CDC Whistleblower Media Blackout

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Saffron's picture
Saffron
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
CDC Whistleblower Media Blackout

I alluded to this topic in another post and have received some interest, so I'd like to start a discussion that I do hope we can keep on target so it does not get shoved into the basement. The subject regards the news of a couple months ago that a researcher with the CDC confessed to committing fraud regarding vaccines. It should be noted that this is an involuntarily whistleblower ... he was unaware that his conversations (with the father of an autistic child who was doing research for a paper) were being recorded. After he was "outed" he released this statement via his lawyer:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

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.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

you may read the rest of the letter here:

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-big-one-cdc-whistleblower-goes-public-now/

 

Another article points out that the head of the CDC at the time of the study was later offered a job at the company that makes the above vaccine ... one of those clear conflict of interest situations that seem to happen far too frequently between government and big corporations.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q3/mmr-vaccine-causes-autism-leaked-cdc-research-proves-it/

 

I would hope that no matter which side of the vaccine debate you occupy, you would be concerned about the media blackout regarding this event. It can hardly be considered too trivial an issue (we've all seen what passes for news these days) even if the accusation is determined to be unfounded (which is highly doubtful as the whistleblower was one of the authors of the original article.)

Opinions on both sides of this issue are strong and usually very personal. But the part that affects all of us is that this very real news regarding a topic that has potential impact for everybody, has been given virtually no coverage in mainstream media. 

Healthcare workers are increasingly being mandated to take the flu shot. Vaccines are mandated for kids to attend schools (though most states allow you to sign an exemption usually this is not publicized.) And while half the world waits with bated breath for a vaccine to rescue us from ebola, the other half worries that it will become mandated long before it can be proven to be safe. 

 

With regards to all this I am interested in discussing ...

- Whether or not we deserve transparency from an agency that has so much power and the potential to affect us so drastically? (Most especially since so much of what this agency is is charge of is becoming, not just advised, but mandated?) 

- How can we go about demanding and getting such transparency? Supposedly the above issue is being reviewed in Congress but my (admittedly limited) googling skills haven't managed to find anything.

- Other questions that come up as you read this while hopefully steering clear of the controversy-inducing debate of whether or not to vaccinate.

 

~ Saffron

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1757
No intention of transparency

Thank you Saffron for mentioning this finding on the omission of certain information from the publicly available vaccine research.

This brief response is not focused on the subject of vaccines, however, but on the question of transparency in government.

I recently read a very meaty little book by Terry Hansen entitled "The Missing Times."  He traces the evolution of the interaction between the deep state and the media over the last century.  To me, this chronology offers tremendous background.

1.  In times of war, the media has willingly and eagerly participated in distributing information aimed at helping the war effort.  This has included planting false stories, omitting realistic information on battles lost, hiding threats (like German U-boats off the east coast) from the citizenry, and above all, keeping the flow of money and recruits coming.

2.  With the end of WWII, the cold war began.  Maintaining influence over the press continued.  

“In times of clear and present danger, the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.” — President John F. Kennedy

We entered into a prolonged and ongoing period of clear and present danger.  A deep, and mostly secret, relationship was forged between the press and the deep state.  The mechanics of this relationship if the focus of Hanen's excellent little book. 

3.   With the work of Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, the philosophy of leadership formally shifted.  The intellectual elite were responsible for understanding the important social issues and guiding the populous to the correct action.

Bernays pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns:

 

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least within certain limits"

He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent'.

And Lippman:

From Lippman's Public Opinion:  "When properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious, and only become clear upon careful analysis of the collected data — a critical intellectual exercise in which most people either are uninterested or are incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them by the well-informed, and will then act accordingly.

The Enlightenment view that people were essentially rational gave way to a view of a public whose opinions and behavior can and should be engineered and managed by an intelligent elite. 

4.   The scientific process of guiding "the herd" (yes, he used that word) was based on the twin pillars of censorship and propaganda.

5.   Censorship was the activity that insured that the populous had no access to real information about the world.  This created a blank slate.

6.   Propaganda was the scientific process of painting the desired picture on the blank slate, a process Walter Lippman named "creating a pseudo-environment."

“Without some form of censorship, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct a propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks is wise or desirable.” — Walter Lippmann

Summary:  It is my understanding that information provided in our press is not intended to be informative, but is mostly the activity of the shepherd guiding his flock to the place where he feels the flock should be.

jw4994's picture
jw4994
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 27 2013
Posts: 9
our fascist state

I have been following this topic, which is in a long line of CDC FAILs for years.  The fact that there's a media blackout is no surprise, given that ads from Big Pharma are the major support of TV  (except during election time).  Maybe more people are aware of CDC's corruption and incompetence, as the recent Ebola handling has caused a dramatic drop in the public's confidence in the CDC's leadership (http://tinyurl.com/llbjbsb)  That's what happens when you throw the nurses under the bus (the ill-defined "breach in protocol").

CDC employee William Thompson, PhD, according to the complaint, has hard evidence going back years, describing a systematic pattern of scientific fraud, showing that protocols were not followed, data was manipulated to bury unfavorable associations, and that he was told to cover it up by his superiors.  CDC's own data showed an association between MMR vaccine and autism, specifically the younger the child got the vaccine, the greater the likelihood of being diagnosed with autism.  The risk was highest for African-American boys, so they diluted the data with a trick from the Jim Crow era, weeding out the children unless they had a Georgia birth certificate.  The claim was that the certificate was needed for information like race, parental education level, etc.  However, that information isn't on the GA birth certificate- that info came from school records.

CDC found another strong association between "early" MMR (given between 12-15 months of age) and autism, and that was in the "isolated" group of children with autism without mental retardation; to make that association go away, they had to chang their original research protocol and omitted some other groups (epilepsy, visual and hearing impairments, for example.)

Despite the data manipulation, the association was still present, which was explained away by saying that the early intervention preschools required the shots.  Of course, this makes no sense, early intervention preschool doesn't start at 12-15 months.

You can read the complaint here: http://media.wix.com/ugd/b3aa2b_da6435ff9a2144d6aa3358fec58550af.pdf

So, the upshot is, CDC sets the vaccine schedule, in which MMR is supposed to be given at 12-15 months.  But the CDC's own data (and the paper in question was published in 2004) shows the likelihood of autism is much higher (approaching 3x higher) when given in this window, compared to after 36 months. 

CDC has been covering up vaccine safety concerns for many years- they also manipulated the data showing the amount of mercury children received in their shots dramatically increased the risk of autism (google: "it just won't go away", the headline of an email showing how hard they were trying to make the association disappear.  Or try searching: "asleep at the switch for decades" in which CDC was notified that 9th grade math showed that the amount of mercury in the routine shots at the time (1999) was many times in excess of established safety limits.)  Although the mercury in shots is a separate safety concern from MMR, and has mostly been removed from the shots, phased out over several years from about 2001-2004, it remains in the majority of flu shots, and during this phase out period, universal influenza vaccination was implemented for pregnant women, probably more than negating the benefits of removing mercury post birth, by giving it to fetuses at much lower weights.  Here's a graphic about how what the concentration of mercury in a flu shot really means: https://www.facebook.com/HealthRanger/photos/a.169524336315.132923.35590...

Oh, and I can't let Poul Thorsen, MD, PhD, go unmentioned.  That was CDC's golden boy of phony research for "vaccines don't cause autism".  He put out bogus research by the truckload, which was recognized by many at the time to be obviously skewed to get to the predetermined outcome.  But when you hire a crook to do your dirty work, don't be surprised when he steals from you: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp (about the 10th criminal down).  He is on-the-lam in Denmark, where they rounded him up for tax evasion, but somehow the Danes won't extradite him.  He is facing 260 years in prison for fraud, embezzlement, money laundering.  Yet still works openly, not in hiding, at Sygehus Lillebaelt Hospital in Kolding, Denmark, and continues to publish.  His research partner had to present at Salt Lake City this year: http://www.sages.org/meetings/annual-meeting/abstracts-archive/tailored-...

We talk about non-sustainability on this site a lot- one thing that is completely non-sustainable is the explosion of autism in the schools.  Kids who can't speak, can't learn, and can't behave require an enormous amount of care at a huge cost.  It's already bankrupting the schools, but just wait til the wave of kids gets to adulthood.  Some of the kids can't even navigate crossing the street.  The media blackout on this series of scandals comes as no surprise; just "shut up and take your flu shot."

 

 

Saffron's picture
Saffron
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
re: no intention of transparency
sand_puppy wrote:

Summary:  It is my understanding that information provided in our press is not intended to be informative, but is mostly the activity of the shepherd guiding his flock to the place where he feels the flock should be.

On this we are 100% agreed ... which is why we have conspiracy theories ... some take the time to read between the lines and research for themselves and come to conclusions that are then labeled disparagingly by those who don't wish to be discovered *as well as* those who are not served by the lies, yet are unwilling to believe anything true *unless* they see it in mainstream media.

So where does that leave us? Obviously our discussion covers more than this particular issue with the CDC ... almost everything discussed on this forum can somehow be traced to the discrepancy between the information we are being given vs the truth many of us are starting to see. But the immorality with this particular one, seeing as how it involves lifetime health consequences for the children affected puts it in a different category, IMO. 

I realize there are no ready answers ... what Chris has done here with regards to peak oil and the economy ... clearly laying out the true science ... needs to happen in the realm of medicine. But as it is one of the many things we put in the hands of "experts," the public wants to hear from the experts ... MDs, scientists, etc. When the very agency that informs them is collusive and media does not step up to investigate when a scientist does speak out, again I wonder ... where does that leave us? 

I believe I read something you wrote SandPuppy, with regards to coming to awareness about ... well a lot of the things we discuss here. I've forgotten whether you said what specifically helped your shift in opinion. Was it simply seeing it repeatedly, or the particular way it was presented? I guess I'm thinking, if it is up to us to bring awareness ... how does one start? How do we broach a subject most people *don't* want to think about and would prefer to have "experts" handle when you have proof that those experts may be using flawed information?

lunableu22's picture
lunableu22
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 19 2011
Posts: 41
Yet another issue

There is yet another issue related to medicine, and that is the business model.  I haven't been a recipient of "health care" for a number of years.  Recently, I took the offspring to the doc for an infection.  It was obvious what was going on, yet the doc thought it might be a great idea to get a second opinion from one of his specialist colleagues.  A quick $350 office visit to confirm what was already known.  A little incestuous sharing of the wealth.

Furthermore, every prescription medication comes with side effects that can be "treated" with yet more pharmaceuticals.  No wonder 80 yr olds are taking 60 pills a day (with no increase in vitality).

So...from what I can see, there is no incentive to actually cure or fix or help anyone find health, as the income stream disappears if someone is well.  And kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies (if there actually are kickbacks) disappear as well.  Nothing like a built-in structural conflict of interest.  Not to mention a captive audience due to the monopoly on prescriptions (only MDs can prescribe) .

Saffron's picture
Saffron
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
Unsustainable: autism explosion
jw4994 wrote:

We talk about non-sustainability on this site a lot- one thing that is completely non-sustainable is the explosion of autism in the schools.  Kids who can't speak, can't learn, and can't behave require an enormous amount of care at a huge cost.  It's already bankrupting the schools, but just wait til the wave of kids gets to adulthood.  Some of the kids can't even navigate crossing the street.  The media blackout on this series of scandals comes as no surprise; just "shut up and take your flu shot."

I've had discussions with people who say the explosion is due to improved diagnosis. Hogwash! How many of us recall being in a classroom where two children had their own teacher sitting with them to help them through the whole day? Not sure how many schools are doing this or how long the ones that are can continue it; (though I suppose with QE ... indefinitely, eh?) I know it has happened though, since years ago my mother was one of those teachers ... for a whole year she was responsible for just two autistic students.

I did not know about Thorsen ... but with all I've learned why am I still shocked to read about people willing to do this sort of thing? At least Will Thompson seems to have been uncomfortable about it from the beginning and appears contrite now (of course that isn't much comfort to those who were affected by his research these past 10 years ... and those who will continue to be affected now that the admission is being covered up.)

AKGrannyWGrit's picture
AKGrannyWGrit
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2011
Posts: 433
Who to Hate

After reading Sand Puppy's thread above I could not help but think of the 60 Minutes segment I watched last Sunday. There was an interview of a distraught woman who told how ISIS took girls and young women from a town and forced them into sex slavery after killing the young men.  My husband and I watched years before a distraught young woman talk about how babies were taken out of their hospital beds and left on the floor so the equipment could be stolen.  The message is being spoon fed to all of us, this is the group we want you to hate now.  If we hate then we allow whatever action the military complex wants to engage in.

Keep in mind that the people's we have been told to hate have changed regularly.  At one time it was the British, the French, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Germans, the Russians, the Vietnamese, and even our neighbors to the north or to the south of us (civil war) and the list goes on and on.  So my husband and I ask ourselves why does the government want us to hate this group, this year?

My 2 cents.

AK Granny

Saffron's picture
Saffron
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 29 2009
Posts: 250
Re: who to hate

Good point, AK Granny. One of the reasons I am anxious for the whistleblower information to become public is because a new group being targeted (for hate) is those who do not vaccinate. Any google search regarding vaccines these days first brings up a host of articles debating whether to even allow people to have that option because of the perceived belief that the unvaccinated will bring diseases to the rest. Some of the articles and comments you find are unbelievably vitriolic.

Think about how ebola will accentuate that ... if a vaccine is created, will it be foisted on everyone in the name of public safety? With the panic this disease has the ability to create, it will be only too easy to convince the masses that their very lives are in danger if anyone chooses to refuse.

But for those who have researched this, the danger from vaccines is also very real ... as the above whistleblower has now confirmed in at least one case ... while the protection in many cases is questionable. I think it is important that people be allowed to make the choice for themselves and along with that choice - use common sense protocols to protect those around them. 

Bottom line is, people deserve to be informed about matters of health; and, especially in a situation where disagreements can lead to loss of basic freedoms, we really need access to the facts.  

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1757
AKGranny: Kuwaiti baby incubator stories

I saw this tonight and thought of your post.

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 519
If I could only

distract my work colleagues away from their televisions and smart phones for half an hour to read this thread and watch your video. It will not happen, such is the attraction of mainstream bs appealing to the lowest common denominator and the deadly sins that drives the immorality of this world.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments