Breaking: CDC vaccine whistleblower given immunity to testify. "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."
166 2015-02-05 by axolotl_peyotl
William Thompson free to describe vaccine-autism fraud at CDC to Congress
Vaccine wars heat up
Sold-out media line up to defend vaccines
Patrick Howley (twitter) at The Daily Caller reports that William Thompson, CDC whistleblower, has been given immunity from prosecution, by the federal government, to testify before Congress about vaccine fraud at the CDC.
Cautionary note: so far, The Daily Caller is the sole source on this story.
On August 27, 2014, Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC, published a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, admitting that he and colleagues at the CDC violated the protocol in a study on the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.
The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics in 2004, exonerated the vaccine, when in fact the study omitted vital data on a group of black babies who showed an increased risk for autism after receiving the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.
Since he released his August 27 statement, whistleblower Thompson has maintained silence and has refused to talk to reporters.
Now it appears he’s ready to step into the light—if there is a Congressional hearing. That’s a big if.
Thompson is working with Florida Congressman William Posey. Posey serves on the House Science Subcommittee on Oversight.
A Congressional hearing could be explosive, if members of the Committee ask Thompson the right questions, probe deeply, and find out exactly how an arrangement was made, inside the CDC, to cover up the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism.
The study in question had several authors, two of whom—Frank Destafano and Coleen Boyle—are now high-ranking CDC executives in the area of vaccine safety.
If Thompson convincingly shows they were in on the fix, the whole business would explode and the CDC would be exposed as rank liars and threats to human health before the public.
On the other hand, if this is a one-day hearing, at which the testimony devolves into a boring he-said she-said proposition, and if the press barely takes notice, the outcome (and the truth) will rest entirely in the hands of alternative media.
No Congressional hearing has thus far been scheduled.
Another major CDC figure in this scandal: Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC in 2004. Would she be subpoenaed to testify?
In 2004, whistleblower Thompson wrote her a letter, in which he warned her that he had sensitive and troubling data about the MMR vaccine’s connection to autism. He was shortly due to present the data at a major vaccine/autism conference.
Apparently, Gerberding didn’t answer the letter, and Thompson’s presentation was canceled.
After Gerberding left the CDC in 2009, she ascended to the position of president of Merck Vaccines.
Merck manufactures the MMR vaccine. Get the picture?
Interestingly, in December of 2014, Merck removed Gerberding from her august position and placed her in a new role, a role that never existed within the company before: executive vice-president for “strategic communications, global public policy and population health.”
Did Merck make this move to shield Gerberding, to protect her from a possible scandal tying her to the 2004 MMR-autism fraud at the CDC? If there is a Congressional hearing, will Gerberding be conveniently unavailable because she is overseas tending to her new international duties at Merck?
Meanwhile, as these developments play out, there is a political battle taking place re mandatory vaccination vs. parents’ right to choose whether to vaccinate their children.
Presidential candidates Chris Christie and Rand Paul have made statements supporting, to one degree or another, parents’ right to choose. The “medical experts” have invaded television news to slam these statements as grossly irresponsible.
These are the same experts who always answer the call when some element of the medical cartel is under threat of exposure. Their job is to provide cover, sound authoritative, and make medical critics into “dangerous people.” (see also Joe Biggs’s update.)
As I’ve documented over the years, these professional experts are actually sitting on a powder keg that threatens to blow the whole medical system sky-high. The issue, which must never be revealed.
Medically caused death and human destruction.
Here are a few citations and facts which remain state secrets, as far as major news outlets are concerned. Reading them, think about how much credibility the “medical experts” really have whenever they open their mouths about public health in ANY form:
Citation: BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989). Author, Jeanne Lenzer.
Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices:
“It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.’”
The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”
And here is the final dagger. The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse [medical-drug] events.”
Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.
Previously, I have documented that the FDA knows; because the FDA has a page on its own website that admits—without taking blame— 100,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs, and two million more people are severely injured by the drugs. (Go to startpage.com and search for “FDA Why Learn About Adverse Drug Reactions”)
And for the past five years or so, I have been writing about and citing a published report by the late Dr. Barbara Starfield that indicates 106,000 people in the US are killed by medical drugs every year.
Until her death in 2011, Dr. Starfield worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her report, “Is US health really the best in the world?”, was published in the Journal of American Medical Association on July 26, 2000.
Do an extrapolation: 106,000 people killed every year in the US by medical drugs=a MILLION deaths per decade.
Starfield didn’t stop there. She also attributed 119,000 deaths per year to mistreatment and medical errors in hospitals—bringing the annual total of US medically caused deaths to 225,000.
Here’s another study: April 15, 1998, Journal of the American Medical Association, “Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients.” It, too, is mind-boggling.
The authors, led by Jason Lazarou, culled 39 previous studies on patients in hospitals. These patients, who received drugs in hospitals, or were admitted to hospitals because they were suffering from the drugs doctors had given them, met the following fate:
In a given year, in the US, 106,000 hospitalized patients die as a direct result of the drugs. Beyond that, 2.2 million hospitalized patients experience serious adverse reactions to the drugs.
The authors write:
“…Our study on ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions], which excludes medication errors, had a different objective: to show that there are a large number of ADRs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered.”
Roughly 1.5 million American soldiers have died in all wars in US history.
In any given 10 years of modern medical treatment? 2.25 million deaths (Starfield).
Consider how much suppression is necessary to keep the medical death-numbers under wraps.
Now think about these “medical experts” who appear on television news programs and assure the public that modern medicine is perfectly safe.
When they blithely state that vaccines only rarely cause problems of any kind, and when they state that vaccines have absolutely no connection to neurological damage in children, what is their level of credibility?
It may interest you to know that the US system of reporting severe adverse effects of vaccines is broken. There are no reliable numbers. That’s because the reporting is done by patients or doctors.
Barbara Loe Fisher, of the private National Vaccine Information Center, has put together a reasonable estimate:
“But how many children have [adverse] vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. [See DA Kessler, ‘Introducing MEDWatch,’ JAMA, June 2, 1993: 2765-2768]
“There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting [via VAERS]; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.
“Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS]; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. [See RT Chen, B. Hibbs, ‘Vaccine safety,’ Pediatric Annals, July 1998: 445-458]
“However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.”
Now you have the background to assess what CDC whistleblower William Thompson may say if there is a Congressional hearing on CDC vaccine-autism fraud.
Thompson states that he was part of egregious lying in a published study.
Well, how in the world do you suppose the medically caused death-and-damage I’ve cited in this article is suppressed and covered up and papered over?
Every single medical drug and vaccine that creates the death and damage has been written about AND CALLED SAFE in at least one study published in a “reputable” medical journal.
Get it?
Rank fraud in published medical studies is everywhere. All the time.
Indeed, here is a devastating statement, from a doctor who has examined more published medical studies than any expert who shows up on television and spouts off about our perfectly safe medical system.
For two decades, she was the editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD ([“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.”](www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/) NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)
Hello, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, David Muir, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, and all the so-called medical reporters for mainstream television and print outlets across America.
Do you have the courage, brains, and will to cover and hammer on the biggest story of your lives—Medically Caused Death and Destruction?
82 comments
19 Amos_Quito 2015-02-05
Possibly relevant? New York Times - today:
Margaret Hamburg, F.D.A. Commissioner, Is Stepping Down
Fascinating coincidence, I say.
Fascinating.
1 ShillOutDude 2015-02-05
Whoa, yeah, haha. Thanks for connecting that dot for me. I think this is suspiciously legit.
4 AlphamaxHD 2015-02-05
Imagine if we lived in a world where any of this mattered. Where the masses cared about the truth and were willing to fight for their freedom.
The CDC could come on CNN tomorrow and say "Yeah, we're giving you all kinds of diseases and doing all sorts of social experiments and medical experiments on you under the guise of vaccinations. Sorry. But, not really."
The next story would be of some school shooting. And no one would remember anything about the vaccines or care.
Fox News would have a story the following day about how good vaccines are for infants and the elderly and everyone in between. Nothing would change.
2 DragonGT 2015-02-05
It's disgusting isn't it! They've effectively created a false dichotomy surrounding the issue(s) that people are eating up because we love labels and insane simplification of complex matters. There are many ways I can vision this going and they almost all end in complete disaster.
Sometimes I feel those who are still asleep in the American Dream have avoided a terrible burden though they'd better wake up soon before they walk right into that huge pit ahead.
1 AlphamaxHD 2015-02-05
Ignorance is bliss, but I'd rather be free.
17 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
The "skeptics" are surprisingly mute about this. Hm wonder why?
10 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
It's a good post. Hoping for more sources and a possible hearing in the near future.
4 stefgosselin 2015-02-05
Indeed. This is by no means the end of the story. I can imagine this can take months if not years before he is heard, and even them don't hold your breath for any regulatory changes.
BigPharma is a very important part of the American Economy, I don't think Govt. can afford to screw up their operation. Corporations have a LOT of leverage on politicians.
We can expect some laws will be passed to grant special immunity or no-fault clauses to big Pharma if this ever goes to a real trial.
The best I can expect is that regulations will be put in place that will oblige more testing, comparative studies and other such measure to refine the product. I do not expect bigPharma to be fined or have their reputation tarnished too much.
Of course, this is a personal opinion.
3 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Well afaik they are already 100 percent protected against any issues with vaccines and cannot be taken to trial over them ever.
0 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Vaccines are not very profitable. There's a reason not many companies produce them. I don't think any big pharma company has ever made over 5% of their total yearly revenues in vaccines. Put simply, treating symptoms is more profitable than preventing symptoms.
3 omnimatty 2015-02-05
Great post as always. Thanks!
3 readyready 2015-02-05
I posted this in rage, which is a hotbed of pro vaccine propaganda.....they don't know what to do with it.
3 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Haha. Link?
6 readyready 2015-02-05
Hijacked top comment in a standard pro vaccine circle-jerk here.
Submission here
*Please do not participate
My comment/submission should have been shredded to Swiss cheese by now.
**no Swiss cheese...just stealth deletions by ?????. Very interesting.
***disregard, mod says linked site caught in spam filter by mistake. Problem fixed. Or.....
5 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Ya they nuked you hijack comment it is gone.
6 readyready 2015-02-05
HAHAHAHAHA holy fucking shit! I wonder if I just got shadowbanned from rage....
3 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Probably but I remember that if a mod deletes a comment with no child Comments it just totally dissappear as well. But shadowbox would explain the posting as well having no activity at all.
1 Ransal 2015-02-05
True. If you post anything that is against the popular view you get banned. Happened to me when I was against the black lives matter protests everyone was supporting at the time.
2 readyready 2015-02-05
I wouldn't say that. It's never what you say, but rather, how you say it. You might find that you'll get your point across more effectively if you use a little nuance.
1 Ransal 2015-02-05
nope, both of his posts are deleted now.
0 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
It's just a large volume of garbage hyperbole to sift through, no one really wants to do that.
Edit: I wound up deciding to see if any of this garbage held any weight and looked at Thompson's statement regarding the CDC. This was the third paragraph in his statement, how the fuck can anyone possibly construe his statement as anti-vax? All he wants is the CDC to be more transparent in their analyses, which is a completely reasonable, but separate argument.
1 Salinator 2015-02-05
Wow. It's almost like you misconstrued the argument based on your own assumptions and then finally figured out what the argument actually was.
Good for you!
-2 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
And you must have missed the point were people are using the 'whistleblower' tag line as a means to insinuate that vaccines cause autism. The man is simply trying to get more transparency in the scientific community. Researchers often aren't privy to the entire scope of a project until it's published, they simply do a set routine and report their results to their bosses.
3 Salinator 2015-02-05
Again, your assumptions are your own. His actions and words speak for themselves.
-1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
So why do people not just link to his statement instead of going on crazy extrapolations of what he said?
3 Salinator 2015-02-05
Do you think he has just made one statement throughout all of this?
Maybe you should look into everything he has said before you claim to be an expert on what he knows and believes.
-1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
As a rule of thumb, I don't believe anything that Wakefield says. He's far worse than scum. That's the only statement I could find that was straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
3 plato_thyself 2015-02-05
thanks for the work you do here.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
Of course! This is a team effort.
2 subliminal727 2015-02-05
There isn't really much here.
The paper about black people getting autism easier from vaccines was retracted.
The retracted paper claims that black people that vaccinate get diagnosed with autism higher than white people who vaccinate, BUT it still doesn't prove a causal link between vaccines and autism.
On top of that, their methods were shown to be suspect upon a second peer review, which was done because of the original conflict of interest.
Basically, that paper of as much scientific value as if I had scribbled some random junk on a napkin at McDonalds.
1 trackerbishop 2015-02-05
I sent my skeptic friend the link and he said he doesn't trust the daily caller because it's the same site that was claiming King Abdullah was flying bombing missions himself yesterday
3 [deleted] 2015-02-05
[deleted]
0 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Literally the third paragraph of his statement.
6 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
Yeah, he's trying to salvage what's left of his career. If he didn't say that no one would listen to him.
He also admitted that he would never give a pregnant woman a flu shot.
That's what's currently recommended.
You've cherry-picked the shit out of his statements. You have a lot of research to catch up on, my friend.
0 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Yes, Wakefield tried to fuck him over something fierce. But he isn't calling for a recall on vaccines, he wants more oversight due to one subgroup within the study that he felt needed further testing.
I'll rephrase that for you, he was unsatisfied with one small part of the study, (namely, the african heritage male subgroup) not the study as a whole.
7 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
Hardly. He prepared a devastating report and was silenced a full 10 years ago. The woman who silenced him was subsequently hired by Merck...at their vaccine department.
It doesn't take a genius to smell a massive, fetid rat.
0 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Can you show me the report?
I find it hard to believe that only one person in the entire CDC has developed a conscience.
4 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
Believe it.
Lack of conscience seem to be a prerequisite to work for them. It's practically in the job description.
And the report was never released after it was censored. Perhaps Thompson will share it with Congress when he testifies.
Maybe we should ask Julie Gerberding, the woman who censored it.
Oh that's right, she works for Merck now, the maker of the vaccine that Thompson was questioning!
Funny how that works.
-2 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
You should know, the big ticket scientists aren't the ones running the numbers and performing the experiments. Plenty of no-name scientists with nothing to lose and a lot to gain for blowing the lid on something like this.
I could say I have manuscripts of every buried results ever censored by Gerberding. Does it make it true? No.
If Wakefield said it, it's probably bullshit. Those are words you should live by.
1 solxyz 2015-02-05
As they used to say around here a few months ago: thats just, like, his opinion man. As the OP tried to make extremely clear, the question is not and should not be "vaccines - yes or no?" but about our ability to have open, informed, and nuanced discussions about the benefits and risks of different vaccines in different situations. if the cdc is lying or concealing information - thats a problem.
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
It's hard to have informed and nuanced discussions when people base their stance on hyperbole. No one who's an informed proponent for vaccines would ever want untested vaccinations, and never insinuate that vaccines are without risk. After all, the risks are listed along with all the benefits.
The CDC didn't lie or conceal information, they published the subgroup along with the rest of the study. It didn't affect the outcome of their findings since it was a subgroup with a small amount of subjects (young male African-Americans). Wakefield used an incorrect statistical analysis to alter the p-value of the sub group. Thompson wanted a retest on the subgroup to ensure that nothing was actually happening there, he felt guilty that the subgroup may actually be vulnerable to the vaccine.
Ebola was a special case as the death rate is so significant that it eclipsed the risk of utilizing an untested vaccination.
1 solxyz 2015-02-05
according to thompson's statements: "my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article ... Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Please stop taking things out of context. You forgot these parts:
"The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."
"My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine."
The truly hilarious part is that the data was never omitted.
1 solxyz 2015-02-05
you say that the data wasnt omitted, he says that it was. im a little more inclined to believe him because (a) he is much close to the situation than you and so knows way more about what went on, and (b) he has jeopardized his career to say so. that said, im not drawing any conclusions at this point. im interested in information and open discussion. the fact that you are trying to shut down discussion destroys your credibility in my eyes.
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Note he says 'findings.' Those are conclusions about collected results. The CDC has published the data, otherwise that crazy person Hooker wouldn't have had access to them to run the wrong statistical analysis.
1 Magzy 2015-02-05
well they were semi correct - he may have even pressed the red button.
0 Magzy 2015-02-05
you should post it in /r/conspiritard - it's like a closet for conspiracy nuts waiting to come out.
13 omnimatty 2015-02-05
Not sure the best place to post this idea, but, it keeps coming up for me, while witnessing the current pro-vaccine push around the internet. Seems that crowd is willing to forgive Big Pharma for the fact that prescription drugs kill… more than a hundred thousand Americans every year. And that’s not medication errors, not abuse, not overdose; that’s just deaths from side-effects, ADRs, adverse drug reactions to prescription drugs.
Wait a second, 106,000 deaths a year? That means, that the six leading cause of death—is actually doctors! - http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187436
But when it comes to vaccines, well, they are beyond reproach there. It really seems like a big disconnect there to me. Anyway thanks for all the work you are doing on this axolito, I am looking forward to your measles post!
3 damndirtylies 2015-02-05
We've been conditioned to take it like cheap prostitutes. We sell our souls daily for scraps. We slave away to afford our health 'insurance' so that one day we can get sick with cancer and die, leaving our families in debt.
When we don't do as we're told, or we don't surrender half of the scrap we earned to our pimp-government, we're mercilessly whipped; imprisoned, our futures, burning bright, extinguished and ruined for the slightest transgression. We're made to feel cornered and weak like animals because he humiliate us, he denies our dignity.
But we love our pimp-government-god. Holy be his name, for while his left hand taketh away, his right hand giveth.
So when he takes our children away and sends them off to die or be maimed and traumatized in meaningless wars against farmers and peasant revolutionaries, we forgive him, for he has blessed us with national security. When he injects us with drugs, forcing our dependency, and throws us into a merciless and violent world of his own creation, we thank him, for in these dark moments he has given us welfare, section 8 housing and food stamps.
Oh pimp-government-God, forgive us for our sins, for we are ignorant and stupid. We dream of happiness, undeserving of happiness. We dream of dignity and self-respect, deserving neither. We dream of safe streets, sound medicine, inspired teachers, financial security and effective leadership, knowing we deserve nothing.
Thy new world order come,
Thy will be done,
On Earth,
As it is in Hell,
Amen.
1 subliminal727 2015-02-05
What is disconnected is equating two things that aren't the same issue.
And while we are at it, vaccination and medicine in general are both bigger and more nuanced issues than the companies that make them.
One thing you conveniently ignore from the fact that medications kill people sometimes (duh) is how many of those people would have died anyways without the medication? How many would have a much lower quality of life?
Not all of them for sure, but im sure there is a percentage of that big scary number you posted.
Now, on top of that, there's the big picture to look at. Since what you seem most interested in is the overall number of deaths from the drugs, how many lives are saved or extended or improved by prescription drugs every year?
You know that number is far larger than the one you posted. Thats where your disconnect is.
The reality is that you are looking for anything you can throw at this vaccination argument right now, and coming up empty handed leaves you scraping for something...anything to make this about big evil bad nasty corporations, when in fact the issue is much bigger than big pharma. It is the health of the public.
Measles killed more people globally than that number you posted in 2013, and if it weren't for vaccination it would kill a lot more. That's just one disease.
Is that what your movement is fighting for? Because thats where it would end up. Surely you cant be morally outraged over prescription drugs killing 100k when the very thing you are pushing for will kill many many more.
Millions of lives have been saved by the measles vaccine alone.
1 Fuzzyfozzybear 2015-02-05
how about transparency and instead of vaccine court Big Pharma companies are held accountable publicly instead of operating at no risk to themselves- but plenty of risk to the people. I don't want to take down the whole vaccine business, I just want them to be held accountable and responsible for their actions.
12 SoCo_cpp 2015-02-05
It is easy to cherry pick studies, when you are not forced to publish unfavorable results:
2 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Knowing people in the sciences there is a good explanation for SOME of that. Null results. Not good or bad just no effect, can be hard to get published. I doubt it explains it all but yeah that number would never be 0 unless the journal and university model is overhauled significantly to encourage publishing of null results.
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
Also, if the trials were botched they wouldn't be published, soon after they would likely stop receiving grants for the experiment as well.
1 CainesLaw 2015-02-05
Unless they commit fraud, like Merck did, on their applications (ironically, in Merck's case, this was for their measles/mumps/rubella vaccine).
Fraud that included using rabbit antibodies to adulterate the vaccine and boost the effectiveness stat. Rabbit antibodies that would cause grave health problems in human patients.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html
(If you don't like Huffpo, there are a dozen other mainstream sources under the Google search "Merck vaccine fraud", I simply grabbed the first one.)
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
That's a very fishy lawsuit, dunno if you've read it or not. I doubt anything will come of it. It's being leveled by a single doctor family practice in Chatom, Alabama.
5 maglincer 2015-02-05
Even now there is more propaganda saying thimerosal is safe when there are other studies showing it is not, to at least a subset of the population. Reddit is so blinded by their love of vaccines they won't hear anything different.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
I'm sorry to inform you that you've been shadowbanned.
Pity, because you seem intelligent and level-headed.
I suggest contacting the reddit admins.
2 BowChickaWow-Wow 2015-02-05
You should be banned from reddit. It's people like you that ruin it for us all.
0 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
What?
4 mk9718 2015-02-05
I sincerely hope Thompson stays safe. If a billion dollar industry truly feels threatened by him, its only a matter of time before some untimely accident happens a la Hastings style. But I truly hope it doesn't come to that.
1 Pittyswains 2015-02-05
From his statement:
Scientists aren't cut-throat backstabbers like Brian Hooker.
2 riskoooo 2015-02-05
Yeah, but it's not the scientists he has to be afraid of. It's the businessmen who own the scientists that are the soulless murderers.
1 subliminal727 2015-02-05
I like how they downvote you for quoting the article they are all swooning over. Hillarious.
This man is a hero!
Oh wait he said something we dont agree with? Sweep that under the rug. But the rest of it is good.
2 Salinator 2015-02-05
I like how you make up a narrative about dowvotes when a comment sits at 1 karma.
Oh wait youre totally making things up! Better pretend you have a point!
1 subliminal727 2015-02-05
You know that vote counts change over time. He was negative when i posted, and upvoted for adding to the discussion.
1 Salinator 2015-02-05
Yeah, I do know that. Do you? You made a comment claiming bias when it likely only had a few downvotes, making you reactionary and your point irrelevant.
-1 subliminal727 2015-02-05
But I was right.
In fact, if you do the math, he has exactly as many downvotes right now as he does upvotes. One of them was mine. If we take mine away, and purely leave it to the /r/conspiracy community...hes at 0 for posting facts relevant to the topic.
Y'all claim to be truth seekers but that is only the case when the "truth" fits your preconceived narrative.
I really dont care bout the internet points and im sure he doesnt either, but it just shows this subs true colors. It happens a lot.
1 Salinator 2015-02-05
You don't care about Internet points, but to you they are important enough to indicate an underlying assumption about every single member of the board, collectively. In an entirely objective manner. Based on one comment.
Sure thing. Brilliant argument.
2 Flytape 2015-02-05
Again let's focus on the subject of the post and not try to turn everything into an exercise of rhetorical /conspiracy bashing.
1 mk9718 2015-02-05
Yeah I guess he's good then since they didnt immediatley drag him out back of the HQ and blow his brains out...
He's not a legitimate threat yet, but if he becomes one, an "accident" would become more likely.
4 j-pHil 2015-02-05
Hope he doesn't come down with suicide before it's time. People tend to do that when they speak out in a real way.
4 Magzy 2015-02-05
I worked in I.T. I have worked for over 15 banks, Investment banks, investment funds and even a sensitive part of a western government.
I have also worked at one of the biggest Pharmaceutical Companies in the world.
Never before have I seen such levels of security, secrecy and paranoia over getting access to documents at big pharma than all of the banks and government combined.
It was truly staggering the levels of security you had to go through to access documents detailing the whole lifecycle of a drug - which would have included clinical trials et-al. (i.e fully audited document access using workflow but any access had to be 'ink signed' for by multiple people and higher ups, which was then uploaded for posterity.
It always fathomed me as to this secrecy.
In banks you either have access or not and this access is controlled by one person and they usually just grant it if you have a semi valid business case.
You always hear of banking details being leaked - but never big pharma details being leaked.
If the OP 's post is true this would give reason for the high level of paranoia at big pharma because that information behind the biggest digital safe in the world (in my humble opinion) would reveal the whole truth to back up OP's story (if true)
1 UnvaccinatedAutist 2015-02-05
Banks don't do research, they just deal money. There isn't really much intellectual property to steal from banks, hence the semi lax security.
3 the-thiiird 2015-02-05
Thank you for posting this!
2 Ambiguously_Ironic 2015-02-05
Hmm... I hope this has legs but am a bit wary until I hear more. Would be great if true though.
2 KirkNJ 2015-02-05
Sticky?
2 subliminal727 2015-02-05
Still reading through your long post but I see a huge problem right off the bat and I just have to ask...
The paper about African Americans being more susceptible to Autism after being immunized was ...retracted by the journal it was published in.
So....this looks like a bust. I mean ...
Okay to put that simply....
Someone had a conflict of interest on the peer review (that they concealed funnily enough, get on that conspiracy theorists)...then they did another review and found the methods to be invalid.
Still no proof that vaccines cause autism.
So what we have is this "whistleblower" saying that the CDC ignored evidence, from a paper that happened AFTER the CDC published that was also retracted.
They ignored the bad data from a paper that hadn't even been published yet?
Is that what this is about? Because if it isn't, I am missing something here. Please educate me if I am wrong about that.
CDC published in Feb 2014. The autism in black people paper published in Aug and was retracted in October.....
0 joe-6pak 2015-02-05
Good find.
This one is juicy, and I think it has some legs.
Time will tell.
0 AlphamaxHD 2015-02-05
OP
Not the hero we deserve.
The hero we need.
-1 BillyIsUnstuck 2015-02-05
Thanks for sharing this nice little bit of science fiction! Very entertaining.
1 axolotl_peyotl 2015-02-05
You're welcome. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, eh?
10 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
It's a good post. Hoping for more sources and a possible hearing in the near future.
3 omnimatty 2015-02-05
Great post as always. Thanks!
3 readyready 2015-02-05
I posted this in rage, which is a hotbed of pro vaccine propaganda.....they don't know what to do with it.
1 trackerbishop 2015-02-05
I sent my skeptic friend the link and he said he doesn't trust the daily caller because it's the same site that was claiming King Abdullah was flying bombing missions himself yesterday
2 AggregateTurtle 2015-02-05
Knowing people in the sciences there is a good explanation for SOME of that. Null results. Not good or bad just no effect, can be hard to get published. I doubt it explains it all but yeah that number would never be 0 unless the journal and university model is overhauled significantly to encourage publishing of null results.
3 Salinator 2015-02-05
Do you think he has just made one statement throughout all of this?
Maybe you should look into everything he has said before you claim to be an expert on what he knows and believes.
0 Magzy 2015-02-05
you should post it in /r/conspiritard - it's like a closet for conspiracy nuts waiting to come out.
2 subliminal727 2015-02-05
There isn't really much here.
The paper about black people getting autism easier from vaccines was retracted.
The retracted paper claims that black people that vaccinate get diagnosed with autism higher than white people who vaccinate, BUT it still doesn't prove a causal link between vaccines and autism.
On top of that, their methods were shown to be suspect upon a second peer review, which was done because of the original conflict of interest.
Basically, that paper of as much scientific value as if I had scribbled some random junk on a napkin at McDonalds.
3 plato_thyself 2015-02-05
thanks for the work you do here.