Demand Withdrawal of William Thompson’s Bogus Autism-Caused-Vaccination “Reanalysis”!


The effect has to occur after the cause (and if there is an expected delay between the cause and expected effect, then the effect must occur after that delay). – Sir Austin Bradford Hill, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1965

It might be the most bizarre twist ever to have happened in this weird saga where the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has already told some of the most brazen lies in trying to dupe people into believing vaccines don’t cause autism. It was weird enough for them to claim there was no evidence mercury in vaccines causes harm when they had proof. And now to refute the fact that children have developed autism after vaccination, the CDC is now claiming that it is the autism that is causing the vaccination. Yes, you read that right. And that person apparently pushing that view for CDC will be none other than the federal agency’s so-called vaccine whistleblower: Dr. William Thompson, who has now been “handled.” Needless to say, calling for the withdrawal of such an execrable, egg-laid-the-chicken report is in order. Relevant contact information concerning Thompson, the journal likely to publish his paper and the Committee on Publication Ethics are all provided at the bottom of this post.

While the CDC has not yet made any formal announcements, their excuse has already been scooped by one prominent former CDC adviser. In an article published by Hollywood Reporter, millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit made the below attempt at criticizing “Vaxxed” – the documentary film about Thompson’s 2004 CDC study where the authors buried evidence of measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccination causing autism in African-American boys:

The real explanation for Vaxxed’s “revelation” isn’t conspiracy or hidden data; it’s something else. When compared with their Caucasian counterparts, African-American boys in Atlanta in 1994 were under-vaccinated. In order to qualify for autism-support programs, this subset of under-vaccinated children with autism had to get vaccinated. In other words, it wasn’t that MMR had caused autism; it was that the diagnosis of autism had caused them to get MMR. Not surprisingly, this is never explained in the film.

Never mind that African-American children are diagnosed much later and that the diagnoses would have likely been given after age three anyway. Never mind that the significant risks found were in children who received the vaccine in the 12-18 month age group, when no one would have had an autism diagnosis. For the phenomenon that Offit described to occur, one would expect to see a diminished odds of vaccination for those ages among black autistic children compared to vaccination after age three, not an increased risk. In fact, that was probably why the race effect was yanked from the paper and thrown in the garbage in the first place. A comment under Offit’s article seeking to point that out was removed from the thread, even though it was part of an ongoing conversation with a CDC-tied attorney.

But worst of all, this claim will not be confined to Offit’s review. It will also be made in a published “reanalysis” of the CDC’s study due to be published next month, authored by none other than the very coauthor of the original study who raised the alarm in the first place: “whistleblower” William Thompson. According to his initial contact Dr. Brian Hooker, Thompson has been “handled.” He is expected to publish his “reanalysis” with a researcher named Michael Blank – who had advised the MMR vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline. Among the promises Thompson has been allegedly bribed with are a huge bonus and his own autism research foundation. Not surprisingly, having a scientist claim that vaccination was caused by autism diagnoses likely made after vaccination instead of admitting that vaccines cause autism comes with a steep price. It’s just too bad that that price will also be the unnecessary harm to countless more children. To add insult to injury, Offit will apparently write a commentary accompanying this awful work.

Please write and call Dr. Thompson at the following numbers and email address and tell him to withdraw his “reanalysis” and that he will face ethical complaints against him due to the ridiculous nature of his claims.

(404) 498-3845 (office)

(404) 226-8428 (cell)

Also contact the journal publishing his paper as well and tell them withdraw his paper and that they too will face ethics complaints for publishing it. Here is the email for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, where the “reanalysis” will likely be published. You should let the journal know that it too will face an ethical complaint for publishing Thompson’s analysis and should withdraw it from press:, Phone: 202-334-2679.

Also make a complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. Let them know you complained to both the author of the piece and to PNAS:

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

40 Thoughts on “Demand Withdrawal of William Thompson’s Bogus Autism-Caused-Vaccination “Reanalysis”!

  1. Eddie Unwind on April 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm said:

    “We are trying to help the Vietnamese because we believe that inside every Gook there’s an American, trying to get out.”

    Another forced move, Jake, now entering the realm of Catch-22 paranoia on a par with the aforementioned quote from Full Metal Jacket. The psychotic aspect to it is that even Offit himself would not expect, less wish, for anyone to actually believe that he’s telling the truth. On the contrary. He wants people to see that yet another tactic is being utilised – a Catch-22 ‘device’, as with ‘Herd Immunity’ – that can’t be disproven.

    Yet compared to the Herd Immunity device, this one is really pathetically transparent, which is precisely why I find it so disturbing. To (have to) resort to such a vulgar display of power – one that prides itself in no longer being required to answer to the domain of reason – means that things are clearly getting out of control.

    So if you’ll let me quote Holderlin once again, as it is becoming more relevant by the day:

    ‘Who aber Gefahr ist,
    waechst das Rettende auch!’

    • Hans Litten on April 29, 2016 at 10:45 pm said:

      Eddie , help me here please . I am not familiar with Holderlin . Is this translation sufficient ?
      What do you mean by it please ?

      “But where danger is , grows the saving also”

    • Hans Litten on April 29, 2016 at 11:09 pm said:

      “Where there is danger there is also growing, the saving”

      Ahh I think I get it , the greater the risk they take , the greater the potential benefit for us .

      The more we force the CDC et al into draconian measures (sb277) and forced risks (like foolishly & ridiculously trying to get Thompson to backtrack in stupid dumbass ways) , the greater our chances of overall victory.

      • Eddie Unwind on April 30, 2016 at 5:36 am said:

        Your translation’s pretty much right, Hans –

        ‘Where danger is,
        Grows the saving power also.’

        To be sure, Hoelderlin’s quote has been used by a number of writers, including Heidegger, Jung, and recently Zizek. For me, Heidegger’s analysis is the most appropriate, whereby in an essay ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ he summarises with –

        ‘The closer we come to the danger, the more brightly do the ways into the saving power begin to shine (or, let’s say ‘become transparent’) and the more questioning we become.’

        • Eddie Unwind on April 30, 2016 at 5:54 am said:

          …so yes, the more the PVE’s feel compelled to make increasingly ludicrous statements so as to establish a tabula rasa, the more unpredictable and potentially volatile the outcome, and the more, inadvertently or otherwise, shall be revealed.

          Wasn’t it Claudius – at least according to Robert Graves – who said ‘Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out’?

          • Aneishka on October 17, 2016 at 8:36 am said:

            Wouldn’t it be more simple to just use the phrase, “Gibe a thief enough rope, and he’ll eventually hang himself”??

  2. Eddie Unwind on April 28, 2016 at 2:01 pm said:

    Oh, forgot to mention that I thought it par for the course that your comment – in response to the indefatigable Do-to-do Dorit – was removed, as it only reinforces my earlier point. Namely, the pro-vax extremists are probably getting beyond the point of debating the issue, or even saving face. For them it is increasingly about ruling out debate on a ‘because we can’ basis; a fact that, formerly hidden, is now being wilfully demonstrated.

  3. Lawrence on April 28, 2016 at 8:56 pm said:

    So, you are demanding the withdrawal of a paper that you can’t even confirm exists?

  4. Hans Litten on April 29, 2016 at 11:22 am said:

    Jake I just tried to include a link to this on AoA for a Ronald Kostoff .
    and they censored me .

    Why is that ?

    • Have no idea – it’s a crazy site run by crazy people. Just look no further than Kim Stagliano’s “misogyny” accusation.

      • Hans Litten on April 29, 2016 at 11:03 pm said:

        I just ignored that part of the article (it was entirely irrelevant) , as everybody else did who commented , but you have a point .

        Jenny McCarthy has been attacked so viciously because she was the first celebrity to speak out quite so strongly and for no other reason than that . (they tried to make an example of her)
        I will always be grateful for her huge determination and bravery .

        De Niro has not been attacked in the same way because he is so universally admired and has been so hugely successful in cinema (the pro-vax forces are unsure which way to play it) .
        I’m very pleased with his recent contributions and the way the VAXXED Tribeca issue played out couldn’t have been better (I suspect Robert is a very good poker player & Rosenthal isnt) .

        Gender is definitely irrelevant to my mind.

  5. Hans Litten on April 29, 2016 at 10:50 pm said:

    Larry Rebecca , what do you think ? its all terribly far fetched I’d say :

    HCG & HPV – mass sterilisation programs

    Still believe you can “green” our vaccines ?

  6. Doug Troutman on April 30, 2016 at 2:19 am said:

    I am confused. Dr. Thompson works on a study and feels bad that they left things out of the study that altered the results. He admits they jacked up the study. He is allowed to redo the study? What about ethical standards? I am totally amazed about the amount of corruption involved. I guess Dr. Thompson doesn’t feel bad now when he sees a family with an autistic child. The government officials and pharma executives should be charged with intentional maiming of children.

  7. Eddie Unwind on April 30, 2016 at 8:07 am said:

    Regarding Thompson, we’ll see what happens. Following Vaxxed, the PVE’s are no doubt very eager to do some serious damage.

    Yet in truth they’d be far better off to resist taking such action. De Niro’s ‘switching’ positions revealed to the public in the most blatant way possible that even someone so influential as he can be ‘got to’. Thompson’s no fortress, any fool can see that.

  8. Narad on May 1, 2016 at 1:19 am said:

    He is expected to publish his “reanalysis” with a researcher named Michael Blank – who had advised the MMR vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline.

    Did you make this prediction on your own (as well as the PNAS part), or was it a personal communication from Hooker? I’m having a great deal of trouble imagining any possible reason for a connection between the work of the only Michael Blank who has published with Thompson and GSK.

    • Blank’s connection to GSK is listed in his CV which I’ve linked to.

      • Eddie Unwind on May 2, 2016 at 2:21 am said:

        Aside from Blank’s advisory panel connections with GSK, there’s this…

        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Anthrax Vaccine Long-term
        Follow-up Study Advisory Panel (Member, 2002).

        So, an old hand, you might say. A psychologist entering the fray is always a sure sign that things are getting out of hand.

      • Narad on May 4, 2016 at 3:30 am said:

        Blank’s connection to GSK is listed in his CV which I’ve linked to.

        Jake, I appreciate your adding the link, but “HIV Prevention Advisory Panel, Glaxo Smith Kline, Inc., (Member, 2006)”? These words per se only lead to the CV. I know that you’re not going to capitulate, but “who had advised the MMR vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline” strikes me as not even tenuous. If the PNAS paper actually materializes (and I note that you did not address this portion of my comment), it would simply amount to a ridiculous ad hominem.

  9. Eddie Unwind on May 1, 2016 at 10:50 pm said:

    ‘While man still lives as a herd-being he has no “things of the spirit” of his own; nor does he need any, save the usual belief in the immortality of the soul. But as soon as he as outgrown whatever local form of religion he was born to – as soon as this religion can no longer embrace life in all its fulness – then the psyche becomes something in its own right which cannot be dealt with by the measures of the Church alone.’

    Despite the arguably archaic language, this passage written in by Jung 1933 reveals a great deal. If you substitute ‘State’ for ‘Church’, you begin to realise why the concept of ‘Herd Immunity’ holds sway over so many. It is not specifically the desire to conform, but rather the wish to seek comfort (in the herd), to be looked after, and in turn, control the ultimate danger of allowing the psyche to drift unobserved and ‘become something in its own right’.

    And so it follows (from the above passage) that Herd Immunity theory ‘responds’ to a desire to revert back to a time whereby religion, via the Church, offered sufficient comfort for an entire community so that each person could get on with their lives without needing to reflect on their circumstances.

    Hence it is highly probable that Herd Immunity’s ideological rather than scientific aspect – since, let’s face it, there’s barely any science to back it up, and as a ‘system’ it is demonstrably falling apart – is what grants it its power-status, and that a State-based religion is substituting what was formerly occupied by the Church.

    What is telling is that Herd Immunity’s fundamentally religious aspect is precisely that which captivates those (at an unconscious level) who regard themselves as being of a thoroughly scientific disposition. That is why such thinkers as Jung are so important to this day, since they can detail how our deepest desires are all the more revealed when we attempt to do away with them via supposedly reasoned arguments.

  10. Eddie Unwind on May 3, 2016 at 9:03 am said:

    Jake, might you consider investigating the precise meaning of ‘skeptic’, and how it has played out in relation to the so-called ‘skeptics’ movement? Such an investigation would seem highly relevant with respect to your ongoing investigation into autism, since the pro-vax extremists almost invariably regard themselves as skeptics.

    There is no doubting the power of a definition, nor disputing how certain terms – notably those which are taken to represent high-minded endeavours – can reveal – owing to a constant shifting of values and perspectives – inherent contradictions, to say the least. For example, in the Merriam-Webster definition of ’empirical’, we find:

    adjective em·pir·i·cal \-i-kəl\
    Medical Definition of empirical
    (archaic) a: following or used in the practice of the empirics
    b: being or befitting a quack or charlatan
    : originating in or based on observation or experiment – much medical lore had had an empirical origin…centuries of trial-and-error gropings after remedies – R. H. Shryock.

    Like ’empirical’, the term ‘skeptic’ has recently encountered a similar perversion of meaning.

    Just a thought, Jake…


  12. Science Mom on May 20, 2016 at 4:57 pm said:

    I don’t know Jake, how do you demand a retraction of something that still hasn’t appeared yet?

  13. Narad on June 3, 2016 at 3:04 am said:

    April 28:

    But worst of all, this claim will not be confined to Offit’s review. It will also be made in a published “reanalysis” of the CDC’s study due to be published next month, authored by none other than the very coauthor of the original study who raised the alarm in the first place: “whistleblower” William Thompson.

    Another Saturday comes and goes
    It’s another south wind it comes and blows
    Another baseball field
    Another pop fly
    Another bunch of boys and another blue sky

    Brian Hooker is all the confirmation I need.


  14. Pingback: Paul Offit, Top U.S. Vaccine Doc, Misrepresents His Credentials - Autism Investigated

  15. Pingback: Royal Free Source Implicates Mark Pepys in Wakefield Coauthors' Retraction

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation