CDC Cover-up?

Post Reply New Topic

Your first example has nothing to do with the CIA in any way other than wild and baseless speculation that the CIA wants to poison children. If you read the actual facts, it is one or two individual suspect vials and not some wide reaching conspiracy.

Your second falsely indicates that a humanitarian group is linked to the CIA based on an individual who ran a false scheme more than a year earlier (which provided no immunity nor did it poison any children).

No. I offered no implication beyond the facts stated in the news reports; i.e., that mistakes were made in the vaccination of children who received botched vaccines, and that the charity which was (ir)responsible for the mistake was claimed by others to have connections with the CIA (by the way, the Pakistan ISI Inter-Services Intelligence isn't easily dismissed in its claims. It has partnered enthusiastically with the U.S. intelligence agencies for years). But, your claim that there might be something malevolent in the activity is intriguing, isn't it? I suspect you are right about that.

My claim is that nothing malevolent was intended, despite many many claims otherwise. Both of your articles were insinuating such. Especially the second, which mentioned exactly zero vaccine complications, only that an organization currently giving vaccines was being compared to an individual running cover for the CIA in an inappropriate way.

An issue was encountered with up to 2 vials amidst 2.5 million vaccinations in Syria (not to mention the hundreds of millions given out the world over this year alone)? There are probably higher complication rates for pap smears. That doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to cover it up. Although perhaps the cover up over is just that effective?

JONRAPPOPORT: "Breaking?CDC whistleblower: ?I?ve stopped lying.? (September 18, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... pped-lying

It should be noted that most states have a law which requires that one (not all) of the parties to the call must know that it is being recorded. This kind of "one-party consent" law allows for calls to be recorded legally (however questionable the practice might be otherwise). If William W. Thompson, Ph.D. and Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE accepted or initiated the recorded call in one of these states, the recording itself would be completely legal and may be published or used as evidence in court.

Still, this is more evidence that Thompson seriously considered his disclosure, weighed its ramifications and made his choices deliberately.

A few points about your posted link:

Things not actually said by Thompson (i.e. things between []) were inserted into Thompson's quotes:
[autism]
[on the autism-vaccine connection]
[who understand the vaccine-autism connection]

Too much of what Thompson said seems to need to be "explained" by the author afterwards.

Jon Rappoport has a history of falsely reporting conspiracies and cover ups on a whole host "issues," including sensationalized and often easily disproven reports on the cancer treatment industry trying to cover up the cure for cancer, how the Obamacare conspiracy is somehow destroying human life, the anti-education conspiracy, how the elite are brainwashing us through their control of the media, and how Edward Snowden has too many inconsistancies in his stories for anyone intelligent to believe his lies.

I have serious difficulty in accepting as unbiased reporting an article that contains this:

Okay. But, Jon Rappoport's blog, like all blogs, is commentary which includes facts. He could simply have introduced the recording with the fact that it was a conversation between the two speakers, and leave it at that. But, as a commentator, he added certain claims that any reader would understand to be his own unless substantiated by the recording itself. The question then becomes one about the accuracy of the claims. Did you match the claims to the recording? Which statements claimed by Rappoport to be made by Thompson don't comport with the recording? Remember, we must also introduce the facts that Thompson presented in his signed statement of Aug. 27 (which included his references to a vaccine-autism link; "...increased risk for autism[,]" "...outcomes including autism spectrum disorders" and "...increased risk of autism") as well as what he is recorded as having said to Hooker in a related conversation. By combining those two sources, I believe that Rappoport reflected the general tone and temperament of Thompson's ideas about the matter accurately; at least so far as libel and other journalistic standards are concerned.

It is because of lies by omission. Rappoport completely ignores the fact that the link was restricted to one very tiny segment of a samll segment of the population of the study. If you slcie data small enough, you can "proof" of pretty much anything you want to pretend is real. Thompson's primary criticism is that the data was left completely unmentioned. In a scientific paper, the mentioning of this portion of data should have been disclosed. However, it would have been in the limitations section of the study, not in the results. And it most definitely should have been in there, and this should have been added to the data analysis of all follow up studies, which is where his primary criticism falls. Thompson has not said that vaccines cause autism at any point, even in the quotes that have been cherry picked and misinterpreted to make it seem otherwise.

I certainly can't make any comments (Irony) because I lack the necessary training in those areas. But my word I hate the Anti-Vax groups, this bunch of vile little narcissists have set public discourse on medicine back a thousand years. The fact that they would try to manufacture a controversy like this is simply repellent. As an aside please read the blog post by David Gorski, at 'Science based medicine' and, as opposed to conventional wisdom, take the time to read the comments.

The post is titled 'Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African American boys?'

Note how the Anti Vax members demand (and insult) that their questions be answered by the researchers on site, but don't show the same courtesy to when asked a question themselves.

When they ask for proof that vaccinations don't cause Autism, the researchers direct them to studies that show no link and point out how the weight of evidence is against them. Ask for proof that vaccines are effective (they really, really are), the researchers point out that diseases have declined massively since the introduction of inoculations, for example, wild polio is no more.

But when the researchers ask them to explain how the austim rate is still rising despite removing thermisol from vaccines? Nothing, no reply. Throw their own question back at them on the effectiveness of vaccines, again, defining scilence.

Its speaks of how shallow and childish they are. Note I'm meaning the hardcore ones, if your on the fence don't worry.

I think this is what happens when have news companies contractually obligated to paint the government as Evil no matter what

SC

I propose a new theory... this is tongue in cheek, sarcasm... but illustrative of the concept of correlation and causation not being the same...

JONRAPPOPORT: "What is the CDC whistleblower?s strategy now?" (September 22, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... rategy-now

JONRAPPOPORT: "Snowden, the CDC whistleblower: who owns information?" (September 22, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... nformation

JONRAPPOPORT: "There are 2 other MMR vaccine whistleblowers" (September 24, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... tleblowers

JONRAPPOPORT: "History proves vaccines are quite safe?really?" (September 29, 2014)
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/ ... afe-really

It would appear that an austistic reaction is just about the only thing that vaccines don't cause.

This video emerged 3 days ago, but why now?

^^^^

Because it is a local news segment focusing on a recent CDC protest, which is really just a rehash of the previous arguments (refuted a thousand times already). What Hooker did to Thompson and the studies were basically the vaccine version of the Planned Parenthood videos: heavily edited and cherry-picked.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was started through pressure by anti-vaccine advocates after a hit piece was done on a completely different vaccine (the author of that piece, Sharyl Atkisson, might be better known for her scalding hot Benghazi takes now -- she hasn't changed much concerning her integrity). It likes to confuse facts with opinions like all the other anti-vaccine users on WP, and the burden is extremely low for receiving compensation. The fact that no awards were ever given for a vaccine causing autism says something.

Whatever the truth, if the idea that vaccines cause autism becomes widely believed in the mainstream the consequences will be ghastly for autistics. In that case most of the progress towered autism acceptance will be undone because the autistics would be viewed as literal mutants.

They are viewed mutants either way, it won't make a difference.
95% of people don't even know what Autism is and don't give a damn

And what if there's some truth in all that? What if some vaccines really lead to Autism? Autistics have the right to know the truth as well, even if this ruins the "gift from god" and "i am evolution" ideas that some autistics have.