Jake: That is a finding of fact. Viz: the finding that all of the children were referred for reasons of research. The reasoning would be to set out how the panel came to this conclusion. The logical steps in the argument.

                    People who are not lawyers would normally think that “reasoning” is something done in the head. In the law, reasoning is explanation given. There is no serious question as to why the families took their children to Wakefield: he told them that he had tests that might show that they were vaccine damaged. That is a research objective.

                    Walker-Smith made the position clear in his autobiography:


                    Unfortunately, the GMC did not put his autobiography into evidence. I told them about it it 2004, but I didn’t speak to them again for years, and I think they simply forgot. I remember Matthew Lohn, their lead solicitor saying “we must get that”, but they just got overwhelmed by the scale of the case.

                    Of course, not being in evidence meant that it couldn’t be raised at the appeal.

                    Walker-Smith was very lucky, in my view, that the court of appeal judgment written by Leveson didn’t come through a few months earlier. I’m sure the GMC’s fitness to practicse division would have sent out a directive to panels that they must pay close attention to giving reasons if they make adverse findings against practitioners.

                    Very lucky.

                    • Brian Deer on February 1, 2015 at 10:11 am said:

                      I should add that Mitting does set aside some findings of fact that he determined were wrong. But that is not ultimately why Walker-Smith got off.

                    • Walker-Smith got off because the GMC’s findings that he committed unethical research were determined to be wrong by Mitting.

                    • I could totally see why the GMC would lose interest in the autobiography; it’s a retired doctor informally discussing work that’s over five years old from memory as the title makes clear. That he would release a new edition with clarifications after spending eight years fighting for his reputation is hardly surprising. It should be even less surprising to someone who still has an altered version of a newspaper article he wrote 21 years ago on his personal website.

                • As usual Brian Deer is engaging in fantasy. The problem was not merely that the GMC did not explain its reasons, it had no reason to explain – and whed Mitting challenged the GMC attorney to offer reasons she shifted in her shoes, hesitated, looked awkward, but had nothing she could offer. She could only cite the fact that that was what panel thought after hearing all the evidence, but there was a yawning chasm. She then prevailed on the judge to see if he could find any reasons and he could not.

                  Why Jake should want to attack Andy now, I don’t know and it is great shame.

                  By the way I was there and Deer was not.

                  • Thanks for the first-hand account, John.

                    I’m sorry you feel that way. Fwiw, I did tip you off about the connections of the appeal court judge who upheld the dismissal of Andy’s case and ordered him to pay defendants’ costs.

                    You never credited me for that.

                  • PS This is not inventing law. It is obvious that when a decision is appealed in the High Court that it ought to have solid foundations in order to stand, even if there is a bad tradition of slipshod findings by the GMC – that just shows what a rotten corrupt body it was (and is). And as we know in this instance they even hid the fact that Deer was the author of a succession of complaints against the three doctors, enabling him to continue reporting with an undisclosed interest in the outcome. He is still trying to make capital out of it now.

                    CORRECTED TEXT

                    ‘As usual Brian Deer is engaging in fantasy. The problem was not merely that the GMC did not explain its reasons, it had no reasons to explain – and when Mitting challenged the GMC attorney to offer reasons she shifted in her shoes, hesitated, looked awkward, but had nothing she could offer. She could only cite the fact that that was what panel thought after hearing all the evidence, but there was a yawning chasm. She then prevailed on the judge to see if he could find any reasons and he could not.’

                    • Further:

                      “There is no serious question as to why the families took their children to Wakefield: he told them that he had tests that might show that they were vaccine damaged. That is a research objective.”

                      Is it? I am not sure that on its own it is.

                      “Unfortunately, the GMC did not put his autobiography into evidence. I told them about it it 2004, but I didn’t speak to them again for years, and I think they simply forgot. I remember Matthew Lohn, their lead solicitor saying “we must get that”, but they just got overwhelmed by the scale of the case.

                      “Of course, not being in evidence meant that it couldn’t be raised at the appeal.”

                      They are meant to disclose all unused material. Your exchanges of emails with them are unused material. And how do you know they did not consider the autobiography? Do you have the emails?

  7. Hans Litten on January 28, 2015 at 9:22 am said:

    Jake – one thing occurred to me .

    So a whistleblower from the cdc anonymously reached out to a Phd scientist , and told the truth .
    And you think this was somehow going to remain a secret and he was going to be able to work from the inside & the media was then going to pick up the story of criminality ,

    Am I mistaken , but isnt it true that William Thompson objected against the cover up from the outset .
    He approached Gerberding about it at the time , didnt he ?
    He was signed off work with anxiety over it ? is this true ?

    So fast forward a decade , and a person comes forward to tell all .
    How long do you think it would take Gerberding et al to know who it was ?
    So in fact Andrew Wakefields action has had no impact on this at all .

    Jake – if you get a chance why not challenge Offit on camera\YouTube about all of this (WT statement) ?
    That rat sure seems to be lying low these days .

    • Wakefield’s action only completely tainted the story and caused it not to be covered in major media, possibly jeopardizing prospects of a hearing as well.

      I agree Offit should be challenged about these things, though. So maybe I will, if I get the chance…

      • Mr. Crosby: do you really think that Thompson’s charges would have gotten any traction absent Wakefield? Didn’t the CDC did not know who was making the anonymous charges before he was outed by Wakefield? The CDC and the corporate press have ignored or suppressed evidence of the vaccine/autism link for at least fifteen years, long before Wakefield was involved with the Thompson affair.

        • To answer your questions: yes, and giving his name away to CDC publicly the way Wakefield did is bound to hurt Thompson regardless of what CDC knew. You seem to have forgotten that in the past there have been articles like Kennedy’s Deadly Immunity article that ran in Rolling Stone that cut through the bullshit and got to the crux of the matter. Too bad this once-symbol of environmental opposition to mercury in vaccines has since become a symbol of environmental hypocrisy; it can’t all be due to CDC and corporate press.

  8. Hans Litten on January 29, 2015 at 9:24 am said:

    I understand today according to the purveyors of lies (the BBC) that Ebola is mutating .

    Mutating into what I wonder .

    Possibly measles !

  9. Hans Litten on January 29, 2015 at 9:39 am said:

    Welcome back Rebecca – where have you been ?

    “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

    Not much wriggle room there I’d suggest .
    But I’m always in the mood for comedy – so lets hear it ?

  10. White Rose on January 30, 2015 at 12:18 am said:

    Msg for Melinda Gates , catholic , mother of 3 children , sponsor of the HPV vaccine and the rest.

    I challenge you to ACTUALLY come and meet the Anti-Vax movement because we will shred your fake science arguments to pieces . You are blatantly lying .
    Lets record the debate on video and upload it to HUFF post or YouTube or whatever you want .
    You cannot come out of your burrow and meet us though , because you are holding a bag of lies .
    We are educating ourselves , just like you pretend you want everyone to do , and guess what we find , we find that you are a damn liar , just like the vaccines you sponsor .

    The HPV vaccine , really , come on , that exposes you as such downright fraud (Bernard D’Albergue) .
    Come & meet the autistic children you damn criminal .
    Lets talk about the Gardasil injuries .
    Lets talk about the William Thompson cdc whistleblower
    Lets talk about Maurice Hilleman SV40
    Lets talk about Ebola Marburg
    Lets talk about Aids
    Lets talk about Poul Thoresen
    Lets talk about Diane Harper
    Lets talk about the Merck Mumps vaccine whistleblowers
    Lets talk about your 3 childrens vaccine schedule Melinda (tell us Melinda?)
    Lets talk about themiserol
    Lets talk about the Chad 1000 meningitis C vaccine experiments
    Lets talk about the 49,000 indian children left paralysed Melinda after your failed Polio vaccine
    Lets talk about the Kenya Sterilisations via the tetanus vaccine (HCG) , Phillipines , Brazil , Africa Asia etc
    Lets talk about the Aluminium adjuvant
    Lets talk about the fomaldehyde
    Lets talk about Polysorbate80 (a known sterilising agent)
    Hell, Melinda , lets talk about the fluoridation of water supplies (the secret mass medication of millions)
    Lets talk about Aspartame
    Lets talk about Mercury Amalgams
    Lets talk about Nssm200 Melinda
    Lets talk about ZyklonB & IG Farben Melinda
    Lets talk about Climate change , population control , birth control , human sterilisation , vaccination, culling the primitive populations , and the dumbass first world western masses
    And then lets talk about the anti-vaccination movement (the only people who stand in your way – and understand what your plan is and what your motives are) .
    Lets talk about Liz Birt and the vaccine monitoring db
    Lets talk about Autism (& the suffering of millions of children caused by fraudulent vaccines)
    Lets talk about the Nazis Melinda

    Bet you don’t want to have any of these conversations Melinda

  11. What started as the release of online videos that mentioned the whistleblower by name….”


    When you say whistleblower, are you referring to the guy who has yet to actually …. blow the whistle??

  12. Kathleen on February 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm said:

    My two cents…..I sent a donation to Wakefield for the purpose of his legal funds. That was the intent of the donation and I added a personal note stating my hope for the use of the donation. This is a man who lost much standing by the 12 children and their families from the Lancet paper. He has been held out as the scape goat and I, for one, believe he is a man of great integrity. I would hope, but cannot say for sure that I could stand in the face of what Dr. Wakefield has with the same level of honor.
    Shame on you Jake. This sight is nothing more than an opinion hate page 🙁

  13. White Rose on February 1, 2015 at 10:10 pm said:

    This is an intellectual middle class war of toxicity . Lets faced it , that’s the reality .
    But what happens when the war goes working class . My god I don’t want to be there .
    I don’t want any part of that but the reality is , we know (those of us that can concentrate and can read EVERYTHING) , and when the working class masses understand that autism is a deliberate poisoning of their babies and infants . What future for the perpetraitors ? God HELP THEM .

    Dan Olmsted of AoA , a man without first hand experience of autism , who yet writes incessantly on the topic , and involves himself in the campaigns . Parents , you need to ask yourself why is that ?
    An interloper ,a man who aligns himself closely with the BLAXMAN . A man who time after time is involved in the derailing of our crusades against Pharma Harmas lies .

    And Olmsted’s latest article , where yet again AoA has banned my comments because my simple queries and questions are too much to for honest simple straightforward AoA to bare .
    “It’s nowhere near an acceptable tradeoff. ” Autism versus measles vaccination he says .

    And dumbasses BUY this line . Well No DAN OLMSTED not me boyo .

    Nowhere near an acceptable trade-off suggests measles contamination isn’t something we all got growing up , and we all got over and lived happy , healthy lives (YES ALL OF US) . Perhaps there was that 1 in a million who suffered . Do you see what Dan Olmsted is trying TO DO HERE ?
    HE IS TRYING TO MAKE this CRIME out as some sort of ACCEPTABLE mistake .
    Dan Olmsted is trying to build a case for this being some sort of unfortunate accident .

    Yeah RIGHT DAN . You actually don’t know anything about the suffering of the AUTSISTICS do you ?
    The CDC has known all along Vaccines cause Autism . And now the VACI_LIE is crumbling around their ears and they are executing their “get out” plan , which is this is all a BIG accident .
    Dan , did you ever except any payments for your role at AoA ? That is the question ?
    Same for the BLAXMAN . And the others

  14. White Rose on February 1, 2015 at 10:19 pm said:

    Dan Olmsted , can I collect your opinion on the mass fluoridation of the public water supply ? pls
    Do you think the mass medication of hundred of millions of unsuspecting people is acceptable trade-off between a nice shiny bright white smile & permanent lifelong neurological damage ?

    Dan – I see you !

  15. White Rose on February 1, 2015 at 10:36 pm said:

    Barry , you are a person I rate , so don’t take this the wrong way .

    The reason why you & I got caught in this insidious mess , is not because of Wakefield or Thompson or Poulson or Verstraeten or any of the other big names and players who have featured in this saga over the years .

    It is because the big players on our side have been a paid opposition by Pharma Harma .
    This is classic military operation . Black Ops .
    So I’m saying key people on AoA (who purport to be on the side of the children) are in fact working for Pharma Harma (yes they are paid to fill key roles on our side) ,
    We had them at Congress – Brian Hooker was edged out so AoA could talk about the original 12 cases of autism – a subject they never tire of talking about – doesn’t bother them one IOTA that the original 12 has now turned into 120 millions .

    And now we have William Thompson . And except for few hardened campaigners , AoA never mentions the mans name .
    AoA never mentions the key killer facts . NEVER . this is not ROCKET SALAD . Science is LYING .

  16. White Rose on February 1, 2015 at 11:40 pm said:

    I don’t believe you Jenny Allen .
    I can see you Jenny Allen .

  17. Media Scholar on February 2, 2015 at 8:37 am said:

    The fact that the CDC whistle-blower, Dr. William Thompson came forward to ANYBODY is significant as to some sort of whistle-blowing activity.

    Regardless of whether or not we feel Andrew Wakefield knew he would give the press radioactive fodder and/or money isn’t as significant as the over-riding fact that Thompson wants more that to have busy bees expunge his name off CDC research so that it can still be called good science.

    We still have Measles in the guts of the children, and, the extraordinary effort to disown them apparently continues to this day. Essentially no one runs PCR for lab-strain Measles on anything less. So it’s not like Wakefield was running DNA profiles on some mushy peas he discovered caked on the walls of the intestines.

    The CDC in their artful way concedes that vaccines cause Autism and/or Autistic-like-ism.

    I still recall what the “other” Andy had to say. Andrew Hall Cutler. TO paraphrase him:

    “Anyone in the real world of science knows that a paper is never retracted no matter how badly the authors have screwed up. Knowing that Andrew Wakefield’s paper was pulled from publication suggests strongly that unfair and inappropriate pressure was applied to the publisher and the reason behind the retraction lives in the realm of a significant association or proof found and reported that somebody else does NOT want known.”

  18. Hans Litten on February 2, 2015 at 4:16 pm said:

    William Thompson granted whistleblower status and immunity.


    UPDATE 02/01/2015: Sources have confirmed that Dr. William Thompson (senior scientist at The CDC) has been granted Official Whistleblower Status and immunity. This paves the way for Dr. William Thompson to go before the United States Congress and testify about the CDC FRAUD regarding vaccine safety and to explain the thousands of documents that have been turned over to congressional representatives.

  19. You know, if I took my child to a pediatric gastroenterologist for persistent bowel problems, I would expect some investigation to be done to find out what was wrong with him. I’m not sure what some of the posters here think Dr. Walker-Smith should have done, take temperatures and send the kids home with a package of MiraLax? Maybe shake a magic bone and do some chanting? The techniques Walker-Smith and used are detailed in pediatric gastroenterology textbooks.

    If he was going to treat them, he had to figure out what was wrong with them.

  20. I am new to the world of autism, with only two years in. The last two years have been spent on recovering my son, but now that we are further in program and he is doing so much better, I am branching out and learning about other things. I was shocked and saddened to learn of all the divisions and politics within the autism community. I guess we are not immune. As a relative newbie, I was wondering if someone would care to shed some light on it for me. I realize you cannot sum up decades of it in a post, but perhaps some highlights?

  21. yankhadenuf on April 5, 2015 at 11:25 am said:

    By outing the CDC whistleblower, Wakefield did what no mainstream journalist would have ever done, because they are owned by bought corporate corruption. The parents and families with “skin in the game” have known this for many years. Mainstream media never cared about the whole truth, if they did they would have publicized the mountainous iceberg of FOIA documentation and scientific studies that proved CDC fraud and malfeasance over a decade ago, under the mere tip of the CDC whistleblower’s recent revelations . Clearly William Thompson had no intention to come out of the shadows unless he is subpoenaed by Congress (if or when that ever happens.) The best protection of the truth is not keeping it secret but revealing it for all to see, then no one can claim that any people privy to the CDC whistleblower’s information were hiding it. For whatever reason, you are trying to unsuccessfully make a career of chiding Dr. Wakefield for NOT hiding it.
    Dr. Wakefield has been risking everything for the truth since the beginning, and he has never had a guaranteed income ever since the UK powers-that-be destroyed his career and any potential for making a living in his own country. If he had a fundraiser that was only for his family’s living expenses, no matter how much or little that may or may not be, I would still contribute to it. He is the one who has professionally confirmed and stood by what so many autism parents have said all along from the start, and he has never abandoned the autism community to this day in spite of all that he has been through. Likewise, the autism community will never abandon Dr. Wakefield.

  22. Pingback: CA SB277 Bill Co-Sponsor Called CDC Scientist a "Fraud"

  23. love the money

  24. Pingback: Focus Autism Attorney: Wakefield "Hijacked The Story"

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation