William Thompson

http://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/6#153

You will say again that it is out of topic, but I am not convinced of the existence of the "Nobel disease". A "Nobel disease" would mean that the scientists were sensible before getting the Nobel prize, and mad after getting it, with a higher incidence that in the general scientist population. This view stems from an irrational view of science, based on conformism, belief in authority, rewards and mismeasurement. There is a lot of evidence that Montagnier had silly ideas before getting the Nobel prize. The discovery of HIV relied mainly on the idea of Willy Rozenbaum, and Montagnier did a really good job in managing the project with many talented scientists. Good management is not incompatible with silly ideas.

"These are hardly the qualifications I’d expect for someone to competently tackle a topic like this."

I guess it depends what competently means. If it means "able to present Andrew Wakefield's version of events in a slick package and make an emotionally manipulative movie that may sway people," it seems he's competent.

If competent means "understand the science and present the facts not only in an engaging manner but also accurately," he is not.

Are you talkin' to me?

One of the amazing things about the #CDCwhistleblower manufactroversy - as you highlighted here, and aside from all the other problems you describe so well - is that the whole scandal is about what is, in essence, a relatively small study about MMR and autism, far from a centerpiece. In fact, it's not even part of the recent IOM assessment of the evidence on the issue, as part of its review of adverse events: "Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment. "

I think your point that even if everything Wakefield et al claim the evidence is still very, very strong that MMR does not cause autism is a really crucial one. Not only is there nothing to the story, but even if there was, it would not make the stories Vaxxed gives so much weight to any less counter-evidence.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/12/not-paid-to-post-dorit-rubenstein-re…

Orac's review interestingly has more information about the filmmaking in Vaxxed than anything written by 'professional' film reviewers, who seem to have thought talking about the filmic aspects wasn't worth their time. And most of them bought into the 'heartbreaking' footage of the ASD kids, without noting how demeaning it is. (Sigh...)

Orac doesn't analyze the 'bookending' with Disneyland, other than to note it helps establish a frame for vindicating AJW. i suspect it does more than that, but I'll to wait until someone posts a pirate copy online, and I can actually see it to comment. I was surprised they did it that way, because it's a smart move...

And I'm pretty sure that's Bigtree's hand. If Andy is the 'director' of this in more than name, I'll eat Werner Herzog's other shoe. And while the interviews with Sears and Ross may draw derisive laughter from the blinking box, they sound like the intended audience will eat them up -- that is, this is the kind of thing tabloid TV shows like Dr. Phil and The Doctors do all the time, and usually 'work' like a charm for their millions of viewers.

As for De Niro, he got conned by slick grifter, and he's more victim than villain. So many different factors go into how a film gets dispersed and received – and this turkey in particular -- that's its ridiculous to single out any one of them for "blame". An out-of-competition, off-time, peripheral venue screening at Tribeca isn't even a toenail up, much less a leg. Vaxxed had lots of things going it's way that other AV films like The Greater Good didn't. Take away any one of these things (including, no doubt, lucky timing) and it wouldn't have made as much of a splash. But even w/o the Tribeca flap, it would have gotten out, gotten a fair bit of press, and lip-service from Jason Chaffetz... and no, he's not going to follow through on a hearing any more than Bill Posey is. As for the African-American communities... I'm not sure they're going to be more any more suspicious after Vaxxed than they were after Minister Tony got chummy with Andy's Gang, and I'm not sure that that's much more than they were before. I doubt inner-city vax rates will change much. We'll see, I guess.

Just a couple things about documentary in general: "Balance" is not an expectation, and whether "accuracy" is a valid criteria depends on how you define the term. There aren't simple "objective" criteria for when documentaries cross the line that Vaxxed apparently goes so very far over. For example, it's simply not true that its a COI for someone who's been a major part of a story to direct a film about it. Yes, the way AJW and Bigtree present themselves is by all accounts utterly bogus, but just being in the film they've made isn't a problem in-and-of-itself (see, Spurlock, Morgan; Moore, Michael, etc. etc.)

What I expect to find when I can finally get to see this thing w/o spending anything is exactly what Orac notes, something that taken in toto is a work of dishonesty. Matt has all the documents. Skyhorse published the most 'ominous' seeming parts of the Hooker-Thompson transcripts. And there's nothing there that supports the whole way they're selling 'CDC Whistleblower' at all. So, yeah, I'm guessing Raptor's label of "fraudumentary" has it exactly right.

I'm sure I'll grimace my way through it eventually, when it floats up with the rest of the flotsam of the Web. That it hasn't yet it is a sign that very few people, other than the ones who have already bought tickets, have any great desire to see it. The biggest AV film yet is still pretty miniscule in the big scheme of things. Which may be the only comforting thought I get this week...

Thank you, Sadmar - I don't know anything about film making, and your comments in the past about it in this context were really interesting and helpful.

OK, I have to disagree with Orac and Prof. Reiss on something. I'm guessing a professional TV producer like Del Bigtree is 'competent' to "“understand the science and present the facts accurately,” It's not about competence. It's about motives. The scorpion has the competence to know he can't sting the frog. It's just not in his nature.

I don't think Mr. Bigtree understands the facts about vaccines. I agree his background alone does not mean he doesn't have the competence. But his many comments on the topic don't show understanding. He describes the Hepatitis B vaccine as injecting a sexually transmitted disease - which is wrong on multiple levels. When it was pointed out to him he ignored many studies about MMR his answer was that the DeStefano study was the last CDC funded - as if that's a reason it should be more powerful than much larger studies.

He simply doesn't show that he's competent to understand the topic. If he's trying to manipulate, I'd expect higher-level wrong answers.

And to be clear - I agree there are real questions about his motives. It's not an either/or.

Some are questioning your motives Madame Reiss.

The bit that kills me is when Wakefield alters the content of the analysis plan. This is vintage Wakefield: he sees what he wants to see, and alters the content of document:

So, he complains to CDC, alleging fraud, and posts the following on the Vaxxed website as the critical sentence from the analysis plan. This is the plan that Bigtree opines on, in lieu of an expert:

“The only variable that will be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample will be the child’s race.”

And then you go back to the analysis plan, shown on screen but not so that you can read. Here is the document from which Wakefield purports to take the sentence:

“The only variable available to be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample is child’s race.”

This guy never stops. As I've said many times, if he told me the Earth went round the Sun, I'd check my wallet was still in my pocket.

He knows he's done that. Has he taken it down? Corrected it? Nope.

What a wretched individual.

Yes, no doubt because they cannot question her reasoning or facts.

My previous comment in response to R. P. McMurphy, somehow misplaced the quote.

This is curious how Dorit Reiss commented to this article within minutes of its' publication. She must be somehow allied with the publisher. This is the only logical conclusion.

@#15:When you comment on the blog post, you will see below the commenting box a number of options and boxes you can click. One of them is "Notify me of new posts by email." If you click that box, when a new post goes up, you can get a notification. If you're in the right time zone, you can read the post very shortly after it's up, and comment.

I hope that helps.

Wakefield has found his con-man niche in the US with Vaxxed and its marketing machine--that of the seemingly concerned academic surrounded by an entourage of peeps (Tommey and Bigtree) more than happy to say the more inflammatory AV lies while Wakefield sits back projecting an aura of deep thought. He can walk back what any of his peeps say as needed, but he doesn't have to come across as the outcast he was in the UK after his exposure by Brian Deer. It's disappointing that Wakefield's downfall in the UK does not appear to be carrying the stigma it should in the US.

(I write this after seeing how Vaxxed (via Gathr) is now not only going to show in 4 Phoenix theaters, but also one in Tucson).

@ #15: Your "only logical conclusion" is not logical. A more logical conclusion is that you habitually underestimate the intelligence and ability of those with whom you disagree.

Ms. Dorit, please don't do that.

You had posted the first post. The notify me of new posts option would not have been in effect.

This is not the first blog post our host has posted in his long, productive career as blogger. This is not the first post I commented on. The notify me of new posts option has existed in the past, and since I love this blog, I opted to be notified.

No mystery.

@ChrisHinkley

The only logical conclusion of what you find logical about my only logical conclusion, is that you are inept at formal logic.

@11

While your motives are pretty damn' clear...

@Dorit Reiss

The button is labeled notify me of new posts,;and not notify me of new articles.

@#23: This is a blog post.

Our talented host puts up posts on his blog.

The first option below the commenting box is to be notified of follow-up comments. The second is to be notified of new posts put up on this blog.

I hope that clarifies it.

You talkin' to me?

And somehow I have managed to be the first to comment on a couple of Orac's posts...

Does this mean that I'm implicated in yet another conspiracy?

I'm surprised I have time for anything these days...

@ Sir Hubert McCarrison III #15
I commented first. The only logical conclusion is that I must be somehow allied with the publisher. Actually, we have an agreement on mammography induced cancer.

You have an agreement that mammography induces cancer, or you also have an agreement to cause cancer via mammography in practice?

@Ms. Reiss I hope that clarifies it.

Not at all. You have just muddied the waters with that comment.

I'm never the first to comment, but occasionally I see a new article by our beloved host, before even a RSS feed has gone out. There is no plot involved.

The notify me of new posts button would not have worked unless someone had posted before you.

@Sir Hubert (by the way..."praise from Sir Hubert is praise indeed"): Quit digging. Orac's POST came up, Dorit was notified by email and placed a COMMENT to the POST. If you don't know the difference between a post and a comment, then you need to go back to Internet 101.

Can we get a better quality of trolls? These are almost too unintelligent to deal with. I miss the good old days when they at least tried to show they had some brains.

So you are saying that a new publication, a new article, is considered a post?

Alright. I will click the button and see what happens.

I disagree with the term post applied to new articles, but this may just be a mental shortcoming of the programmers.

I can't tell if the trolls are actually devolving or just resigned and not making any effort...

Sir Hubert Mcmoron

Actually, there is more than one option.

E.G.
One; Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Which is what you get if someone comments in a post (a new topic by Orac is termed a post while replies are termend comments) you have already commented in. I.E. Comments following on from yours.

Two; Notify me of new posts by email. Which is what you get any time Orac posts on a new topic and before anyone has yet replied or commented.

If the above is too complicated I'll see if I can get my 5 year old godson to explain it to you in crayon.

I see the trolls are already out in force on this one, and that their understanding of the notification check boxes is no better than their understanding of vaccination issues. There are two check boxes (actually three, but one of them is a duplicate) for notification: one for follow-up comments on a particular post, and one for subsequent posts by the same blogger. The former applies for a given comment thread only. The latter applies for any subsequent post by the blogger.

To the post topic: The question is how effective this film will be at persuading the people who aren't already firmly anti-vax but aren't as aware of the issues of most of this blog's non-troll commenters. Of course the documentary will push the producer's and director's point of view.

The last documentary that I saw in a theater, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, had a point of view as well (and also featured Moore prominently). But I don't think it convinced anybody who wasn't already sympathetic to Moore's premise that W was asleep at the switch regarding potential Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in the US, or that the attack was used as a pretext to go to war against Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks. The film was released in 2004, several months before the election, and W was re-elected.

I haven't seen Vaxxed (and given my low tolerance for weapons-grade stupid, will take Orac's word for it that there is a lot of it in this film), so I won't guess whether it is more effective than Fahrenheit 911.

Yes. Be aware if you click the "Notify me of new POSTS" button, you won't get an email until tomorrow, most commonly. It's extremely rare for Orac to put up a new post more than once a day or on weekends. Not that it hasn't happened, but it is rare.

If you click "Notify me of Follow-up COMMENTS" button, you may get a deluge of emails, depending on how comments on this POST come.

As for the movie: I haven't seen Vaxxed. I won't see it unless it's free, and I can screen it in my own house where I can scream and throw stuff at the TV. I really dislike dishonesty, and the splicing of Mr Thompson's comments that Bigtree and Wakerfraud did angers me no end. And I'd REALLY like them to look at my family, where we have (undiagnosed, probable) family members with ASD and autism going back many generations. I have more family stories of the "weird" cousins who had trouble in school, married VERY late in life, were "so very intelligent but so naughty", who had to live their lives according to a very regimented schedule. And we're talking back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Can't blame the vaccines!

I fully understand now.

I disagree with the term, but I understood before your insulting explanation.

I just found it odd how the most notorious pro-vaccine bloggers somehow found this article, sorry post, within minutes of its' publication.

Where is the Notify me of John Phillips' death via E-mail button?

@ Sir Hubub McCarrion Nth--I doubt you understand much of *anything* given your postings.

Big words for a reptile.

If you don't understand the ambiguity of the word post, then you are partially exonerated

You are cold-blooded Chris Hickie.

... Christ, could you guys actually comment on the article / post's content instead of nitpicking on the timing of a commenter and the use of a button ?

People claim to have been hurt by vaccines, and you making a mockery out of that.

I'll read the article when I sober up. Good night.

@ Sir Hubert Mcmoron. P.S. adding a new topic to a blog is commonly referred to as posting. Hence the oft used abbreviation in comments or replies, OP, standing for Original Poster or Original Post and referring to either the author that started this particular topic thread or the post that did. Context will usually help differentiate betwee the two in a reply or comment. E.G. 'the OP is obviously well read...' obviously refers to the poster, while 'the OP is well written...' refers to the post itself.

P.P.S. as to a death to John Phillips button, not only a moron but a nasty bit of work with it. However, no doubt you will be disappointed to learn that far better than you have wanted the same yet I'm still here.

Sir Hubert McCarrison III, R.P. McMurphy, Alfred Huxley, "De Niro," Del Monte, WeberShandwick, and HillandKnowlton (at least) are sock puppets. That is a bannable offense, and the ban hammer is hereby brought down. Clearly, I haven't been paying enough attention to the comments, to allow one commenter to take so many sock puppets over the last few days. Sorry about that.

This is curious how Dorit Reiss commented to this article within minutes of its' publication. She must be somehow allied with the publisher. This is the only logical conclusion.

Or she could simply have observed my posting patterns and divined that I very commonly post at 3 AM Eastern time. She's in California; so that's midnight there.

The anti-science crowd... quantity over quality, every time.

@Orac: Thanks. I wondered if some were socks but didn't realize all of them were.

What I can't understand is how parents are so willing to exploit their children as the parents in the movie do. There is no amount of money for which I would allow someone to film my child on a bad day and put it into a movie. And to show all bad with no good...I don't get it. Are they claiming their child NEVER has a good day, that they never enjoy being with that child? (PGP, I already know your answer, please don't respond.)

You can't debate (as usual with AVers) regarding Vaxxed. If you haven't seen it, you are not worthy to comment. If you have seen it, you cannot post anything critical of Vaxxed. Doing so results in immediate assignment by AVers to the categories of shill/baby killer/war criminal/nanobot swarm/etc. I'd sooner deal with a room full of melting down 3-year olds having a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.

Orac@49: Cheers for that. I hope the hammer made a satisfying squishy sound when it came down.

--
p.s. To all the altmed and antivax cretins who believe that pretending to be six different people makes their arguments six times more Truthy:

Oddly enough, that's not how honesty works!

All it does do is take whatever attention and credibility you might have gained and flush it so far down the sewer it will take the next million years just for it to crawl back out again. So are you sure you're not really highly-paid double-agents in secret employ of His Scaliness Lord Draconis himself? 'Cos you couldn't find an easier and quicker way to totally torpedo your entire cause if you tried. Brilliant job, keep it up!

MI Dawn@52: Considering all the other unspeakable torture and abuse such parents inflict on their own children in the name of MAKING THEM NORMAL, displaying them in this twisted Triump of the Will(ingly Mendacious) is small, small beans indeeed. Next to such unhinged lunatics, even the most deeply autistic child is a shining beacon of neurotypicality by comparison! Alas, I fear the only effective ABA for such far-gone nutbars is that which comes ready-wrapped round a large gold brick—and fuxxing Andy would just steal the brick first anyway.

In the end, only the full and hideous truth about what these people truly are will stop them: making everyone else in the world realize just how utterly perverted and twisted this poisoned cult of child abusers really is, and so end its influx of new blood for good. Mad props to all the shills and minions who really stand up for these kids, and may your unrelenting honest hard work yield the greatest reward of all (and I don't mean filthy checks either;p).

Chris Hickie@53: My personal favorite is when they reject all such criticisms as "Shooting the Messenger", while oddly forgetting to mention that Messenger, Message, and Source are all one and the same—Brilliants!!!!1!!

Oh, and don't feel bad: you folks were around way before us homeotherms arrived, and by looks of it you'll be around a lot longer afterwards too.

MI Dawn bemoans the poor quality of trolls at RI.

Oh I agree.
I had such hope that Jake would continue on at the other post but Alas!- he left. I suppose PGP was too much for him.

At any rate, he currently is lauding a monstrous, orange-hued political demagogue at his own blog.

I notice that some of the OTHER loons I survey support either the Orange One himself or a third party choice who will enable him to possibly ((shudder)) win.**
I know 538's Silver seems to think otherwise.

Don't forget, polls said Brexit wouldn't win either.

I need a drink.

** instant analysis:
they have high income and want low taxes/ low services.

Orac@49: Thanks. I wondered why there was such an onslaught of trolls this morning. I don't know if all of those pseudonyms are meaningful, but "HillandKnowlton" caught my eye: Wikipedia confirms my recollection that that was the name of a PR firm with a history of dubious clients (they now call themselves "Hill+Knowlton Strategies").

MI Dawn on her weird relatives:
"And we’re talking back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Can’t blame the vaccines!"

But of course we can - it was the smallpox vaccine. No one had oddball relatives before Jenner mucked things up.

@DB: Sorry to disabuse you, but the first person to be vaccinated in that family bunch was my great-uncle when he was drafted for WWI. No one before that (very small town Ohio) had the vaccine.

His youngest brother, my grandfather (by 16 years), often told the story of the town outcry when they heard about the vaccine. Apparently, they misunderstood what the vaccine did, and thought that the Army, for some reason, was giving all the draftees the smallpox disease, and it was a plot by the "Huns" to kill them all before they could go fight.

I wondered why there was such an onslaught of trolls this morning.

Worse, there are trolls who take advantage of the fact that even I require sleep to run wild while I'm sleeping. They're usually in far removed time zones and so are awake when I'm asleep, but sometimes they're just night owls. Whatever the reason, they know that, at the minimum, between the hours of around midnight and 5:30 AM, I'm not likely to see what they are posting.

Thank you for a well-presented critique of the [dis]information presented in this "documentary". Unfortunately, though, I suspect that - by critiquing it - there are those who will see this as "validation" that there is something to the whole AV movement. Alas, one cannot cure stupid.

Due to personal circumstances I have spent many years researching information about the Urabe mumps vaccine. During this time I have had to endure a significant number of individuals spreading misinformation and dodgy facts in an attempt to manipulate the Urabe 'story' into something it never was.This is entirely disingenuous to those who did suffer aseptic meningitis and lasting neurological conditions as a result of having received Urabe containing vaccines. To be absolutely clear, the Trivirix urabe containing MMR vaccine was withdrawn in Ontario following a circulated memo to healthcare practitioners on 18th July 1988 (Canada Diseases Weekly report November 19th 1988). Pluserix, the UK brand of Urabe containing MMR was granted it's product licence on 17th June 1988, a month BEFORE Trivirix was withdrawn in Ontario. It was not the same month as stated in the film.

What I can’t understand is how parents are so willing to exploit their children as the parents in the movie do.

I see has has channeled "the PGP comment" @55. Wicked Swiftian satire, perhaps? Let me offer another understanding:

Orac reports some of the most exploitative footage is of Tommey's son. For her, the ends justify the means. The way she's willing to have her son represented may not reflect the way she actually treats him. Any parents who aren't full-on AV partisans whose kids appear in Vaxxed almost certainly weren't willing to exploit their kids as the film does. They would have been recruited and interviewed under deceptive pretenses. (This is SOP in documentary, actually. Again, it's the specific context that makes these things either 'bogus' or 'OK'.) The clips that appear in the film will have been 'cherry picked' from hours of raw footage

Filmmakers use the term 'shooting ratio', which means the time length of all the raw footage over the total run time of the finished piece. In the video era, that will run between 30:1 and 120:1 for a documentary.

'Regular people' who appear in documentaries tend to view the finished works through their own biaes. If the maker shows them the film before release, they almost always say, 'yes that's a fair depiction of me', no matter how they've been portrayed. They don't see the subtleties created by editing. What often happens is the films get seen in public, the people on screen get some kind of coverage they don't like, and then turn on the filmmakers, accuse them of exploiting them and lying, disowning the film. This happens with great films, not just trash. Given that the published reviews have not criticized the way the ASD are portrayed, and the reviewers have mainly just expressed sympathy for the parents, any of them who aren't Tommey-ites just won't see how Bigtree et. al. have used them.

Which is not to say they're all great parents. It's just to say Vaxxed won't give an accurate take on their everyday relationships with their kids. The kids may have good days, and the parents may have rewarding times with their kids. There may be actualities of the good days/rewarding interactions, and substantive stretches of interview footage where the parents talk about them.

In short, you're not seeing the parents or kids, you're seeing a rhetorical construction made out of selected bits of their realities, all captured from some point of view that frames them in certain ways even before their edited. Which is all true in any documentary, regardless of how fair and noble the intent of the makers may be.

@ Prof. Reiss #9:

"His many comments on the topic don’t show understanding." And then you patiently and calmly try to explain the post notification system to a sock puppet who DOES know exactly how it works (how do you think he got here @ #3?). Such charming naivete! Dude understands the Web well enough to create multiple false identities, yet 'his many comments on the topic don’t show understanding'. Of course they don't. Its called 'trolling'.

Bigtree is a troll. Professionally. He's a 'creative' in the world of tabloid media, which we might as well call 'troll media'. If you were expecting higher-level wrong answers, you obviously haven't watched Nancy Grace, Geraldo, The Apprentice... or the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Selena Wolf@62: Not stupid. Stupid is fixable, given a willingness to learn (including learning how to learn). The antivax movement is very deliberately self-deceiving: a truckload of Dunning-Kruger tipped into a lake of motivated reasoning and all topped off with a toxic cult of personality bloom.

What's missing is not intelligence—without which such an expansive and resilient alt-reality couldn't be crafter—but any sort of ethics, intellectual integrity, or basic self-honesty; because all but the most evil acolyte wouldn't be able to stomach such malicious mendacity for long. And a belief without believers is nothing, just as these believers have long ceased to be anything except their belief.

That makes them a lot more dangerous, because as their beliefs—and thus their entire egos, status, and income—are backed into a corner, they can only become more vicious and unrestrained, because the thought of losing everything they have become, and being nothing, is utterly anathema. And while stupidity tends to be self-limiting in the scale and quantity of damage they can cause, intelligent people are restrained only by the size of their imagination and their willingness to discard even the most fundamental societal restraints in order to destroy their deadly foe before it destroys them. Look at Poland invading Germany; look at Daesh; look at the Lord's Resistance Army; look at Jim Jones.

To quote Steven Weinberg: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” And this anti-vax movement is religious extremism through and through.

sadmar@63: Not really in a Swift mood today. But while I may be ten times the misanthrope PGP will ever be, there are certain things which just push my buttons more than anything else; and allowing one's own desperate self-delusion to get to the point where it actively harms others positively mallets them.

Why? Because I know from first-hand experience the pain and damage my own desperate self-delusion has done to other people around me, and that is something I absolutely cannot accept or forgive of myself—and yet even that's nothing next to what these people have already done and continue do. So why should I bend over backwards to rationalize or excuse their actions when I absolutely refuse to do so for myself?

Now, if you can show evidence that any of these parents were not already way down the rabid hole of antivax, altmed, and autisim curebies, but were in fact completely duped as to the purpose and involvement of this film, then please bring it. Absent that, I see no reason to grant any of them any more benefit of the doubt, because after 20 years of this shit I do not believe any parent of an autistic child does not know more than enough about the entire autism ecosystem to recognize the difference between the Cult of Andrew and fucking reality.

Do not attribute to innocence and gullibility what can be more than adequately explained by motivated reasoning and depraved indifference to truth and morality. Not when other people's bodies and minds are on the line; least of all such frighteningly vulnerable kids.

What's up with the non-African American parents features in this film? Even Hooker's reanalysis showed no correlation for them...

Brian Deer@12

The bit that kills me is when Wakefield alters the content of the analysis plan. This is vintage Wakefield: he sees what he wants to see, and alters the content of document:

Thanks Brian. This is a great example. Plain old dishonesty (as opposed to the academic flavor) is something everyone can understand.

@Orac,

This heavily insolent review of Vaxxed was an easy speed- read and at times very funny (e.g., vaccine FUD).

Thanks for the one-of-a-kind Oracian perspective. :-)

Some are questioning your motives Madame Reiss.

No one of any importance is.

OT but are potentially actionable posts by Mikey's minions EVER truly OT @ RI?

I would think not.

SD Wells again attacks our most amiable, brilliant and magnanimous host at Natural News ( yesterday) by ( free) associating him with a convicted criminal doctor who lived/ worked in the same city.

Nothing new but interestingly, his sources include well-known news outlets AND ( obviously) Natural News in its many guises. Funny, how he lists those with the more respectable ones listed first.

It would be like listing NYT, BBC and prn.fm in the same breath.

@ sadmar # 65:

Professional troll. What a concept!
You're probably right.

Andrew Wakefield?

How about Andrew Fakefield!

God! Is't homeopathy stupid! Why don't all these anti-vaxxers eat a giant penis!

Right people???

@Dangerous Bacon #59:

But of course we can – it was the smallpox vaccine. No one had oddball relatives before Jenner mucked things up.

I used to live opposite the clinic where Jenner distributed his vaccine to the poor for free. 'Oddball' wouldn't begin to describe the behaviour of some of their descendants at that end of town...

DangerousAcorn...

Obvious troll is obvious.

"Right people???"

We are the right people. Thank you for noticing. You on the other hand appear to have a problematic self-image problem that you project onto us, and then seem confused when the results don't match your distorted perception. As noted by Johnny on another thread the sock drawer may indeed have been inadvertently left open.

People claim to have been hurt by vaccines, and you making a mockery out of that.

If you don't make fun of eedjits and their delusions, they'll never learn any better.

This is curious how Dorit Reiss commented to this article within minutes of its’ publication. She must be somehow allied with the publisher. This is the only logical conclusion.

I'm kind of surprised that, rather than arguing about radio boxes, nobody either made the simple observation that Daniel Corcos posted first or asked "how many minutes?"

Ah, but he got hung up in moderation for a while...

From the main article:Perhaps the unintentionally hilarious scene in VAXXED occurs near the end of the movie

There seems to be slightly ungrammatical. I am just trying to be helpful here.

I wonder how they created the photograph of the the smoke-filled syringe seen on the cover of the film "Vaxxed"? Perhaps Wakefeild drew it out of Hooker's plastic marijuana-smoke-filled-bong while Montagnier was taking a puff?

I makes you wonder?

@ has #67:

I'll have to see the thing before commented specifically on the parents not named Polly Tommey or Brian Hooker who appear in the film. You might find it hard to believe ASD parents don't know the scoop on AJW, but I know several of them and not a one of them have heard of Andy or have any real knowledge of anti-vax. I also know from first hand experience how easy it is for filmmakers to cloak their agendas, and get people to agree to appear in a film (you might ask Paul Offit about that, IIRC). And I know, again from firsthand experience on both sides of the camera, how far the way someone can appear in a film can be from who they really are, even when the filmmakers are earnest and ethical and doing-the-best they-can -- which Del certainly wasn't.

Again, think tabloid TV. Nancy Grace's staff has been able to sucker people who have no clue what they're in for onto her show for years on end. After one mom she grilled committed suicide with a gun in 2006, another mom got a similar treatment in 2012, went home, poured gasoline over herself, lit it off, and burned to death. And all this after the infamous incident in 1995 of the guy who so mortified that Jenny Jones introduced him on-air to someone with 'a secret crush' on him, who turned out to be a male friend, that he murdered his admirer after the show.

FWIW: When I started writing #6, there were no comments yet. I just happened to refresh a page and see the new post. I don't get any kind of notifications, and I'm sure Orac would be amused at the thought that the only logical conclusion from a time stamp on one of my comments would be that I'm one of his inner circle factotums (Daniel, too,methinks...).

But the troll knows that, and is just trying to bait and infuriate , derail the discussion, and clog up the bandwidth. Alas, the score in this game was Troll 10, Minions 0.

Yet VAXXED portrays a frenzied situation in the couple of years leading up to the publication of DeStefano et al in which, after the “race findings,” the co-investigators met weekly to try to figure out a way to bury the finding, ultimately resorting to leaving out the problematic data

This is one claim that never completely makes sense to me. If a powerful organization wanted to suppress a particularly damning bit of data over which they had exclusive control, why would they go ahead and publish anyway? The best way to keep news from getting out would be to not write scientific papers about the work. That they bothered to write a journal article, of all things, shows that they had no interest in subterfuge. If they were in the business of manufacturing a result, there's no reason to think they would do such a sloppy job at it --not like the CDC is under threat of publish or perish! If the article doesn't show what they *want* it to, they could just never submit it.

Ah, but viggen @82, you're thinking like a normal person, not like a conspiracy theorist. Therein lies the difference.

Thankfully it *is* the kind of argument that will sway some fence-sitters, sort of like how the "the Soviets watched the whole moon landing and totally would have called a fake" argument sways a lot of people (before they have to be punched by an octogenarian astronaut).

Matt Carey notes that Bigtree now seems to suggest murdering anyone who intends to protect you or your children from polio or measles or any other vaccine-preventable disease. Because vaccines.

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/07/19/del-bigtree-crosses-the-li…

DW:Hah! Jake and the Orange one deserve each other. Sadly, I think Nate Silver's wrong on this one. Trump will win. US citizens don't want parks, clean air, science, rights or immigrants anymore.

The economy's been bad for so long (in theory, I know it's in recovery, but no one who's earning under a million is seeing a penny of that recovery.), that everyone is looking for scapegoats, and as a result of Obergefell, they want blood. If you give rights to one minority group all the others are going to have fewer rights.

Now that Bigtree is calling on supporters to go for their weapons, I wonder how Congressman Chaffetz feels about allying himself with their cause.

I can see this sort of thing going over in parts of Idaho, but Utah should be a little more sane.

Despite Matt's statement that "this is no joking matter," I think that persistently asking Del what the hell the statement was supposed to mean could be extraordinarily entertaining.

This is not exactly the Panthers and Sacramento, and I tend to doubt that anyone is going to get more crazy-dangerous by virtue of Del Bigboote (who seemed to be sweating heavily)* pausing for effect in what was likely a rather tedious Q&A** while seated next to a bored-looking Tommey*** after a random Pittsburgh screening.

* I think he's on the stuff.
** No, I only watched the clip, not the whole thing.
*** I've seen that outfit before.

^ Right, not an actual sentence in that second paragraph. Please imagine "and issuing a call to arms" at the end.

BTW, Dorothy Spourdalakis's next court date is July 27. I have exactly no idea what's going on with this case. (Competence, maybe?) Apropos of Del, though, I have previously wondered whether any of the other actors would be interviewed by the police. My completely uninformed sense is that there's just not going to be a trial here.

Dangerous Bacon: I can see this sort of thing going over in parts of Idaho, but Utah should be a little more sane.

Hah!

@Mom #70:

I went to the bother of actually looking into those accusations. Just ever more boring "six degrees of Big Pharma" at play. Apparently you can't comment on health issues you have ever worked for or studied at a university that currently or formerly had a contract with a pharmaceutical company. So...every doctor and scientist ever.

I have never seen the antivaxxers come up with a reason their own prophets are forgiven for profiting from their activities.

I've always ignored the boxes at the bottom of the page since they say something about email and I already get quite enough of that, thank you very much. But even a bear of such little brain as myself know that Orac posts regularly and usually sets the posts to appear at midnight by my local time, so I frequently tune in then and find a fresh post to read with at most a few comments.

And what do you know? It's quarter past midnight and we've been blessed with a new post, which at the moment has just a single comment. I'm psychic!

"I’m psychic!"

Technically you're a rabbit playing a bugle, which is awesome enough as it is. Uncanny predictive powers are just a neat bonus.

Meantime, while minions here are still crawling to #100, the NotSoSecretOtherBlog is teetering on the 2000 mark(!) as we speak. Oh Insolence, why hast thou forsaken us? Even with the bulging sock drawer, that's no way to compete.

@has (95): Over here, we get fresh Insolence almost every day (weekends usually excepted, as our gracious host takes well-deserved time off). At the NSSOB, it's usually only once a week, so the comments here get more spread out (usually) between related posts.

In regard to Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Del Bigtree, and the movie "VAXXED", this quote from Rob Siltanen says it all:

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Kathy,

At least you didn't say changed the world for the better. Mr. Wakefield (he has no right to MD Dr.) has indirectly killed more people than most serial killers; Bigtree is inciting people to use firearms against others and the Vaxxed the vomitmentary will cause even people (yes, children are people) to be harmed.

that should be: more people

Kathy @97: Yup, they can sure change it for the worse!

Yes, Montagnier is not anymore France's best scientist. He thinks wrong ideas to make money. He has always been like this.

Real scientist puts science first and money second.

Hmmmm.
Some interesting details of Del Bigtwig's background just popped up from casual reading of the woo sites:
https://www.facebook.com/VaxXed/videos/737265776416464/
VaxXed August 18 at 5:44pm ·

Del's family!
#Vaxxed in Boulder
Unity of Boulder Spiritual Center
https://www.periscope.tv/teamvaxxed/1eaJbLjZDLRKX?

In the vid we get to meet Del's family -
His father, his mother, and a sister.
They run/own the Unity Church of Boulder: https://unityofboulder.com/
Note the winged sun symbol from ancient Egypt. I believe it is one of the Ra symbols.
Note one of the upcoming events - Sacred Feminine Circle.
Note a recent post by Norma Groverland, Del's mother: 5 Essential Oils You Need for Your Emergency Kit
Note a recent "sermon" by Jack Groverland, Del's father: The Master’s Yoga

The family: https://unityofboulder.com/about/staff/#.V707IjE0evs
Apparently the Unity Church is a New Age Church embracing various NuAge beliefs similar to The Secret, The Ra Material, etc.
They claim to be Christian but I think most Christians would balk at the concept.
http://www.unityworldwideministries.org/about
"Values
- Spirit-Led–We are centered in God. Spirit leads our thoughts and actions as we co-create a world that works for all."
Mmmm-hmmm. The NuAge concept that the believer is a co-God, co-creating reality (presumably by intention = wishing). Not a very Christian concept, but a firmly NuAge, SciFi, woo-woo concept.

So, to me, this explains Del's genesis into the world of woo. He grew up immersed in NuAge woo-woo.
He's just another crystal clutching NuAge kook.

News4 San Antonio, an NBC affiliate actively promoting the film DVD release having district attorney speak:

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/district-attorney-nico-lahood-say…

The false (im)balance of the news report last night about the science involved with infectious disease was a head shaker, incredulous. It had all of about ten seconds for a medical practitioner to explain the value of vaccines and why there was no CDC "cover-up".....versus 95% of the media time devoted to the political points needing to be scored by the attorney, and of course, promoting the release of the DVD for purchase.

The hilarity continues: Jake Crosby echoes Brian Hooker's claims that “The Man” has gotten to the “CDC whistleblower”

oracknows — Fri, 29 Apr 2016 07:00:58 +0000

The hilarity continues: Jake Crosby echoes Brian Hooker's claims that “The Man” has gotten to the “CDC whistleblower”

Three days ago, I noted a disturbance in the antivaccine Force.

Last night, I noticed that that disturbance continues.

The first time around, it was Brian Hooker, a biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine “epidemiologist” completed the circle of clueless conspiracy mongering, who was at the center of the disturbance. His conspira-woo tapped into the Dark Side of the Force by taking a conspiracy theory that the antivaccine movement has been flogging for nearly two years now (as hard as it is to believe, it started in August 2014!), a conspiracy known as the “CDC whistleblower” and bringing it full circle as a means of preparing the people who have believed it for what appears to be an imminent disappointment coming down the pike. He did that by claiming that “The Man” had gotten to the CDC whistleblower, who, if you believe Hooker, is on the verge of basically recanting his claims about vaccines by publishing a reanalysis of the dataset whose original analysis had created him in the first place.

I’ll back up a minute, for the benefit of newbies to this blog. I’ve explained who and what the CDC whistleblower is and how the story of William W. Thompson (the CDC scientist whose indiscretions led him to become known as the “CDC whistleblower”) became so popular in the antivaccine cranksophere many times, most recently here. The reason that the CDC whistleblower myth has resonated so strongly among members of the antivaccine movement is obvious. Taken at face value, saga seems to provide evidence to support to what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, namely that the CDC “knows” that vaccines cause autism, has evidence proving it, but has been covering up that evidence to protect...well, it’s never clear exactly who is being “protected,” but always pharmaceutical companies seem to be involved in some way.

This myth came to be as a result of Thompson having reached out to Brian Hooker, apparently to bitch and moan about his job, how he was not appreciated, and how his colleagues and coauthors on one specific study didn’t listen to his demands that an obviously spurious result suggesting a link between vaccines and autism in African American boys be included in an epidemiological study examining MMR vaccination as a risk factor for autism. Unfortunately, for Thompson, Hooker betrayed him by secretly recording their phone calls together and letting antivaccine guru Andrew Wakefield know he had a live one. Meanwhile, with Thompson’s guidance, Hooker “reanalyzed” the dataset (incompetently) and “found” in the unadjusted data the correlation he as looking for.

In any case, Thompson lawyered up and hasn’t been heard from, publicly at least, since September 2014. For the antivaccine movement, this has been a very good thing indeed, having the salutary effect of letting antivaccinationists attribute to Thompson any viewpoint they wish to impose on him. Certainly, they’ve done just that, using Thompson to claim falsely that the CDC has been “covering up” the link between the MMR vaccine in African-American boys, using that claim to sucker the Nation of Islam into protesting at the CDC with them last fall. For nearly two years, antivaccinationists have milked the CDC whistleblower story for all it’s worth. Fortunately, outside the antivaccine whackosphere, the story hasn’t resonated very much because it’s so obviously a conspiracy theory to most journalists (with the exception of Ben Swann, of course). Then, when all the documents that Thompson had given to Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) that supposedly revealed the coverup were released by Matt Carey, it turned out there was no there there; the documents showed no evidence of a conspiracy to cover up data anywhere to be found.

Then, for some reason, three days ago Brian Hooker pivoted from praising Thompson and using him as “proof” that the CDC has been covering up “smoking gun” evidence of a link between vaccines and autism to seemingly launching a pre-emptive attack on him for being a turncoat. In essence, Hooker claimed that that ”The Man” had gotten to Thompson. Not long after I discussed that development, Brian Hooker issued a press release:

Very recently, Mr. Richard Morgan, Esq., Dr. Thompson’s whistle blower attorney, stated that Dr. Thompson will be publishing a paper in May, 2016, where he will assert that the MMR vaccine is not linked to autism in African American males. Instead Dr. Thompson will state that socioeconomic factors alone in the African American community account for the original MMR-African American male “effect” (the effect that he is on record as stating the CDC purposefully hid). I have not been given access to Dr. Thompson’s reanalysis and therefore cannot comment regarding the forthcoming paper at this time. However, I am suspect of any analysis coming from the CDC due to the historic nature of the agency’s scientific misconduct and conflicts of interest specifically around any link between vaccines and autism.

I laughed out loud—seriously, I did—when I read this paragraph. If there is a single paragraph that distills the antivaccine mindset into about 130 words, it’s the paragraph above, specifically the part about how, even though Hooker has not been given access to Thompson’s reanalysis (if such an a reanalysis is even forthcoming) he is suspect of any analysis coming from the CDC. This is, of course, a stunning turnaround from Hooker’s conversations with Thompson that Hooker surreptitiously recorded, in which the two chatted back and forth like old buddies. Obviously, to Hooker, Thompson’s “recantation” can’t be due to his having decided that maybe he had perseverated too long on a spurious result and, to ease his mind, did the reanalysis and found no correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism in African-American mailes. It must be because nefarious forces in the CDC “got” to him.

As amusing as Hooker’s flailing was, he’s got nothing on his young Padawan, Jake Crosby, who seems to have become disillusioned with both Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker (although certainly less so about Brian Hooker), but has not become any less antivaccine than he ever was back in his Age of Autism days. You remember Crosby, don’t you? I used to take it easy on him because back in the day I felt it unseemly to beat up too much on an autistic teenager and hoped that he might someday find his way out of the antivaccine quackhole that he had found himself in. For instance, when he wrote about his silly conspiracy theory about ScienceBlogs, I largely shrugged, referred to him as a “crazy mixed up kid,” and offered him some fatherly advice, given that I am indeed old enough to be his father.

Even when he lied about me, claiming I had an undisclosed conflict of interest in my research into the drug riluzole. It was a lie that led to an attempt by antivaccinationists to get me fired and, six years later, was regurgitated by Mike Adams (and, to be fair, others) in his recent torrent of abuse aimed at me. These days, Crosby is old enough that he no longer rates any consideration when he attacks me or spews antivaccine misinformation; so I treat him basically the same way I treat most hard core antivaccinationists, enjoying when he turned on his creators, betraying their trust by publishing private e-mails resulting in a massive falling out with the AoA/SafeMinds contingent of the antivaccine movement.

Six years after Crosby’s broadside against me, I think I’ve found my best revenge, and it comes from being able to laugh heartily at Crosby himself. Basically, Crosby’s written one of the silliest, dumbest things I’ve ever read on the Internet. It’s a demand, a hilarious demand:

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.

And:

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: pnas@nas.edu, Phone: 202-334-2679.

Yes, you read that right. Crosby is demanding the retraction of a paper that hasn’t even been published yet, a paper that might not even exist. Even more hilariously, he is demanding that retraction of a journal where the paper (if it even exists) might or might not be scheduled to be published. This is, without a doubt, one of the most risible things I’ve ever seen, and I fully expect that Crosby’s “demand” will be roundly ignored; that is, if anyone who has any actual knowledge of what the hell he’s talking about actually sees Crosby’s ranting, which is unlikely. One has to wonder how someone could go through a graduate program in epidemiology and not manage to understand a bit about how academic journals and academic publishing work. I laughed at Crosby. Hard.

My amusement aside I must confess that I don’t quite know what is going on here. The best guess that I can come up with is that Brian Hooker has been in contact with someone who claims to know that Thompson is the co-author on some sort of “reanalysis” of the data used for the 2004 paper that concluded that the MMR vaccine is not correlated with an increased risk of autism or autism spectrum disorders. How he got that information, who knows? Is Hooker’s information correct? Again, who knows? Will the article be published in PNAS? Again, who knows? I tend to doubt it. It used to be pretty much impossible to be published in PNAS if you don’t have a member of the National Academy of Sciences either as a co-author or a sponsor of your article. It’s true that, in response to complaints about how NAS members used to use PNAS as a dumping ground for results they couldn’t publish elsewhere and would sponsor questionable papers written by their buddies, the rules have changed to tighten up peer review such that it is no longer the preferred method to have an NAS member-contributed track. (At least, that’s what the website says; I don’t really believe it.) Even so, it’s still still pretty difficult to be published in PNAS. What member of the National Academy of Sciences would sponsor such a paper, anyway?

In any case, I do rather suspect that something is coming in May, some bit of news that antivaccinationists won’t like, be it a statement from Thompson or a paper in which Thompson and co-authors conclude there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I can hardly wait, because I just love the taste of antivaccinationist tears of unfathomable sadness:

oracknows Fri, 04/29/2016 - 03:00

Tags

Pseudoscience

Quackery

http://www.amazon.com/Master-Manipulator-Explosive-Embezzlement-Governm…

"On record" is an interesting choice of words, since the record in question consists of illicit recordings which have been recorded and edited without the subject's knowledge, consent or confirmation of accuracy. One wonders if Hooker is in conversation with messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne.

PNAS? For a "reanalysis"?

No.

Crosby is demanding the retraction of a paper that hasn’t even been published yet, a paper that might not even exist. Even more hilariously, he is demanding that retraction of a journal where the paper (if it even exists) might or might not be scheduled to be published.

Maybe Crosby thinks the paper doesn't actually exist either, and is planning to claim victory over the CDC when it isn't published in May.

Too Machiavellian? I wouldn't be so sure.

In a post just before this one, Jake includes a video in which he "humiliates" ( his words, CERTAINLY not mine) BMJ editor, Dr Godlee.

Jake is a doctoral candidate in epi? What's the world coming to these days?

@ Guy Chapman:

To make Hooker's tale even more hilarious, he supposedly drove from California ( he's in the north so it's not as bad) to Oregon so he record legally.

There's a lot to unpack here. Start with this:

Very recently, Mr. Richard Morgan, Esq., Dr. Thompson’s whistle blower attorney, stated that Dr. Thompson will be publishing a paper in May, 2016, where he will assert that the MMR vaccine is not linked to autism in African American males.

There are legitimate back-channel ways of finding out that a paper is making its way through the publication process, but through a scientist's lawyer is not one of them. Morgan is bound by attorney-client confidentiality. So either Morgan is behaving unethically, or Hooker is putting words in his mouth. That's assuming that Morgan knows about the alleged paper, which is reasonable but not necessarily true.

Then you have Crosby's claims and demands. He claims to know that Offit has something to do with the publication of this paper, that Offit is writing a commentary to accompany the paper, what journal is involved, and that a Michael Blank is a co-author on the study. Again, how does he know these things? There are reasons why medical researchers don't have something comparable to the arXiv in physics, and some of them are good reasons (e.g., you want an editor/reviewer to make sure you aren't inadvertently violating HIPAA in your manuscript). Crosby would have to have a source in the editorial department of the journal to know these things, if indeed they were true.

If there actually is such a paper, then an appropriate response from the journal would be to refer Crosby to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram.

Jake say: "Never mind that the significant risks found were in children who received the vaccine in the 12-18 month age group,..."

Oops

@James Lind

Don't go pointing out Jake's factual errors. He might actually surreptitiously correct his mistake without actually acknowledging that he got it wrong.

Oops. Ok, I will just chuckle in that case. Here is a clear case that even specialized training, much like the MMR, is not 100% effective.

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.

Does anyone have a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean? I understand "comes with a steep price" but the rest is gibberish.

"Jake is a doctoral candidate in epi? What’s the world coming to these days?"

Anyone with grades and cash can get into a doctoral program of any kind and not really know what is going on. Then you do the work and give the answers that professors want to hear, and you get the grades. The real test comes in what you do with that degree. If a Jake Crosby, PhD, ever does anything worthwhile in public health, I will eat my hat.

Eat. My. Hat.

Right now, it looks like a cushy job punching STATA code at one of the Geiers' homes business headquarters in Florida is the best he can hope for. In my opinion, no self-respecting health department or agency (where the real epidemiology work is done) with an actual mission to the public would touch his analyses of anything vaccine related. I wouldn't.

@Skeptico

Does anyone have a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean?

Apparently Jake can't wrap his head around the fact that in order to receive special education services, the children would have had to have been vaccinated. No vaccine, no enrollment. This leads to the very likely explanation that those AA children who were vaccinated late probably were vaccinated because they were diagnosed with autism and their parents wanted special ed. services for them.

But, of course, Jake is a True Believer and thus, it's always the vaccines.

Don't forget the esteemed journalist Sheryl Attkinson is helping fuel the conspiracy fires....

Ren@11: "I will eat my hat."

Be careful what you say. Ace Boy Reporter Bluebottle Crosby will take one look at your profile pic and declare himself victorious; that's how frighteningly sharp he is.

@ Skeptico

Does anyone have a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean?

Jake is trying to summarize his "smoking gun" argument put is tripping over his own words.
Let me unpack, as I understand it:

CDC/Offit version:
1 - there are social disparities among Afro-american families, leading to autism under-diagnosis and vaccination delay (in other words: there are poor people, a lot of them Black people, who can not afford to bring their newborn child to a pediatrician as often as rich people, so things get delayed)
2 - when these poor families do manage to bring their child to a physician because the child is non-verbal, or something similar, that visit results in autism diagnosis
3 - at some point during the visit, the backlog of vaccination is noticed and taken care of.
Hence, autism diagnosis "results" in vaccination

Jake's version:
1 - a scientist has claimed that vaccination was caused by autism (not quite so, but who cares)
2 - as everybody knows, autism is caused by vaccination, so, since autism follows vaccination, then the diagnosis of autism has to follow vaccination as well (that's the "autism diagnoses likely made after vaccination" part)
3 - CDC scientists are just big liars in the face of Truth

The logical weakness in Jake's step 2 should be glaring.
Something about circular reasoning. Or assuming.

Oh, Todd W. beat me to the explanation, and better than me - I didn't realize about vaccination being mandatory before enrollment.

Hooker said "I am suspect of any analysis coming from the CDC"

Obviously then, he should have ignored the original finding of a correlation involving a subset of black male children and autism, in the paper on which Thompson was a co-author.

"You can't trust the CDC" cuts both ways.

Hey Orac, I think you forgot to mention how Crosby turned on his masters at "Age of Autism" and triggered what I think is an enduring schism within the anti-vaxxer movement. I don't think Crosby has any more real friends in the movement -- maybe no friends at all. Which, given his behavior, serves him right.

@Helianthus

You hit upon one aspect that I missed: docs noticing the lack of vaccinations during the autism evaluation visit. Of course, if the doctor suspects autism, but is not properly qualified to make the diagnosis themselves, they may refer the child to a specialist, but still do the immunization catch-up at the same visit. Since the official diagnosis follows the vaccination, it must mean that the vaccine caused autism, even though signs and suspicions were present beforehand...at least in the anti-vaccine activist's mind.

Newcomers to RI should note that Jake used to comment here frequently several years ago. Many of us tried to directly inform him of his errors and criticise his odd way of viewing the world because as educated adults, we would like to assist young students who are being led astray intellectually by charlatans and mountebanks

Personally, I attempted to *reason* with him about two aspects of his Shtick :
- I asked how likely is it that a gigantic worldwide conspiracy exists involving thousands of doctors, researchers and governmental officials over decades? Is that more likely than ONE guy fixing data?
- I questioned if he believed that his views on vaccination would be damaging in his future search for employment in the health field. Wouldn't his internet activities and opinions work against him?

He was adamantly opposed to my point of view and IIRC made a remark about evil psychologists or suchlike.

So Jake's been around and he doesn't like us.
He also tried to get ;Someone We Know' fired.
Actually two of them.

Does anyone have a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean?

My take is different from Todd W.'s. I think Crosby was falling into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and garbled the words. He presumably meant to say that the vaccines caused the autism and the autism diagnosis came later, which would be logically consistent but factually wrong.

Then again, there may be something to Todd's interpretation. Lots of poor and working class people don't get their kids vaccinated on schedule because of various barriers (insurance, ability to schedule appointments, etc.). And the vaccine schedule is spread out over many years, so that many vaccines would be routinely given to children who have been diagnosed as autistic. But that doesn't explain the "vaccination was caused by autism diagnoses" part of the sentence.

Hahahahaha, you made them eat their parents.

Too bad there won't be a, "That's all folks!" at the end of this episode.

@Denice Walter

I, too, tried to reason with Jake about how his online activities might affect his future employability. He chose to take it as a threat, that I would somehow sabotage his employment prospects, rather than that I was trying to advise him that employers might not look too favorably on his online rantings.

@Eric Lund

I don't think Jake got his words garbled at all, at least not in the way you suggest. He was talking about Offit's comments (which mirror the DeStefano explanation) that the diagnosis of autism probably led to the children getting vaccinated (whether because the doctors noticed they weren't up to date or because they were required for school entry). He's essentially scoffing at the "autism causes vaccines" claim that no one ever made (other than AVers).

Skeptico (#10) says,

Does anyone have a clue what that sentence is supposed to mean?

MJD says,

Deep passion and concern from Mr. Crosby.

@ Orac,

Most hilarious introduction..

@Guy #1
"messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne"
Here in Boston we have Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

I'm of the opinion that this is much ado about nothing. Or rather much ado about a lie Hooker is telling. I expect May to come and go with not a peep from Thompson.

My guess is this is a bid to keep the conspiracy train rolling after Vaxxed brought renewed attention to the fact of Thompson's continued silence. This advances the stale narrative and keeps the faithful from thinking on an inconvenient point for too long.

Hooker and co can make sh!t up freely because when May passes without a word from Thompson this will simply be forgotten by the masses and the leaders will move on to new lies to keep the audience engaged.

However, I am suspect of any analysis coming from the CDC due to the historic nature of the agency’s scientific misconduct and conflicts of interest specifically around any link between vaccines and autism.

That's rich from Brian "physically incapable of disclosing financial COIs" Hooker.

Isn't it Cambridge (our fair city!)?

Minions of the Vaccine Deep State* beware: even if Thompson has been bought off in order to have him refute his "whistleblower" claims, the CDC cannot escape the consequences of its evil actions.

Next month, an explosive sure-to-be-bestseller will blow the lid off the machinations at the CDC, penned by a Freelance Journalist, with introduction and foreword by two of our foremost medical watchdogs, RFK Jr. and Sharyl (My Computer Is Haunted) Attkisson.

They thought they could get away with covering up for Poul Thorsen - but they were wrong! This book will be an IED in the bowels of our corrupt government; when it goes off, you better be wearing a raincoat and facemask.

*The Vaccine Deep State is the clever appellation given to the Pharma-CDC-Lizardati-Offit-Oracian Conspiracy by the author.

@ DB:

Oh, Dangerous One. isn't Kennedy doing a book with Dachel?

"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."

I took this to mean Crosby was claiming a large payoff was required to get Thompson to parrot Offit. But he incorrectly paraphrased Offit, using "after" when he should have said "before."

Isn’t it Cambridge (our fair city!)?

The offices are in Harvard Square, yes. But that's only four subway stops from downtown Boston--about two miles. And most people who call the freeway between Dedham and Lynnfield "I-95"[1] wouldn't care about the difference.

[1]It technically is I-95, but calling it that is as sure a sign as pronouncing your final R's that you're "not from around heah". Locals always call it Route 128. There's a long story behind that--Google "Boston inner belt" for the full story.

The offices are in Harvard Square, yes. But that’s only four subway stops from downtown Boston–about two miles.

FWIW, It's 3.5 miles from Hahvahd Square to the Union Oyster House if you go down Cambridge St.

@ Todd W:

Sounds about par for the course.

I vaguely recall him likening me to N-zis/ similar because I remarked that we didn't study much about Bettelheim in graduate school.

Actually, very little about autism in master's / doctoral level studies in the 1980s. I suppose that that was because it was before the 'epidemic'.( =btw- clinical AND experimental).

BUT Jake and co don't believe in diagnosis substitution at all.

Mr. Richard Morgan, Esq., Dr. Thompson’s whistle blower attorney

In English usage, you can style yourself "Mr So-and-so", or "So-and-so Esq.", but using both is on a par with "Sir So-and-so (Kt)".
Perhaps things are different among US lawyers, but even so this duplicated title is causing me physical pain.

One of my favorite professors many years ago (way to many now) stated: All a degree means -- BS is literate, MS is more literate, PhD is most literate but not how much you know. It is obvious that Jake Crosby fits this to a T.

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:

The subsequent sentence takes this exercise in bumptious cansorious asshattery to new heights:

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: http://publicationethics.org/contact-us

Once his readers have finished stalking Thompson, contacting him through his employers, and harassing a journal, Jake wants them to dob that journal in to COPE.

Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?

@hdb

Not only that, but he got Mr. Morgan's name wrong. It isn't "Richard", it's "Rick" as in "Frederick". Yet another factual error by the boy wonder.

I thought Skyhorse was a teeny weeny vanity press devoted to anti-vax nuttery. The hideous layout of 'Vaccine Whistleblower' just screamed 'posers here!'" But checking DB's link I wondered what all they'd published... and was surprised to find it's a general list house "with books on sports, flyfishing, nature and history a central part of [its] program". plus "narrative nonfiction, military history, gambling and business titles." It publishes a shelf of JFK assassination CT books, but also seems to have some pro-neuro-diversity titles amongst the anti-vax screeds.

The publisher is Tony Lyons. I put his name in the RI search box, and got no hits. Anybody know what's up with this guy, why the AVs have found a home among the flyfishing books at this publishing house?

One can't get a PhD at a real school w/o knowing a lot, and working like a dog, often for a very long period of poverty. But most doctoral candidates collect and process knowledge within a very narrow lane of expertise. Outside of that, the may be abysmally ignorant. And as long as they keep their wacky ideas out of the lane (or in the trunk of the car) they can progress to the degree w/o them getting in the way. I've known some solid PhD students who were batpoop bonkers about something or other outside their specialization. Any number of public figures pushing bizarre ideas have PhD, but usually if you check what they did for their dissertations, the works are subdued, narrow, academic, with naught but hints of the flames to come.

I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to go around using "odds" and "risk" as synonyms in an epi context. (They mean similar things but are calculated differently and that difference is important.)

Anybody know what’s up with this guy,

See the discussion starting here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/22/robert-f-kennedy-jr-still-…

Lord Draconis makes an appearance later in the thread.

...often for a very long period of poverty.

But not when you have mommy and daddy bankrolling the whole thing.

I suspect that Jake will be a student as long as his parents are alive. After he gets his PhD, I wouldn't be suprised if he enters the UT law school (because, why not?).

Just think - he'll be a lawyer and a doctor. He will bring the whole Vaccine Deep State to its knees.

@ capnkrunch #27

I hate to give them ideas but I imagine this is already on their back burner just in case and if it doesn't come out as claimed Hooker will claim that Thompson found more proof that vaccines cause autism or something and was prevented from publishing by the CDC or big pharma's jack booted thugs in black helicopters. I do hope I'm not getting my conspiracies mixed up.,

@KeithB and othahs,
I didn't expect such detailed knowledge of Our Fair City.
Happy to know that so many of Orac's minions are familiar with the area! Boston and environs are great fun.

@ sadmar :

We know about Tony Lyons- he's in NYC:
he supports belief in vaccines-autism and thus, prints books by AoA stalwarts, TMs, AJW and RFK jr- there is a separate line for Gary Null tomes.

Tony was married and had a daughter with autism: his ex-wife, ( she has a Scandinavian patronymic name) wrote a book about their daughter, Lina; Tony wrote books with AoAers like Kim and at least one other person.

I imagine that some of his other lines of books earn money.
I truly wonder how much these specialities make.

( For a partial listing, look at AoA columns around Christmas because book suggestion are shown- mostly Skyhorse)

@ MikeMa:

I love the place.
We also sometimes leave off our Rs here in [redacted]

Even so, it’s still still pretty difficult to be published in PNAS. What member of the National Academy of Sciences would sponsor such a paper, anyway?

They seem to be adopting the clickbait "churnalism" paradigm of publishing off-the-wall speculations and sending out press releases to the media, along with lists of suggested headlines, secure in the knowledge that none of the journamalists will pay the access fee to check that the text of the paper backs up the press release.

Hence the recent bafflegab about insects having midbrains and consciousness:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/13/1520084113.abstract

Thanks for the Lyons refs, hdb & Denice. It seems he's the perfect publisher for anti-vax, as his personal experience (severely autistic daughter—>broken marriage), background (well-off family, Waldorf school), and professional skills all fit together:

I have always been involved in niche publishing, which means publishing to a distinct population—fisherman, golfers, Minecrafters, Lego enthusiasts, homesteaders, science-fiction readers, political junkies, etc. We want to have a terrific sense of the target audience and the more specialized, the more well-defined, the better... If you know of some underserved niche that is crying out for books, I’d love to hear from you.

So he's probably both pursuing a genuine personal interest, AND making money from the well-defined AV niche.

In other vax news, today's San Francisco Chronicle published a rather credulous and enthusiastic review of "Vaxxed" by its usual movie critic, Mick LaSalle. I'd hoped the film would die quietly, but not so - of course, parts of the Bay Area are a hotbed of antivax activity. Mick does say that the movie was directed by "Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist whose findings in this area have been largely discredited by the medical community", but too politely fails to mention that Wakefield was struck off for fraud, etc., etc. Unfortunately the story on-line seems to be behind a paywall, or I'd link it.
And on The Poxes Blog on Monday, Reuben posted "Need a laugh? Read this anti-vax lawsuit." (https://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/need-a-laugh-read-this-an…) with a link to what seems to be the first lawsuit filed against California's new vaccination law - filed by an attorney in Las Vegas. Several of the commentators here have dropped by, but perhaps not everyone has seen it.

"Unfortunately the story on-line seems to be behind a paywall..."

That's a feature, not a problem. Paywalls ensure that next to no one will ever see that article. I've been thinking of using paywalls to safeguard us from nuclear waste. They're almost foolproof.

@Derek Freyberg. I'm not a lwayer nor do I play one on the Interwebs, but even I can see that lawsuit is junk and any half decent judge is likely to rip the lawyer a new one, iat least if they can stop giggling long enough.

He also tried to get ;Someone We Know’ fired.
Actually two of them.

Speaking about that, in both case, this was over a or a few blog post(s) and in one case that I remember one of them having to censor his blog posting because of work requirement. If that particular blogger had to apply for a PhD in order to enjoy his free speech, can there be tort lawsuit over Jake's shenanigans?

Paging Dr. Reiss please ;)

Alain

Mick LaSalle's brief review of 'Vaxxed' has been re-posted at AoA, where Anne Daschel harrumphs (excerpted):

Mick LaSalle still doesn’t have it right, is still missing the point of the movie. No Mick LaSalle, this isn’t a film about not getting the MMR,, as you seem to think. Seriously...IT’S ABOUT FRAUD… CORRUPTION… COVER-UP… AT THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL Did LaSalle watch the same film that I did? Wasn’t he at all concerned about the statements made by William Thompson about what is going on at the CDC?

Damn MSM, they just won't learn!

All a degree means — BS is literate, MS is more literate, PhD is most literate but not how much you know.

The alternative version: You know what B.S. stands for. M.S. means "More of the Same" and Ph.D. means "Piled Higher and Deeper".

That, too, fits Crosby to a T.

All of the hoopla surrounded "Vaxxed" can't disguise the fact that not only did Thompson not appear in the film, but he has refused to comment on it. Perhaps Hooker is doing some damage control to try and head off embarrassing questions.

@shay simmons: "not only did Thompson not appear in the film, but he has refused to comment on it"

Presumably due to strict orders from his lawyer to shut his yap and stop digging. That he's successfully doing so is perhaps an indication that he's not beyond learning or self-correction, or at least now is satisfied that he has the ear of his employer which is what he was really after.

It also reinforces the original hypothesis of an unhappy person and dysfunctional employee lashing out haphazardly against colleagues for some actual or perceived snub, rather than someone who's bought into the anti-vax self-martyring movement. Had it been the latter, he'd have been incapable of staying shtum more than five minutes before blowing his lot completely, and by now would've been both firmly out of his old CDC job and nice set up as the newest and most beloved high priest of the Church of the Sainted Andy.

It doesn't really matter to Hooker and Wakefield now anyway: they've already got all they needed out of him - inviolable Articles of Faith that shall stand now for all eternity - and anything else he might say in future can only reinforce that further, either by confirming [their interpretation of] what he's already said (unlikely) or by confirming [their claim of] the vast malicious conspiracy that's now gotten to him too.

@ Dangerous Bacon

Next month, an explosive sure-to-be-bestseller will blow the lid off the machinations at the CDC

Again?
They said it already last month.
And the month before.
...
And last year.
...
And five years ago.
...

Maybe they should stop blowing the lid off and give it a chance to crash down.
That, or they have a big box of pétards mouillés.

They can't help it, they're stuck in an infinite loop with them hoping, this time, definitely this time. Or next time, definitely next time, ad infinitum.

"They said it already last month.
And the month before.
…
And last year.
…
And five years ago."
One is reminded of the fictional English schoolboy Billy Bunter, who was eternally convinced that his father had sent a postal order for money to him. Needless to say, said postal order never arrived.

Orac writes,

...given that I am indeed old enough to be his father.

Quote:

There are older and fouler things than Oracs in the deep places of the world. - Gandolf

shay simmons@56

Perhaps Hooker is doing some damage control to try and head off embarrassing questions.

That's pretty much what I've been saying all along. Although I think it's more about placating the faithful because they will simply ignore uncomfortable questions from the outside. What they can't have is the horde stopping to think long enough to come up with those questions on their own. And so more lies are piled on to advance the conspiracy.

I think this whole thing is 100% pure BS cooked up by Hooker likely with help from Wakefraud. The AVers are so indoctrinated that they will not (can not?) question it when May passes and it becomes clear that Hooker is lying through his teeth.

As John Phillips said in #47 at that point they'll just make up more sh!t. I imagine there's parallels between this behavior and that of cult leaders...

And speaking of "100% BS cooked up"...

Usually, I alert readers to an Olmsted's weekly ( fish) wrap
HOWEVER he has, of late, been discussing polio: seriously, it's difficult to read - and I've read volumes of nearly, impossibly unreadable stuff , some reality-based, others not- and it goes on and on - three sections so far- it is almost in the same league as Gamondes but without oddball illustration THANKFULLY.

At any rate, Dan believes that he can have insight into illnesses that scientists- including epidemiologists and physicians- haven't fathomed in 100 bloody years. Who can ever forget his forays into the explication of 'hysteria' or into autism itself?

Jake at Autism Investigated calls AoA a "crazy place run by crazy people". Right, I agree but he used it as a platform for a long time. Why didn't he quit?

Last, and certainly not least ( as alreadyI mentioned Jake) , Mike Adams presents a three-part video about vaccination-
same old crap, different packing:
doctors are indoctrinated, it's not real science ( as if he would know), vaccines cause death, on and on:
mercifully, the first segment stopped playing after a few minutes, I saw the second IN FULL and couldn't bother with the last.

In my investigations of Lord Draconis, I wound up at the pharma forums on davidicke.com. Maybe half (?) of the Ickean's comments referenced Mike Adams. The son of the Godhead himself reposts Adams's' 'article' from NN from time to time.

Jake obviously was originally taken in by AoA at first. Only over time did he come to realize it was a false flag operation, and that Dan, Anne, and Kim are actually Reptillians.

What is a machination, and why does it have a lid?
Does only the CDC have them? Can I get one too??

Oh sadmar, that's not a very nice thing to say about reptilians! Hey, what did they ever do to you/

"What did reptillains ever do to you?"

You know the answer, Denice.

They never send us those checks.

At any rate, Dan believes that he can have insight into illnesses that scientists- including epidemiologists and physicians- haven’t fathomed in 100 bloody years.

It's also coming pretty late in the game.

@ Narad:

Oh I know.

-btw-
What I do for sceptics.. I so excellent

I watched Mikey's third video - all 28 minutes!!!
a few highlights ;
at 15 minutes in :
war.. nature of vaccine supporters...
"creatures in human form" Darth
at 21-22 minutes:
if you look into Bill Gates's eyes you see......
also about Drs O and G
at 26 minutes:
Jedi...the Divine... love, life, light
we've already won."

WAW**

** what a wanker

"The AVers are so indoctrinated that they will not (can not?) question it when May passes and it becomes clear that Hooker is lying through his teeth.'

Two options then.

1) Triumphantly boast that revealing the sinister CDC plot has embarrassed the agency into backtracking, and preening about how nothing gets past the vigilance of antivaxers, or

2) Move on to the next conspiracy theory pretending the first did not crash and burn. Sort of like those quackery website bozos who issue year-end predictions of ghastly end-times scenarios which never come to pass.

Making failed doomsday predictions has never come back to haunt supplement dealers and their allies. The faithful marks will panic anew at the next set of alarums, sending e-mails (and more importantly) money to their fearless leaders.

capnkrunch@62:

I imagine there’s parallels between this behavior and that of cult leaders…

I think you mean "congruence".

Denice Walter@69: Good lord, you're going to hurt yourself. You're going to hurt yourself, and we're not cleaning it up.

@ has:

Please don't trouble yourself with worry about yours truly: I am quite immune to nonsense. I've been following Mikey since 2007-8 and the other idiot for much longer and I am no worse for the wear.

For you see, I am descended from a long line of business people and am constitutionally armoured against stupidity. In fact, often we must tolerate inanity for the sake of a profit or the career ladder. Of course, I found this ability rather useful when I worked in advertising and studied psychology.

Thus, I read or listen to crap and then go off and have a lovely time conversing with the more sophisticated and enjoying drinks, dinners and entertainment as I did today.

Never fear, I am made of strong stuff.

To be honest, I find much of it funny.

I am quite immune to nonsense.

Here's some of my own:
http://www.eusa-riddled.blogspot.com/2016/04/distraction-watch.html

"Schrodinger's Manuscript" -- perfect end to a remarkable day.

a remarkable day.

Foxes!

Todd W your comment couldn't make less sense. Newborns here in the US are vaccinated on the first day of life. Get with the times dingbat.

Looks like all comments that don't agre with you don't get approved. you little faggot. Little pussy.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/06/david-gorskis-financial-pharma-ties-…

@Mandy Kay: all first time comments go into moderation and Orac releases them when he can. Now that he's released yours, we're all able to see that we have a very classy person from the slum of AOA being so polite and having such educational things to say.

By the way...if you'd done ANY searching on this site, you'd know Jake lied.

Newborns here in the US are vaccinated on the first day of life. Get with the times dingbat.

Ooooh
Someone has anger issues.

Also, CDC vaccination schedule

At birth, Hep B, 1st shot.
All the rest: starting around the 2nd month and onward.
So, for a given value (1) of "vaccinated on the first day of life", you were right.

However, what were we talking about, here? Ah, yes a study about MMR.
First shot around 12 months.

Anger issues and reading comprehension.

@Helianthus

In addition to not being able to differentiate between HepB and MMR (and the differences in timing for both), Mandy Kay apparently also is unaware of racial disparities in health care, and how minorities tend to be underserved because they lack the resources to obtain the same health care that more privileged people take for granted.

@Mandy B

Since this whole kerfuffle is based on questions about the interpretation of raw data in a study of MMR vaccination, the newborn Hepatitis B vaccination is a total non sequitur.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936

But, if you'd like to present a prima facie argument that the Hep B shot causes autism or ASD (with real supporting evidence!!!), we'll certainly give it a read through.

@ Todd W.

I agree, Mandy takes a lot of things for granted.

@ herr doktor bimler:

Your blog isn't nonsense: it's ABOUT nonsense ( woo etc)

Mandy Kay@78: Do you always kiss your mother Andy's ring with that mouth? Normally I'd advise washing it out with soap, but all the lye in the world couldn't disinfect your putrid personality.

Three things of beauty relative to the "vaccines cause autism" zombie myth.

1. Iida Ruishalme is a Finnish cell biologist living and working in Switzerland. She writes a blog called Thoughscapism which is quite good. Last month she published a blog post, The Great Myth of Vaccines and Autism. It is quite good. Do give it a read.

Three things of beauty relative to the "vaccines cause autism" zombie myth.

2. Fallacy Man is the pseudonym of the fellow who writes the blog The Logic of Science, one of my new favorite blogs. He is a PhD candidate in biology with a pretty long CV of published works in the field. Earlier this week he published Vaccines and autism: A thorough review of the evidence, in which he evaluates two sets of article lists: 1) the ones that advance the argument that vaccines do not cause autism & 2) the ones that claim to show that vaccines do too cause autism. The most famous of the latter being of course Ginger Taylor's ever-growing list.

I highly recommend the article.

Three things of beauty relative to the "vaccines cause autism" zombie myth.

3. Doc Bastard is a trauma and general surgeon who writes the blog Stories from the Trauma Bay, which is also very much worth reading for ... well, real life. He also is a staunch defender of science on the Twitter (@DocBastard). So he got tired of having Ginger's list waved in his face, and wrote a blog post discussing every single one of the 124 papers, <a href="http://www.docbastard.net/2016/05/124-papers-that-do-not-prove-vaccines… papers that DO NOT prove vaccines cause autism". Highly recommended.

Jake has made the following strange pronouncement:

How ironic for [Trump] to win the nomination on the eve of Thompson’s extremely dishonest and contradictory report in which he is expected to recant and say autism diagnoses caused vaccinations instead of the vaccinations causing autism.

I'm not sure how far "eve" can be stretched, particularly when coupled with "expected."

Doesn't Jake see connections EVERYWHERE?

DocBastard! luv it

Tribeca Film Festival wrap-up: Andrew Wakefield's "brilliance" and spies and Nazis, oh my!

oracknows — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:50:05 +0000

Tribeca Film Festival wrap-up: Andrew Wakefield's "brilliance" and spies and Nazis, oh my!

Whenever a story like Robert De Niro's decision to choose an antivaccine film by Andrew Wakefield for screening at his prestigious Tribeca Film Festival followed by his decision to drop the film like the proverbial hot potato upon being shown just how full of misinformation, distortions, and pseudoscience the film is shows up, I not infrequently feel as though the topic takes over the blog. And so it often does. It's been the main topic here for the last week. That's why I thought I'd move on to something else, but then, seeing the reaction of the antivaccine crankosphere yesterday to the news of De Niro's decision not to screen Wakefield's Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe at Tribeca, I couldn't resist one more dip into the well. Hopefully, readers aren't becoming too tired of this story. The reactions range from the usual "Help, help! I'm being repressed!" and "Censorship!" to the truly nutty, to the point that I was entertained enough to apply one last dab of not-so-Respectful Insolence before moving on to other pastures.

First up is the least loony response. Note that by "least loony" I don't mean in any way that it isn't loony. It is. It's just that I thought I'd start slow and work up to a crescendo. I'm referring, of course, to the response of Del Bigtree posted to NaturalNews.com and other sites in the form of a video labeled EXCLUSIVE UNCUT video interview with 'VAXXED' producer Del Bigtree that was 99% censored by ABC World News Tonight:

Right off the bat, it's disingenuous and downright dishonest to label this interview as "99% censored." Basically, apparently because ABC News only used one brief snippet of the interview in its story, it was "censoring" the rest of Bigtree's responses, as though he had some sort of right to expect that all 10 minutes of the interview (or even a significant portion of the interview) would be included in what ABC News ultimately aired. This is silly in the extreme, as anyone who's ever done media interviews knows. For instance, I've done hour-long interviews with reporters, only to have a sentence or two of my responses included in the ultimate story that is published. Does this sometimes annoy me? Of course it does, particularly when the snippet chosen doesn't match the message I was trying to get across. Is it "censorship"? Of course not. I know how little space journalists have, and the time constraints on TV news stories are even more severe. Obviously, Bigtree is a TV producer and knows this, but he also knows that most of the fans of NaturalNews.com don't know this and will lap up the song and dance about his being "censored," hence his posting a cell phone video of the whole interview. In a bit of sheer over-the-top silliness, Bigtree even includes footage of routine introductory questions in which the producer is asking him what title he wants ABC to use in the caption.

I must admit, I nearly choked on my iced tea at Bigtree's answer to the first question, where he brags about how he was the producer for The Doctors, which he characterized as the "best medical talk show in the world." (It's not.) He also brags about his being "known for doing stories that a lot of people don't want to touch," such as stories about pesticides, GMOs, pollution, etc. One wonders if he realizes why people don't touch some of those stories. (Hint: Perhaps it's not because of big pharma, big agriculture, or big industry; perhaps it's because he takes on such stories from a fear mongering, pseudoscientific standpoint. Certainly if Vaxxed is any indication, that's what Bigtree does.)

Not surprisingly, Bigtree regurgitates Brian Hooker's and Andrew Wakefield's blatant lie that William Thompson, the CDC scientist whose telephone conversations with Hooker led him to become the "CDC whistleblower" in the fevered dreams of the antivaccine movement, had accused the CDC of scientific fraud. He had not. Promoted by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), it's a lie that Wakefield repeats constantly and that Wakefield and Bigtree had to use deceptive editing techniques to support. Bigtree also claims to have looked at the papers provided by Thompson to Posey and characterized them as the "most compelling evidence of fraud I've ever seen in my life," which tells me that he has no clue how to interpret scientific data. Big surprise there, given that he believes Wakefield and Hooker. Matt Carey and I have both examined the primary documents, and we've found no evidence of fraud, although we did find evidence that Thompson was a bit of a troublemaker who didn't play well with others—and not in a good way.

Perhaps the most hilarious part of this video is Bigtree's response to the producer asking him if he was concerned about working with Wakefield, given that his work had been discredited and retracted and his medical license yanked for his dishonest behavior. First, Bigtree described himself as a "medical producer." I suppose by a strictly technical definition, that's sort of true, given that The Doctors does discuss medical topics, but in reality he was an infotainment producer producing one of fluffier daytime talk shows out there. He might as well have been producing The Dr. Oz Show. Bigtree then explains how he looked into "every aspect" of Andy Wakefield's career and then proclaims that the "world lost one of the greatest scientific minds when Andy Wakefield was taken from us," a phrasing I found quite odd given that Wakefield is most definitely not dead. He then went on to characterize Wakefield as a "man who was doing studies that were going to lead to healthier vaccines and better ways to take care of the health of our children." So why was Wakefield discredited? Per Bigtree, because "that was going to cost a lot of money for the vaccine industry."

I almost couldn't continue at this point, so strong was the bile rising in my throat and spasmodic the urge to collapse into an uncontrollable fit of laughter at the characterization of Wakefield as "one of the greatest scientific minds." How deluded can one man be? Bigtree tries to show us when he concludes that he is "proud to be working on this picture about the CDC whistleblower with Andy Wakefield." The bottom line is that Andy Wakefield had a patent on a competing measles vaccine when he did his MMR study in 1998. He misrepresented the results as showing that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. He committed scientific fraud during the execution of that study. As a result of his fear mongering about the MMR vaccine, measles, once under control in the UK, came roaring back as MMR uptake plummeted because parents, fearful of the vaccine due to Wakefield, avoided it in droves. These days, quite justifiably, Wakefield has been relegated to speaking on a cruise full of sovereign citizens, crop circle chasers, paranormal "researchers," selling conspiracy theories to the credulous.

In a way, I almost feel sorry for Bigtree. He seems to realize on some level that he's committing career suicide by working with Andy Wakefield, but can't really bring himself to understand why. He complains about how the mainstream media hasn't picked up this story but doesn't ask himself why that is. To him, it's because of the power of the CDC and pharmaceutical companies but can't quite bring himself to ask himself whether the reason no mainstream news outlets are interested is because they can tell that there's no story there, that this whole "CDC whistleblower" scandal is not a scandal at all, but rather the product of the grievances of a scientist at the CDC who let his personal disagreements with his colleagues over a 2004 study fester to the point where he felt he had to unload to a biochemical engineer turned incompetent epidemiologist. Let's just put it this way. There's a reason why the only seemingly "mainstream" reporters with any interest in this story are—to put it nicely—crank-sympathetic at minimum and cranks themselves at maximum. Think Ben Swann and Sharyl Attkisson. After all, if he really thinks that vaccines are given a "free pass" in testing and are "injected directly into the veins" of our babies, that his movie is just facts, and that our assessment of vaccine safety depends so heavily on the study that Thompson criticized, Bigtree will fit right in with this crowd.

There is one thing I'd like to say to Mr. Bigtree right here, though. Near the end of his interview, he complains mightily about how much criticism there has been of his film by people who have not seen it but have seen only the trailer. I'd be happy to review Vaxxed, Mr. Bigtree. Just send me a screener or a link to a screener any time. I'll watch it and write a review. My e-mail address is orac@scienceblogsllc.com. I'll be waiting.

Of course, Bigtree is downright mellow compared to others. Louis Conte, for instance, asks if I was on the panel of scientists that Robert De Niro had with him when he watched Vaxxed and decided to pull it. Alas, no. I would have been happy to have served in such a capacity, but, unfortunately, I don't have that kind of juice that a star as big as De Niro would even take notice of me. Conte also accuses me of having a "spy" who noted that De Niro's wife Grace Hightower had been seen on one of his movie sets having a friendly conversation with Andrew Wakefield. I wish! The reality is much less interesting. A reader e-mailed me out of the blue after one of my posts about Tribeca and was very worried about my saying too much publicly. So I used my Google-Fu to try to fill in the rest. Of course, perhaps it would be better for me if Conte believed that I actually have a vast network of spies everywhere like Varys (a.k.a. the Spider) on Game of Thrones. (Come to think of it, maybe I do have such a network. Muahahahahahaha! Beware, Mr. Conte! Beware!^*)

I am, however, happy to see that Conte and the clown car at Age of Autism read my work and find it so compelling that Conte thinks I'm of a stature that Robert De Niro himself would include me in a panel of scientists he asked to review Vaxxed and that I have spies everywhere. It is good to have one's enemies fear you that much.

Still, nobody does demonization and conspiracy mongering better than Mike Adams, whose initial reaction I discussed yesterday. To him, it has to be Nazis. No matter how tenuous a link, to Adams, it's always Nazis. In this case, he blames the Sloan Foundation, a sponsor of Tribeca, for pressuring De Niro. Where is the Nazi connection? Here you go. Based on a brief post by HIV/AIDS denialist Celia Farber, Adams goes on one of his epic "Nazi" rants:

The Sloan Foundation is so named from Alfred P. Sloan, a Nazi collaborator and eugenics depopulation promoter. It's no coincidence that his own beliefs on using medical interventions to reduce race-targeted populations coincides perfectly with the stated depopulation goals of Bill Gates (whose financial web of influence is woven across the entire vaccine propaganda landscape).

You know, using similar logic, I must be collaborating with Nazis because one of my collaborators is based at Henry Ford Hospital, and Henry Ford was known as an antisemite and admirer of Hitler and the Nazis before World War II. Look for an antivaccine loon to quote mine the preceding sentence, coming to an antivaccine blog near you soon.

Adams isn't finished, though:

Like the most evil entities on the planet, the Sloan Foundation hides its eugenics / depopulation agenda behind a "science" agenda. But if you read between the lines, it's obvious that the foundation's ethics are rooted in globalist initiatives that sacrifice human lives to create whatever the elitists call "a better world."

But if you really want hilarity, just look at how clever the Sloan Foundation is. According to Adams, its President, Paul Joskow, despite being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations "global elite group with deep ties to depopulation advocate Bill Gates, who also awards large grants to numerous websites that agree to publish pro-vaccine propaganda," Joskow is so nefariously clever as to pull this bit of misdirection to hide his evil plans:

As part of the cover for all this nefarious activity, Paul Joskow gives money to an anti-eugenics non-profit group called "Facing History." This annual report from 2013 lists "Barbara Chasen Joskow and Paul L. Joskow" as donors, while simultaneously stating the group is "Celebrating Milestones" that include "teaching about the challenges societies face as they attempt to heal, repair, and rebuild after genocide or other instances of mass violence." It is no coincidence that vaccines are a form of mass violence against children, thereby perpetuating the circle of violence upon which these non-profit front groups depend for their funding and stature.

That's right. Joskow is that cleverly nefariously deceptive, according to Adams, and "got to" De Niro.

I have a word of advice for Del Bigtree and the antivaccine loons. Take a deep breath and take a break. You really are your own worst enemies. You want desperately to be taken seriously, but your every word screams to journalists and other reasonable people the very reasons why you shouldn't be.

^*This is sarcasm. I feel obligated to point this out because antivaccine activists might actually mistakenly think that I do have a network of spies and am threatening Louis Conte or anyone else. Obviously I am not, but these people are so deluded that I feel obligated to emphasize that I am not threatening anyone. It's a joke, people.

oracknows Tue, 03/29/2016 - 02:50

Categories

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/29/tribeca-de-niro-anti-vaccinatio…

Somebody please post here to tell me that this piece is a fantasy by the journalist, or irresponsible behaviour by his sources.

It essentially alleges that the response to the Tribeca incident was some kind of orchestrated conspiracy by a group part funded by CDC.

Please tell me that this isn't so. I'd particularly like to hear from Alison Singer as to whether she believes this report is accurate.

I caught NBC’s coverage and although they made the point that De Niro made a mistake, they presented the entire segment pretty much as a “debate” with ominous-sounding clips from the movie or trailer shown without comment. I know journalism is supposed to be impartial, and I won’t say they completely capitulated, but I think the average viewer might be left to think that the coverage reinforced whatever views she already held. Mr Lapdog (I DO like the sound of that!) said that if it weren’t for me prattling on about blogs all the time, he might think there really is a controversy.

Although I am extremely loath to correct the ever mighty and nearly perfect Orac ( praised be his name!) ... er... he uh got something wrong today:
the writer of that awful AoA piece is Louis Conte not Ann Dachel.
Conte is at least as loony as Dachel so I can understand the confusion.

Conte wrote a detective novel that explores the vaccine-autism connection ( a fantasy novel) from the perspective of a police officer and I believe is one of the authors in that bit of legal nonsense we all laughed at years ago.

Oddly, he titles the article is Italian I suppose because both he and Mr De Niro have Italianate surnames. I suppose that that makes sense to him. Maybe I should start naming articles in French since I have a vaguely French first name.

Eh. I read something Anne Dachel's wrote about De Niro at the same session as Conte's post and must've mixed them up. Oh, well...

Well, now if Anne Dachel ends up shot with a crossbow, we'll know who'd have ordered the hit.

Regarding the article in the Guardian cited by Brian Deer in #1--it would seem odd to fabricate such an article with direct quotes. At one level, I'm glad the IAC took action--that is what they are supposed to do. On the other hand, that their actions took place behind the scenes does lend it a conspiratorial air--though this article removes some of that feeling by (if true) stating what happened.

The novel is The Autism War and it has an eponymous website. It was reviewed at both AoA and TMR. The story involves a cop, whose son has autism, who manages to untangle the knotted web of deceit covering up the Truth.

Some psychologists believe that written and graphic representations may disclose underlying beliefs and motivations of the people they study. Both Conte and Stagliano have written novels wherein their alter ego characters unlock hidden mysteries about the crimes surrounding vaccination- in other words what they think that they're doing every day in their reportage.

One last note before I leave...
Mikey continues today with his exploration of N-zis infiltrating the independent film industry which is diagrammed compleat with circles and arrows.

thereby perpetuating the circle of violence upon which these non-profit front groups depend for their funding and stature.

Like BigPharma is giving cancer to people so it can sell them cures and climatologists are using antimatter bombs so they can get more funding into AGW research. Got it.

Like there is any chance we will be lacking in acts of mass violence any time soon.

It's infuriating, this need to see evil everywhere. Everything Mike touches, he rots it. Well, it's his business model. He must sow fear and presents himself as the the only savior on this doomed Earth.

Speaking of perpetuating a circle of violence to pad one's bank account; projecting much, Mikey?

Basically, apparently because ABC News only used one brief snippet of the interview in its story, it was “censoring” the rest of Bigtree’s responses, as though he had some sort of right to expect that all 10 minutes of the interview.

So it's a-okay when BigTree and Wakefraud edit Thompson's conversations to mean something entirely different but when just an intact blurb of BigTree's is used he whinges like a toddler.

This morning on CBS, a case of measles has been reported at the Yuba Charter School in Nevada City CA. Looking up the vaccination rate of that particular school, it turns out to be 70% unvaccinated. The chickens have come home.
Turns out the number one unvaccinated school at 90% ( Grace Family Christian School) is only a couple blocks from where I live.
We're #1. We're # 1.

“[The] world lost one of the greatest scientific minds when Andy Wakefield was taken from us.”
Odd choice of wording, that. It's what you say at a funeral. Now, if true, it means that Andrew Wakefield is a zombie. This makes sense when you consider that the principal motivation of zombies to eat the brains of the living; having had their brains eaten would explain the behaviors of some of the more rabid anitvaxxers.

Denice says "Maybe I should start naming articles in French since I have a vaguely French first name."
And here I thought you were the sister of Denephew.

@ORD: watch it, or the Hitler Zombie will awaken and go looking for brains...and I'm pretty sure he won't find them among those groups....

MI Dawn, I don't worry about the Hitler Zombie for myself. He would never eat the brain of an untermensch such as myself, especially an autistic one.

I have to disagree with you. You have a very intelligent brain, and I always enjoy what you have to say. Seems to me, you've just the type of brain he'd enjoy. Definitely much more satisfying.

Seems to me, you’ve just the type of brain he’d enjoy.

Now I am a-scared. Does he like nuts?

Please tell me that this isn’t so. I’d particularly like to hear from Alison Singer as to whether she believes this report is accurate.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/29/tribeca-de-niro-anti-vac…

Certainly I was involved in no coordinated action. I'm not part of the IAC and have, as far as I can remember, never been invited to be part of the listserv described in the article. (Too obnoxious, I guess.) Indeed, I had never even heard of this listserv.

I was not part of the action sparked by the IAC list-serve. I cannot speak for Tara Haelle but she was all over it; the article linked below evidently moved the dial some.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/03/25/robert-deniro-just-br…

Just checked the Tribeca FB page. This comment made me laugh:

seriously cancelling VAXXED makes me want to learn more, they are obviously trying to HIDE something... I am now ANTI VAXX because of THIS cancellation.. way to make it backfire, if you have NOTHING to hide it would not be an issue!!!!

if nothing ELSE this person has INSPIRED me to randomly CAPITALIZE everything from NOW ON and commit ACTS of ELLIPSIS abuse . . . just sent a SKYPE to Mr. Delphine .. "have you PAID the PROPERTY tax bill or was I supposed TO DO that, also LET me know HOW many eggs we have LEFT in the fridge PLEASE and thank you!!!!!!!"

as soon as I see the all-caps come out, I just wanna punch something

Oddly, he titles the article is Italian I suppose because both he and Mr De Niro have Italianate surnames. I suppose that that makes sense to him. Maybe I should start naming articles in French since I have a vaguely French first name.

That makes about as much sense to me as if I were to put article titles in Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian because I have a name consistent with origins in that part of the world[1] and I have colleagues/collaborators in all three countries. In reality I don't know enough of any of the Scandinavian languages to pull it off, and besides, most of my audience is from countries that don't speak any Scandinavian language.

[1]I am indeed of Danish/Swedish ancestry; however, all of my grandparents were born in the US.

Delphine@21: I hope I don't have to remind you (as I would have to remind whatever Punk you quoted) of the Internet Convention that Writing in all Caps is considered Shouting. A more effective Method for getting the Emphasis you desire is to follow the Practice, common in eighteenth-Century English, of beginning all Nouns with capital Letters (which to this Day remains the usual Custom in written German).

Speaking of internet customs: There is a reason Godwin created his eponymous law. There is also a reason for the convention that the first side to bring up the Nazis (outside of contexts such as the politics of Germany in the 1920-1945 period) is considered to have lost the debate.

"I’m not part of the IAC and have, as far as I can remember, never been invited to be part of the listserv described in the article."

It has been a good source of data since I can remember:
http://www.immunize.org/

It makes sense that they would have a listserv of members, probably public health employees, researchers and medical folks.

I hear Bigtree retort about dissenters of the film "not having read the book", & my mind quickly wanted to lash out & growl a reply:

"Look [insert egregious expletive here], you haven't read the book. Yeah, it's a science book!"

But I nearly composed myself.

The best part of that whole interview is when she asks him if there's anything else he wants to add, "just to make sure it goes to air". That reporter was playing Del Bigtree like a quintessential violin, & he was in complete blissful oblivion to it.

Not part of that listserv either and didn't know about it until the Guardian article Brian linked to. I commented on my own time and dime but damn I wish my check would come through to do what I am so oft' accused of doing.

And for the last word on the topic, "The Onion"
http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/tribeca-pulls-anti-vaccine-film-….
The middle comment is the best.

Near the end of his interview, he complains mightily about how much criticism there has been of his film by people who have not seen it but have seen only the trailer.

Now, I wonder why that would be? Could it perhaps be because Wakefield et al have actively sought to prevent neutral parties from viewing the film? At ConspiraSea, the movie was screened, but reportedly journalists were *explicitly* barred from seeing it.

And now they claim that people aren't reviewing it based on anything more than the trailers? Well gee golly, maybe they should let journalists actually see it, then. Unless, of course, they're concerned about getting very negative reviews. That is, after all, precisely the strategy Hollywood employs when they know they've got a massive bomb on their hands but they've invested a lot so they need to get as good an opening weekend as possible before word of mouth gets out and people stop coming. Like that abomination called "The Avengers". (No, not the recent Marvel movie. The one in the 90s based on the old TV series. Dear god, could Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman *be* any more wooden?)

Always be wary of a movie that won't let reviewers see it. Always. Be even *more* wary when they object to people criticizing it based on the trailers. Dude, if the trailer's all you let people see, and even that sucks, it's *your* fault if they don't like it.

Can someone explain this bizarre antivaxer theory that vaciines are part of some Nazi eugenics conspiracy. I just don't get it. I mean if you want to depopulate the world why not just stop vaccinating altogether and let all those nasty viruses we don't tend to die of these days get on with the job.
Anyway isn't it tbe antivax brigade who are in favour of eugenics? Don't they regard autism as some kind of dreadful epidemic. Better to risk the complications of measles than to risk creating another autistic child etc,
The other thing I was wondering. Any of you good folks know why these antivax types all seem to hold a slightly contradictory position that vaccines are unsafe becuse they are full of toxins and haven't been properly tested and then they try to flog you some weird remedy that is at best untested at worst a good deal more toxic than anything in a vaccine. Then when one protests they say DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!. Apparently reading a shed load of scientific data doesn't count so do I have to set up a lab in my kitchen and run my own trials with my friends and neighbors?

The newspaper I read has once a week a kind of reading advise for someone who is in the news and it has mostly something to do with things they have said or done. My reading advise for those people, complaining about n*zi's and suppression would be: 'Every man dies alone', by Hans Fallada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Man_Dies_Alone

Now, I wonder why that would be? Could it perhaps be because Wakefield et al have actively sought to prevent neutral parties from viewing the film? At ConspiraSea, the movie was screened, but reportedly journalists were *explicitly* barred from seeing it.

Exactly! Wakefield wants to control the message and the surrounding "criticism". That's why I wasn't confident any critical examination post-film would be allowed at Tribeca. I just got done listening to a delusional rant by Brian Hooker on the 'Robert Scott Bell Show' and all he did was encourage people to call their local theatres to get Vaxxed screened which tells me they aren't really interested in getting their message out but keeping the controversy alive and screaming "Censorship, We're being oppressed" when no theatres will host this film. Okay, you want people to see it Wakefraud and Bigtree? Then show it; let's see what you've got.

seriously cancelling VAXXED makes me want to learn more, they are obviously trying to HIDE something… I am now ANTI VAXX because of THIS cancellation.. way to make it backfire, if you have NOTHING to hide it would not be an issue!!!!

I am doing STUPID things NOW and being an EEDJIT and it's all De Niro's FAULT and I bet he's SORRY.

Eric Lund @24
from the pedantry department:
it's Mr. Godwin who's eponymous, not his law.
I realise this is honoured more in the breach nowadays, even on Wikipedia..

Now, I wonder why that would be? Could it perhaps be because Wakefield et al have actively sought to prevent neutral parties from viewing the film? At ConspiraSea, the movie was screened, but reportedly journalists were *explicitly* barred from seeing it.

Yep. Perhaps I'll send an e-mail to Del Bigtree asking for a screener that I can review, as I mentioned in my post. I wonder if he'll send me a DVD or link for a screener? :-)

Not part of that listserv either and didn’t know about it until the Guardian article Brian linked to. I commented on my own time and dime but damn I wish my check would come through to do what I am so oft’ accused of doing.

Indeed. If I can't be part of the Illuminati vaccine shill listserv run by the IAC that they won't even tell me about, at the very least I want my shill check for spending so much time cranking out quality insolence directed at lying about debunking The Truth antivaccine lies. :-)

Heh; I'd love to see his response to that, Orac, although I rather suspect it will of the "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" variety.

Seriously, though, there is nothing whatsoever stopping them putting this video out on YouTube. If, that is, they're *really* interested in sharing it, rather than just sharing rumors about it. I saw several anti-vax commenters (who were otherwise repeating party line) crowing about how we'd be sorry once the video went up on YouTube. Which, of course, begs the question of why, if "censorship" is really Wakefield's problem, they haven't just posted it already.

I have to say that I've been more shocked by that Guardian report than by quite a lot of things in media lately. I've asked IAC for a statement on it. They might simply ignore me, but I can hardly think of a journalist with any integrity wouldn't be surprised at the idea of a network of the kind described there targeting that film.

I want to know if it's true.

I have to say I was quite uncomfortable at some of the sentiment over the weekend to the effect that people shouldn't be allowed to show anti-vaccine films.

The point for me was that the allegations being made were factually untrue, and that the authorial voice couldn't be trusted. But that's not a free speech issue, or denying the right to express contrary views, or uncomfortable facts.

But The Guardian article is framed as revealing a network of "scientists" and "activists" opposing the film because it was against vaccines.

Which, I have to say, I think is wrong, and if there was the kind of activity described, then it was a serious misjudgment, and ought to be acknowledged as inappropriate.

Anyone think this outcome is actually what these (insert appropriate adjective) people may have wanted? They have received national and international sound bites.

But The Guardian article is framed as revealing a network of “scientists” and “activists” opposing the film because it was against vaccines.

That's not the sense I got about it. I saw it more as saying that there was a network of scientists and activists who are on the lookout for blatant misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines making it into the mainstream and work to counter antivaccine misinformation when they see it. If that's in fact what's going on, I see nothing wrong with that.

I could certainly see how it could be seen as a blanket action against anti-vaxx activity but upon closer reading several quotes stood out to indicate that it was about challenging conspiracies involving vaccines causing autism. It would have been nice to see the factual inaccuracies present in the trailer and the entire premise of the film discussed more but we don't know what the IAC conversation actually was.

Like the most evil entities on the planet, the Sloan Foundation hides its eugenics / depopulation agenda behind a “science” agenda. But if you read between the lines

I know exactly what Adams means. Whenever journals reject my papers it's because of the editors and reviewers concealing their Nazi depopulation policies behind a guise of "science". The Editorial Mission Statement of Attention, Perception and Psychophysics doesn't explicitly come out and admit its Nazi eugenics agenda, so I have to read between the lines and see the words they didn't write and listen to the voices of the leprechauns.

The Sloan Foundation is so named from Alfred P. Sloan, a Nazi collaborator and eugenics depopulation promoter. It’s no coincidence that his own beliefs on using medical interventions to reduce race-targeted populations

Sloan evidently promoted eugenics in clever non-verbal ways that left no traces. His support for depopulation is so well-known as an article of faith in Mikey's circles that no citation or evidence is required.
Nevertheless the Sloan Foundation are determined to conceal their true purpose, by underhanded tricks like funding historians to research and write critical histories of eugenics, and why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674445574

Mikey seems to go on about "elitists" a lot, which I take as a hint that he's trying to appeal to a resentful underachieving market of Trump supporters and ex-Tea-Partiers. In other words, his mouth-frothing stream of toxic bullshit is part of his cynical scam rather than genuine derangement.

Orac: "I saw it more as saying that there was a network of scientists and activists who are on the lookout for blatant misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines making it into the mainstream and work to counter antivaccine misinformation when they see it."

The listserv could be nothing more than folks that are listed under their super secret "About us" pages. Let's see there is a list of their Advisory Board, the Board of Directors, Staff, Funding and Corporate Membership Program.

Uh oh... the last one. Oh no! Could it be Big Pharma!

@32: "Okay, you want people to see it Wakefraud and Bigtree?"

They don't merely want people to see it, they want people to *pay* to see it.

Supposedly le Grand Fakir, Andy, will appear later tonight on the Progressive Commentary Hour at prn.fm:
the woo-centric host vows to get the film shown so that *more people will see it than would at Tribeca* ( paraphrase)- which should be easy. The latter fraudster has a history of premiering his so-called documentaries to raise funds for a non-profit radio station and himself- usually, admission is about three times the going rate for normal movies in that area.

I'll listen in as an hour or two of pure tripe has yet to harm my psyche ( although I have to be careful so that I don't grind my teeth too much).

Comment in moderation (for using the N*zi word), HELP HELP I'M BEING CENSORED!
COME SEE THE CENSORSHIP INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!!

Was anyone else intrigued by Adams' use of the codeword 'elitist'? It is almost as if his tirade was a cynical attempt to stoke the resentment among his audience / customer base of magical-thinking under-achievers (rather than the outcome of genuine derangement). Because unspecific resentment has worked so well in the past for the Tea Party and the Trump campaign for keeping the suckers irrational.

I wonder if he has read "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" and is using it as a guide.

Below is another probable nail in vax/autism coffin. Of course they'll say that vaccines induce the genetic changes.

Genetic Changes That Cause Autism: Spontaneous mutations to ‘jumping genes’
Posted by Press Release on March 28, 2016 // Leave Your Comment

The types of gene mutations that contribute to autism are more diverse than previously thought, report researchers at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine in the March 24 online issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics. The findings, they say, represent a significant advance in efforts to unravel the genetic basis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

To conduct their study, researchers enrolled hundreds of volunteers from families with one child affected by ASD and sequenced the complete genomes of every family member, including the parents and typically developing siblings. The researchers then looked for de novo mutations, gene alterations that appear spontaneously in one’s offspring and are due to a mutation in a father’s sperm or a mother’s egg. Based on the authors’ previous discoveries, it is known that de novo mutations contribute to risk, particularly in sporadic cases where there is no family history of autism.

The most common type of de novo mutations are spelling mistakes that change a single letter of the DNA code. However, in their new study, the researchers discovered many other mutations that introduce changes that are more complex. Called structural variants, these alterations involve the insertion or deletion of entire words or sentences of the DNA code.

The research team found a surprising variety of spontaneous mutations, from simple deletions or insertions to “jumping genes” – elements of DNA that copy and paste themselves into other parts of the genome. They also found that structural mutations sometimes occur in tight clusters where a combination of different mutations occur all at once.

“These mutations can insert, delete or in some cases scramble the DNA sequence,” said senior author Jonathan Sebat, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and cellular and molecular medicine and director of the Beyster Center for Genomics of Psychiatric Disease at UC San Diego School of Medicine.

Sebat and colleagues discovered that spontaneous structural mutations occurred at a surprisingly high rate in individuals – 20 percent – and mutations in autism tended to disrupt genes. “Children with autism do not have more mutations overall,” said Sebat, “but their mutations are more likely to disrupt genes involved in brain development.”

The study, Sebat noted, highlights several genes that could play a key role in brain development. For example, the scientists identified a deletion in one gene called “stargazin” that is required for regulating the transmission of signals between neurons in the brain.

“Mutations in stargazin are very rare,” said first author, William Brandler, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in Sebat’s lab, “but they point us to a biochemical pathway that may be important for social development. In the future, discoveries like this could lead to more effective personalized treatments for autism.”

Comment in moderation (for using the N*zi word)

Well, you could say Dennis.

They don’t merely want people to see it, they want people to *pay* to see it.

Which is perfectly OK. It's understandable that Wakefield and Bigtree would want to recoup their investment (or the investment of whoever their backers were) and possibly even turn a profit. Most documentary makers aren't in it for the money, but that doesn't mean they don't want to recoup their costs and make a profit if they can, nor is it wrong of them to want that.

It's just disingenuous of Wakefield and Bigtree to keep pretending it's all about "free speech," exposing the CDC, and wanting as many people to see their documentary as possible, because if it were truly about that they could just put their movie on YouTube or Vimeo and everyone would see it.

@ herr doktor bimler:

I interpret 'elitist' - which I hear often enough- as meaning people who attended real universities and who can discern reality from fantasy. In other words, those who reject alt media BS artists like him.

Cat@30

Anyway isn’t it tbe antivax brigade who are in favour of eugenics?

Indeed. Diseases being necessary to cull the weak is a truly awful but rarely stated part of the AV worldview. Nevermind that this implies vaccine efficacy (time and again I'm reminded that internal consistency is not their strong suit).

The flip side of this belief is that their superior genetics protects them and their children. This is related to the belief their children must be perfect and when they are not it must be that some outside factor "damaged" them and "stole" their perfect child.

Every time I stop to think about AV beliefs I'm reminded how vile and fractally wrong they are.

Well, what we definitely have is a plethora of evidence for a cracking good read. De Niro accompanied by a syringe front cover! Imagine, the Guardian article stretched over four, five-hundred pages! You never know, such a book might even dedicate a chapter to this blog, highlighting the correspondence between Orac and Deer. A sure best-seller.

Is it not quite telling that the alleged whistleblower has not come forward to back up the claims being made.

Brian Deer wrote:

The point for me was that the allegations being made were factually untrue, and that the authorial voice couldn’t be trusted. But that’s not a free speech issue, or denying the right to express contrary views, or uncomfortable facts. But The Guardian article is framed as revealing a network of “scientists” and “activists” opposing the film because it was against vaccines. Which, I have to say, I think is wrong, and if there was the kind of activity described, then it was a serious misjudgment, and ought to be acknowledged as inappropriate."

1. "Scientists” did oppose the film because it was against vaccines. There were implicit or explicit calls for it to be withdrawn on that basis. While this is not 'censorship' by any means, were the TFF to comply, that would arguably set a 'chilling effect' precedent on speech. Thus journalists and filmmakers would be expected to blanch. Whether or not such an argument was 'appropriate" may be arguable, but it was poor strategy.

2. I believe the film was indeed withdrawn because "the allegations being made were factually untrue" and the authorial voice (none of which should be 'trusted') proved to be maliciously mendacious. I highly doubt the screening would have been cancelled had Matt Carey not documented the falsehoods in the trailer, and has Penny Lane not reframed the issue along those lines, bringing the film community on board and appealing to terms the Festival folks understand: "There is a big difference between advocacy and fraud, between point of view and deception. For you to claim there is no difference, and for you to screen this film, perpetuates Wakefield’s fraud... This threatens the credibility of not just the other filmmakers in your doc slate, but the field in general." THAT was the dynamite going Boom!

3. I find the notion of skeptics taking marching orders in an orchestrated repression campaign laughable. All the Listserv had to do was note, 'Wakefield has a film on the schedule at Tribeca' and the subscribers were going to say what they honestly think about that.

4. In The Guardian, Ed Pilkington's assertion that the TFF pulled Vaxxed as a result of some organized effort by the IAC is complete conjecture, w/o evidence. The IAC was taking the wrong tack. I am especially suspect of Pilkington's framing because he wrote "Leading figures in the documentary world were also enlisted to add their objections to the showing of Vaxxed." Lane is NOT a leading figure in documentary, and would have inside sources to learn about the 'Vaxxed' screening before the public announcement, and a variety of reasons to have made her statement without having to be 'enlisted', a characterization I find both sensatinalistic and insulting. Lane, from a new interview (http://tinyurl.com/hq6f3ph)

I also knew from the beginning that this was not a regular film festival programming choice. It was just so obvious to everyone that knows anything about... how film festivals work, that this was basically dumped on them. I don't know who did it... but I knew that the programmers that I know there would never have done this. So I knew that by speaking out, I wasn't insulting people that I actually know and respect... I doubt we'll ever hear anything else from Tribeca about what happened here, and that's fine, but my suspicion is that the documentary programming staff could not have been happy about this film being in their program.

Well, my suspicion is that she had a lot more than a suspicion, and she knew the programmers were PO'ed because someone she knows told her all about it in confidence.

In sum, the The Guardian article is click-bait. If BD wants to check further... well, far be it from me to tell him how to do his job. But I'm contrarian enough in the RI world that if I thought there was a decent chance anything sketchy happened here, I'd be concerned. And I'm not. Not at all.

If anything, if the IAC HAD gotten together with film people, and decided that critiquing Vaxxed on it's fraudulent representations of Thompson was the appropriate strategy for both practical and ethical reasons, that would have been A GOOD THING. But that's another comment....

^^^The qoute from Brian Deer ends at "acknowledged as inappropriate.” The rest is mine, excpept for the remaining marked quotes, of course.

This deNiro-Wakefield-Vaxxed-withdrawal-fuss is mentioned even here on the other side of globe, on some local Finnish mainstream media webpages.

Brian Deer,

While not being involved in the IAC listserv (not being an expert in that area and all), if this is like other e-mail lists of experts that I do belong to, it has been set up as a way of quickly sharing information about media opportunities and stories among a group of experts.

The traffic may be as simple as someone has been approached for an interview on a topic they don't feel confident in handling and pass the invitation around to see who might be willing to do it, to discussions of how the media is dealing with the science in the topic area, what resources might be needed to help people understand the science, to occasional activism.

In my experience, the vast majority of contributors are researchers and don't have much time to devote to dealing with the media or the public and this is a way of being able to contribute in a more strategic manner without having to do all the legwork themselves. The groups tend to be closed to outsiders (that is you have to be invited to join) to reduce the amount of e-mails being received and to reduce the noise in the messages.

I have been involved in groups that have coalesced from a few scientists deploring the way the media deals with science stories and deciding to do something about it, but also groups strategically set up by scientific societies.

@ Rich Bly
I downloaded and read that study this morning. My impression is that it won't change the minds of any anti-vaxxer, because they don't read and can't understand what you read and understand. Nonetheless, it's still encouraging that ever-improving sequencing and analytic techniques continue to reveal more and more of the genetic architecture of autism. It's interesting that this new analysis shows that although there are many structural variants in the genomes of both autistic and unaffected individuals, those in autistic individuals tend to be more damaging and to disrupt genes.

Re: Orac @ #49

It's more disingenuous than you might guess. Few docos recoup production costs via distribution. The economic model, to the extent there is one, is that the film is a kind of 'loss leader' that generates revenue for the maker in other areas. E.g. at my low level, if you've made a film that's been screened at festivals, it's easier to get a teaching job. Wakefield would make more $$ from the "side-effects" of 'Vaxxed' if it's widely seen than he would if it's narrowly seen in theatrical distribution.

The benefit of theatrical screenings would not be so much direct income, but increased publicity, creating a potentially larger audience for when it's later offered for free on the web. The company distributing Vaxxed wprks primarily through loss cost (~$3 - $4) Vimeo pay-per-view/download.

I conclude Wakefield and Bigtree absolutely do NOT want the widest possible audience to see the film, but want to spread it through the anti-vax subculture while hiding it as much as possible from critical eyes. As such, I have suspected from the beginning that they never intended to screen the film in front of a open audience at Tribeca. If they weren't going to have a friendly audience (hah! they can't be THAT dumb, can they?), they would have come up with their own excuse to pull out claiming 'repression!' or whatever. Something like "due to the Big Pharma shills stirring up their goons, we feared for Dr. Wakefield's safety, but would have braved it anyway had we not received a credible threat, conformed by an anonymous tipster' yada yada yada.

Along similar lines, my guess is that RDN promised to show Andy's then work-in-progress sight unseen, Andy promised to send him a screener, but never did, making a series of excuses for not doing so. That's how con games work: the promised object never appears, but always remains a chimera. It's actually not totally outside film festival practice. I've had work accepted on the basis of a rough cut, and worked on the 'final' cut up until the night before the screening... Thus, Andy's film buddies could have helped him come up with at least semi-plausible excuses for never showing TFF the 'finished product'.

Regarding the listserv issue,

I parked myself on the Tribecafilm.com comments for several hours and on that basis I would say the listserv team, if present, was small. The busiest pro-science posters were war weary types relying on "what bullshit" counterarguments. I do not criticize because Scudamore. My own comment-fu is a slow wind up that relies upon a friendly, humble, silly tone with easy apologies. But I do fall back on "what bullshit" later in the game.

We could round up the blog posts or articles with the most punch (e.g., Penny Lane) to see if any of those people know about the listserve.

I did not make a Facebook so I know nothing of who hit the comments in that forum.

MI Dawn: Thank you for the kind words. However, I am a Jew, an autist, a political liberal, and something else, that would make me an untermensch, a life unworthy of life, an enemy of society, and a dangerous deviant. I agree with you that I am intelligent but I would never say so. It would of course run counter to my prize-winning humility.
Everyone, more or less: A trailer is composed to show some big moments of the film - a good gag, a splashy action scene, a dramatic exchange. If the trailer gives a negative impression, it's a strong indication that either the film is crap or ineptly promoted. In other words, the poor reception of the trailer is their own damn fault.
Troublemaker: Even if they gave everyone a sack full of cash to watch their movie, anyone who watched would still pay for it.
Everyone, again: If I wanted to depopulate the world, I would take the less expensive course of giving a Kalashnikov and a thousand rounds to everyone in the target region capable of lifting one, after taking away their planes and boats so they couldn't reach me.
Lastly, just for the lulz (always wanted to say that), here's a take on conspiracies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

I can't take it any more. There is no such thing as "a listserv." The (now) L-Soft product is software that manages E-mail lists. That's it.

Pedantry warning!

And you know what Orac thinks of pedantry.

I have to agree with Brian Deer -- the Guardian article seems to hint that there's a vast, resource-rich conspiracy at work.

At least enough to convince the true believers.

Oh well, that's two hours I'll never get back.
I'd better get paid.

I listened to tonight's
Progressive Commentary Hour/ prn.fm show with Andy, Del Bigtree, Polly Tommey and Celia Farber' It will archived there. Not much new.

First hour:
Andy claimed that recent events were an " attack on first amendment rights and freedom of speech" His film contains "hard evidence" etc.

Del, who calls himself a "medical journalist", details his interest in stories about GMOs and glyphosate. He said that De NIro's problem was not just with the TFF's sponsors but went "higher up" .. to "corporations and government"

Both men, when asked to discuss the film, said that it needed to be seen - it's very visual...

Polly discussed her parental experiences with autism

Celia talked about the media wherein "reporters are trained as attack dogs" and sent to "bizarre schools"; the government's public health "tentacles' get into the press, movies and documentaries.
She discusses her experiences with Harper's surrounding her denialist articles about hiv.

Second hour:
the ridiculous host played excerpts from a film featuring parents of AJW's subjects ( Edwards, Thomas etc) and highly select clips of Brian Deer speaking to some of them outside the GMC hearings- which we've seen before .

Next, we hear a recording of Mr Posey, the congressman, reading the statement- we've seen that too.

Finally, the host promises that he will rent a theatre in NY bringing in the principals ( e.g. Hooker) and showing the film and that he is talking to his lawyers. He will post a new article tomorrow about the affair on his websites

Fortunately, I didn't have to be anywhere or have any visitors so I had some wine, tried on my new Italian shoes and spent quality time grooming the cat who really needed it. So not a total waste of time.

I feel like I have to say "listserv" cuz that is what the Guardian said.

Anyway if these organized pro-science minions are out there to defeat woo whenever it raises its ugly head, they weak.

Everytime I turn on the radio, bogus supplement ads. Turn on the TV, woo friendly doctors. All the top presidential candidates, lovin' the woo.

It is so hard to get people up to speed with science right now, conversations are nearly impossible. Popular categories of thought are not distinct, e.g., "alt med" v "conventional med," or "acute illness" v "chronic illness." So before you can rebut a point you have to unpack and rebuild a bunch of terms.

@ Shay #64--The true believers already believe in some vast "machine" of a conspiracy. You can't talk them out of it. I think too many people are worried we're somehow making them more of a believer (as if that's' possible) by actually organizing to take them on for realz, instead of just inside the vast empty paranoid spongiform spaces in their craniums.

@ Denice, I'm going to guess Ferragamo or Bruno Magli.

Pedantry warning!

And you know what Orac thinks of pedantry.

Narad's no pedant, he's just Narad.

What can I say, I have an abiding love for those who would take in strays.

@titmouse #60

fwiw (i.e. nada) the 'IAC conspiracy theory' would be positing movements behind the scenes, not any sort of 'vox pop' on a comments thread. In The Guardian, Pilkington has only this weasel word statement to support his thesis: "by Saturday the force of the scientific blowback unleashed in part by the listserv proved overwhelming and the scheduled viewing of Vaxxed was cancelled.' Note he doesn't say what part, or give any indication of what mechanism could have directed this 'blowback' into the face of anyone with Robert De Niro's ear. The AVers, just as I did, checked which sponsors listed on the TFF site might have taken some objection to Vaxxed being screened, and decided the since the Sloan Foundation is listed there, It Must Have Been Them! Speaking of weasel words, Wakefield and Bigtree have a statement up on the 'Vaxxed' website: "It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film." Well it's my understanding that these jerks lie about everything, so I'm guessing they pulled that 'understanding' out of their bumholes so they could scream about "corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth." Scuse me while I go vomit.

JP, it is okay to be irritated by those you love. I really admire Narad, but sometimes he just gets on my nerves.

Saw this clickbait headline in my email box:

"The American Anti-Vaccine Mom Turned ISIS Superstar"

It's from The Daily Beast. The lead: "Before she was tweeting in support of ISIS, a Missouri mom was blogging about vaccines causing autism and “chemtrails” poisoning Americans..."

http://tinyurl.com/jmywqjm

@ Science Mom:

No, I don't spend that much on shoes because I would bring them home, wear them twice and find I didn't like them or they hurt so I'd have to donate them to charity. Strictly moderately priced.
But they have to be leather.

@ Chris:

Narad never gets on my nerves- he is a breath of fresh air in a smoggy world.

Apologies everyone, it's my team of medical scientists that are responsible for the global collusion against pseudoscience. We are legion. Resistance is futile.

See? I'm terrible at this. I had you pegged for Ferragamo, possibly Magli or Prada.

Dear MarkN, what does your team pay. Lord Draconis has not been paying the shills bills.

@ Science Mom:

Altho' I did see a pair by Prada with 2" heels that looked like something Marie Antoinette would have worn. I could also.

spent quality time grooming the cat who really needed it. So not a total waste of time.
It is always good to see that someone has the right priorities.

“Before she was tweeting in support of ISIS, a Missouri mom was blogging about vaccines causing autism and “chemtrails” poisoning Americans…”

That's pretty common in Truther circles. They already accept that the New World Order is conspiring to poison the world with chemtrails and vaccines, and that everything reported in the media is a stage-managed charade... in particular, every terror bombing has been faked for nefarious ends. There are Sandy Hook truthers. but no specific term for "Paris bombing Truther" or "Brussels Bomb Truther" because it would cover them all.

As a sample of the whole milieu, here's Joanne Baskett, full-time Lyme-malingering Truther:
https://twitter.com/baskett_case

Anyway, having accepted that ISIS is fighting the NWO, and is the victim of a campaign of defamation, it makes sense for them to explicitly support the group.

https://twitter.com/baskett_case
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How apropos :D

Note to self: learn how to defeat WP's formating rules.

Y'all know what I wanted to point to...

Hi Alain, nice to see you.

And you know what Orac thinks of pedantry.

Actually, I had forgotten about your uses and was simply being driven to distraction by the follow-ons. Internecine and other "pedantry" has always seemed to be fair game.*

* Something something begging the question something.

It's baaaaack. Hot date night!

VAXXED - Exclusive One Week Engagement
Friday, April 1st, 2016
Angelika Film Center
18 W. Houston St., New York, NY 10012
(212) 995-2570
Show times: Friday (4/1) thru Thursday (4/7): 11:00a, 1:15p, 3:30p, 5:45p, 8:00p, 10:30p
A special group ticket price is available for $8/ticket for groups of 25 or more, however tickets must be purchased in person at the box office.

There will be Q&As following the 8:00pm shows on Friday (4/1) and Saturday (4/2)

Del, who calls himself a “medical journalist”, details his interest in stories about GMOs and glyphosate. He said that De NIro’s problem was not just with the TFF’s sponsors but went “higher up” .. to “corporations and government”

The Dachelbot did a service today by quoting the Bigtree interview (emphasis added):

"Bigtree did say that the CDC conducted the 2004 MMR study because of what Wakefield had done, 'and it appears they found the exact same thing that Andy Wakefield did. And when they saw it, what they decided to do was hide it and cover it up.'"

Whoops.

“Bigtree did say that the CDC conducted the 2004 MMR study because of what Wakefield had done, ‘and it appears they found the exact same thing that Andy Wakefield did. And when they saw it, what they decided to do was hide it and cover it up.'”

For the less knowldgeable, this quote suggests that Mr Bigfoot has not the slightest clue what he's talking about. Not the slightest.

If Wakefield does to him what he's done to previous collaborators, Mr Bigfoot will rue the day he ever got involved.

This is a flat-out lie by Mr Bigfoot. He's in on it.

“The really sad thing is the amount of doctors I’ve spoken to that say to me, ‘Del, I know that vaccines are causing autism, but I won’t say it on camera because the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career, just like they did to Andy Wakefield.’ And that’s where we find ourselves, being bullied by an industry that doesn’t actually care about the health of our children like it should.”

the amount of doctors I’ve spoken to

"Amount"? He was measuring them by the kilogram?

"Amount"?

Maybe he's lost his fingers in an accident and so couldn't count both of them?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Both being Andy and...?

I find the start date for Mr Fraudytrousers' new screening of the film to be most apt.

@ hdb

“Amount”? He was measuring them by the kilogram?

More likely by the pound; the principals are British or American, after all.
Plus, this unit neatly doubles the considered amount.

Now, there is this charming English saying about being weighted and found wanting...

So according to Adams people who give to good causes are evil, using the donations to cover up their true motives, whilst those who use fraud and lies to enhance their own bank balances are in contrast heroes. I can see why this vision appeals to him.

Rebecca @ 90, good catch.

OK folks, these screenings definitely deserve some insolence, up close & personal.

Yes, I'm suggesting it's worth spending the money to get one person into the Friday and Saturday 8PM showings, who can ask a carefully-worded question that will hopefully have a beneficial effect on the audience. It will need to be a different person each time. This part should be easy.

Also it's worthwhile to have a small number of demonstrators out in front with signs & leaflets, at every single showing. Two people on each side of the theater should be sufficient, though a third is recommended on each side in case someone has to take a bathroom break.

One way to arrange logistics for bathroom breaks is to recruit a friendly nearby restaurant owner, by way of "We'll all be coming in for dinner in between the evening showings, and we'd like bathroom privileges during the day." Then every evening, you get to eat out while you discuss the day's activities. This is also a potential educational opportunity with the restaurant owner as to why you're holding a demonstration.

To stay friendly with local police, you'll want to a) not block the sidewalk or traffic, b) keep the signs to a reasonable size that can be held without need of a stick, and c) not set up tables. The arrangement of three people on each side of the theater enables having two holding signs and one holding the leaflets, and improvising slightly when someone takes a break.

Suggestion: don't ask people to boycott the theater, that'll only cause hostility with the owner and regular patrons, which is a distraction from the main point of the action. There are ways to phrase the signs & leaflets that won't "go there" but will still get the message across.

The street demonstration is also a great educational opportunity for reaching the general public who aren't looking to see the film.

Wow, you guys must be really scared of what's in the film and being exposed to go to those lengths!

Oh we must be scared, must we? And there I was thinking that we're just irate that a "documentary" riddled with demonstrable falsities was going to be aired. Marsha, you've opened my eyes.

@Gray Squirrel:

"Down with this sort of thing!"

"Careful now."

;-)

Hellanthus @ 91: I think he was measuring doctors by the gram, as in, "A gram is better than a damn."

Re. conspiracies and networks of spies: Sure, we're a great big conspiracy and a network of insidious spies with high-tech spy gear and death-rays disguised as ball-point pens.

According to "some people," we took out Andrew Breitbart in 2012 and made it look like his bad diet & drug habits. According to "some people," when Andrew Wakefield goes to the big measles outbreak in the sky, it will have been our doing. And according to "some people," crop circles are our doing as well.

We're the same conspiracy that reminds people to wash their hands after they poop and before they prepare food or eat, reminds people to empty anything in their yard with standing water in it and keep the lids on their garbage cans, and writes bad reviews of restaurants that are infested with cockroaches, rats, flies, etc.

We are everywhere. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

Orac has divined that you cannot be moderate in your take on vaccines; that you are either entirely pro or against. While this may frequently be the case, it isn't invariably true. Wakefield is most likely a case in point. He has utilised the anti-vax movement to help create a platform for himself (no other option is available to him). However, he is almost certainly sincere in his advocacy for a single measles vaccine. This fact is likely to create problems down the road for those extremists who cannot admit of a more moderate perspective, simply because the assumption of his position is fundamentally incorrect.

@Eddie Unwind:

Orac has divined that you cannot be moderate in your take on vaccines

Please google "argument to moderation". You have just committed that fallacy.

[Wakefield] is almost certainly sincere in his advocacy for a single measles vaccine.

No he isn't.
Wakefield only cares about Wakefield. He took money from a lawyer to build a case against the MMR Vaccine, subjected vulnerable children to invasive medical procedures to get the evidence he required (committing numerous ethical violations in the process), cooked the data when it pointed away from a vaccine autism link, attempted to set up businesses to benefit from the scare he helped engineer, including a measles vaccine he tried to create and failed to disclose his multiple conflicts of interest.
Wakefield is not sincere at all.

More likely by the pound

That is, I am given to understand, what you sell England by.

@Julian Frost: well, he *could* have been sincere about the single measles vaccine if his patent hadn't lapsed (I think that's what I read about it recently).

Wakefield is most likely a case in point. He has utilised the anti-vax movement to help create a platform for himself (no other option is available to him). However, he is almost certainly sincere in his advocacy for a single measles vaccine.

This is untrue. Andrew Wakefield cares about one thing only and that is to have people talking about him. That and raking in the money. The two things Andrew Wakefield cares about are having people talking about him and raking in the money and...

It was getting all Monty Pythonish there for a moment, but really Andrew Wakefield couldn't give a toss about his single measles vaccine - it was simply a means to an end. Likewise every other thing he has ever done. Have you ever stopped to wonder why all his collaborators end up getting burned? To burn one collaborator might look like carelessness, but to burn them all is a pattern of behaviour.

This 'documentary' is more of the same. Thompson is being hung out to dry by Wakefield, who has also conned Bigtree (who I suspect is covering the costs of the 'documentary' at the moment) and Andrew Wakefield doesn't care whether it gets shown or not. He has his outcome.

If Andrew Wakefield really thought this was so explosive, he would have made it available for review, but he hasn't and won't if he can help it. He doesn't want people to see the film, he wants them to talk about it. And send him donations.

Wow, you guys must be really scared of what’s in the film and being exposed to go to those lengths!

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Come to think of it, that is so with the vast majority of anti-vaxxers. We would Love to see Wakefield's little flick. Holding a demonstration to bring to light the rank fabrications it has =/= scared.

"[Wakefield] is almost certainly sincere in his advocacy for a single measles vaccine."

No, he was paid about a million dollars, at today's rates, to attack triple vaccines, and nothing to attack single measles vaccines.

Marsha@94: Bless your heart.

Eddie Unwind Orac has divined that you cannot be moderate in your take on vaccines; that you are either entirely pro or against. While this may frequently be the case, it isn’t invariably true. Wakefield is most likely a case in point. He has utilised the anti-vax movement to help create a platform for himself (no other option is available to him). However, he is almost certainly sincere in his advocacy for a single measles vaccine. This fact is likely to create problems down the road for those extremists who cannot admit of a more moderate perspective, simply because the assumption of his position is fundamentally incorrect a gullible fool.

FTFY.

Andrew Wakefield couldn’t give a toss about his single measles vaccine

Emphasis on "his". He initially positioned himself to sell a cure of his own making for the vaccine ills he was set on discovering.

When the whole affair became wahoonie-shaped, he quickly dropped anything which could have slowed him down, including his project of an alternative measles vaccine, crossed the Atlantic, and started anew in the US.
He then jumped on the bandwagon of "Too many, too soon". And any other antivaccine bandwagon, really.

@Brian Deer (#1),

Alison Singer wrote in the article you referenced “The question of whether there is a link between autism and vaccines has been asked over and over again, and the answer is always the same – no. We don’t discuss whether the world is flat or round any more.”

MJD says,

Pro-vaxxers can be as radical as anti-vaxxers.

@ Notchka:

Hot date night indeed.

I can just imagine all of the downtown trendsters lining up to get into a showing of this earth-shattering marvel of directorial *je ne sais quoi*

It is getting free advertisement from prn, Natural News, AoA and other woo-tinged internet outlets.

I don't know how many of the principals of anti-vax live nearby enough to attend- TMR's Professor, AoA's Kim Stagliano, Louise Kuo Habakus and Barry Segal *et famille* of Focus Autism/ Health . Obviously alties like Null ( part time NY) and Farber will be around.

It should be quite hilarious.

Helianthus@107: So what you're telling us is Follow the Money? Shirley you're doing it wrong.

Has, if you really follow the money, you'll find charlatans like Andy and the others we discuss.

Oh, It'll be quite something, Im sure. I do hope the Q&A is challenging.

@Notchka: I tried to see what regular advanced sales ticket prices would be for Vaxxed, but no luck. And I refuse to pay to go into Manhattan, and get down to Houston St, and find they are $15+ at the door. It's way too costly for me.

@ has

So what you’re telling us is Follow the Money?

Eh, following a trail of bread crumbs is a time-honored method of successful investigation.
Ideally, you have to spend a bit of time ascertaining that the one leaving the trail acquired its bread through/for nefarious purposes. The AVers are a bit fuzzy on this concept.

Some anti-science people even go so far as reproaching scientists for eating bread, trail or no trail. Must be shilling for gluten-free diet.

Notchka @ 112:

The way I'd suggest to do this is, write down your question a few days ahead, and practice reading it until you have it memorized. Then practice saying it in a conversational voice. Do it over and over until you can give a performance worthy of live theater.

The best questions are ones that cause Wakefield to have to put his foot in it bigtime, and make a fool of himself in his own words, rather than rants that come off as attacks that will cause others to sympathize with him as the victim.

For example ask about how those FDA numbers that were used to claim MMR/autism link for black kids, showed no relationship for white kids, so how do you square that with your own data claiming a relationship for white kids?, etc.

It might be useful to have someone in the audience who plays the role of a sympathizer but whose question actually has the opposite effect, for example by pitting various anti-vax factions against each other. "You can't both be right, so who should I believe?"

With good organizing, you could have a half dozen or more different people at each showing.

It might also be fun to have one very vocal skeptic from the first showing, come to the second, and upon being dis-invited at the door, thereby hand another person the opening to play sympathizer but ask about "censorship just like at Tribeca."

Think of it as political theater with a live audience;-)

@MI Dawn

As per Fandango:
Adult: $14.50
Senior $$11.75
Child $11.75

@Gray Squirrel - I'm in California and won't be attending. As much as I would so adore to witness some squirming, I'm also *really* not qualified to represent.

Iiiii live in Manhattan. But I'm not sure I want to pay $15 for this nonsense...

I have a simple rule:
I absolutely refuse to spend any money on woo.

I only read material that is free or attend lectures that are free.
(The only exceptions I can think of were attending a few New Age lectures and presentations in the mid-late 1990s. I also took classes in tai chi/ martial arts and yoga - a/k/a exercise).

And yes, I have seen many woo-docudramas and read many books through the internet mostly but also libraries and book store browsing.

I wouldn't pay to see a screening that might enrich charlatans like Andy and his enablers. The film will be on the intent for free eventually.

I would advise others to not pay for crap either.
HOWEVER if people want to attend the premier on Friday, that might be free outdoor entertainment- a red carpet perhaps?
- although the forecast says thunderstorms.
It's NY, what do you expect: clear skies and sunny- that's only in the movies.

I do hope the Q&A is challenging.

It won't be; this is Wakefraud here he's going to control the Q & A. And then use that as promo he weathered critical-analysis spectacularly. He's a performer not a scientist.

Transportation Washington DC to New York
$350
Hotel one night in NewYork
$300
Ticket to the premier of Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe
$14.50
The chance to give "Doctor" Wakefield a case of the red a$$
Priceless

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit comedy.

@MJD #108:

Pro-vaxxers can be as radical as anti-vaxxers.

Justify your assertion. Especially since...
"The question of whether there is a link between autism and vaccines has been asked over and over again, and the answer is always the same – no."
...is not radical in any way. All the evidence we have so far gathered says that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Notchka@83 NO NO NO, they are poisoning my favorite NYC theater that has delicious popcorn and wonderful movies. If I did not have a convention this weekend I would be there. It is on Houston and a short walk from sooo many good places to eat, just cross Houston and start wandering.

Heck, Jesse Wente was talking about this on the CBC Metro Morning show yesterday morning.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/jesse-wente…

He acknowledged that film festivals generally don't like being told what to do, but neither him nor the host seemed to think this was a bad decision.

Respectfully, Orac, I'd suggest that the reasons for cutting the time of your interviews are quite different from those concerning Bigtree.

Julian Frost says (#122),

All the evidence we have so far gathered says that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

MJD says,

I'll be convinced when future proteomic investigations clearly show that vaccinated individuals (i.e., autistic vs. non-autistic) have similar profiles.

So far, more proteomic data needs to be gathered before we can say there is no link between vaccines and autism. :-)

@Kochanski. . . I know. I'm an ex West Villager. Lower Manhattan has a huge place my heart!

Respectfully, Orac, I’d suggest that the reasons for cutting the time of your interviews are quite different from those concerning Bigtree.

Yet another thing you are ignorant about.

The average news item runs for no more than 90 seconds. This has to include an introduction to the topic and a conclusion by the reporter, who after all is the star of the piece and gets the most time. The talent will be given a grab (or two if they are lucky) of about 10 seconds each.

It is typical to do about 10 minutes of interview for the editor to look through to find an interesting comment for the grab. Experienced interviewees take advantage of this by providing pretty much the same answer, no matter what the question is, giving the editor little choice.

Having said that if Orac did an hour long interview for a story, it might indicate he suffers as much from logorrhea IRL as on RI.

Also, the interviews to which I referred in this piece were interviews with print reporters, and were a combination of background for a story (often early in the reporter's research) and an interview looking for a quote or two. That's why a few of them were that long. Most interviews I've done are only on the order of 10-15 minutes or so. And I have developed a few talking points for various topics that I always use. :-)

Also, believe me, a reporter won't let an interview stretch to an hour unless he's getting something out of it. I've learned that, too.

Del Bigtree is a TV producer. He's probably been involved with productions containing hundreds of interview segments, all of them created in the conventional manner: footage shot over 30-60 minutes of real-time condensed to a few seconds of sound-bites. He knows the routine. His umbrage is 100% fake. Given his professional experience, his motive for doing the video was almost certainly that any cut ABC would make would give him the opportunity to scream 'Censorship' to the marks he hopes to con into either paying to see Vaxxed, or more likely to send Andy money because they can't see Vaxxed. Of which Del must be getting a nice cut.

I doubt any minions still have working irony meters at this point, but Bigtree's whine follows on the revelation that he appears as an 'interviewee' in the Vaxxed trailer, identified as a 'medical journalist', when he is quite obviously presenting scripted material as part of the fraudulent framing of William Thomspon's comments on the CDC, vaccines, the DeStephano study, etc. etc. etc. He's the producer forcrissakes. He's 'interviewing' himself. The only edits involved in that were probably picking the best takes.

Gray Squirrel ( #115) is quoted, singled out by a commenter at AoA ( on 'Tossed from Tribeca') as expressing "feeling threatened".

Ha ha!

Right, sure, so say people who screamed, "Censorship" when the film was removed, scurried around trying to get it re-instated and failing that, sought out a theatre in which to show this wonder of cinematography.

Denise @ 131:

Ha!, funny. They introduce it with "Somebody from Respectful Insolence "Science"blog is feeling threatened:" and then quote my entire comment, no doubt a copyright violation if someone wanted to pursue it (I don't, I find it amusing as hell).

If only they knew how fully & thoroughly they were infested with spies for our side, they'd retch and get hives. Hint: a) comments that endorse outrageous conspiracy theories (AoAers don't spot those as trolling because they're likely to believe them), b) testimonial moaning with a touch of hysteria or strong entitlement (ditto), and c) repetitive remarks that cause fence-sitters to become bored and stop reading ("wheat from chaff problem").

If AoA wanted to rid themselves of our spies, it would take months of very close checking of IP addresses, times-of-day of postings, and matching of writing styles. The US Intelligence Community has attribution tools that can match identities across differing userIDs based on writing style, and it takes a ridiculously small amount of text to do it. But methinks AoA doesn't have friends in those sorts of high places to help them out, so they'll just have to guess. I'm willing to bet they'll give it some thought and decide it's too difficult, and then come up with some rationalization for doing nothing.

OK, 'nuff said, I have to go deposit my monthly check from (a Pharma that shall not be named). I'll get back to thinking up tomorrow's fool-fodder later tonight.

MJD:

I’ll be convinced when future proteomic investigations clearly show that vaccinated individuals (i.e., autistic vs. non-autistic) have similar profiles.

And what constitutes a "similar profile"? Your comment comes across as an attempt to leave an opportunity to goalpost shift.

MJD

I’ll be convinced when future proteomic investigations clearly show that vaccinated individuals (i.e., autistic vs. non-autistic) have similar profiles.

That's dishonest.

Whether you compare autistic vs non-autistic, or vaccinated vs non-vaccinated (your phrasing is unclear), I expect you will have different proteomics profiles.
The people you will be comparing will have different medical histories, and hence a different proteome. All these extra antibodies following vaccination, to start with.
There is evidence accumulating of genetics difference between autistic and non-auisitic people. That should be reflected into their proteome as well.

And it will prove nothing regarding your pet stories.
You will still have to show a relation between whatever difference in protein content you found and a supposed vaccine/autism reaction.

Wow, thanks for the free publicity!!

As a 20 year veteran of the pharma business, what I find most darkly hilarious about pharma conspiracy theories is believing medical schools where most of the research goes on are in the pocket of "big pharma". Plenty of people in America's top research institutions are extremely anti private pharmaceutical companies. Many feel they should be in charge of how all research dollars are spent and view private pharma as competitors. Access to researchers, teachers, and administration is tightly controlled to the point of being a completely closed system to any outside influence. This same group is avid single payer advocates who feel that the government should control all healthcare both vertically and horizontally. To think that this same group of medical school administration and faculty would cover up deliberate crimes against humanity in order to increase Merck or Sanofi or any other company's profit margin is just plain idiotic. My only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that the conspiracy theorists have a common closed head injury history.

To think that this same group of medical school administration and faculty would cover up deliberate crimes against humanity in order to increase Merck or Sanofi or any other company’s profit margin is just plain idiotic. My only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that the conspiracy theorists have a common closed head injury history.

The reality is a lot simpler than a head injury.

These people are so invested in their version of events being the "TRUTH" that the only way that can conceive that someone with expertise disagrees is that person must have been bought off by the enemy. The alternative does not bear thinking about or the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

The reality is a lot simpler than a head injury.

Susceptibility to which is caused by vaccines (inter alia), BTW.

So whatever causes leaky gut probably causes leaky brain making all these teens more susceptible to chronic problems after mild concussions. Vaccines perhaps? GMOs maybe?

True AoA logic on display there.

Joevw #137

Quite so.

Over here, where we have that horrible socialised NHS, every NHS employee and those of university medical schools (if they aren't NHS employees - there can be an overlap) are bound by all manner of policies and protocols about declaring any hospitality or gifts received, even down to a box of chocolates, with disciplinary action up to and including dismissal hanging over them...

That and the drugs company reps had their hospitality budgets removed quite a few years ago...

But a few inconvenient facts have never bothered the CT types.

I mean, I personally am part of The Big Pharma Conspiracy (former nurse), The Moon Landing Fake Conspiracy (one of my geology lecturers had one of the first samples of lunar rock in the UK), The GMO Conspiracy (a mate worked for the John Innes Institute - he's a plant biochemist), probably the AGW Conspiracy (I have an environmental sciences degree and have friends who are climatologists) and who knows what else...

It appears that Andy & company had a "successful Q and A" yesterday after VAXXED's premier at the Angelika Theatre.
@ delbigtree links to 15 minute you tube coverage of this earth shattering event.
The participants include AJW, Bigtree, Polly Tommey and Brian Hooker. We learn that Del met Andy at a fundraiser in LA and later quit his job in television in order to make the film- he compares the scandal to Watergate.

There is a smattering of applause that leads me to believe that the audience was not in the hundreds: the camera briefly pans around the theatre - I'm guessing that I could count back about 10 rows of seats. One question is asked and not really answered.
Supposedly, there will be 4 Q and As - two Friday and two Saturday. Oh joy more you tube videos. Another person named Jaxon IIRC is now involved as well ( as MC?)/

Andy wears a high priced leather jacket and Polly wears a sleeveless LBD. They'd better! It's NY.

"Several dozen people (and more than a handful of reporters) arrived for the first showing of “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/nyregion/anti-vaccine-film-pulled-fro…

In addition to the NYT news story, coverage so far:

IndieWire: 'Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe' is Designed to Trick You
http://tinyurl.com/z32ltpr

Hollywood Reporter. "Absorbing but unpersuasive."
http://tinyurl.com/hxvnk6s

Daily Beast: I Watched the Anti-Vaxx Doc Booted from TriBeCa Film Festival and It Was Insane
http://tinyurl.com/hqlfvtz

Guardian: One-sided film leaves the elephant in the room
http://tinyurl.com/h494j7y
--------
News Stories
Guardian: Controversial Vaxxed film premieres in New York despite scientists' outcry
http://tinyurl.com/gpslynb

Guardian: Vaxxed: an expert view on controversial film about vaccines and autism
http://tinyurl.com/gpslynb
-------
Todd Drezner's Open Letter to Cinema Libre
http://tinyurl.com/zhdjonb
Drezner's pro-vaccine, pro-neurodiversity documentary Loving Lampposts was distributed by Cinema Libre.
--------
Nothing from Anna Merlan at Jezebel yet.

@ Joewv #137, all that matters is that once I view vaccines as beneficial against disease, and stick needles into kids, I'm an uneducated stooge for "big pharma".

I just wish this "big pharma" would pick up my "big edu" loan tab for all the uneducation.

There is a smattering of applause that leads me to believe that the audience was not in the hundreds: the camera briefly pans around the theatre

less than 20 people that showed up to watch the film’s debut

Just to finish this up- although I'm sure we'll hear more-

the woo-enabler I mentioned is Jeffery Jaxen and he includes various clips of the shlockumentary Q and A at his twitter crapperia

That should be JEFFEREY Jaxen
he's an independent journalist or it that
Indie Journo/ Indy Journoe?
he has a website and various other self-promotion

Also TMR features an article and a review- by the Professor

MarkN@145

@ Joewv #137, all that matters is that once I view vaccines as beneficial against disease, and stick needles into kids, I’m an uneducated stooge for “big pharma”.

I saw a comment on AoA or maybe Facebook, in which someone asked, seriously, whether nurses receive kickbacks for every vaccine administered. Blows me away.

As I tend to do, I'm curating a list of all the reviews of the film.

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2016/04/running-list-of-re…

I really want to watch it with Matt Carey.

Something tells me the film really needs a Rifftrax :)

Joel Hodgson is bringing MST3K back for a handful of episodes, but he already has a list of 'candidates'. Maybe there will be a second season of the reboot.

A few additions:

I surveyed a few anti-vax sites and twitter - including the video Liz links, Luke Rudkowski- and I noticed:
- a rather long line for the evening premier ( a quick guess would be 200 people-
- Ginger Taylor ( I think) posing with AJW
- a better view of the theatre's layout ( I had said I could see 10 rows back) it looks like a long narrow set up- perhaps 20 rows?
.

Today's prn.fm noon woo-fest featured the incredibly ageless** host's latest article, " I'm Jumping on the Vaxxed Bandwagon"** -
I only heard the last 20 minutes ( mercifully, my other work keep me away from the start - but it'll be posted for your amusement)
wherein the woo-meister said that RFK jr said that De Niro told him he was pressured or suchlike by whomever.

** I'm joking

Erin Elizabeth would like your money to help make a movie about the Holistic Doctor Deaths:
Scene from the upcoming movie on Holistic Doctor Deaths

It appears Robert De Niro regrets pulling the film.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/news/robert-niro-wife-saw-change-170258…

Mike Adams noticed that the Tribeca Film Festival has yanked Andrew Wakefield's antivaccine film. Hilarity ensues.

oracknows — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 01:00:57 +0000

Mike Adams noticed that the Tribeca Film Festival has yanked Andrew Wakefield's antivaccine film. Hilarity ensues.

I knew it wouldn't take long. I just knew it.

The moment I learned that Robert De Niro had reversed himself and decided to pull Andrew Wakefield's dishonest antivaccine propaganda "documentary" from his Tribeca Film Festival after having admitted that he was the one who had greased the wheels to get it accepted for screening there, I knew the conspiracy theories would fly fast and furious. And so they have.

So agitated by De Niro's decision are antivaxers that the chief antivaccine loon at his very own wretched hive of scum and quackery, Mike Adams, wrote not one, not two, but three posts in the course of a day. Behold their conspiratorial looniness:

Who knows? By the time I wake up in the morning and my post goes live, Adams may well have written two more. It wouldn't surprise me. I had to wash the spittle off the inside of my screen after letting Adams screeds spew forth.

Right off the bat, Adams lets the conspiracies flow through him. First, he likens the decision by a private nonprofit corporation not to screen a film to "book burning" (by the vaccine industry, natch), Adams rants:

To try to strong-arm De Niro into pulling the film, intense shaming pressure was brought to bear against Robert De Niro by the vaccine totalitarians, who told De Niro this documentary was so dangerous that no one should ever be allowed to see it. Vaccine safety, they insist, can't even be allowed to be DEBATED, they insist! Only one side of the debate may be seen by the public, and that one side must be the 100% pro-vaccine side which ridiculously claims that "the science is settled" even when no one is allowed to see the science they don't want you to see.

OK, I'll give Adams one of these. It's true that intense shaming pressure was put on the Tribeca Film Festival and Robert De Niro in the form of critical articles, blog posts, and Tweets. That, my friends, is free speech. And De Niro should have been ashamed. What he did was to give a prestigious forum to a pseudoscientific propaganda film made by a long discredited antivaccine crank who's been reduced to giving talks on a "Conspira-Sea Cruise" along with New World Order conspiracy theorists and crop circle mavens. Where Adams goes wrong is in his assumption that the vaccine industry must be behind this criticism and that any of it said that vaccine safety can't be debated. What we objected to—and quite justifiably, in my opinion—is a prestigious film festival lifting the profile of a misinformation-packed and deceptively edited piece of antivaccine propaganda. It's not "debate" to regurgitate long-discredited pseudoscience and more recently discredited conspiracy theories. Yet that's exactly what Wakefield's movie did.

Moreover, it's not an issue of "free speech," as much as Adams tries to make it one:

Yet De Niro discovered that even declaring yourself to be pro-vaccine isn't enough to appease the vaccine totalitarians. The mere granting of any public platform to this explosive document is very nearly a crime in the eyes of the corrupt, fraudulent vaccine industry and all its arrogant zealots.

As more pressure was brought against De Niro for defending the free speech of what might be one of the single most important documentaries of our modern age, he caved. He pulled the film from Tribeca, participating in the censorship that was demanded by the vaccine totalitarians. The film's page on Tribeca was also memory holed -- it used to be found at this link -- and De Niro felt compelled to issue a follow-up statement today that appeases the demands of the vaccine fundamentalists.

As I explained last week, no. Just no. Criticism of a bad decision does not equal censorship, and the decision by De Niro to pull Wakefield's film doesn't equal an infringement on Wakefield's free speech. Wakefield has no "right" to have his film shown at the Tribeca Film Festival, and he remains free to promote his ideas and "documentary" as he sees fit. So far, Adams' first article is just the usual antivaccine spew, the same sort of misinformation we've seen many times before.

Here's where the Robert De Niro-specific conspiracy theory shows up in the second article. Declaring that De Niro's decision was the result of a "coordinated, simultaneous attack against the Tribeca Film Festival to censor a film none of them had even seen" by the media, Adams declares:

Natural News can now report that Robert De Niro and his wife spoke directly with U.S. Congressman Bill Posey for approximately one hour on Friday, during which De Niro was given numerous assurances by Congressman Posey that the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, really did confess to taking part in massive scientific fraud to conceal the links between vaccines and autism. It was based in part on this assurance that De Niro originally backed the film's screening at Tribeca.

But hours later, somebody got to De Niro. Somebody powerful and connected whom we believe threatened Robert De Niro into silence. This mysterious conversation has not been revealed. De Niro has not released the names of those from the "scientific community" who threatened him, nor have the VAXXED filmmakers been offered any ability to respond to whatever accusations may have been falsely leveled against the film.

"Natural News can now report"? How cute. Adams thinks he's a real reporter. In any case, how on earth would Adams know this? Who knows? We all know Adams spews nonsense and misinformation; so it's highly likely that this, too, is made-up nonsense and misinformation. But let's, for the sake of argument, consider the possibility that it is not. I've already discussed Posey's pathetic attempt to spin the William Thompson's (a.k.a. the "CDC whistleblower) accusations into accusations of massive scientific fraud, when in fact they were nothing of the sort. Indeed, when the documents given to Posey by Thompson didn't show any evidence of fraud at the CDC, and even Thompson himself didn't seem to buy the accusations that they did. Certainly, Thompson didn't accuse his co-authors of scientific fraud.

(If you are unfamiliar with the CDC whistleblower story, the links cited will help, as will this primer.)

If De Niro is in any way savvy (and I rather suspect he is), talking to Bill Posey might very well have revealed to him how thin the conspiracy theory that is the "CDC whistleblower" really is.

It's not enough for Adams to insinuate, though. He has to get explicit. In fact, he does his damndest to convince his readers that death threats had been made against De Niro:

The silencing of VAXXED, in other words, was carried out with the same secrecy under which the entire vaccine industry operates. There is zero transparency, no due process, no discussion and no debate. Robert De Niro may have even been death threated by the vaccine establishment -- an industry already steeped in the maiming and murdering of children worldwide. To silence this powerful film, they would stop at nothing... not even threatening Robert De Niro with destroying his professional career or possibly his life or family.

This is the vaccine mafia at work: Threatening people into silence, censoring a powerful documentary, leveling secret accusations in secret meetings, all while ridiculously claiming they alone have a monopoly on scientific truth which can never be challenged, debated or even questioned by anyone.

It seems to me that perhaps Adams has been watching too many Robert De Niro movies, particularly his mafia and gangster movies.

Due process? Once again, as I've pointed out before, the Tribeca Film Festival is a private organization. It can choose which movies to screen (or not to screen) based on any criteria it deems appropriate. it can take back an invitation to screen a film, and it does not owe any filmmaker "due process." The only penalty it might pay is if its decisions come to be seen as so capricious that good filmmakers no longer wish to submit their work to it. Indeed, it's likely that one reason why De Niro made the decision he did was for the good of the Tribeca Film Festival, which was suffering a PR bloodbath as a result of Wakefield's film being screened there. Filmmakers like Penny Lane were actually openly criticizing it.

I'm guessing that privately, De Niro was getting an earful from many of the stakeholders of the Tribeca Film Festival. Remember, even though he is one of hte founders, it's not just about Robert De Niro. There are sponsors, people whose livelihood depends on a successful festival, filmmakers who don't want to be associated with the likes of Wakefield, and, of course, the board of directors, who likely would not be pleased at the black eye the festival was suffering by association with Wakefield and the destruction of trust in the festival's process for vetting films to be selected by De Niro's revelation that he had meddled in the selection process to let Wakefield's "documentary" in. In any case, Wakefield is now claiming in an e-mail to HIV/AIDS denialist Celia Farber that it was the Sloan Foundation that put pressure on De Niro, apparently because "The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, in partnership with the Tribeca Film Institute, provides funding for narrative features or series that are scientifically relevant, accurate, and exciting through the TFI Sloan Filmmaker Fund.” I can see how a sponsor like the Sloan Foundation might not be too pleased with the screening of a film by Wakefield at the Tribeca Film Festival.

What it all boils down to is that the credibility of the Tribeca Film Festival was at stake, but not for the reason Adams thinks it is:

In the coverage of all this, we just witnessed the mainstream media committing CREDIBILITY SUICIDE. The entire media just followed in the footsteps of North Korea or Communist China, ordering a film festival to censor a documentary that's so powerful, it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed).

The same Tribeca Film Festival that happily previewed films like "37 USES FOR A DEAD SHEEP" and "TICKED-OFF TRANNIES WITH KNIVES" has decided that the VAXXED documentary is too dangerous for the public to be allowed to view. But this was not a decision reached with rationality and truth: It was arrived at via the process of media totalitarianism -- intimidation and threats aimed at Robert De Niro to force him to silence this film and withdraw it from the festival.

Let's see. Just because Tribeca has screened movies that might not have been the greatest, it should screen Vaxxed too? One notes that Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives is fiction. One also notes that 37 Uses for a Dead Sheep is actually an intriguing documentary about a nomadic sheep herding people, described thusly: "Pamir Kirghiz people have migrated across Central Asia from the U.S.S.R to China to Afghanistan to Pakistan and finally to remote eastern Turkey, but now they face the most serious threat to their traditions, globalization." It's a movie that's won the Caligari Film Award at the Berlin International Film Festival and the award for Best International Documentary at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival. I can't help but think that Adams probably scanned the lists of films screened at Tribeca over the last several years and looked for titles that sounded dumb to him.

In a way, though, it's the last in Adams trilogy of stupid that is the most amusing. Look at the title: Calls mount for Robert De Niro to resign from Tribeca after betraying his own autistic child in censoring VAXXED documentary film. Can you guess who's making theese "mounting calls" for De Niro to resign? Behold:

After being maliciously attacked by a coordinated mainstream media campaign designed to censor a powerful new documentary, Robert De Niro is now facing a tidal wave of backlash from parents of autistic children who have been damaged by vaccines.

Originally hailed as a champion of free speech for his willingness to preview the VAXXED documentary at Tribeca, De Niro is now being widely condemned for turning his back on his own autistic child who was likely vaccine damaged to begin with.

From TruthKings.com:

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM, is among those who are calling for Robert De Niro to resign from his position at TriBeca Film Festival after pulling Dr. Wakefield's documentary, Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.

"De Niro released a statement citing his child's autism as the reason to allow the conversation to happen when he defended Wakefield's film. To turn his back on it afterwards due to advertisers or pharmaceutical influences is a grave injustice and insult to parents of autistic children everywhere. He should resign as this is inexcusable."

Excuse me a moment.

Ha!

Haha!

Hahaha!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry about that. I have my laughter under control now (barely). So a bunch of antivaccine loons, led by Sherry Tenpenny, who, I note, is the founder of Truthkings.com, a new source of antivaccine misinformation, are now calling for De Niro to resign his position on the board of directors of the Tribeca Film Institute. So friggin' what?supposedly

The rest of it really isn't worth discussing, as Adams just regurgitates his same misguided rants about how the credibility of Tribeca is being destroyed by De Niro's decision (it's not; if anything, De Niro's decision helped save its credibility), how the vaccine industry "threatened" De Niro, and how De Niro is trampling on free speech (he isn't).

Although Adams is an extreme variant of the sorts of arguments antivaccinationists are making to try to counter the PR debacle that they've just suffered, it's clear that Adams isn't alone. For instance, on the Vaxxed website, we see Wakefield's response to his disinvitation from the Tribeca Film Festival:

To our dismay, we learned today about the Tribeca Film Festival's decision to reverse the official selection of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.

Robert De Niro's original defense of the film happened Friday after a one-hour conversation between De Niro and Bill Posey, the congressman who has interacted directly and at length with the CDC Whistleblower (William Thompson) and whose team has scrutinized the documents that prove fraud at the CDC.

It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film - claims that we were given no opportunity to challenge or redress. We were denied due process.

We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth.

Tribeca's action will not succeed in denying the world access to the truth behind the film Vaxxed.

We are grateful to the many thousands of people who have already mobilized including doctors, scientists, educators and the autistic community.

We will be pressing forward and sharing our plans in the very near future.

Onward!

- Andrew Wakefield (Director) and Del Bigtree (Producer)

To which I can only answer with two appropriate scenes from Monty Python.

First:

Help! Help! Wakefield and his antivaccine admirers are being repressed.

Second, this one describes Wakefield's call of "Onward!" quite accurately:

What you've just heard are the sounds of Andrew Wakefield and Mike Adams saying, "We'll call it a draw" and then yelling, "Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"

Then Polley Tommey joins them both by telling her fellow antivaccine activists that they should forgive Robert De Niro (as if his decision to yank Vaxxed was wrong) because he must have been frightened by someone or something and he took scientific advice from the "wrong people."

Truly, the level of delusion of these people knows no bounds.

oracknows Sun, 03/27/2016 - 21:00

The Health Deranger has diverted the links from here to his three screeds to a different part of his site. To read the original articles you'll need to copy-paste the titles (for example "VAXXED film pulled from Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Film Festival following totalitarian censorship demands from pharma-linked vaccine pushers and media science trolls") and put them into a Google search.

I have spent the past several days watching this unfold. It is as fascinating as it was predictable. Their on-going alternative provider as murder victim theory dovetails nicely into this when they look for reasons for the movie to be pulled.

Robert De Niro and his wife spoke directly with U.S. Congressman Bill Posey for approximately one hour on Friday, during which De Niro was given numerous assurances by Congressman Posey that the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, really did confess to taking part in massive scientific fraud to conceal the links between vaccines and autism. It was based in part on this assurance that De Niro originally backed the film’s screening at Tribeca.

I am happy to believe that De Niro was the victim of outrageous barefaced lies from a lying scumbag politician, and that he changed his mind when he checked those lies and saw how much they contradicted reality. What I don't understand is why Mike is explaining this to his readers. Unless, of course, he really despises them and wants to insult their intelligence.

@Mrs Woo #2:

The "holistic doctors murdered by Big Pharma theory" was created as an alternative narrative to the more probable story that Jeff Bradstreet committed suicide following investigations into his role in an international online scam involving a "miracle" cancer/AIDS/autism cure called GcMAF.

The principal amplifier of this theory is Erin Elizabeth, who is Joseph Mercola's partner. She in turn is amplifying the "concerns" of Bradstreet's brother and sister-in-law, Thomas and Candice Bradstreet.
http://www.autisminvestigated.com/tag/thomas-bradstreet/

It turns out that Candice is also flogging the same "miracle" cure online, in a face cream vehicle:
http://reactivatedwellness.com/products/maf-active

Jeff Bradstreet's suicide was not a total loss, however, as Candice has exploited it to persuade generous numpties to give her $41,174:
https://www.gofundme.com/xscefs

The Del Bigtree interview has just knocked me off my chair laughing. This is...something else. I've kept a copy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcdh7KlgPI

Dinguses. Dinguses the lot of them.

Mikey Adams sez:

one of the single most important documentaries of our modern age,

Well okey dokey then.

Bob @7 -- That should be 'dingi'..

In the coverage of all this, we just witnessed the mainstream media committing CREDIBILITY SUICIDE. The entire media just followed in the footsteps of North Korea or Communist China, ordering a film festival to censor a documentary that’s so powerful, it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed).

Hyperbole is part of Adams' signature style. Of course, he is implicitly admitting that the mainstream media still have some credibility, as otherwise they could not be committing all-caps credibility suicide. I wasn't aware that Adams thought the mainstream media had any credibility. Chinese censorship does not work the way Adams thinks it does: Mike is still posting his screeds from an address known to authorities, and has not been brought in for "questioning", as happens in high-profile Chinese cases. Also, privately owned media are not the government and not controlled by the government, unlike in China and North Korea. And the film in question isn't going to expose anything other than the mendacity of the people involved in making it.

@ herr doktor bimler

What I don’t understand is why Mike is explaining this to his readers. Unless, of course, he really despises them and wants to insult their intelligence.

I'm afraid it's quite simple and quite ancient:
Personal testimony (a.k.a. gossip or also anecdote) is rated higher than physical evidence in public opinion trials. Especially if coming from someone in a position of authority.
Think witch trial.

A higher-up has spoken; he recognized there was a fraud. Case closed.
It doesn't matter that this senator very likely doesn't know any better than Jo the Plumber about the whole kerkuffle. Any contradictory evidence was planted by the men in black.

Wow! Reading a Mike Adams article is almost like playing Mad Libs with my kids... If they were insane.

Seriously though, I can't imagine what goes through that guys mind. I mean, I could assume it's just the sound of white noise, but FFS.

Orac

a long discredited antivaccine crank who’s been reduced to giving talks on a “Conspira-Sea Cruise” along with New World Order conspiracy theorists and crop circle mavens.

Don't forget the "Soveriegn Citizens" who were giving "legal advice" on that cruise.

They can always hold the premier on movie night
At the notorious FEMA camps holding facility they think exists.

I believe that there is indeed a vast conspiracy but it's on the other side!

There are international groups that advocate for woo ( ANH worldwide ) and fairly political units ( Health Freedom/ Libertarian groups/ see Bolen), not to mention the anti-vaccine and autism organisations which redundantly include the same principal activists ( the Canary Party, Age of Autism, Health Freedom whatever, Sane Vax, TMR et al )

Most of these groups maintain outlets of propaganda such as blogs, websites and internet radio ( Talk Network, prn.fm) creating faux documentaries as well as being on extremely friendly terms with a publisher ( Skyhorse) who prints their material. They implement conferences and lobby congresses and parliaments worldwide. Every group has loyal underlings who manage the day-to-day work of facebook posts and other advocacy on the internet who masquerade as concerned parents or citizens.

In addition, there are incestuous relationships amongst these groups: an antivax thought leader will appear on a natural health advocate's radio show, be interviewed on a friendly website or appear in a documentary like the one being discussed. They quote each other's research and projects whilst excluding SB studies. They defend each other when sceptics uncover their manoeuverings.( Truth Kings, Natural News, here)

All of the names mentioned above by Orac work together: they support each other and at heart, follow the same star- they seek money from people whom they mislead. Some of them earn millions each year selling products and treatments that at best do nothing and cause no harm; in addition to money, they seek fame and respect from their audiences. Many of them live in luxury on estates and hobby farms or ranches while pretending to be average- but highly intelligent and moral- people. The internet is rife with images of these palaces.

I should perhaps draw a chart of the internecine alliances but circles and arrows are not my strong suit. But it's all there.

The forever prescient Orac was correct:
Adams had two more posts today -
an interview with Del Bigtree and one that links the Sloan Foundations to N-zis.

What planet are these people living on? The autistic community absolutely hates being described as "vaccine damaged" and accepts the science that vaccines do not cause autism. The wider disability community also finds anti-vax to be ableist as it endangers people with low immune systems the most. Many of us need medications that lower our immune response and we shouldn't have to face anymore risk than that already entails because some ableist dicks are paranoid "teh autisms is gunna infect muh kid"!

I believe that there is indeed a vast conspiracy but it’s on the other side!

If not vast, it may be half-vast.

Mike Adams has committed CREDIBILITY SUICIDE so many times that he should be an expert on the subject.

But alas, not.

"But hours later, somebody got to De Niro. Somebody powerful and connected whom we believe threatened Robert De Niro into silence."

Is it too late to get Robert Duvall to play the part of Orac in "The Vaxfather"?

So Wakefield cheats the system, pulling strings and getting De Niro to insert Vaxxed into the festival.

When the festival comes under attack, Wakefield does what any budding film maker would do, he gets a Member of Congress to call De Niro in support of his film.

When his film is pulled, Wakefield decries the lack of due process. Because he's played by the rules all along? because he was totally transparent about how he got into the Festival?

Mike Adams has committed CREDIBILITY SUICIDE so many times that he should be an expert on the subject.

You cannot kill what never lived.

If not vast, it may be half-vast.

Certainly some of the participants are. But this is a full-blown conspiracy, and several people (Adams and Wakefield, to name two) manage to make a decent living at it. It's certainly an easier way to make a living than doing real science research. Alas, I have moral standards which prevent me from going this route.

Apparently boldface is the new all-caps - though apparently Adams still can't resist the urge to use both to make sure you know his statements are super-duper extra true.

@Euphonia #17 - Oh but you see, "high functioning" autistics like us aren't like the anti-vaxers' kids, so we don't count (except when they want to use the increasing numbers of HFAs getting diagnosed to support their "autism epidemic" fear-mongering.)

#18 - MO'B,
"If not vast, it may be half-vast."
I saw what you did there. Clever... and sneaky.

(If not vast, it may be half-assed.)

I remember, many years ago, during the Soviet era, reading an interview with a Russian writer. They had been very excited to emigrate to the U.S. where they would finally be free to publish their work. Once here, they discovered that no one was interested in publishing it. Or reading it. They commented something to the effect that, "At least in the U.S.S.R., my censors read my books".

Wakefield's freedom of speech ends at my desire to listen.

@ Eric Lund:

You are correct: all you have to do is......

Follow the money!
( I've always wanted to say that)

At any rate, as I now listen to prn.fm, the hoary old host gets into the act as well- about AJW and RDN:
there will be a special edition of his commentary hour Tuesday night with Andy and a special in depth report and an expert on trolls. "We will get the film shown" in the next 30 days and * more people will see it than at the Tribeca FF"

Thus proving my above point.

OH CRAP! I hit the wrong ( error) saved e-mail
but basically :
I joked and noted that as I wrote, prn.com announced that ....
Andy will appear Tuesday night to discuss the TFF/ RDN whilst the host will present an analysis or suchlike tripe and an expert on trolls will comment.
Oh joy!

If Wakefield is so concerned about "freedom of speech", he can put his videocy on YouTube. It will be available without interference worldwid.

He is entitled to free speech, not money and prestige.

All these "holistic doctor murders" they claim, yet somehow 1st tier cranks, quacks and frauds like Wakefield, Adams, Mercola, BL Fisher, Tenpenny, etc keep thriving and surviving.

Pretty sh**ty conspiracy if you ask me.

Do we think Mike Adams is truly this delusional/paranoid, or is merely a pandering con who talks a good game? Serious question.

Is it too late to get Robert Duvall to play the part of Orac in “The Vaxfather”?

^Reluctantly upvoted.

or is HE merely a pandering con etc. etc. edit function etc.

@ Delphine:

I think that Mikey believes SOME of his rants -

that there are huge conspiracies, that he is indeed a brilliant seer who sees into plots and understands science, that his woo works and he will be on top after the much vaunted paradigm shift occurs-

HOWEVER I think that he also lies ( presenting his guesses as facts) and exaggerates the extent to which his altie nonsense works as well as the likelihood of many of his end times scenarios.

I also believe that he follows many of his woo-fraught dietary regimes assiduously. He probably also raises chickens and goats as he reports.

He hasn't the ability to self- critique and self-evaluate his capacities. In short, he thinks he *da bomb*

Leading numpty Jon Rappoport weighs in on the subject:

Think about this. You can see a film about US drone strikes killing innocent civilians. You can see a film about criminal surveillance of the entire population. You can see a film about the CIA overthrowing foreign governments. You can see a film about mega-corporations spewing chemicals into towns, where children are born with defects and adults are dying of cancer.

But you can’t see a film that suggests a vaccine could be causing autism.

Poor fellow can't seem to answer his own rhetorical question. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/vaxxed-how-did-they-threa…

Denice @ #15
You could just sum that up by saying they have a coefficient of inbreeding approaching 1.

That makes a lot of sense, Denice. Thank you.

Think about this. You can see a film about US drone strikes killing innocent civilians. You can see a film about criminal surveillance of the entire population. You can see a film about the CIA overthrowing foreign governments. You can see a film about mega-corporations spewing chemicals into towns, where children are born with defects and adults are dying of cancer.

But you can’t see a film that suggests a vaccine could be causing autism.

And why won't Tribeca screen the documentary I made on caring, gentle pedophiles??

@ janet:

You're probably correct but my! do your words create unseemly and disturbing images.

Heeheeheeehee

"“Natural News can now report”? How cute. Adams thinks he’s a real reporter."

The conspiracies associated with this story run deep and wide. Vaccine resistance movement group is ground zero for them, if anyone wants to look on Facebook. My favorite is that they silenced De Niro by threatening to kill him in the same way they killed Steve McQueen They think McQueen had pancreatic cancer and was cured. He was going to "blow the lid off" the cancer treatment world but the CIA offed him first. So, De Niro was silenced, apparently by the CIA and Obama.

Steve died of lung cancer, by the way.

they have a coefficient of inbreeding approaching 1

janet, I am so stealing that.

they killed Steve McQueen They think McQueen had pancreatic cancer and was cured. He was going to “blow the lid off” the cancer treatment world but the CIA offed him first. So, De Niro was silenced, apparently by the CIA and Obama.

Wow, can't even keep their Steves straight. Steve Jobs had an islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas. And also Steve McQueen died in 1980

Maybe their combining Steve Jobs with Patrick Swayze to come up with Steve McQueen (which is an obvious anagram, or is it a palindrome)?

they're

Certainly in all this, one can conclude Mike Adams lacks any sense of moral fortitude or decency. He also may be playing up past speculation of DeNiro being Jewish by modifying the Tribeca logo to include a swastika, an utterly reprehensible & morally desperate act of cowardice. There appears to be no low Mike Adams won't plumb!

I felt that it might be enlightening to look up Mike's educational background:
he's vague about it in Health Ranger.com- the only place he admits what his degree is in was in a July 2016 article about his "brush with poverty"-
it's a BS in Technical Writing.

Oddly I find that as hard to believe as if he stated that he had one in science, mathematics or psychology.

that's July 2014

@ Denice Walter

BS Technical Writing

Are you sure Mike didn't put the words back to front?

@ Helianthus:

Actually, he spells it out but I thought my version ( notice no quotes) superior.

Mrs Pointer @4:
It turns out that Candice is also flogging the same “miracle” cure online, in a face cream vehicle:

In the interests of pedantry accuracy, we should note that Lesley Hutchings-- manufacturer of the "MafActive" products that Candice Bradstreet is peddling -- is careful not to claim that they actually contain GcMAF. Instead she describes them as "based around a isolated immune protein similar to that known as GcMAF", or else as unspecified "glycoprotein".

For further accuracy, I note that the MafActive range includes a glycoprotein enriched toothpaste.

I just looked up the trailer for 37 Uses For A Dead Sheep. I'm going to put that on my to-watch list; it looks interesting. And based in reality. Like a film that's worth showing at a festival.

Censorship? You want censorship, just try posting a reasonable, factual comment on Adams' Natural News site that contradicts what he posts. As a friend of mine recently learned, for committing such an offense, Natural News will have you banned. But it's not the CIA, vaccine, or pharmaceutical industry that Adams need fear, but fanatics in the Italian mafia who greatly respect Mr. De Niro.

DW: "I also believe that he follows many of his woo-fraught dietary regimes assiduously. He probably also raises chickens and goats as he reports."

Are you sure you're using the correct verb in that last sentence?

it’s a BS in Technical Writing.

Only a B.S.? Mike should have gone for the Ph.D. We all know what B.S. stands for--M.S. means "More of the Same" and Ph.D. means "Piled Higher and Deeper".

Are you sure you’re using the correct verb in that last sentence?

38 uses for a dead goat.

I'm sure you'll all be delighted to learn there is now the obligatory Change.org petition:

http://www.donotlink.com/www.change.org/p/tribeca-bring-vaxxed-back-to-…

Speaking of censorship, L'il Jake Crosby blocked further posts from me because I dared to probe his claim that Wakefraud was going to seek his medical licence back, based of course on the Walker-Smith appeal. I asked him how that would work and he gave me a link for the wrong oversight to handle such an affair.

I looked at Jake's comments, and I see he pointed Science Mom toward http://www.mpts-uk.org/

Not being at all familiar with this organization (not being a subject of the Queen, and all) I had to have a look.

It seems that they "are the adjudication function for UK doctors. We protect patients by making independent decisions about a doctor’s fitness to practise, measured against professional standards set by the GMC. We have powers to impose sanctions on a doctor’s practice, where necessary, to protect the public."

Jake says the site has information that shows how "Doctor" Wakefield can have his medical license restored. They can impose sanctions, but what about appeals? Well, they have a whole page dedicated to just that.

http://www.mpts-uk.org/decisions/1656.asp

What do they say about it?

Any doctor who has been found impaired by a medical practitioners tribunal can appeal against the decision. The appeal is made under Section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 (amended) and the papers must be filed at the appropriate court (see below) within 28 days of the doctor being notified of the decision of the tribunal.

If a doctor wishes to challenge any other decision made by a tribunal, for example the issuing of a warning, this is done by way of judicial review.

How long ago was "Doctor" Wakefield struck off? More than 28 months, I believe, considerably more than 28 days.

But Jake never let common sense or the facts hold him back, has he?

Quite true Johnny although the GMC does allow for "restoration of licence" http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/restoration.asp if you don't appeal within the (very strict) 28 days then you have to wait five years for filing for restoration.

Click on "Certificates of Good Standing" and this is where Wakefraud is a wee bit screwed.

"to file for restoration" blech.

Perhaps Andy isn't trying to get a licence in the UK:
he lives in the US... so maybe there?
I wonder if being struck off elsewhere would interfere with attempting that feat.
There's always going for an ND at Bastyr. Or a DC degree.
Or Canada.
Heh. Heh.

I wonder if being struck off elsewhere would interfere with attempting that feat.

Yeah kinda. 'Tho he might be able to shop around for some country with a low bar for a licence to practice. If he's seriously going to attempt this, it's pretty much a given there will be various fund-raisers for St. Andy. Another stupid PR stunt.

Perhaps Andy isn’t trying to get a licence in the UK:
he lives in the US… so maybe there?
I wonder if being struck off elsewhere would interfere with attempting that feat.

Hell, he can't even demonstrate current competence.

Click on “Certificates of Good Standing” and this is where Wakefraud is a wee bit screwed.

That specifically excludes the GMC; the five-year rule indeed appears to govern in this case (PDF).

That specifically excludes the GMC

Eh?

Did you read this? (Yeah you probably did)
10 What factors do the medical practitioners tribunal
take into account when considering the application for restoration?

The tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the following:
a The circumstances that led to erasure.
b The reasons given by the previous tribunal (or
committee) for the decision to direct erasure.
c Whether you have any insight into the
matters that led to erasure.
d What you have done since your name was erased from the register.
e The steps you have taken to keep your medical
knowledge and skills up to date and the steps you have taken to rehabilitate yourself professionally and socially.

Oh I see what you are saying now. Yes, I know but isn't the problem where has Wakefield been practising in order for him to be in good standing?

"it threatens the cascade of lies propping up the fraudulent vaccine industry and all its hidden truths (that are about to be exposed"...... have they set a date?

That specifically excludes the GMC

Eh?

"When you apply, we will ask you for details of each medical regulatory authority that you have been registered or licensed with in the last five years (other than the General Medical Council), even if you have not practised in that jurisdiction.

'You must send us a certificate of good standing from each of the medical regulatory authorities that you have listed."

It's about people whose UK registrations have lapsed because they've been practicing elsewhere (I presume that the "even if" language isn't meant to exclude not practicing at all).

Did you read this? (Yeah you probably did)

I didn't say that he wasn't utterly fυcked, mind you. He'd have to cop to the whole shebang and show contrition – throw himself on the mercy of the court, in other words.

I didn’t say that he wasn’t utterly fυcked, mind you. He’d have to cop to the whole shebang and show contrition – throw himself on the mercy of the court, in other words.

Soooo, look out Kazakhstan? I'll refrain from inserting any Borat jokes albeit tempting.

I didn’t say that he wasn’t utterly fυcked, mind you. He’d have to cop to the whole shebang and show contrition – throw himself on the mercy of the court, in other words.

The chances of Andrew Wakefield doing this will be nil. It would mean admitting he was wrong.

He would also fail on item c) as well.

^ "isn’t meant to exclude include not practicing at all"

Heh. I note that Patty Bolen's only recent contribution has been (in selling his role as proper leader of the antivaccine "movement," I suppose) some babbling about billboards and wearing T-shirts. In the process, he manages to fail to understand that the image he's lifted from Renee DiResta shows the opposite of what he thinks it does.

I've been watching this Tribeca thing with interest but frankly with a large amount of ignorance about what goes on in the film universe.

From what I can tell, the quacksters managed to take advantage of De Niro's lack of knowledge of what they've been up to, and leverage his family's situation into getting their propaganda piece shown (almost!). This is a classic case where exceptional talent in one's chosen area does not translate to being able to spot a badguy in another area where one doesn't have expertise.

In other words, Wakefield tried to screw De Niro and almost succeeded until others in the film community and the sciences were able to give him the heads-up. At which point De Niro did the right thing, but now he's being given a huge ration of s*** from the con-artists and their sympathizers. With friends like those...

The sheer ghoulishness of Wakefield and his pals is way beyond shocking. In effect they treated De Niro as an object of opportunity, to be manipulated because he has an autistic kid. That's just evil.

With that attitude, Wakefield has about as much chance of getting his license back, as Ammon Bundy has of getting a national wildlife refuge named after him.

^ The first of DiResta's slides is also titled "Human Robots."

Grey Squirrel: "From what I can tell, the quacksters managed to take advantage of De Niro’s lack of knowledge of what they’ve been up to, and leverage his family’s situation into getting their propaganda piece shown (almost!). This is a classic case where exceptional talent in one’s chosen area does not translate to being able to spot a badguy in another area where one doesn’t have expertise."

This is what baffles me... how could anyone with a autistic teenager, who is almost an adult, not know about Wakefield's reputation? Did he leave all of the parenting of the child to Grace Hightower? I have serious problems with that.

Except that is also my experience with dear hubby. He had no clue, he left it all to me to manage. After the feedback session from the psychologist who diagnosed our twenty something year old son, my dear hubby pointed at his weird pacing by our car like it was something new. I had to tell him it was a behavior I had known about for years.

At least I now have hubby on board. I feel for what Ms. Hightower has gone through over the past few years, even though I despise her support of a sociopath like Wakefield.

Some clarification: I am assuming that Ms. Hightower and I have had the same problem with our hubbies --- both were living in denial (you know that river in Egypt). Rim shot.

Gray Squirrel: "With that attitude, Wakefield has about as much chance of getting his license back, as Ammon Bundy has of getting a national wildlife refuge named after him."

That is hilarious, and very true.

The Health Deranger is now claiming that Tribeca's decision to pull the film is because they and many other film festivals have been infiltrated by the Nazi-linked Sloan foundation:

"The Nazi dream of eugenics and genetic domination continues on through the Sloan Foundation and its infiltration of Sundance and Tribeca film festivals."
https://web.archive.org/web/20160329075042/http://www.naturalnews.com/0…

Mikey also invites us to discover more about the Sloan Foundation through his Goodgopher search engine, whose fifth search result is the JewWatch website. Apparently the Sloan Foundation are not only Nazis, they are also Jewish Supremacists:
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-jewishsupremacyassociationsmovements-founda…

Robert De Niro says that he was only wanting to start a "conversation". As my mother, Mrs Pointer Snr, used to say - "you should be careful what you wish for".

Chris:

This is what baffles me… how could anyone with a autistic teenager, who is almost an adult, not know about Wakefield’s reputation?

Because the Press (with the notable exception of Brian Deer) that made such a hue and cry over Wakefield's original study, was considerably quieter over his conviction and striking off. I only found out about Wakefield when I was searching Google News for stories about autism. That's what got me involved. It''s not too difficult to understand how somebody might not know that.
In addition, Wakefield is a charming and very plausible individual. It's quite possible that De Niro or Hightower did find out, but that Wakefield was able to convince them that there was chicanery against him.

Apparently the Sloan Foundation are not only Nazis, they are also Jewish Supremacists:

Hmm, scratches head in surprise.
Ehh, aren't those groups mutualy exclusive?
From what I've learned the Nazis wanted to destroy all Jews.

I was curious to see if any publicly information existed about the Truthkings(TK) site, but apparently they’re not into transparency.

However, the site has a mail exchanger, mail.truthkings.com, which is hosted at the IP 192.232.230.98 (http://bgp.he.net/ip/192.232.230.98#_dns). This IP/server also hosts Vaxxter.com, an anti vaccine site, and Wellnesssoldier.com, which has the typical “Honest Truth about Cancer" articles and a few other wellness related gems. All three sites have identical word-for-word privacy policy statements and similar setups. I’d wager that they were assembled by the same individual(s). Vaxxer and Wellness Soldier give an address (bottom of privacy policy statement) of 3 south pine island road Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33324, which doesn’t seem to exist. There is a 3 S Pine Island Rd, Plantation, FL 33324, but it appears to be located in the middle of a highway. TK's address, 3395 S. Jones Blvd Suite 215 Las Vegas, NV 89146, is likely just a rental mailbox.

Here are some other potentially meaningless tidbits:

Since TK is referred to as ‘Truth Kings Inc.’ on the site (at the bottom of the privacy policy statement- link in bottom right of site), I figured they must be a registered business. They are. They are registered in Nevada to two rather common sounding names: Christopher Crilly and Mary Ann Murray. Interestingly, there is another business registered to the pair and a few ones that are likely affiliated. They have no connection to health and most of Christopher Crilly’s businesses have a revoked status (several even used the same TK rental mail box address). They include Super Charged Inc. and Superior Internet. Mary Ann Murray also had a business with an Amanda C Crilly called Premium Internet Services Inc, while Christopher Crilly ran Premium Internet Corporation. Christopher Crilly also had a business with a Bradley M Shaw called Caliber Services Inc. The Shaw name reminded me of the Shaw that wrote several articles on TK, but that could just be a coincidence. I can’t directly link to the business search results, but you can type in the business names here to see their info: https://nvsilverflume.gov/businessSearch

All 3 "health” sites feature a large number of ads, so I’d like to speculate that their scare-bait articles are great for generating revenue, which is probably one of the primary goals with these business and the others. So, does Sherri Tenpenny own the TK site/ found the site, is she somehow connected to the site creator/had someone register the business in her place/use a pseudonym, or is TK just a platform that takes advantage of her articles, many of which draw in the health ranger crowd?

& BTW- TK's Facebook 'new page likes' are up 144.8% this week.

Gals, guys,

Please stop asking for an edit button: no edit button == more comments == more click through == more donuts for the business.

How far I'm off?

or is TK just a platform that takes advantage of her articles

Not seeing any original material there, because that would require work.
Grifters gotta grift.

Free speech? Never, ever heard of it?The vaccine film Robert De Niro won’t let his audience see. Robert De Niro Is a coward....I never thought anyone would say that, yet there it is.

Free speech? Never, ever heard of it?The vaccine film Robert De Niro won’t let his audience see. Robert De Niro Is a coward….I never thought anyone would say that, yet there it is.

How dare Robert De Niro express himself freely! He ought to be allowed to say what YOU tell him only, or it's not freedom FREEEEDOOOOMMM!!!!!one!!

Also, just tell Wakefield to put it up on Youtube or vimeo, or rent a theater to show it yourself.

@ gaist

How dare Robert De Niro express himself freely!

Over at the Forbes' article from Tara Haelle, quite a number of readers wrote quite nasty comments, in essence reproaching Ms Haelle to express her negative opinion on Wakefield's movie.

Apparently, free speech doesn't extend to your opponents, even when they are writing on their own blog.

I didn’t say that he wasn’t utterly fυcked, mind you. He’d have to cop to the whole shebang and show contrition – throw himself on the mercy of the court, in other words.

BTW, Jake has been holding that link in limbo for two days (the site still reports UTC).

Has anyone watched this movie yet? What was the movie like?
Hardly relevant judging it on a 2 minute trailer. I never saw anywhere in the trailer it was anti vaxx, just pro truth. Surely a fraud in the CDC, is worth watching? Cant wait to see it then I will actually be able to report MY OWN VIEWS on the movie, instead of reading everyone elses views, WHO HAVENT EVEN WATCHED IT?

WHY ON EARTH IS THIS CALLED SCIENCE BLOGS, NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN HERE????????????? ROFL

Why are you rabbit ing on about Mike someone? Has he seen the film? Hope so.... no one else has, is this Mike Adams person a film critic, or something? I think this whole piece of crap reporting was paid for by this Mike Adams, so you list direct links to his whatever? Clever move Mike? Because there is absolutely nothing of substance, except a set up bitch fight between this author, and some Mike fellow? How about just sending each other an email, and sparing us the rant?

@Angela:

Has anyone watched this movie yet? What was the movie like?

List of reviews here.
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2016/04/running-list-of-re…

I never saw anywhere in the trailer it was anti vaxx, just pro truth.

It was made by a man who built a fortune on lying about MMR. I hate to get all biblical, but "by the tree you will know the fruit", and all that.

@Angela

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/03/22/andrew-wakefield-releases-…

Setting aside the fact that Mr. Wakefield has been thoroughly exposed as a fraud and a huckster and the entire premise of the "documentary" (i.e the CDC whistleblower) just doesn't hold up under scrutiny, the fact that the mere trailer of the movie is found guilty of outright cutting and splicing of soundbites is enough to, as a matter of fact, judge the entire movie based on it.

WHY ON EARTH IS THIS CALLED SCIENCE BLOGS, NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN HERE?

Then you didn't look hard enough.

Between this thread, the 3 related threads (available as hyperlinks as the start of the main post) and links provided by the readers on these 4 threads, there must be over 40 scientific references to go look at.

I would also point out that "Science Blog" is more than this thread on Adams' reaction about a movie festival. Plenty of science all around, for those open-minded enough to honesty look for it.

As an aside, from the reviews previously quoted, there is not a lot of science in "Vaxxed."
Unless you count the use of the science of propaganda - how to make a movie light on evidence, but full of emotional appeal.

autofilling error, my previous post did not use the proper e-mail. Apologies for that.

Andrew Wakefield and the Tribeca Film Festival: Criticism of a bad decision ≠ "censorship"

oracknows — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:00:18 +0000

Andrew Wakefield and the Tribeca Film Festival: Criticism of a bad decision ≠ "censorship"

Ever since I mentioned on Tuesday that the prestigious Tribeca Film Festival had taken a massive dump on reality and science by selecting for screening Andrew Wakefield's antivaccine propaganda "documentary," Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, dedicated to the so-called "CDC whistleblower," the topic has taken over, as topics sometimes tend to do here. In response to the mounting criticism for featuring a film by a scientific fraud clearly intended as an "I'll show you all" moment to persuade viewers that Wakefield was right after all about his long discredited claim that the MMR vaccine can cause autism, a spokesperson for the film festival provided one of the most disingenuous excuses ever, even going so far as to post it on Twitter in response to the hammering that Tribeca is taking:

@diraquel Like most film fests, Tribeca is about dialogue & conversation. We present opposing viewpoints without judgement or endorsement.

— Tribeca (@Tribeca) March 23, 2016

As I said, Tribeca is utterly clueless on this front.

But what's done is done, as I've said elsewhere. However this Expelled!-level bit of pseudoscientific propaganda found its way onto the Tribeca Film Festival schedule, be it through a big name star putting in a good word to the organizers or an antivaccine-sympathetic and science-averse reviewer thinking that there really is a conspiracy on the part of the CDC to "hide" the evidence that vaccine cause autism (it is, after all, one of the organizing "principles" of the antivaccine movement), it's there now. Never mind that this "conspiracy" is a whole lot of nothing.

What made me decide to turn this series of posts into a trilogy is that now the antivaccine movement has weighed in with a couple of tropes that long time readers will find quite familiar. No, I'm not referring to a couple of climate science denialists who have popped up in the comments of my last post, in which I compared antivaccine activists to climate change "skeptics," who do so resent being compared to antivaccinationists or creationists, even though they are very similar in the forms their arguments take and the level of evidence mangling they engage in to deny that the climate is warming largely due to human activity. First, I'm referring to tone trolls. We have one right now, who is oh so outraged that I'm not a lot more polite and "respectful" to the antivaccine fringe in general and Andrew Wakefield in particular. Such is life. If you haven't figured out that the title of this blog is, at least to some extent, sarcastic, this probably isn't the blog for you.

A more common antivaccine trope worth addressing is this one, featured this morning on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism entitled Media Lockstep Crackdown on Any Vaccine Safety (Danger) Conversation Continues at Salon. It's rather hilarious, given that it comes from the AoA "Media Editor" Anne Dachel, a woman who is best known for sending her antivaccine flying monkeys to throw feces into the discussion thread after any article critical of antivaccine pseudoscience or supportive of vaccines. Basically, she starts with an image from the National Coalition Against Censorship outlining the history of film censorship in the United States. Mary Elizabeth Williams' article on Salon.com entitled Anti-vaxxer’s Tribeca triumph: Discredited doctor’s documentary about “the long-debated link between autism and vaccines” doesn’t belong in respected festival. (What's to argue with?)

In any case, Dachel's post begins:

And now another installment of the "NO NO YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT VACCINES AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIFE SAVING FAIRY WATER" files.... Salon attacks a prestigious film festival for daring to include a film about vaccines. The censorship calls in the media toward the vaccine injured and their families and those who dare speak out is nothing short of North Korean in its approach. But Americans are wising up. Visit the National Coalition Against Censorship to learn more about the history of censorship in America. They need to do some updating...

Let me spell it out one more time for Ms. Dachel:

Criticism ≠ "censorship"

Let me also spell it out for her again:

Freedom of speech ≠ freedom from criticism

I hate this gambit, because it is so clueless and/or dishonest.

Let's take a look at what's going on here. The Tribeca Film Festival, for whatever reason, has made a huge mistake, choosing what even the trailer reveals to be a dishonest film that manipulates quotes from its subject, William Thompson, promoting a dangerous pseudoscientific idea. It's a private corporation; so it has the right to choose to screen any film its organizers want to screen. It can use any criteria and process that its organizers deem appropriate. It could, if it so desired, take 3" x 5" cards with the name of each film entered into a big bowl and draw them at random or just have one of its founders, like Robert De Niro, pick whatever he wanted the festival to show if that's what it wanted to do. There's nothing any of us can do about that directly, particularly those of us not involved in the process. Those of us on the pro-science side are also quite cognizant that in any film festival screening hundreds of films selected from thousands of submissions, there will be occasional—or even not-so-occasional—pieces of cinematic crap that slip through. This, however, "smells" different than the run-of-the-mill bad movie that sometimes gets selected for film festivals, even ones as prestigious as Tribeca or Sundance.

What we can and should do is to criticize and question the selection. We also have every right to start asking organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival how such a piece of scientific and film dreck could have been selected. That is exactly what I've done. So have Mary Elizabeth Williams, Laura June, Anna Merlan, Matt Carey, Brownwen Dickey, and Michael Hiltzik, for example. None of them have called for "censorship." The worst that's been called for are (1) an accounting by the organizers of the festival for how this film was selected and (2) for skeptics to attend the screening, even though it would end up putting money in the Tribeca Film Festival's and Andrew Wakefield's pocket, in order to draw attention to the lies in the film and, quite frankly, to make Andy and his fellow filmmakers sweat with some uncomfortable—but polite!—questions that poke holes in the claims made in the film.

Here's something that isn't "censorship" either, and that's looking into connections of the Vaxxed filmmakers and subjects and means by which Wakefield's film could have slithered into Tribeca. I sincerely hope that some intrepid reporters, like Anna Merlan or Bronwen Dickey, are looking into potential celebrity connections, celebrities who have a connection with Andrew Wakefield or others involved in this film. After all, one of the Tribeca Film Festival founders is Robert De Niro, who has a special needs child, and Wakefield claimed in a talk that Leonardo DiCaprio was backing his film, before later denying that he had ever said any such thing. Given this information, it's entirely reasonable to wonder if one of these two had something to do with getting Vaxxed selected.

Of course, it's not just about Wakefield. It's also reasonable to wonder if others associated with Vaxxed might have celebrity connections that could have gotten the movie into Tribeca. One of these is Del Bigtree, who is a producer and could well know some antivaccine celebrities with sufficient stature or connections to get a film in. Interestingly, Tribeca has finally published the bios of all the principals involved in Vaxxed. There another possibility, too, an unexpected surprise. I'm referring to Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS correspondent and die-hard antivaccine loon, as I've documented many times going back to 2007. Her connection to Wakefield dates back at least as far as her utterly dishonest reporting of the murder of an autistic teen named Alex Spourdalakis. She's still at it. Yet another possibility is Philippe Diaz, who apparently was a big deal in the world of documentary film making, although his IMDB entry doesn't show any films more recent than 2009.

Freedom of speech means that Andrew Wakefield and anyone he's ~~conned~~ "persuaded" into believing his pseudoscience can make whatever sort of propaganda film they want, provided they can find the resources to do so. It also means that the Tribeca Film Festival can screen that same pseudoscientific antivaccine (but I repeat myself) propaganda film if its organizers so desire. However, it also means that journalists and, yes, bloggers can criticize Tribeca for its decision, refute Andrew Wakefield's long history of promoting antivaccine misinformation about the MMR, and pre-emptively demolish the conspiracy theory at the heart of Vaxxed. That's not "censorship." It's just more speech.

Cranks like Anne Dachel and Andrew Wakefield never seem to understand that.

oracknows Thu, 03/24/2016 - 04:00

Once again, I find this extremely appropriate.
http://xkcd.com/1357/

*shudder* Anyone else getting flashbacks of a certain PHD thesis and "academic freedom" when they read this?

Why do people seemingly have such a hard time grasping the idea that science is not interested in "the other side" - it is merely interested in what the evidence says, I wonder...?

That's rich for Dachel to scream "CENSORSHIP" when AoA is one of the most heavily censored anti-vaccine web sites in the US.

re Robert De Niro:
the article linked to the other day said that his teenaged son was bipolar ( they were discussing the film 'Silver Linings Playbook' which involved a character with bipolar; the director/ writer's son also experiences a mental condition)

Given the film has fraudulently combined comments made by William Thompson to make them appear like he said it as one comment, can we make sure that is pointed out - along with all the data that shows there is NO #CDCWhistleblower story as all the data has been made public?

Media Lockstep Crackdown on Any Vaccine Safety (Danger) Conversation Continues at Salon.

Irony alert: It was Salon that published RFK Jr.'s anti-vax diatribe back in 2005. It seems that Mary Elizabeth Williams, at least, is capable of learning.

In yesterday's comments sadmar posted what he claimed is a list of panelists who will be leading the alleged discussion of the movie after its screening. If true, that will be a highly one-sided discussion, as everyone on that list is at least one of (A) a well-known anti-vax figure or (B) explicitly connected to the film. Wakefield obviously checks both boxes.

Like it or not, people don't like being told what films should be shown or what they can see. I think anti-vax is BS, but I have no problem with someone showing an anti-vax film. We live in a free society where ideas far more dangerous than anti-vaccination are given free reign. Just look at the candidacy of Donald Trump...

And of course, those of us with discerning taste in cinema are free to boycott this particular iteration of Tribeca FF on the grounds of poor film selection and unwillingness to support this particular atrocity against documentary filmmaking.

I don't think it should be censored either. I do believe Tribeca has the responsibility to make sure the audience isn't stacked with Wakefraud apologists. But I'm not confident on that front since Wakefraud has a way of surrounding himself with a sympathetic fawning audience. That said, yeah the AVers have to get over themselves and deal with the justifiable criticism of this craptacular "doco".

@ Eric Lund #6: Salon eventually publicly retracted the Kennedy article. Rolling Stone did not.

I always read these kinds of claims of censorship as attempts to chill speech - which is not censorship, something a private actor cannot do, but is certainly not promoting free exchange of views. That makes these claims (which are also themselves an exercise of freedom of speech) not just wrong but hypocritical.

With all due respect as I can only come over here about once a week and was shocked to see these posts re: Tribeca..

#7 I disagree re: but I have no problem with someone showing an anti-vax film.

This film, as far as I know, since it's in the documentary category, is being billed as a digger and light-shiner of the truth. Since all the information that is needed to fact-check this film and now we know that they did splicing of a critical person's dialogue to lie and mislead, after this exposure by Orac, et. al., I don't know how the folk at TFF cannot feel pressured to do some thorough due diligence. Three weeks is more than enough time. People's lives and secondarily, their reputation is at stake. There are film-makers with integrity, with important things to say that deserve the exposure that TFF gives them.

@ Science Mom:

Agreed.
They could include someone who isn't either a partisan or a member of their film team

They could include a Wakefield biography before and after each showing with the bits about fraud and being struck off.

Maybe Wakefield is just trying to create a new genre of film. I tried searching for a pseudoscience fiction fantasy documentary but couldn't find it. Netflix may have to rewrite their algorithms; I can maybe see Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter showing up in the list of "You May Also Like" section after watching this.

Comment threads here and elsewhere contained numerous demands for Tribeca to cancel the screening on the basis of anti-vax being scientifically illegitimate. That may not fit a narrow definition of censorship, but it's close enough. The rationale most often presented – showing the film will have dire social consequences – is the typical justification for 'censorship' campaigns.

I have been in a debate with other commenters on the subject of whether it is more appropriate to criticize the film, or to attack the festival for showing the film. If the argument is that, "You should withdraw this film because itself pseudo-sciene" = criticism ≠ censorship, we're just getting cute with word definitions. ( 'Censorship' here is an action, so no mere opinion can be actual censorship.) It's an implicit call for an action that's enough like censorship that people generally consider it such.

It's tricky here in that are many issues involved in screening 'Vaxxed' that get conflated. Most importantly, the outright falsehoods and fabrications regarding events that happened in the world that characterize Wakefield's videos are of a different order than a scientifically invalidated claim, and calls for Vaxxed to be withdrawn from Tribeca on that basis do not fall into what we would generally consider 'censorship'.

I want to be clear that I have only minor quibbles with Orac here, and I support the position taken in the OP above. It's not surprising that advocates who have long been fighting anti-vax poison would have an extreme reaction to the Tribeca announcement – which is absolutely full of WTF. We should always grant people the chance to think about things for a bit, modify and clarify a position before leveling any sort of judgement of them. Of course, we can criticize a line of thinking, offer rationales for a different perspective – there's a process here, an actual conversation as opposed to what the 'Vaxxed' aftertalk appears to be.

It's absolutely true that targets of mere critique will often whine 'censorship!' and 'bullying!' and all manner of victim posturing. To counter this, I suggest being a bit more careful and specific in initial critiques. That is, make it clear either that you are NOT calling for something to be pulled, or that the grounds for such a call are not about repressing a perspective. Again, it's a fine line. "I am outraged that the TFF chose to screen an anti-vax film' = fine. "The TFF should not have given Wakefield a platform" = a bit shaky, but OK. "The TFF should not show ant-vax crapola" = no, as it calls for action.

On the other hand, encouraging change is a different matter than calling for action, especially when the rationale more clearly merits a re-thinking. "I would hope the programmers consider the damage to public health done by anti-vax ideology, and reconsider their choice to screen 'Vaxxed'" = a bit shaky, but OK. "I would hope the programmers consider the fabrications and blatant lies in the trailer for Vaxxed grounds for reversing their choice to screen 'Vaxxed' = better.

These are issues of general principle, and only define certain boundaries for how we determine the best strategy for dealing with the 'Vaxxed' screening. My argument is that the specifics of 'Vaxxed', Wakefield and the TFF are such that it would actually be a good thing if the screening goes forward. We have not seen 'Vaxxed' of course, but every indication is that it's a very bad film, and will be ineffective as propaganda directed at a general audience who do not yet have a firm opinion on vaccine safety or policy. A festival screening will only expose the film to a very small audience, and in this case that will include critical journalists who are likely to call attention to the falsifications and science-denial to a much wider audience that would be unaware of them otherwise.

Attkisson has been in the Wakefield camp since before 2008. Well before the Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis disaster of a film project.

Recall that when the Hornig MMR study came out, Attkisson used her CBS blog to post Wakefield's press releases. That sticks in my mind as one of the laziest bits of journalism. That was 2008.

She also did a live interview, including on his preliminary monkey studies. Funny how she hasn't done a follow-up on the story now that the final studies are published. She gave full network air time to the preliminary--and wrong--results but nothing for the full study.

Funny how journalists who call themselves brave are such cowards.

D'oh! I forgot about those incidents, and I even blogged about one of them!

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/08/complain-to-cbs-cbs-reside…

Maybe it's just because the Alex Spourdalakis story was her very lowest point.

Claiming censorship is a way to say "we are being trodden on by the machine"

It gives Rachel a way to avoid facing and answering the criticisms.

Dachel not Rachel

Yeah, her CBS infomercial for Wakefield's treatment of Alex Spourdalakis was embarrassingly bad.

I don't follow her career, but if that isn't the low point of her career...

The other stuff is easily forgotten. Who really needs to devote memory space to every hack moment of a hack journalist?

Just to add to some of sadmar's recent comments. My spouse is a filmmaker so I've attended many film festivals including Tribeca. A large festival like this one screens many, many films. This year's TFF film guide has 31 pages. Many of these films, particularly a relatively obscure documentary like this, will only draw a very sparse audience. Aside from the controversy that this is generating, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being a non-event with 20-some-odd people in attendance.

Of course, the primary purpose of film festivals is for filmmakers to shop their work to distributors for theatric or TV release. The main risk here is not the TFF screening per se, but that the film gets picked up for wider release.

BTW, this film gets only a single screening at 2pm on the last day of the festival.

Of course, the primary purpose of film festivals is for filmmakers to shop their work to distributors for theatric or TV release. The main risk here is not the TFF screening per se, but that the film gets picked up for wider release.

That being the case, Vaxxed is destined to go straight to video and shown at the dodgy autism parent "conferences".

Someone should start a gofundme to get Brian Deer to the screening ;)

@24: "That being the case, Vaxxed is destined to go straight to video and shown at the dodgy autism parent “conferences”."

Hard to say. Distro sales are entirely a business decision, not necessarily based on any artistic or factual merit. The controversial nature of the subject might be enough to get some kind of deal done. Hard to imagine a full-fledged theatric release, but I could see this showing up on Netflix or a lesser streaming service.

Add this to the list of publications that are criticizing the organizers of the film festival:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tribeca-film-festival-premiers-andrew-wa…

One critic is documentary maker Penny Lane who is finishing a film about the goat testicle quack. I want to see that film.

@27: A minor quibble:

"You wouldn't know it from looking at Tribeca's website, however. Here's how they describe the film, called "Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe""

The film description and Wakefield bio on the TFF site are most certainly not provided by the festival, but pasted directly from Wakefield and his producers themselves.

@ TroubleMaker:

I thought that that Wakefield bio left out a few important things.

@Dorit Reiss #11

Like so many quacks, charlatans and conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers prefer to live in an echo chamber. As we've seen time and time again, when they step outside that echo chamber into the wider world, they don't react very well.

To follow up on my post above, while it's not an absolute, I would be surprised if there wasn't a correlation between "level of moderation" and "level of quackery/fear mongering/conspiracy theory" a blog or website forum has.

re: "in which I compared antivaccine activists to climate change “skeptics,” who do so resent being compared to antivaccinationists or creationists, even though they are very similar in the forms their arguments take "

You have this backwards, you are the one that behaves like anti-science quacks who mindlessly accept what others say without question. Even Michael Mann, high profie climate alarmist, admitted in a paper from Nature this year that:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=…
"Making Sense of the Early 2000s warming slowdown
... Michael E. Mann ...
In summary, climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend over the early twenty-first century, in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing...

...The observed rate of global surface warming since the turn of this century has been considerably less than the average simulated rate. [...] Note also that the most recent observed 15-year trend is lower than the majority of simulated trends;[...] The initial focus of post AR5 slowdown resarch was to explain why observed and modelled temperatures differ in the early twenty-first century. "

A co-author of the paper notes:
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/making-sense/
" However, the recent observations are all continuously outside the ±1σ spread of the simulations for a lengthy period, which is obviously unusual. It is also not just global temperatures that have been unusual – the tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures &winds have also behaved well outside the simulated range."

More mismatch:

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-realit…
"Climate models versus climate reality

Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy to the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on December 8."

In the world of real sciences like physics when theory predictions don't match reality, people don't claim the science is settled, yet some climate true believers have been claiming it for 25 years when there was far less information available. There have been *hundreds* of journal papers the last few years that question aspects of AGW theory, and hundreds more by those that support the AGW consensus in theory but who are critiquing aspects of how the models function now and those differences could eventually lead those models to change their conclusions, since contrary to the rants of the poorly informed, the science is very much a work in progress. Yes, the climate folks will try to downplay the mismatch between reality and models, engaging in special pleading as to why they shouldn't be held to the same standards of proof as say particle physics where their work would have been laughed at rather than published with their level of errors. Just like quack medical types try to pretend it doesn't matter if their data matches reality well.

Your mindless dismissal of those who dare to be skeptical of the science, even though I doubt you've looked at it in detail (have you read an IPCC science document in whole? I have) is like quacks who dismiss anyone who dares to question their beliefs that are the result of people telling them what to believe. The climate issue is far more complicated than those who don't know much about computers and physics realize, and its tiresome to hear those who haven't actually looked into the topic pretend the field is as credible as say the science on vaccines or GMOs. Anyone who believes that is indicating they haven't the slightest understanding of the level of evidence, the complexity of the issue, and difficulty in validating such theories against reality.

Dachel's piece boils down to:

"Please let this be controversial and get publicity!"

Ignore that the criticism is directed at Tribeca. It's about Wakefield! No one wants to hear the truth!

Tibeca is being gutless. They claim that this film just dropped in their program while no one was looking. Like Tribeca is a pick up game sort of film festival.

They chose it. At least have the guts to say, "yep, we chose it" And "Yes, our name is on this film now". Because it's true.

But, at least we can rest easy. The entire Wakefield support team has shown up in the comments. Even John Scudamore is there.

Who is John Scudamore, some may ask? He's the guy behind Whale.to. Complete with Satanic Ley Lines burning his bum and levitating dolphins.

And--let's not forget--he hosts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That's a bit of anti Semitic fraud. With luck, John will be posting at Tribeca for a long time.

sadmar posted what he claimed is a list of panelists who will be leading the alleged discussion of the movie after its screening. If true, that will be a highly one-sided discussion

WTF, Eric? "Claimed... If true..."? I may offer hypotheses here sometimes that turn out to be wrong, or mistake details of something past that's fuzzy in my memory, but I do not make false claims in reports of what I have just read. Your language is a wholly unwarranted character attack. Based on my impressions of your commenting history, I would have thought you were above that kind of crap.
_________

Regarding the panel: We don't know if anyone will be leading a discussion between the panel and members of the audience. The 'conversation' could be entirely within the people on the dais. This is probably the mode at film festivals, rather than the exception, where multiple people are on the stage. It's not specific to documentaries, but rather the way they approach pretty much everything.

The way these usually go: a moderator representing the festival introduces everybody, and then poses some general question about the work, say 'why did you make this film?' Then everyone on the panel gets a turn to address that question for a bit. Then the moderator asks another general question, say 'tell us abut the difficulties you faced in creating the film', and everyone on the panel again gets a turn to monologue for a bit.

This goes on until maybe 5 minutes before the scheduled end of the session, at which pint the moderator says, 'We have time for a few questions...' This framing limits what anyone in the audience can say as 'the makers are here as authorities who hold knowledge of the film, and you may ask a question to address a fact we haven't covered'. So the audience doesn't get to express opinions, or engage in anything resembling a debate with the panelists.

It's not always that way, and I don't know how they typically do aftertalks at the TFF. I merely want to note that an absence of the sort of exchange any of us would want after 'Vaxxed' is hardly deviant practice for film festivals. We can argue that they should do it differently in this case, but we can't accuse them of giving Wakefield some special sort of pass. What would be remarkable and condemnable conduct is the festival treating 'Vaxxed' differently from other films, or treating folks who want to see it differently from one another, depending on their assumed perspective – e.g. trying to keep critics or journalists from attending, removing non-interruptive protesters, or if they DO allow questions/comments from the audience, letting Andy only call on 'fawning sycophants' he knows in the audience.
_________

The boilerplate disclaimer: "Tribeca is about dialogue & conversation." is mildly disingenuous in that it doesn't mean "dialogue & conversation" between "opposing viewpoints" in the theater at any given screening, though a reasonable reader not familiar with festivals might infer otherwise. Rather, each screening is conceived as contributing to some broader cultural dialogue outside the festival site. To the extent that the TFF 'presents opposing viewpoints without judgement or endorsement' that refers to the programming as a whole, over time. E.g., they might say, 'Well, we had a film very critical of "pseudo-science" a couple years ago.' Actually, "opposing viewpoints" can mean, 'we're presenting a viewpoint that opposes common perspectives'. That is, the programmers don't have a obligation to 'present both sides' if the side they're not presenting already has a very big megaphone. For example, if I programmed "The Enemies of Reason", I would feel no compunction to also schedule a film promoting religious faith, because there are plenty of churches in town, and several evangelical cable networks on TV.

Again, there's still a BS factor in 'present without judgement' in that selection reflects a decision that the work does make a worthy contribution to some significant exterior dialogue. This is exactly the judgement skeptics are questioning, of course.

However, contrary to what many commenters seem to assume, mere selection for a festival screening is not necessarily any sort of institutional endorsement of a film as being either 'true' or 'good', much less 'correct in opinion'. In general, a significant level of endorsement only attaches to films that are given some sort of award. We would expect an award-winning documentary to be both 'good' and at least 'not false'. However, 'Vaxxed' has not been entered into a competitive category, and should be ineligible for any kind of laurels.

Since selection often, but not always, correlates to some evaluation of at least minimal filmmaking merit, observers at a distance from the festival world may take selection as some sort of praise, and filmmakers in every category will attempt to portray it as such, in attempts to draw audiences. The festivals have only a limited responsibility, but more importantly only a limited ability to correct public misconceptions about what they do.

@32: "They chose it. At least have the guts to say, “yep, we chose it” And “Yes, our name is on this film now”. Because it’s true."

Oh, I'm willing to bet that there are some TFF board members who are pretty pissed off about this.

the primary purpose of film festivals is for filmmakers to shop their work to distributors for theatric or TV release

Only some festivals. Tribeca's a distro marketplace, but not only that. Whatever, 'Vaxxed' already has a distributor and a distribution plan. The distributor is Philippe Diaz's Cinema Libre Studio. It's primary distribution means is low-cost pay-per-view on Vimeo. Per the vaxxedthemovie.com webpage:

After the festival premiere, it is our intention that this film will screen in theatres across the US (before being available to purchase on DVD, digitally or in other countries) and we will need your help!

I take that to mean that, like previous anti-vax films, theatrical exhibition will only occur in locales where a 'grassroots' organizing campaign can guarantee the sale of a certain number of tickets for a single showing. That is, if they can't sell enough tickets, the film doesn't show. I can't imagine any theater would book this for a conventional run, in which they pay fees up front, screen it several times a day regardless of who shows up, and hope the receipts for the run yield a profit over the rental and overhead.

@33: "The ‘conversation’ could be entirely within the people on the dais. This is probably the mode at film festivals, rather than the exception, where multiple people are on the stage. It’s not specific to documentaries, but rather the way they approach pretty much everything."

Not sure I entirely agree with this. Such "conversations" and panel discussions are almost always followed by some kind of audience Q&A, albeit sometimes brief.

Troublemaker--

can we make anything out of the fact that the awards screenings start before VAXXED is shown?

If I have this right, here's part of the final Sunday schedule.

Wakefield's movie airs Sun 4/24 2pm

Best new documentary director award screening is 4/24 at 2:45pm

Audience Award, first place is 4/24 at 3:45pm

Audience Award, second place is 4/24 at 1:30pm

Best documentary 4/24 at 12:00 pm

Looks like the awards are decided before his film even screens.

@37:

Well, it's not in the Documentary Competition so it's not eligible for any awards if that's what you mean. It looks like a pretty shitty schedule slot too-- it screens right in the middle of the award screenings at a theater that's not exactly nearby the awards, and on getaway day, a Sun.

I mean, if someone on this particular selection committee was trying to do Wakefield a favor, they seem to be doing the absolute minimum.

@37:

Well, it's not in the Documentary Competition so it's not eligible for any awards if that's what you mean. It looks like a pretty lame schedule slot too-- it screens right in the middle of the award screenings at a theater that's not exactly nearby the awards, and on getaway day, a Sun.

I mean, if someone on this particular selection committee was trying to do Wakefield a favor, they seem to be doing the absolute minimum.

I thought that that Wakefield bio left out a few important things.

They should have borrowed the one from California Jam.

@Troublemaker: I bet the board members aren't half as the staff who have to handle this hot potato.

As I wrote yesterday (#14), the film community knows how to handle this crap, and Penny Lane's FB post is perfect:
1. Hitting the film for things that matter to documentary makers
2. Scourging the festival in terms that will damage its reputation and credibility with communities it needs to work with.
3. Critiques the choice, without suggesting it should be reversed and the screening cancelled.

I noted that Pat Aufderheide posted "Thank you! Yes." under Penny's OP. Pat is a VIP in the documentary community, director of The Center For Social Media at American University, and a tireless activist working against real-world restrictions against free expression (copyright law, mainly). The 'Vaxxed' trailer, like Wakefields earlier YouTube videos, fabricates statements from William Thompson by splicing bits of different sentences together, and introducing them with VO indicating they reference something else altogether than their original context. If any organization with the juice of the TFF legitimates that as 'documentary', that jeopardizes Prof. Aufderheide's project to win better conditions for making and screening good social interest documentaries. It's a very positive sign that she's aware of what's going on here.

"half as pissed off" forgot the imortant part...

@32 -- High dudgeon!

Of course climate is complicated, but the caricature you draw of the situation is unrecognizable and informed primarily by those who have a deep ideological or financial interest in muddying the waters. Go read Barry Bickmore for a while. He's a nice conservative Republican from Utah. You can trust him.

Um, in case anyone wants to put some heat on the TFF for screening 'Vaxxed': the thing to do is get as many folks as possible to write letters of complaint to the festival sponsors, listed here: https://tribecafilm.com/sponsor-block

Do NOT suggest the screening should be canceled. The sponsors don't care, and being told what to do gets their backs up. Tell them the TFF know has a serious black-eye, and that the dirt is rubbing off on them for enabling not just an enemy of science, but a mendacious con-artist. Tell the corporations they could lose business over this, etc., and that they should get right with Science by making a public statement of regret.

I also note that one of the 'Signature Sponsors' is the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which, according to it's website is devoted primarily to funding STEM education and research. I doubt they'd be happy to have their name connected to Andrew Wakefield...

The movie should be pulled simply and purely on the fact that it is based on disproven claims by a medical fraudster, and as Matt Carey pointed out repeatedly on his blog, have in just the short trailer been found guilty of splicing together sound bites from Thompson to make him say things he did not.

Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!

I think I entered my email incorrectly, so here is my vanished comment again:

Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!

Amethyst:

"Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!"

Exactly the point that I think may be getting lost in all this. Any kind of film or video making offers unique possibilities to mislead. Wakefield's people have done it to me - fraudulently inter-cutting material to make me appear to be saying that a boy who'd had his colon chopped out didn't have bowel disease.

It's easily done. In Britain, broadcasters have to adhere to statutory codes of practice to prevent it happening. In the US - and with any kind of independent film - it is only the integrity of the authors you have to rely on.

Wakefield has no integrity. He lies like a duck quacks. I could sit you down and take you through scores of blatant -on-the-nose deceptions.

But, the problem for this film festival is that he has the capacity to contaminate everyone around him. Filmmakers depend on their credibility and relationship of trust with the audience.

Just as the medical establishment sought to cover up his scientific fraud, because it cast the structures and conventions of biomedical publishing in a bad light, so he can now do the same for independent documentary making.

If can do this, and get his film shown, who else is lying? Why would anyone believe a documentary?

His ability to contaminate is Tribeca's big problem here. I really hope they are punished for it, so as to learn the lesson.

Short of him introducing the film with words to the effect of "I'm a research cheat, got caught, but now's my revenge", the exercise is one of pure deception.

What Brian Deer (and others) have said.

And regardless of where in the TFF schedule they put him, Wakefield's film will have the "Screened at TFF" label and you can bet Wakers will use that to he hilt when promoting it. Shameful.

" regardless of where in the TFF schedule they put him, Wakefield’s film will have the “Screened at TFF” label"

More likely, "Screened at the prestigious Tribeca Film Festival".

Which is annoying, but on the other hand I'd bet 95% of the American public (at minimum) have never heard of the Tribeca Film Festival.

This will likely amount to just another tiny antivax "victory" swamped by a vast ocean of defeat in the sectors of mainstream medicine, science and public opinion.

@DB
Got to hope. I still see folks arguing that vaccines cause autism on a regular basis.

I will be there if anyone cares to meet up with me. Just for the opportunity to mock Fakefield in person.

The movie should be pulled simply and purely on the fact that it is based on disproven claims by a medical fraudster, and as Matt Carey pointed out repeatedly on his blog, have in just the short trailer been found guilty of splicing together sound bites from Thompson to make him say things he did not.

Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!

I'm sure Wakefield's isn't the first documentary to air at a major film festival to have used such dishonest techniques.

Oh no doubt, no doubt. I guess hoping for any kind of standards these days is a pipe dream. However, I still feel that the best way to possibly change the minds of the festival folks would be to pointing out these inaccuracies and downright fraudulent behavior (the splicing of sound bites in the trailer is just the tip of the iceberg I reckon).

Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!
There are, but they're not simple tick-off check boxes of 'this or that technique'. It all depends on context and purpose. So I could rephrase Orac's suspicion as a assertion of fact: Vaxxed isn’t the first documentary to air at a major film festival to have used the techniques by which Wakefield creates his lies. The difference is that those films don't use those methods to the same degree or ends, and wind up in 'gray areas' regarding 'truth', where Andy winds up with results that are false in every sense at every level.

Failure to meet the standards doesn't make a film "not-a-documentary" (there's a broad misunderstanding of what that term means), but it makes it a very bad documentary, and one that does not deserve to be screened, except for the purpose of putting it's badness on display, so audiences can see how bankrupt the 'movements' advancing these ideas actually are. It's now pretty clear that this is not what Tribeca had in mind, though I think we can turn it into that.

Anyway, yeah some sketchy stuff has indeed appeared at big festivals, but nothing like this. It outrageous in film community terms. I'm sure Amethyst is right that the fraudulent way the soundbites are spliced in the trailer is the tip of the iceberg, but, yes, that kind of fraud is beyond the pale.

It's like a lot of things: the rules are for the peons, the elites only invoke them at their convenience, and just ignore them when they're inconvenient.

COMPLETELY unverified, but a FB comment reports the scuttlebut around the TFF is that no one on the programming staff has actually seen 'Vaxxed'. It was simply placed on the schedule by fiat.

Surely there some kind of standards any film claiming to be a documentary has to meet!

There are, but they’re not simple tick-off check boxes of ‘this or that technique’. It all depends on context and purpose. So I could rephrase Orac’s suspicion as a assertion of fact: Vaxxed isn’t the first documentary to air at a major film festival to have used the techniques by which Wakefield creates his lies. The difference is that those films don’t use those methods to the same degree or ends, and wind up in ‘gray areas’ regarding ‘truth’, where Andy winds up with results that are false in every sense at every level.

Failure to meet the standards doesn’t make a film “not-a-documentary” (there’s a broad misunderstanding of what that term means), but it makes it a very bad documentary, and one that does not deserve to be screened, except for the purpose of putting it’s badness on display, so audiences can see how bankrupt the ‘movements’ advancing these ideas actually are. It’s now pretty clear that this is not what Tribeca had in mind, though I think we can turn it into that...

Anyway, yeah some sketchy stuff has indeed appeared at big festivals, but nothing like this. It outrageous in film community terms. I’m sure Amethyst is right that the fraudulent way the soundbites are spliced in the trailer is the tip of the iceberg, but, yes, that kind of fraud is beyond the pale.

It’s like a lot of things: the rules are for the peons, the elites only invoke them at their convenience, and just ignore them when they’re inconvenient.

COMPLETELY unverified, but a FB comment reports the scuttlebut around the TFF is that no one on the programming staff has actually seen ‘Vaxxed’. It was simply placed on the schedule by fiat.

Whoa! Looks like DeNiro himself might be behind this:

http://filmmakermagazine.com/97875-robert-deniro-issues-a-statement-abo…

De Niro himself was definitely behind this:

https://www.facebook.com/Tribeca/posts/10154153954489758

I got an e-mail from a Tribeca publicist with this statement about a half hour ago.

DeNiro's excuse for shoving this into the lineup is about as lame as I have seen. I guess he has no problem with fiction being passed off as documentary.

The Tribeca Film Festival's disingenuous excuse for screening an antivaccine propaganda film by Andrew Wakefield

oracknows — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 05:00:18 +0000

The Tribeca Film Festival's disingenuous excuse for screening an antivaccine propaganda film by Andrew Wakefield

I wasn't sure if I was going to write about this again so soon, because one post seemed adequate to describe the massive dump that the Tribeca Film Festival just took on reality by announcing the screening of a pseudoscientific antivaccine propaganda film by The One Antivaccine Quack To Rule Them All, Andrew Wakefield. Any skeptic with an interest in medicine and vaccines knows that he's one man most responsible for creating the myth that the MMR vaccine can cause autism. As a result, MMR vaccine uptake plummeted in the UK, and the measles came roaring back. I speculated why this might have happened. For instance, in a talk Wakefield had bragged that Leonardo DiCaprio was promoting his movie, only to deny later that he had ever said such a thing. Based on that it was hard not to speculate that perhaps DiCaprio or another movie star had something to do with greasing the wheels to get Wakefield's film selected. Of course, as commenters pointed out, given how prevalent antivaccine views are in Hollywood, it shouldn't be a surprise that there might be some antivaccine reviewers in major film festivals willing to let through a film like Wakefield's Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, which tells the conspiracy theory of the so-called "CDC whistleblower."

I was happy to see major websites and news outlets picking up the story. For instance, Anna Merlan, one of the reporters on the Conspira-Sea Cruise in January, published a story on Jezebel about it, and Steven Zeitchik published a story in the LA Times about it. What interested me about the latter story were two pieces of information I had not yet seen anywhere.

First:

On Monday, the annual springtime confab quietly announced that, amid a list of Hollywood-centric talks, it would screen a documentary titled “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.” The festival said that the film, a previously unknown production, draws a link between vaccines and autism and that the April 24 event would also feature “a conversation with creators and subjects of the film.”

Tribeca did not reveal the director. He is, it turns out, the highly controversial anti-vaccine activist Andrew Wakefield.

This sort of behavior makes me think that the organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival knew all along exactly what they were doing with this. On the other hand, why hide the identity of the director? After all, it would come out eventually. There's no way antivaccine activists could resist trumpeting it to high heaven. The antivaccine cranks at Age of Autism are, not surprisingly, already doing exactly that.

Now here's the part that really irritated me:

Contacted by the Times, a Tribeca spokeswoman provided a statement about the decision to host the film and its director.

“Tribeca, as most film festivals, are about dialogue and discussion. Over the years we have presented many films from opposing sides of an issue. We are a forum, not a judge,” it read.

Efforts to reach Wakefield via his publisher were not immediately successful.

Festivals are known for including provocative voices, especially in documentary categories, which sometimes feature advocacy pieces.

But it’s rare for a gathering to touch on such a hot-button issue from only one side. Many screenings with activist positions usually come from outside filmmakers, such as Gabriela Cowperthwaite's “Blackfish,” about animal abuse at Sea World, or Davis Guggenheim’s “Waiting for Superman,” about public education in the United States, both of which premiered at Sundance. The latter was strongly opposed by teachers unions, but it was made by a decorated Oscar winner, not the activists themselves.

"We are a forum, not a judge." Let's examine that assertion for a moment. It's a common excuse made by, for example, reporters for "telling both sides" about scientific issues. Here's the problem. This sort of attitude might make sense for social and political issues, but science is different, because in science there is often a right and a wrong answer. You can have all the "dialogue and discussion" you want about a scientific topic, such as the question of whether vaccines cause autism, but at the end of the day there is a correct answer based on science. Within a very small margin of error, the existing scientific evidence strongly supports the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, and it's not as though this question hasn't been studied many, many times.

Let's look at this another way. The question of whether or not vaccines cause autism is very much like other scientific questions, questions such as

Did the diversity of life arise through undirected evolution?
Is human activity a major contributor to global climate change?

There are people who believe that the diversity of life did not arise through undirected evolution. They are called creationists or intelligent design creationists. Creationists believe God created all creatures in their original form, which hasn't changed. Some young earth creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Intelligent design creationists, in contrast, believe that living organisms evolve, but that their evolution is somehow "directed," that there is a "designer" (cough, cough, God) directing that evolution. Of course, from a scientific standpoint, none of these are scientific controversies. There is no science involved in their claims; in fact, science refutes their claims, as it does for the claims of believers in antivaccine pseudoscience. Would the Tribeca Film Festival organizers select a film by, for instance, Ken Ham claiming that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that evolution is a sham? Would they do it for the sake of "dialogue and discussion" as part of a "forum"? Would the Tribeca film festival screen the anti-evolution film the dishonest Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed or a film like it? Somehow I doubt it. Yet they have just done the equivalent by letting Andrew Wakefield use the imprimatur of their festival screen his conspiracy- and pseudoscience-laden film.

What about the question of whether human activity is a a major contributor to global climate change? The scientific consensus is overwhelming that human activity is contributing to the overall warming of the planet. Yet, as is the case with evolution denialists (a.k.a. creationists) and antivaccine cranks like Andrew Wakefield, there are a lot of people who deny the science, using the same low-quality and deceptive arguments. Would the Tribeca Film Festival organizers select a film by, for instance, Lord Monckton or Anthony Watts, claiming that human beings are not contributing to the warming of the climate? Would they do it for the sake of "dialogue and discussion" as part of a "forum"? Somehow I doubt it. Yet they have just done the equivalent by letting Andrew Wakefield use the imprimatur of their festival screen his conspiracy- and pseudoscience-laden film.

You see where I'm going. The claim that human activity is not contributing to climate change, that undirected evolution does not explain the diversity of life, these are all questions for which there is an overwhelming scientific consensus refuting them. Color me—shall we say?—skeptical that the Tribeca Film Festival would screen advocacy films promoting these pseudoscientific ideas so blatantly and unabashedly in the name of "dialogue and discussion." Of course, antivaccine pseudoscience of the sort that Andrew Wakefield promotes is every bit as refuted by an overwhelming scientific consensus as evolution or climate science denial, but the Tribeca Film Festival thinks it's just hunky dory to let Wakefield have a one-sided "dialogue and discussion" about vaccines.

I can see the organizers retorting that, sure, maybe the science is against Wakefield, but what about the whole "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy, which is what the movie appears to be mainly about. As I've written so many times before, there's just no "there" there to that story. It's worse than that, though, particularly with respect to this movie.

Yesterday, Matt Carey did a masterful job of demonstrating how Wakefield deceptively edited recorded statements from William Thompson (a.k.a. the "CDC whistleblower," the scientist who was critical of a 2004 study that failed to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the same study tortured by Brian Hooker to appear to show a greatly increased risk of autism in a subset of African-American males) to give a very different impression than the actual transcripts give. You really should read all of Matt's post, but the CliffsNotes version is that Wakefield spliced two statements by Thompson together to make it sound as though Thompson was introducing himself to Hooker and than stating that he had "great shame" now because he knew Hooker had a son with autism, all as a prelude to alleging that the CDC had committed scientific fraud when in fact Thompson never really said anything of the sort. In reality, the statements were phone conversations much later in the Hooker-Thompson relationship, and Thompson, although complaining about a disagreement in methodology in the study never accused his colleagues at the CDC of scientific fraud. In fact, he even said:

The fact that we found a strong statistically significant finding among black males does not mean that there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation.

Thompson just wanted more research, or at least that's all he's ever said in any public statements or any of his phone calls with Hooker that have been published.

I really hope that some intrepid reporter will dig deeper into this. Already, I see some interesting tidbits. First, apparently Jim Sears, the celebrity pediatrician featured in the trailer for Vaxxed, no longer has his TV gig on The Doctors. At least, he's no longer on the show's website. Meanwhile, on Facebook, Sears is sounding a lot like his brother, Dr. Bob Sears, in doing the "I'm not antivaccine" but the "CDC committed fraud" boogaloo. Credulity must run in the family. It just took longer to manifest itself in Jim Sears with respect to vaccines and bogus conspiracy theories than it did in his brother Bob, who appears to me to be busy selling medical exemptions to the California school vaccine mandate under SB 277, the new law that eliminates non-medical exemptions starting next school year.

Another interesting tidbit is that the producer of Wakefield's antivaccine crapfest is Del Bigtree, who has produced many episodes of The Doctors since 2010 and has served in the past as a segment producer for the Dr. Phil Show. All he'd need would be a stint on The Dr. Oz Show to complete his credentials. Even without it, though, no wonder he gravitated to a a project as misinformation-filled as Wakefield's.

In any case, I don't buy for a minute the Tribeca Film Festival's reason for selecting Vaxxed for screening and a Q&A afterward. It's disingenuous as hell. Someone, somewhere in the process, be it a celebrity who recommended the film or a reviewer charged with selecting films for screening, there was an antivaccine or antivaccine-sympathetic person making sure Wakefield got in. Either that, or Tribeca has so little integrity that it would promote a film full of lies for the sake of some buzz and publicity. Either way, it reflects very poorly on the Tribeca Film Festival.

Here's hoping (again) that there is a strong skeptic turnout to make sure that the Q&A after the film has some polite, but pointed questions about the content of the film. In the meantime, skeptics can make their displeasure known in the comments after the Tribeca Film Festival entry for Vaxxed.

oracknows Wed, 03/23/2016 - 01:00

Tags

Tribeca Film Festival

vaccine

William Thompson

movies

Categories

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160323-why-are-people-so-incredibly-g…

Great post, Orac. I suspect if Tribeca knew about the thoroughly dishonest splicing of comments, they might consider pulling the film, as that's downright dishonest. Though I can also imagine the loons yelling "big pharma conspiracy!!!" if that were to happen.

Tiny point of order: we Brits don't say "Lord Christopher Monckton". Either just Lord Monckton, or say Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. You can just refer to him as Monckton after that.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has remained silent on this latest threat to public health by the fraudster Wakefield. The AAP has been stunningly silent on all things anti-vaccine for the past 5 years (when the AAP last spoke out against the NVIC for running anti-vax ads on airline flights and on the Times Square Jumbotron). The AAP has never outright condemned Wakefield. When I spoke with AAP President Robert Block about this in 2012, he told me the AAP was glad they hadn't spoken out against Wakefield out of fear of being sued by Wakefield. I thought that was the lamest of lame excuses for an organization supposedly dedicated "To The Health of All Children", but it's true. Confirming this is a response of the prior AAP President, O. Marion Burton, in 2011 to the AAP's Section of Young Physicians Committee stating that the from the AAP that :

It is important now that we make the right statement at the right time and in the right way rather than just "piling on" the Wakefield episode as many are doing. This could not be as effective as we would
hope and also could have negative aspects. Be assured we are trying to do what is best for all children and our members. (page 30 at http://tinyurl.com/zbkxzph, referencing a letter on page 29).

The AAP has utterly failed to address anti-vaccinationists like Wakefield, Sears, Gordon, the NVIC, etc. Nor have they shown any spine in addressing ever-increasing amounts of anti-vaccine propaganda like "Vaxxed". At this point, I fear the AAP itself has been brainwashed into believing anti-vaccine rhetoric, especially given how deeply the AAP has bought into SCAM. This is shameful, and the results of such apathy continue to multiply daily.

Godwin and his law be damned, here I go:

I hope they will screen the somewhat controversial documentary "The Eternal Jew". You know, to act not as a judge but rather as an open forum for discussion of the Jewish character.

Heh, I just had a mental vision of the entire theater being booked out by science and autism advocates, who turn up in similar manner to Rocky Horror or Mystery Science 3000. A high profile nationally televised public humiliation would be worth a hundred withdrawals for fraudulent editing, with no convenient "censorship" cries behind which to hide.

@has

No, they would just cry "bully!" instead.

Yeah, as I said in the other thread, I don't want Tribeca to pull the film, now that its organizers have made the massively clueless decision to select it for screening. What worries me, though, is that Wakefield will see the uproar and either cancel the Q&A afterwards or try somehow to control the questions that can be asked (presubmission of questions, Twitter questions to a hashtag and then select only friendly ones, etc.).

They would have no qualms about running an anti-GMO movie. Or a pro-0rganic movie. Nothing different about running an anti-vaccine movie.

Correct. Their desire for "dialogue" is a double standard: "Dialogue" for pseudoscience and crankery that fits within the world view of the organizers and Hollywood in general, shunning of "dialogue" for pseudoscience and crankery that they oppose. The example of Bill Maher comes to mind.

What worries me, though, is that Wakefield will see the uproar and either cancel the Q&A afterwards or try somehow to control the questions that can be asked (presubmission of questions, Twitter questions to a hashtag and then select only friendly ones, etc.).

Ayup! Although I would guess that Wakefraud has already anticipated this (given he shielded it's viewing from sceptical eyes on the ConspiraSea Cruise) and will have already pre-empted any sceptical inquiry at the Q&A.

The example of Bill Maher comes to mind.

But Bill Maher is an upstanding and committed skeptic! I mean, he is the 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award. How could you forget that? [/sarcasm]

The worst thing is that this film will show up in my Netflix “recommended for you” because I have watched actual science based films, such as the PBS Frontline program on vaccines.

any dialogue will surely be a parroted discourse with some sort of million moms march with signs -- "cdc lies and we're all gonna die".

the last part of that being true

This reminds me of an incident twelve years ago where C-SPAN planned to broadcast a speech by Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, followed by a speech by the neo-Nazi Holocaust denier who tried to sue her for libel, David Irving. After the predictable outrage, C-SPAN decided not to air either speech.

I may be the only one here who's ever been on a festival jury (not a big one like Tribeca), has friends who program festivals, and other filmmaker friends who kvetch about the wacky choices festivals seem to make all the time. Anything is possible here, but the more I think about it, the more I think the most probable scenario here is that someone with juice pulled some strings to get 'Vaxxed' on the Tribeca schedule, along with the personal appearance by Andy. I doubt that individual would be a well-known actor (their agents and managers would get so POed if that came out), though it's possible there's a very hush-hush quid pro quo in return for a big donation. I'd look at Del Bigtree's connections before that... but more generally, as Mark Felt told Bob Woodward, if you want to know what's going on, 'follow the money.' Does anybody know who'd been paying Andy's bills down in Texas since he landed in those friendly confines, and who's funding his rather prolific spew of 'Autism Media.' It's fairly slick stuff, and the DPs, editors, computer graphics folks with those chops don't fall out of trees and work for free. I might guess Andy's tapping some 1%er whale for whom his budgets are chump change, and can readily also dump enough whatever to buy a slot at Tribeca via some connected intermediary. I there isn't high drama over this within the festival staff going on right about now, I'd be surprised. I wouldn't be totally surprised if a real whistleblower emerges (anonymously, maybe) to spill the beans, though I'd guess the odds of that aren't that good.

I'll tell you a few things about the film community: 1) Nobody is going to call for this film to be withdrawn, now that it's been announced, and everyone will defend the programmers in public, as they'll know the staffers might be between a rock and a hard place. 2) They really believe 'film festivals are about dialogue and discussion ...a forum, not a judge.' 3) They know when that principle is being stretched to absurdity, and they don't like it at all. 4) Tribeca is going to lose a lot of credibility over this in ways that count to the modestly-paid folks who actually run the thing. Film programmers work full-time year round, going to other festivals, networking with other programmers and struggling-artist filmmakers, scouting for good-but-unheard-of material. After this, most of these folks are going to be looking at the Tribeca reps with a fish-eye and a barely veiled snarl on their lips.

There are people at Tribeca who don't want to show this film, and every documentarian with a tiddly damn of integrity is upset it has been schedule. But every one of them will fight like hell on principle against a campaign to have it pulled, because if 'Vaxxed' can be pressured out, their even more socially marginal stuff can get pressured out too. You can argue until you're blue in the face that 'scientific concensus' ought to rule the day and settle the question, but it doesn't.

It's not like 'Vaxxed' would be the first steaming pile of effluent that got screened or even distributed. You can look at the histories of these things, see how the film community deals with them, and how that works. We counterpunch, use ju jitsu. What we do is call out the crap as loud as we can, and flip it back in the faces of the jerks trying to spread it around. We do everything we can to make sure it's hard for anyone to see it in innocence. It works, too. It's the unchallenged voice that does damage by being the only thing people hear. That happens to some extent whatever anyone says, since some folks are willfully deaf and blind, so sealed are they in their bubbles of belief. Y'all have more than enough experience with that, right? You can't beat that, and neither can filmies. We can all only speak to people wllling to listen.

The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
— The Electronic Frontier Foundation

'Vaxxed' is going to circulate to its bubble audience whether Tribeca shows it or not. True believers are going to spread Andy's BS as far as they can on social media whether Tribeca shows 'Vaxxed' or not. Anyone 'uncommited' about vaccines will at least listen to criticism of Wakefield if it's out there in public, whether that's spoken fro the dais at the screening, from the audience at the Q&A, from protesters outside the theater, or scathing reviews in the NYC print press or on Gawker, which will also be forwarded to them on social media.

Andy kept the journalists on the ConspiraSea out of his preview screening on the boat. He knew what they'd do with it. They're going to see it now, if Tribeca goes ahead. I can absolutely guarantee you that many more people will hear about how ridiculously fraudulent this thing is than will ever see the movie, and that WON'T happen if its just on YouTube and doesn't get shown in a theater in Manhattan.

Kate's right. Matt has caught an egregious documentable falsification in the trailer. Having caught some pretty-obvious-to-a-sound-editor-paying-attention diddling with other Thompson clips in Andy's YouTube videos, I'd guess there are more in 'Vaxxed' too. Matt's catch could be enough for someone at Tribeca to go over the film and check all the Thompson audio against the record, and the results could be enough for them to get righteously scared and cancel the event with a vague notice of 'improper procedure' or a half-truth deflection or an outright CYA lie. Which could be exactly what Andy wants. He'd still get his name in circulation, and get to refuel his martyr-act-engine with a full tank of hi-test.

IANAL, but Matt's catch sounds to me like grounds for a lawsuit and an injunction on behalf of Dr. Thompson.
What's happening in Slick Rick Morgan's world today, Thompson doesn't have to utter a peep if the film totally diddles stuff documented in the transcript. Thst's the only way I can think of for the screening to get scotched w/o benefit to Wakefield: if his fantasy's 'hero' is the agent of it's undoing.

...Wakefield spliced two statements by Thompson together to make it sound as though Thompson was introducing himself to Hooker and than stating that he had “great shame” now because he knew Hooker had a son with autism, all as a prelude to alleging that the CDC had committed scientific fraud when in fact Thompson never really said anything of the sort.

IANALawyer, but, should he wish to do so, could Dr. Thompson file suit against "Doctor" Wakefield for this fabrication?

Not that I think Thompson wants to do any such thing. I suspect that he would like the whole thing to go away. After all, if Hooker recorded the calls in CA, a two party consent state, and where Hooker was living and working at the time, Thompson could likely have forced legal action.

Maybe this continued dredging of these events will spur Thompson to grow a pair and go after Wakefield and Hooker.

Hey, a man can dream.

I swear sadmar's comment was not up when I composed mine.

I share the author's disappointment in the Tribeca selection board. That being said, however, I do not think the featuring of Wakefield's film at the festival will have much of an impact on the social conundrum that is anti-vaxxers. Having been to a few Tribeca Film Festival screenings, though the festival itself grabs headlines, many of the screenings go unnoticed. I have a feeling that most of the audience will be people already committed to Wakefield's idiotic ideas. Furthermore, I doubt the subtle endorsement of the Tribeca Film Festival is going to change any minds.

Unfortunately the comment thread for the TFF refuses to load for me. I did see many excellent comments yesterday though.
I hope it isn't closed or broken by sceptical indignation.

- It irks me past my boiling pointed that I continuously am bombarded with cries of
'Corruption! Malfeasance! Fraud! Lies!' and' Sociopaths' ! 'The entire World is against my Science!' **
by charlatans who make very decent livings off of the public by doing or being exactly that.

- And true, anti-vaccine mania is acceptable amongst left-leaning hipsters and crunchy mothers whilst anti- AGW and YEC are decidedly not cool. Too right wing or evangelical.

- I've been to a few film festivals ( including this one, several years ago) but I'm not sure how the venue/ tciketting will affect who and how many attend. I imagine that TMs and AoA mavens will be their in full force.
It sounds as though it's in an art school's auditorium which can be large- a few hundred seatsat least?. How many of anti-vaxxers live near to NY or are obsessed enough to travel?

- I'm not sure if I can attend although there is a chance if I am back from stuff I'm doing earlier that week end.

** as well it should be.

TICKETTING ....be THERE .. seats at least
Yiiii!

And the anti-vaccine brigade has started invading the comments. MeMyselfAndME, Seattle Mom, and Claire Dempsey have all posted in rapid succession.

Dan ( AoA, today) is squawking about the SB comments/ snarky repartee made at Jezebel.

@ has #4; I LIKE it!

@ Orac #6. Yes. But if they rig the 'talk after' part of the 'conversation' (likely already the plan) the press will dog them for that, and if they try to keep Anna Merlan out of the theater there will literally be hell to pay. It's OK if skeptics don't get to talk in the theater, as long as they make their presence known. Silent protest. Poster of kid with measles labeled 'when they deny science, innocents die'. They just need to let the reporters know they're going to be there beforehand, and have a good spokesperson for the press to talk to at the event. I'd try to get as many immuno-compromised folks involved, including some kids w. a parent. Let the AVs try the Pharma Shill Gambit on them, and see how that flies. Enough non-violent civil disobedience to briefly interrupt an Andy scripted schtick and get an at-risk or victim of VPD escorted from the premises w/o 'shouting him down' would sweeten the pot for the City Desk editor.

@Amethyst #3 Film schools screen 'Birth of a Nation' and 'Triumph of the Will' all the time. and yeah, sometimes 'The Eternal Jew'. Surprisingly, we don't have to say anything to keep the students from joining Stormfront. Mostly they get really scared by or POed at the films, all by themselves. I used "Know Your Enemy: Japan" which is not-as-awful as 'The Eternal Jew", but it's ours.

Must sleep now... Later...

We're friends with a Canadian film director of some repute. Skype'd with our friend this morning about this and was told that this won't be the first or last time "reasonably packaged sh!t" is screened.

They would have no qualms about running an anti-GMO movie. Or a pro-0rganic movie. Nothing different about running an anti-vaccine movie.

Yup.

There is, of course, a difference between film schools screening a film like Triumph of the Will or The Eternal Jew for their students as part of a class on some aspect of film making and a prestigious film festival choosing to screen a modern day equivalent of such a film. For one thing, as odious as they are, Triumph of the Will and The Eternal Jew are important historical documents that help explain the rise of Nazi-ism, and Triumph of the Will, in particular, used groundbreaking film techniques, making it not just important in the history of Nazi Germany but important in the history of film making as well. Consequently, there is educational value in having film students watch, discuss, and analyze them.

But if they rig the ‘talk after’ part of the ‘conversation’ (likely already the plan) the press will dog them for that, and if they try to keep Anna Merlan out of the theater there will literally be hell to pay.

In a sane world, yes. But we don't live in a sane world, as you could probably deduce if you are following the US presidential election. If Wakefield et al. try to keep Ms. Merlan out of the theater, I have no confidence that it will be accurately reported in mainstream media, or that there will be any hell to pay.

There was a parallel incident several years ago when a creationist group screened a propaganda film in a theater in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. PZ Myers and a companion tried to get into the screening, but the organizers recognized Myers and refused to let him enter, although his companion was allowed in. Bonus irony points: the film in question was called "Expelled". Double bonus irony points: PZ's companion that evening was Richard Dawkins, one of the people explicitly trashed in "Expelled". The incident was reported on various ScienceBlogs at the time. But AFAICT the creationist crowd paid no price whatsoever for that kerfluffle. Thus my skepticism that the anti-vax crowd will pay any price should they attempt a similar stunt.

Denice, the comments wouldn't load in Firefox for me, either, though they do in Edge. Try another browser; I suspect my various extensions were interfering with the script that expands the comments.

Dan ( AoA, today) is squawking about the SB comments/ snarky repartee made at Jezebel.

Something tells me he's not going to revisit the post when the Gawker verdict is overturned on appeal.

@ Kate:

Thanks. It was working yesterday and I really don't have much on this machine ( mostly because I understand little so I keep it minimal).

Perhaps SOMEONE or SOMETHING is interfering with my progress because I investigate ...

oh wait, I'm not Sharyl Atkisson.

It took me a couple tries to get the comments to load. Try refreshing the page a few times.

Something tells me he’s not going to revisit the post when the Gawker verdict is overturned on appeal.

Why? I don't see the connection.

Orac: "For one thing, as odious as they are, Triumph of the Will and The Eternal Jew are important historical documents that help explain the rise of Nazi-ism, and Triumph of the Will, in particular, used groundbreaking film techniques, making it not just important in the history of Nazi Germany but important in the history of film making as well. "

One of my high schools had Mein Kampf in its library. I checked it out and read bits of it to friends in the cafeteria during lunch. It produced lots of laughter over its sheer idiocy and paranoia.

One of my high schools had Mein Kampf in its library. I checked it out and read bits of it to friends in the cafeteria during lunch. It produced lots of laughter over its sheer idiocy and paranoia.

The German department here has been known to screen the mentioned films, along with others, but as far as I know they have (thankfully) never used Mein Kampf in their language classes.

I try to act as a go-between between the Slavic and German departments, because otherwise it all devolves into "well, they didn't stop us in Berlin!" jokes. Which I will admit to laughing at.

^ We share the third floor of the Modern Languages Building with the German department, which tends to do much better than us financially, and is always taking over the common conference room.

Oh, the irony of history.

@ Todd W.:

Thanks. But no dice. As I said, it worked YESTERDAY.

Wakefield has been "convicted" of scientific fraud. The idea that an organization like the TFF would take a documentary from a known fraudster seriously beggars belief.

Not that I think Thompson wants to do any such thing. I suspect that he would like the whole thing to go away

Wakefield knows that Thompson is gagged by legal advice, leaving him free to make up whatever words he likes and put them in Thompson's mouth.

Yep. There's no way Thompson can sue, because he can't say anything now. He's been silent for a full year and a half now.

There’s no way Thompson can sue, because he can’t say anything now.

I don't really see why that would be the case. He would seem to be well shielded by 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), not to mention his attorneys.

On the other hand, neither do I see any good reason overall for him to sue anybody for anything. (I'm not even sure how splicing quotes in a movie trailer would become actionable in the first place; it's hardly the worst of the indiscretions so far.)

What on earth would he stand to gain?

@Orac, #24:

Thank you for making my point for me. Unless the presenters are going to announce the film as an example of piss-poor and blatantly dishonest movie-making However, I must object to the latter part of this sentiment:

There is, of course, a difference between film schools screening a film like Triumph of the Will or The Eternal Jew for their students as part of a class on some aspect of film making and a prestigious film festival choosing to screen a modern day equivalent of such a film.

"Vaxxed" is not up to snuff in contrast to those movies! To call it a modern day equivalent is an insult to them. Nobody is going to remember it in the annals of history, nor is any film class going to study it. :)

Blah, blockquote fail.

The latter part was me (if that was not obvious enough).

I think you missed my point.

re: "The scientific consensus is overwhelming that human activity is contributing to the overall warming of the planet. "

What matters in real science is the evidence, that the projections of theories actually match reality, not "consensus". The climate models don't match reality yet, their projections don't match the real world observations. If most docs fell for homeopathy and used it, that wouldn't mean their "consensus" was accurate since there isn't credible data proving its effectiveness. The site "Skeptical Science" isn't much different than the anti-vaxxer "science" sites, its a a site of true believers that don't seem to grasp the concept of actual scientific skepticism. The reason you are concerned about AGW is because you believe what others have told you without question, just as some folks fall for homeopathy because they believe what others tell them without question.

While I'm at it, I note the pathetic hypocrisy of the AoA crowd on the subject of the implications of suing or not suing. A recent example is this one:

There are few greater examples of the production and use of pseudoscience to prop up policy than that of the CDC. One of my favorite moments in 2015 (the year of infamy here in California) was RFK, Jr. publically calling Frank DeStefano a criminal, and inviting him to sue for defamation, knowing full-well that truth is an absolute defense against defamation. DeStefano's five months of silence are telling.

For icing, there's this on the Jezebel item:

Actually, having read the Jezebel article by Anna Merlan, I thought it was very carefully worded in order to avoid any potential Wakefield Lawsuit. Yes there was plenty of innuendo, but this was innocuous stuff compared to the slanderous Deer articles.

Hey, remember when Wakefraud was going to sue Emily Willingham? I take it that he concedes that he in fact set back autism research by a decade.

How about this one?*

"It's shocking," Michael Specter, a staff writer at the New Yorker who has studied and written extensively about the issue, said when asked in a phone interview Tuesday about the screening. "This is a criminal who is responsible for people dying. This isn't someone who has a 'point-of-view.’ It's comparable to Leni Riefenstahl making a movie about the Third Reich, or Mike Tyson making a movie about violence toward women. The fact that a respectable organization like the Tribeca Film Festival is giving Wakefield a platform is a disgraceful thing to do."

Better threaten to sue Real Soon Now, Andy, so that everyone will have as much time as possible to forget about it before the statute of limitations expires again.

* Supplied by Liz Ditz in comment 67 of the preceding Tribeca thread:
h[]tp://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-86305335/

@Eric #25
I hear ya' bout the state of our politics. There's so much crazy going on, Andy's con could easily get buried under more other bigger insanity du jour. The PZ thing isn't analogous though, for what it's worth. 1) He's not a press professional, and Merlan is. Reporters have each other's backs. 2) The creationist film didn't get the kind of pre-screening publicity Merlan's coverage in Jezebel has sparked. 3) IIRC that screening was sponsored by the CTs, who just rented a room from the uni and tried to pass that off as some official affiliation (or was that some other woo?). This is the TFF. The spotlight's already there. 4) I'm from the Twin Cities. It ain't Manhattan. 5) Creationists aren't a serious public health menace, 6) The film in question probably didn't fabricate 'whistleblower' claims that are manifestly false by dirty editing of audio clips. 7) I'm guessing PZ just showed up with RD, and hadn't alerted the press to the possibility of a juicy story about a confrontation.

I've got a few more, but the bottom line is if the TFF goes ahead with the screening, and public health advocates play the PR cards right, spit will hit fan.

Slanderous articles?
Doesn't she mean... oh never mind.

The creationist film didn’t get the kind of pre-screening publicity Merlan’s coverage in Jezebel has sparked.

Having lived through this particular incident, I'm not so sure about this.

What matters in real science is the evidence, that the projections of theories actually match reality, not “consensus”. The climate models don’t match reality yet, their projections don’t match the real world observations. If most docs fell for homeopathy and used it, that wouldn’t mean their “consensus” was accurate since there isn’t credible data proving its effectiveness. The site “Skeptical Science” isn’t much different than the anti-vaxxer “science” sites, its a a site of true believers that don’t seem to grasp the concept of actual scientific skepticism. The reason you are concerned about AGW is because you believe what others have told you without question, just as some folks fall for homeopathy because they believe what others tell them without question.

Go away. It's clear you don't know what your'e talking about. The scientific consensus on human-caused global climate change is every bit as strong as the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism—probably strong. And what do you think scientific consensuses are based on, anyway? Evidence, experimentation, and models.

I did wonder how long before a climate change denialist would pop up, though. It took longer than I expected.

The list of speakers for the after-film talk is up on the TFF page;
Andrew Wakefied
Polly Tommy
Brain Hooker
Stephanie Seneff
Sheryl Attkisson (mis-spelled twice as 'Atkinson')
Del Bigtree
Philippe Diaz

Diaz is the head of Cinema Libre Studio, a 'social issues' documentary distributor. IIRC, Cinema Libre was IDed on the 'Vaxxed' TFF page as the film's distributor/press contact/etc. as of yesterday, but now all the info directs to email addresses "@vaxxedthemovie.com" , though the phone number listed is indeed the Cinema Libre office. There's a vaxxedthemovie.com website with no trace of the Cienma Libre name anywhere.

Cinema Libre has distributed two autism related films: "Citizen Autistic' and 'Loving Lampposts'. Anyone seen either? They look like neuro-diversity takes from the short blurbs. This is all curious, to say the least...

@ Orac #46 Sorry. I was guessing. If you have a link at hand to anywhere you or PZ or anyone wrote about what happened, lemme know. if not, I'll Google Expelled/PZ/RD when I get the time. I'm curious. Gotta be open to evidence...

I'll ask again: Does anyone know who exactly bankrolls Wakefield and 'Autism Media Channel'? Or beyond his own name-dropping of Leo, anyone with real power and $$ definitively associated with him, who might have gone to bat for him to get pub for 'Vaxxed'?

sadmar@49: A little searching turned up this report from then ScienceBlog poster Ed Brayton. The link therein to PZ's firsthand account is stale.

sadmar@48: That's not a discussion panel, that's a bunch of sycophants.

Great piece in the LA Times, complete with a quote from you, Orac, as a giant pullquote in the middle of the piece.

Thank you Orac for another great Article.

I am disgusted with the Tribeca Film Festival and I telephoned them today voicing my concerns.

They asked me to send then information about Wakefield which I have done this evening.

I told them they are going to cause immeasurable damage if they allow this Charlatans Film to air.

I truly hope they will reconsider as it will also damage their Reputation.

Fiona O'Leary

ART Autistic Rights Together

Http//autisticrightstogether.ie

Damn, forgot to include that it's also a rare example of a headline that breaks Betteridge's Law of Headlines. (I'm a journalist; I care about headlines.)

Ms. O'Leary, has anyone told you lately how awesome you are? I among others appreciate your work to improve the lives of autistics. If you have any more conversations with the Tribeca people would you please include Matt Carey's expose of Wakefield's fabricated content of Dr. Thompson's conversations? It's on Leftbrain/Rightbrain.

I among others appreciate your work to improve the lives of autistics.

Repeated with acclamation.

The site “Skeptical Science” isn’t much different than the anti-vaxxer “science” sites, its a a site of true believers that don’t seem to grasp the concept of actual scientific skepticism.

Hey, "Actual Skeptic," if you had shown up a bit earlier, you could have helped out "Denier" at Ethan's residue. In any event, I'm sure there are better places than here for this sort of random asshurt to seek balming.

Just read that LA Times piece that Kate linked to. YEAH!!! Also, it links to an earlier article on the same which also quotes our esteemed host.
:D

@Orac #41

I know what you meant and I agree. I just felt compelled to be snarky and point out what an average, run-of-the-mill, film "Vaxxed" is in contrast to those movies which, for better or worse, are quite "good" movies in terms of historical value and their place in the history of movie-making. :P

For shame, Orac! Your response seemingly reflects an uncharacteristic unwillingness to consider all evidence. After looking more closely and open-mindedly at availible information, I suggest you will find that the "consensus" and "overwhelming evidence" on the topic of human contribution to global warming are, in fact, less comprehensive than reported. The first represents a cherry-picked group of like-minded parties (who met as the IPCC under the pretense of evaluating evidence as a body to declare a predetermined outcome) who have consistently elected to ignore the opposing views of scientists with equal, and occasionally greater, qualifications. The second, as stated, is overwhelming only when the data is viewed with a pre-established bias. The comments about the models were correct, and there is a significant body of evidence on contributing factors not related to human influence that the so-called "consensus" crowd consistently pretends doesn't exist. Don't delude yourself into believing all dissenters are whackos who rely on sifted internet content as "research". There are many qualified researchers with differing opinions.

Re: Fiona O'Leary @ #53

For those readers who are unfamiliar with Fiona O'Leary, she has worked tirelessly and almost single-handedly to bring to wider attention some of the most appalling abuses of autistic children, including attempts by parents to "cure" them by the administration of sodium chlorite (bleach) orally and by enema. She has been particularly effective in getting media and regulatory authorities in the UK and Ireland to start taking notice.

She is one tough and courageous woman, who has been relentlessly attacked by the charlatans she has exposed. She deserves our fullest support, if not a medal of some kind.

Speaking of recent media links, the BBC is running a piece on cognitive miserliness, including the classic example of flesh eating bananas and the case of fraud perpetrated by Wakefield:

Denice #45

Why, it's almost like someone doesn't know what they are talking about...

Mr Lying Pants Fraudy Trousers has had ample opportunity to avail himself of our fine legal system and sue Brian Deer and many, many, many other people (including quite a few of my direct acquaintance) for defamation of any sort, but oddly he hasn't...Which is most peculiar as it is easier to sue for defamation here then in many jurisdictions - Merkinania springing to mind there.

Is Puma_59 a Poe or just really ignorant and closed minded?

Shirley that is untrue. IIRC, Mr Wakefield did initiate legal action, but only circumstances whereby it could not proceed, and eventually let everything lapse; it was almost as if the action's main purpose was to gull more donations from his supporters.
http://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-introduction.htm

Puma_59: "I suggest you will find that the “consensus” and “overwhelming evidence” on the topic of human contribution to global warming are, in fact, less comprehensive than reported."

Off topic troll is off topic, and very silly.

Here, here!

Puma_59 #60, you're banging your head against some mad bugger's wall -- If it were to be shown that the rate of sea level rise hasn't changed in 20 thousand years, this crowd would consense that it is 97% due to the oceans boiling away.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/commen…

Gilbert: did you forget 3rd grade science? Water evaporates from the ocean, lakes, etc, rises, condenses, and falls again as rain. So the oceans don't "boil away". And take a look at the fact that iceburgs that have been around for thousands of years at the same size are shrinking faster now than ever documented history?

Mrs Pointer #61

Re:Re: Fiona O’Leary @ #53

Thanks so much for making those of us who don't know Fiona O'Leary's, indeed, courageous and life-saving work, aware of it. Reposting yours as if to underline...

For those readers who are unfamiliar with Fiona O’Leary, she has worked tirelessly and almost single-handedly to bring to wider attention some of the most appalling abuses of autistic children, including attempts by parents to “cure” them by the administration of sodium chlorite (bleach) orally and by enema. She has been particularly effective in getting media and regulatory authorities in the UK and Ireland to start taking notice.

She is one tough and courageous woman, who has been relentlessly attacked by the charlatans she has exposed. She deserves our fullest support, if not a medal of some kind.

Html code fail;-( "For those readers........" should be in quotes.

I believe the only discussion they were hoping for is about this C Grade festival. Maybe Steve Harvey can host...

This is orac writing. Nothing worth reading here. Move on along...

take a look at the fact that iceburgs that have been around for thousands of years at the same size are shrinking faster now than ever documented history?

Iceburgs, MI Dawn #69? Got a proxy for the size of an iceburg thousands of years ago?

Additional work on the same issue shows that recent changes to emissions regulations may have strongly accelerated the warming happening in the Arctic...

Though global climate change is affecting the whole planet, the Arctic has seen accelerated warming compared to the rest of the planet. The reasons for this amplified Arctic warming are still not completely clear.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/our-aerosol-emissions-are-blocki…

^^ That article sounds to me like they're warming up to the idea of spraying shiny stuff in the atmosphere to 'combat' CAGW limit solar input available to photosynthetic organisms.

While I'm perusing ARS 'churnalism',

"This one looks like it is capable of making infectious virus, which would be very exciting if true, as it would allow us to study a viral epidemic that took place long ago," ...

These sequences, called human endogenous retroviruses, or HERVs, are actually DNA versions of RNA-based viruses that permanently lodge their code into human DNA—a class of viruses called retroviruses. (HIV is an example of a retrovirus.)

While the researchers work to see if the forgone germ can be revived, the researchers are hopeful that their method could be used to study more ancient, viral remains that litter our genomes.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/ancient-virus-found-hibernating-…

They just can't leave well enough alone. I bet the new vaccine for it will be pricey. If viruses can change the genome, I wonder if it may be engineered into an innoculation to also affect such changes -- I *suspect* the vaccine schedule is causing some homogenization of the human genome, for better or worse.

@SL King: then why even bother commenting? Afraid you'll learn something that will hurt your brain?

@herr doktor bimler:

Shirley that is untrue.

It is true, and don't call us "Shirley".
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

You know, it occurs to me that there's a documentary to be made giving wider exposure to the truth about Wakefield.

Brian Deer-- has anyone approached you about this or have you given it any consideration yourself?

Naa MI Dawn #69, I know you meant to say 'glaciers'. Still, I linked to an observation of accelerated warming for the arctic being possibly due to decreased aerosols. There is record sea ice in the antarctic -- aerosols were never a factor there; 'They' propose it is due to global warming..."We left the freezer door open so now the icecubes are all over the floor."
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-recor…

They note that arctic sea ice is minimized but it is highly variable season to season. Still, 'the science is settled' is just as nausiating as 'nuclear is clean because it doesn't spit out plant food'.

re: "Go away. It’s clear you don’t know what your’e talking about. The scientific consensus on human-caused global climate change is every bit as strong as the scientific consensus"

I suspect the odds are incredibly high that I know far more than you about the topic (have you read through an IPCC science document? I have). , and that you are relying on the mere claim of a "consensus" and *not* on actual evaluation of the evidence.

Ah, yes. The AGW deniers are here, full of bluster. And other substances, as well.

It's all a conspiracy by those nasty physical scientists to cash in on that sweet government cash, you see, and the government is feeding them all that money because they see a way of raising taxes and exerting social control.

Never mind the ironclad physics case.

Yeah, I thought about answering, but then realized that, if anything, many AGW denialists are even dumber and more stubborn than antivaccinationists.

Orac -- That's an entirely reasonable course of action, especially since it's not your usual home turf.

I've cited your classic column on how suspicion of a scientific consensus is a sign of a crank many times now, by the way.

Our AGW denialist friend is also incorrect that I haven't read IPCc reports. :-)

You lost me when you said that Wakefield said the MMR caused autism. In his PAPER, not study, he never ONCE says that the MMR causes autism. Get your facts straight.

While that's technically true, Wakefield has said many times since that he thinks the MMR causes autism. He even held a fear mongering press conference at the time of release of his 1998 Lancet paper that strongly suggested that. My guess as someone who knows about science and how papers are published is that only reason he didn't say it in the paper is that the peer reviewers almost certainly forced him to tone down his language. Antivaxers have been using this dodge since long before I became familiar with Wakefield's mendacity.

Would you like some examples of him saying that vaccines cause autism? I bet you there are some in the film.

Good Herr Doktor @ 65

Check my location...You link was to the stuff in Merkinania...I am not aware of him trying to use our lax-er defamation laws.

Murmur, Wakefield DID take Deer to Court in Britain. He then stalled for years. Eventually, the judge told him to either proceed or drop matters. Wakefield dropped matters and sent Deer a cheque for legal costs.

Check my location…You link was to the stuff in Merkinania…

It did occur to me that you were referring specifically to a UK libel action, but I thought "No-one would be pedantic on the Internet".

As far as the 'rational' specifics here. Let's use some logic:
Fact #1) There is zero debate that vaccines carry risks (this is why the US government set up a vaccine compensation fund). The only debate is the amount of risk.
Fact #2: There is zero debate that very well credentialed experts disagree on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. One may side with a particular expert over another - but one cannot debate the fact that this expert disagreement exists.
The debate should be open and discussed, not vilified.
Also, vaxxers always hold on to Wakefield as a fraud, except he's already been exonerated and proven to be smeared and made an example. How about the blatant fraud being brought to your attention in a film like this? You vilify Wakefield for fraud, what does it tell you when the precious CDC has the same claims against them?

@Travis:

vaxxers always hold on to Wakefield as a fraud, except he’s already been exonerated and proven to be smeared and made an example.

When and where was he exonerated? And don't mention John Walker-Smith's successful appeal, because:
1) Walker-Smith appealed on a technicality.
2) Walker-Smith's own lawyer said the MMR autism causation theory is dead as a dodo.
Walker-Smith's successful appeal throws Wakefiled under a bus.

It's an odd experience having watched Wakefield for so long, with all kinds of systems in place to respond to his vexatious gagging litigation, which means documents and files and god knows what.

One of the fascinating things is that, because he lies like a duck quacks, over time he moves on to a different deceit, often contradicting previous ones.

There is somebody in this thread called "Mel" who's still on one of Wakefield's deceptions that he moved on from about four or five years ago: about how he never said MMR caused autism.

Well, actually, his 1998 paper described MMR as the "apparent precipitating event" - and "precipitating" does mean causal, and he described it as the "possible environmental trigger". But since the whole paper was riddled with talk about MMR, and not a lot about bowel disease, that was the point of it.

However, the paper did say "we did not PROVE an association". True. But this is phrased and contexted very much like the murderer in a Columbo episode: "what can you PROVE".

So, his paper was given a press conference, and set off a public panic, in which children died.

Wakefield said many times then and since that MMR causes autism. Indeed, his whole Thompson scam is predicated on that. "I said MMR causes autism, and Thompson proves I'm right etc".

So, can I put it this way: the dumb fuck crap that Mel comes out with is just left there, like the decaying carcass of a dead whale. But he/she thinks it helps somehow.

Mel: the master has moved on. Get with the program.

@Travis:
You vilify Wakefield for fraud, what does it tell you when the precious CDC has the same claims against them?

Allegations without evidence tells me nothing. This site as well as LBRB have talk about the evidence Hooker and Wakefield have presented, so far. (And unlike Wakefield, LBRB have made all the documents available)

@Travis. Oh! Please, do tell where Wakefield has been exonerated. For every time he has gone to court he has either been told to put up or shut up, i.e. his libel claim against Brian Deer and Channel 4, where the judge said that he was trying to use the threat of libel as an attempt to gag critics so get on with it or drop it, he dropped it.Then the last I heard, every case he has tried in the US has either been dismissed as invalid or has failed.Then there was his hearing at the BMC where he was struck off as a doctor due to his proven fraudulent research and the way he broke almost every medical ethics research rule in the book in dealing with children.

So please, do tell is where this exoneration happened. You are either an idiot who has been conned by that weird aura of righteousness he seems to project to the gullible or as big a liar as he is. Unless of course you mean that his sycophants think him innocent of all charges in spite of the wealth of evidence against him, as I have seen many of them state. So which are you, gullible ignorant fool or liar?

Travis must think that Autism Investigated is real journalism: http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wakefield-medical-license/#comments

@Science Mom. Is Jake capable of reading anything without putting an anti-vax or pro-Wakefield spin on it. For yet again Wakefield ducks out of a court case he had initiated, this time the appeal against the GMC's findings and because the court then finds on technical grounds that Professor Smith was not fully as guilty as the GMC found, obviously Wakefield must also be not guilty.

If he was so sure of that, why didn't he actually stay and fight his case. Also, the court didn't exonerate the research as Jake Claimed. In fact, one of the problems with the paper that got the professor into trouble, was the inclusion of the statement that Ethics Panel permission had been given and which Wakefield was supposed to have removed from the paper to the Lancet and which for whatever reason, Wakefield didn't do.

So again, Wakefield causes problems for others and has his sycophants like Jake reading the court's ruling that the GMC went too far in its findings with regard to the Professor as proof that his hero must also be not guilty of professional misconduct. Yet brave Sir Robin didn't stay for the trial and withdrew. I wonder why?

Walker-Smith’s successful appeal throws Wakefiled under a bus.

As I understood, Walker-Smith's defence was in essence "Wakefield misled me".

I 5 peggiori film complottisti

**Um, G---le Translate.**

"The 5 worst movies conspiracy"

Eh, fame at last! The movie Vaxxed is internationally recognized as an achievement!

As I understood, Walker-Smith’s defence was in essence “Wakefield misled me”.
It was.

What happened to my blockquotes?

What happened to my blockquotes?

Sorry, I borrowed them for this reply. You can have them back now.

because he lies like a duck quacks a rug

fixed.

Ben Swann's long-awaited report on the "CDC whistleblower" goes over like a lead balloon of antivaccine misinformation

oracknows — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 02:00:54 +0000

Ben Swann's long-awaited report on the "CDC whistleblower" goes over like a lead balloon of antivaccine misinformation

Ben Swann, anchor of the evening news for the local Atlanta CBS affiliate and the face of his Truth In Media series of videos, thinks himself an investigative journalist and a truth teller, but much of what I see him reporting more closely resembles reporting as though done by a cross between Ted Baxter, Ron Burgundy, and Alex Jones. For one thing, Mr. Swann sure does love him some conspiracies, and he sure is susceptible to antivaccine nonsense, no matter how nonsensical. I first saw him in action nearly three months ago, when he credulously regurgitated the antivaccine talking points on display in the antivaccine protest in Atlanta in which Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Barbara Loe Fisher, and whole gaggle of the usual antivaccine suspects converged on Atlanta and the CDC with Scientology-allied Nation of Islam minister Tony Muhammed to protest...well, what the protest was about wasn't exactly clear. Ostensibly, it was about the so-called "CDC whistleblower," a CDC scientist named William Thompson who was involved with a number of CDC studies that failed to find a link between vaccines and autism back in the day. Yesterday, he published the culmination of his "investigation" (and I do use the term loosely) on his Truth In Media website as a story, CDC, Vaccines and Autism. As was the case with Swann's previous reports on this issue, it's largely a load of misinformation, shoddy reporting, and lying by omission, only stretched out to 25 minutes. In fact, I was rather disappointed by it, after having looked forward to it for two weeks after Swann had announced it, so much so that I wondered whether it was even worth blogging. Then I realized that this sort of stuff needs to be countered, and as a fairly high profile medical blogger I had an obligation to address this specific video, even though there really is nothing new in it. But first, some background.

I've discussed Thompson (a.k.a. the "CDC whistleblower") and his claims in considerable detail on multiple occasions since his existence was first revealed by the antivaccine tag team of Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield in a truly despicable video in which Wakefield likened the vaccine program to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Why did he make this claim? Why has Thompson been trumpeted as the "CDC whistleblower" since Wakefield's video was released in August 2014? I like to think it's because antivaccinationists think that he's revealed actual evidence of what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, namely that there is "smoking gun" evidence out there that vaccines cause autism but the CDC (or government or big pharma or all of them in cahoots) is covering it up. In this case, for whatever reason, William Thompson had a number of telephone conversations with biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine epidemiologist Brian Hooker over many months, in which he apparently ranted against his colleagues at the CDC and claimed that a finding had been suppressed in a paper by DeStefano et al on which Thompson was also coauthor that was published in 2004. Apparently with Thompson's advice, Hooker undertook a reanalysis of the data in this paper that was so incompetently performed that epidemiologists everywhere mocked him mercilessly. Let's just say that Hooker analyzed a case control study as a cohort study and ignored one major confounder, which left him with the almost certainly spurious finding that receiving the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months was correlated with a 3.4-fold increased risk of autism in only one subgroup, African American males. Of course, as I put it at the time, other than that spurious result, Hooker had just proven Andrew Wakefield wrong when it comes to all children other than African-American males.

In any case, it wasn't long before Thompson lawyered up and claimed whistleblower status. Around the same time, he gave a number of documents to Representative Bill Posey (R-FL), who made a pointless speech on the House floor a few days before summer recess about them when few were listening and otherwise did basically nothing with them. Meanwhile, as more and more of Thompson's statements were made public, it was hard not to get the impression that he had turned antivaccine. In any case, Ben Swann swallowed the CDC whistleblower story that claimed those documents held a "smoking gun" in which Thompson's colleagues had altered the research plan for DeStefano et al after the study was underway in order to "hide" the result in African-American boys and had destroyed a bunch of data in order to prevent that from becoming known. Two months ago, we learned that Swann had obtained all the CDC whistleblower documents from Rep. Posey's office and was planning on doing a report on it. Unfortunately for Swann, Matt Carey beat him to the punch, obtaining all the documents himself and doing an excellent analysis that shows that there was no coverup. For your edification, he even provided a link to download all the files yourself if you wish. It's right here. I myself also reviewed the CDC whistleblower documents and agreed with Matt that there's a whole lot of nothing going on there, noting from the documents' contents that even William Thompson doesn't appear to believe that the result in African-American boys was real.

I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany. That's why you'll have to watch the video on my own website to see my awesomeness. Well, that, and the fact that the CBS affiliate in Atlanta where I anchor the evening news wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot cattle prod.

So when I learned that Swann was going to post his CDC whistleblower report on January 26, I was actually looking forward to it. Maybe he'd come up with a new antivaccine spin on the story that I hadn't heard before. Alas, it was not to be, as you will see if you watch Swann's video, which unfortunately doesn't allow embedding. Before I get to the video, there's one thing I noticed in the text:

For over two years, Truth In Media has explored the allegations of Dr. William Thompson, a CDC scientist who came forward in 2014, hired a whistleblower attorney, and claimed that important data regarding a study on vaccines and autism was eliminated.

For over two years? The CDC whistleblower was unknown to the public until August 2014, a mere 17 months ago. Either Swann is clueless (quite possible), or Swann was in on the scam with Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker before Wakefield went public (also possible, although I tend to doubt it). It's not a really important point, just interesting and worth a quick mention. A second thing worth mentioning is that it's hard to tell whether the documents made available for download by Swann are all the same as the ones Matt Carey obtained. When I first downloaded Swann's files, I was annoyed to find multiple files and ZIP files within ZIP files. I also noticed that the overall size of the files was at least 50% greater than the files in Matt Carey's. The next thing I noticed is that Swann has placed "Truth in Media" watermarks on all the pages of all the PDF files (at least all the pages I've looked at so far). Certainly, that could account for an increase in size. Finally, Swann has rearranged the folder structure and renamed a lot of the files, making figuring out whether he has included all the same documents as Matt, left some out, or included additional documents difficult to tell without taking more time than I had last night to go through them all. (Gee, one wonders if that was the reason Swann did it, to make it difficult to directly compare the two sets of PDFs and determine if they all contain the same documents.) It's annoying, and Matt and others have been discussing it in the comments section of another post. I guess we now know why it took Swann two months to regurgitate Brian Hooker's talking points basically verbatim.

So let's go to the video. When hyping his story, Swann claimed that he would be having doctors, journalists, authors, and former CDC specialists assisting in his analysis of "every document that was handed over." The amusing thing is that Matt Carey went over every document, and I went over most of them in far less time. In any case, Swann starts his video as you would expect, falsely labeling vaccines as highly controversial, complete with excerpts of Brian Hooker, who appears to have been Swann's main "expert" who helped him. It also doesn't bode well that Swann starts out with Andrew Wakefield's Lancet study and another study of his, basically reported without skepticism. For instance, he fails completely to mention that Andrew Wakefield was basically paid a large sum of money by a trial lawyer seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield's work was later shown to be fraudulent.

Perhaps the absolute dumbest part of the video occurs around 3:45, when Swann compares Wakefield's Lancet case series with DeStefano et al. Before that, I couldn't help but chuckle at the hackneyed device Swann used, showing a scientist making colored solutions, when the epidemiological study to be discussed had no wet lab work. Oh, well, I guess nothing says science like some dude in a white coat swirling beakers of colored solutions for the camera. In any case, check out these screenshots:

Next, Swann says that the CDC did a case control study in which they didn't look at any actual children, as though to imply that a case control study was not as good as a small case series:

This is, of course, nonsense. It's scientific ignorance of the highest order. Indeed, in the hierarchy of evidence, small case series are near the bottom, just above single case series, and well-designed epidemiological studies are much higher. Wakefield's crappy case series was in no way a better study than DeStefano et al. Swann also claims that people viewed the case as settled after DeStefano et al; that is, until 2014 when the CDC whistleblower arose. That's utter nonsense, too. The case that MMR doesn't cause autism was settled based on many studies. No one study is definitive, including DeStefano et al, and no one study is indispensable. If DeStefano et al were never carried out, we'd still have plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the MMR isn't correlated with autism. Heck, it every lie Swann regurgitates about DeStefano et al were true, all it would mean is that DeStefano et al was not a study we could rely on and there'd still be plenty of studies to reject a causal link between MMR vaccination and autism. Of course, it wouldn't serve Swann's story to tell the truth about this because for the CDC whistleblower story to matter, DeStefano et al must be portrayed as the be-all and end-all of studies failing to find a link between vaccines and autism, which, if discredited, reopens the scientific question. Again, science doesn't work that way, although conspiracy theories do.

Next up, is a segment on the claim that the research protocol had been altered. This has been discussed several times before, both here and by Matt Carey. I'm not sure I want to go through the details again. If you're interested, compare Swann's timeline to these discussions, which show that the documents do not support the claim that the protocol was changed (particularly given that the first date in Swann's timeline is October 15, 2001), which is after the final protocol had been published. No, DeStefano and colleagues did not break protocol. There's no evidence that they did in any of these documents.

Perhaps the most hilarious part comes right after this, when Swann claims that he got together the aforementioned team of journalists, scientists, and ex-CDC staffers to analyze the documents and then supplemented it with an "independent" investigation by Brian hooker. Let me say that again. Swann calls Hooker's investigation "independent." Try not to laugh too hard. (I do hope you weren't drinking anything when you read that.) Hooker is an antivaccine loon. More pertinently, he's an incompetent epidemiologist, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The very fact that he analyzed data collected for a case control study as a cohort study ought to tell you that.

Perhaps the most curious segment is the segment in which Swann interviews what appear to be two retired CDC scientists (they're both old and advertised as having between them many years of experience). One is Stephen Fitzgerald. What he talks about appears to have little to do with anything related to the CDC whistleblower story. Ditto David Newberry, billed as a former head of the CDC Immunization Branch for 45 years. A Google search on him showed him as being with the CDC infectious disease unit for 25 years. Fitzgerald and Newberry have also done lectures together on epidemiology. What they ended up discussing was not the documents, but rather what both of them perceived as the politicization of the CDC during the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, the implication being that vaccine studies are just as politicized and just as much guesswork, when they aren't. One has to wonder whether Fitzgerald and Newberry knew their interview would be used in an antivaccine report, because what they were interviewed with was only related to what Ben Swann was reporting by coincidence and conspiracy mongering.

This segment then segues into the claims reported by Rep. Posey, which I've dealt with before, which segues into Hooker describing Thompson's e-mail to Julie Gerberding, who was the director of the CDC at the time. I've dealt with this too more than once. Basically, Thompson e-mailed the CDC director, and not much happened. Swann tries to make it sound as though Thompson was suspended for that e-mail, but as we know from the documents it was a lot more than that, including a verbally violent confrontation in the parking lot with his superior, Walter Orenstein, refusing to cooperate in modifying a PowerPoint presentation when requested, and sending e-mails to Dr. Orenstein demanding an apology and e-mails to senior staff accusing him of harassment. He also neglects to note that this was not a suspension. Rather, it was an administrative leave with pay granted because his superiors were concerned that he was under extreme pressure and needed a break.

When the video was over, I was stunned. No, I wasn't stunned by the revelations or by Swann's willingness to lie and distort the contents of the documents. I expected that. What I was stunned at was just how unimaginative Swann was. I was also stunned at how Swann didn't even really attempt to do real journalism. He basically took Hooker's misinformation, prettied it up with some graphics, and reported it as true. Hooker was the only "scientist" directly addressing the documents. Other major failings that didn't really surprise me included failures to disclose: the retraction of Wakefield's Lancet paper and his later being struck off; Hooker's NVICP claims, which are a conflict of interest; and that Hooker's reanalysis was retracted by the first journal it was published in. Other than the retired CDC scientists (who didn't comment on the documents) and Hooker (who, unfortunately, did), Swann doesn't identify any of the other journalists, writers, etc., who helped him out, although he does thank Mark Blaxill in the credits.

No wonder the station where Swann works at his day job wouldn't take this report. There's nothing there, and Swann has to distort, selectively report, and leave out information in order to spin it into a story of CDC corruption and malfeasance. Will it work as propaganda? I don't know. I'm sure it will be shared widely on social media by antivaccine activists, but most likely they will just be preaching to the choir. Whether anyone "on the fence" will believe this propaganda is harder to predict, but right now Ben Swann is sure trying to give Sharyl Attkisson a run for her money as the journalist most susceptible to antivaccine conspiracy theories in the US.

oracknows Tue, 01/26/2016 - 21:00

Utterly disgusting. If some "thinking mom" gets convinced and refuses to vaccinate, leading to the death or serious injury to her child(ren) from a preventable disease, couldn't (and shouldn't) people like this be held somewhat accountable for spreading such misinformation and lies..?

"in at least 12 physical children"
... as opposed to mental children? Metaphorical children? Energy Beings from Vega?
I am wondering where the uncertainty responsible for the "at least" came from. You would think Swann would at least be able to read Wakefield's feckin paper and see how many Physical Children were involved.

I would have to think that if sensible people wrote to the Atlanta station where Swann works, and set out what he has wilfully left out of his report, and could persuade producers to actually view his film, he would have great trouble getting away with this again.

In Britain, TV is regulated such that dishonest journalists are finished if they try these kind of stunts. But in the US producers and good editors often take their responsibilities very seriously.

A professional looking at that film would instantly see that he had shown no evidence from his supposed experts who studied the documents, and misused the footage from the retired CDC staff.

I can see from Thompson's own statements that he makes no allegation of fraud, says that reasonable people can disagree about the data that should have been included in the published paper, that the anomaly in the data for black kids 24-36 months does not evidence that the phenomenon is real, and confirms that no data was destroyed.

When I made TV shows, I can tell you I would have been required to disclose that information to viewers. I'm pretty sure the Atlanta affiliate would say the same.

As for the fact that the film was in part paid-for by anti-vaxxers, would, in the UK, finish the journalist. Certainly, if I had taken money for an item of journalism from anyone other than my media employer, I would be finished. Even if I was doing consultancy work, or PR on the side, or anything like that for people with an interest, I'd be done.

This guy has crossed the line in so many ways.

On Swann's page, I see AIDS denialist Celia Farber's turned up in support. Hilarity ensues.

In any case, it wasn’t long before Thompson lawyered up and claimed whistleblower status.

Dammit.

@4 Rebecca. If you mean her citing a letter published by "Sanevax" and asking if the woman is crazy, I notice that Ms Farber evidently pays no attention to the woman's qualifier to her complaint:

"Should the information in this letter prove to be accurate"

Why is it that Ms Farber's lack of similar caution doesn't surprise me?

#3 - "A professional looking at that film would instantly see that he had shown no evidence from his supposed experts who studied the documents, and misused the footage from the retired CDC staff."

Professionals such as our gracious host of blinking lights...?

Orac writes,

Whether anyone “on the fence” will believe this propaganda is harder to predict...

MJD says,

Probably not, facts trump propoganda,

But for some, it may be difficult to stay "on the fence" knowing that in 2015-2016 Novartis plans to deliver a baseline supply of 33 to 36 million doses of influenza vaccine having a l@tex warning.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

"CDC study" screenshot

Oooh, scary needles-and-syringes.
I wonder why is that? Wakefield used a lot of needles and syringes, too.

"did not look at actual children".
Yeah, all of these school records and birth certificates were actually whose of the smurfs living in my backyard.

A professional looking at that film would instantly see that he had shown no evidence from his supposed experts who studied the documents, and misused the footage from the retired CDC staff.

I noticed that and I consider myself a rank amateur in filmography.

“did not look at actual children”.
Yeah, all of these school records and birth certificates were actually whose of the smurfs living in my backyard.

They were virtual children, potential children who were studied as they popped in and out of the quantum vacuum.

The one thing I couldn't figure out if it was billed out as a CBS news story/documentary. I saw some posts promoting it as a main-stream story, but couldn't find it. It appears not to have that support, is that correct?

#11 - They were Schrödinger's Children; they are both existing and not existing at the same time (also, smurfs!).

I would have to think that if sensible people wrote to the Atlanta station where Swann works, and set out what he has wilfully left out of his report, and could persuade producers to actually view his film, he would have great trouble getting away with this again.

Since Swann presented this silly video on his own outlet and CBS appears not to have anything to do with it, complaining to CBS isn't appropriate.

It was fairly clear from the video that Swann doesn't seem to know what "significant" means when it comes to statistical analysis. The way he used the word implied "important", rather than "unlikely to occur by chance".

And, yeah, his descriptions of the Wakefield and DeStefano studies was just...weird. Very awkward word choice.

The other thing that struck me, in regard to the former CDC employees being interviewed, was that not only did they not talk about the documents or the whole "whistleblower" thing at all, but that it almost seemed like reused footage. It really did not seem like original material captured for this video. I would like to see the full interview with Fitzgerald, Newberry and the unnamed third man. You know...for the sake of transparency.

Oh, and I agree with Science Mom. Complaining to his CBS affiliate would be highly inappropriate. Go ahead and mock him for engaging in yellow journalism, but don't formally complain to his employer. That's something anti-vaccine activists would do.

"Oooh, scary needles-and-syringes.
I wonder why is that? Wakefield used a lot of needles and syringes, too."

Images of syringes and needles are often used as front cover "art" for antivaccine books.

The apparent purpose is to appeal to the needle-phobic. Few of us actually feel comfortable about the idea of needles puncturing our skin, but there is a subset of antivaxers for which belonephobia (it's listed in the DSM-IV) is a strong motivating factor.

Swann inflates Thompson's position which is easily falsifiable if one cares to look. Swann states that the CDC team who conducted the 2004 study was, "lead by Thompson". Why is it called DeStefano et al. 2004 for starters then? Swann also uses Thompson's notes (years after the fact) on the documents as evidence of wrong-doing when the timeline of the protocol is also right there in the document dump and clearly demonstrates how race will be used and how that took place prior to any analysis as Matt Carey has already blogged about extensively. The fact that Swann doesn't even show any documents supporting his allegations should be a huge red flag. And the one he does show (the so-called "hush money" document) doesn't even support the allegation.

Thompson was initially the lead investigator of the study.

Thompson was initially the lead investigator of the study.

Thompson was never lead investigator of the MMR study. He was lead for the thiomersal study after that though.

I DO wonder what his employer makes of his independent efforts.

Whatever he does on his own carries the implied weight of the station because - in fact- he was hired by them and kept on because of his presumed talents and abilities and hey, if he works on his own, well, he's still using his supposed judgment, sense,talent and abilities.

Wouldn't a person on his level have some say in what stories are produced for the station? Or is he just another pretty face?**

Why this is so hilarious to me is that Ben seems straddle the middle ground between real journalism ( because he works for a station with fact checking and a basis in reality I believe) and the alt media BS which I peruse courtesy of NN and PRN.

** not really

Dude, you are so unfair!

Led Zeppelin was a great band. You should not cast such aspersions as to lump anti-backers with lead balloons.

Who said anything about Led Zeppelin? That saying and image existed long before Zep did.

-btw-
Ben has 3 additional political videos at Truth In Media:
it's quite clear which side he's one.
Hint: he's not a socialist.

he's ON.

Or is he just another pretty face?

I think the preferred term is 'talking head'.

Looking at the TiM site, there is no mention of Swan's current employer. If you only looked at the site, you could reasonably draw the wrong conclusion that the site was his sole professional activity. No doubt in my mind his current employer insists that this be the case, that they are aware of his activities, and that there is nothing they can do about it.

A second thing worth mentioning is that it’s hard to tell whether the documents made available for download by Swann are all the same as the ones Matt Carey obtained.

Ooh, I'll have the Truth in Media with a side order of Evidence Tampering, please!

Wakefield is out in the Pacific on a cruise ship (the so-called "Conspira-sea" cruise) this week. That Wakefield felt it more opportune to give his con-artist talk to a bunch of dowsers, astrologers, AVers and "global alchemists" says volumes about how little even he thinks of "whistleblower".

@ Dangerous Bacon

Images of syringes and needles are often used as front cover “art” for antivaccine books.

My question was rhetorical :-)
I don't like much needles myself, so the underlining message was not lost on me.
Swann choose this design instead of something else; it's not a neutral, or meaningless, choice.

Given Wakefield's callous disregard in his use of needles, between drawing blood at birthday's parties or puncturing the bowels of children during biopsy, I found this choice slightly hypocritical.

Belonephobia. I learned a new word.

ben-swann.com (his own joint?) links to RT ((shudder)) and Fox 19.

@Orac

You can use Youtube-dl to download the video, there's even a GUI for it. The HD version has ~ 790 MB.

@Dino Ramzi, not only does the saying predate the band, the band took its name from the saying.

You know, looking at the screenshot I took of Ben Swann, I think I chose the wrong joke. I shouldn't have done a Ron Burgundy joke. I should have done a Zoolander joke, what with the movie coming out soon and all. Swann sure looks as though he's doing a Ben Stiller pose for Zoolander in that shot. :-)

Yes!
I was only reading about the new film yesterday: Vogue featured "Derek" modelling. Alas! They couldn't get Karl L
to participate.

To view the aforesaid fabulousness -
see vogue.com Derek Zoolander Lands his first vogue cover...Penelope Cruz

Todd W. @ 16:
"Oh, and I agree with Science Mom. Complaining to his CBS affiliate would be highly inappropriate. Go ahead and mock him for engaging in yellow journalism, but don’t formally complain to his employer. That’s something anti-vaccine activists would do".

I'm not sure I agree with this for two reasons:
- remember that the original bucket o' excrement was broadcast on CBS46, and
- any violation of journalistic ethics, whether on the air on off, should be of concern to a real news organization*.

*May not apply to CBS46.

@Johnny,
The might not be able to fire him but they can certainly decide to not renew his contract.

I had a CEASE therapy touting homeopath send me the link to the video with the simple comment: #suckitup

That was amusing...

@opus

I suppose it would all depend, then, on CBS46's rules and contract agreements. If someone could verify if there is anything he's done that violates CBS46's rules, then there may be justification for contacting them.

However, I still don't think that it is an appropriate thing to do. Going after someone's employment is a dick move. That's especially true if they are acting as individuals and not representatives of their employer. As I said, by all means publicly denounce his activities and point out the failings of this report. If someone wants to publicly question why CBS46 would employ him, go ahead. Public opinion and commentary are fair game. I would draw the line at a formal, private complaint to CBS46.

@ Brian Deer,Opus

I do wonder why CBS46 as kept Ben Swann on as an anchor,instead of tossing his sorry butt out on the street by now.You know the management must have gotten some complaints from locals about Swann and his conspiratorial brain droppings.

Complaints to news editors/station management about inappropriate/unprofessional activities of reporters and anchors are, in my opinion entirely appropriate, especially when they involve on-air shenanigans.

Off-air activities are less clearly game for criticism to higher-ups, but at least in some circumstances should spark protests. Does anyone really think that (for hypothetical instance) it would be wrong to inform station management that a reporter is posting YouTube videos promoting white supremacy or legalization of child porn?

I would be most concerned that Swann's CBS affiliate pay stricter attention to what is going out over the airwaves in their name.

ben-swann.com (his own joint?) links to RT ((shudder)) and Fox 19.

Doesn't Mr. Swann work for the local CBS affiliate? He might be running afoul of a non-compete clause, if there is one in his contract. He might be able to justify it if it's in his biographical sketch and he also links to his current employer. Anything else is highly irregular.

It's not clear from comments above, but reading between the lines, there are hints that CBS46 had a look at this, and decided not to air it, probably because the legal department suggested it wouldn't be a good idea. I don't know what their thinking was, since public figures (IANAL, but probably DiStefano et al. would qualify, at least on this issue) have a difficult time proving libel under US law. OTOH, HIPAA or some other such law may be in play.

If someone's employment is journalistic reporting to the public, but engaging in some sort of self-grandiosed public scare of the health system, then yes, we should hold him to task and he really should be shown the door for this bs piece.

I think the point about his film is that he has shown he can't be trusted professionally. You don't actually need to know much about the background to see what he's done. One you learn that he's taken money from crowd sourcing ant-vaxxers, you'd have to thing there's now a red dot on him in some quarters.

@Eric Lund

HIPAA would likely not come into play here, since he is not releasing personally identifiable protected health information.

His twit handle is @BenSwannCBS46

He also has a @BenSwann_ Twitter handle.

His vaccine video was linked in his @BenSwann_ account, but not his @BenSwannCBS46 account.

Interestingly, there are a couple of Truth In Media twitter accounts, neither of which appear to be connected to Mr. Swann.

Looks like he tweeted links to some of his Truth In Media videos in December from his @BenSwannCBS46 account, but nothing in January.

@herr doktor bimler:

That explains it. The US doesn't have a childhood obesity epidemic. The virtual children are just off mass shell.

Off-air activities are less clearly game for criticism to higher-ups, but at least in some circumstances should spark protests. Does anyone really think that (for hypothetical instance) it would be wrong to inform station management that a reporter is posting YouTube videos promoting white supremacy or legalization of child porn?

This is not the same situation, by a long shot. What Swann is doing is protected under the First Amendment. He did nothing to associate this video with his CBS employers. While what he is saying is falsifiable, it's a civil matter, not legal and he's doing on his own time so I agree with ToddW and contacting his employer for something he did on his own time is a dick move. It's CBS46's decision if they want to keep a spray-tanned Zoolander on for a reporter.

I can't say for sure, obviously, but it's most likely that Channel 46 is just fine with Swann's TiM activities in general and this piece in particular, and didn't air it because it's 25 minutes long. Swann's their news anchor, not just a 'reporter'. He's their 'star'. They hired him because their ratings have been in the toilet, and they need to draw eyeballs to build their book. They probably did market research, and concluded that he appeals to a market demographic that isn't addressed by the other metro Atlanta newscasts they compete against. That, and/or, some big advertisers like his kind of stuff and will buy time to support it. Remember, Swann's schtick is 'Trutherism' CT in general. His frame here isn't 'anti-vax story', it's 'government coverup story.'

In the station hierarchy, the anchor works for the news director. The odds that the two of these folks aren't on the same page and working together are slim and none.

That said, 25 minutes is a broadcast half-hour (leaving time for commercials) so Swann probably created this with airing it as a 'special report' on CH46 in mind, and again, his bosses no doubt knew he was doing so. In the new-media universe, 'content' like this can be generated with multiple options: that is, CH46 could have thought 'If it's hot, we'll air it as a special after the news on a weekend; if it's meh, it'll be a Web supplement; if it's lame, Ben can put it on his own site and we'll lay low about it'.

Eric Lund's probably right about Swann having a non-compete clause, but that would mean CH46 has already cleared the TiM piece as non-competing. I doubt the news director and station manager have any problem with it at all, other perhaps than disappointment Swann didn't actually get any good dirt in it.

BD wrote, "that the film was in part paid-for by anti-vaxxers, would, in the UK, finish the journalist". Again, the odds are slim that Swann went out on his own and got funding for a piece w/o his news director knowing and approving. This arrangement may have dictated from the get-go that it would be presented as a TiM piece only. Or, it might have been slated as a possible broadcast item 'if', and the legal department quashed that while Swann was working on it. That might or might not have been a hard-and-fast general principle thing: i.e. the calculus could just be 'we just don't want to test those waters with this piece, as the potential bang isn't worth the risk.' Basically, local news outlets like nothing more than getting content produced on somebody else's dime. Local newspapers rip and run 'stories' and 'op eds' created by PR firms as faux-news all the time, and I've seen TV news stories that are just PR pieces wrapped and VO'ed by the local 'talent'. But they do tread a line here, and whatever anti-vax $$ went into Swann's piece could have crossed that somehow to the point where CH46 decided it was better to be discrete and keep it's supposed rubric limited to TiM.

I don't have the time to dig into this, but one big piece of evidence regarding where CH46 is in all of this is how/where "CDC, Vaccines and Autism" was produced. If any crew or facilities from CH46 were involved (DP, editor, etc.) that would be suggest they were totally on board. However, if the crew was independent, that does NOT mean Swann was going rogue, only that CH46 was keeping some distance, possibly to leave its options open.

As often as we disagree, I have to agree with sadmar here. There's no way the news director at CBS46 doesn't know about Swann's extracurricular activities or isn't OK with them.

@Orac and sadmar

Agreed. CBS46 almost certainly knows about it, especially after that segment he did on the protests on CBS46.

That said, unless there is some clear evidence that this particular video and the work that went into it are connected to CBS46 or that he has violated any clause in his contract, I still do not think that there are grounds for filing a formal complaint with his employer. But public ridicule? Certainly. Opinions about how this affects CBS46? Sure. But contacting the station privately to get him fired? No.

If anyone wants to complain or protest: the proper persons to address would be the CH46 news director and station manager. You could also copy an exec at the parent media conglomerate that owns CH46. The proper form would be to complain about the story not Swann as an individual, and certainly not to suggest he be canned. As Denice noted #21, Swann's 'independent' activities DO carry the imprimatur of CH46 implicitly, if not formally. (As a complainant, you'd especially want to know if CH46 crew or facilities were involved.)

Understand that if your complaint is answered at all, you'll be blown off, likely with some 'CBS46 is not affiliated with or responsible for content on the TiM website' yada yada. But that might get 'concern' on their radar. Realize, though, that this is not, to them, a bad thing necessarily. They want controversy if it will help their ratings, which have been historically bad enough that they rolled the dice on Swann, if only to get more people in their market to know that their newscast even exists. The best outcome you can hope for is that Swann's bosses will tell him to drop the #CDCwhistleblower stuff, and focus his attention on other grist for 'investigative stories'. Since the only thing these people care about is the bottom line, you want your complaint to get them to worry that could possibly be affected in some way. Q: Who pays these people's salaries? A: Advertisers. You'd need to do some research, and find out who has large regular ad buys on the CH46 newscast, and include in your msg to the broadcasters that you will be also writing to THEM (name names), to say this is not the kind of journalism any upstanding company should be associating itself with, and reflects very poorly on their products and services. The advertisers want eyeballs, but they don't want controversy or bad publicity. What you would hope to have happen is that someone in the ad/PR wing of the sponsors picks up the phone and complains to CH46 that they're feeling some heat about Ben's CDC thing, and that they'd appreciate it if things cooled down on that front.

Of course, if the advertisers are local, and you're not in the metro Atlanta market, they may not care. And a lot of national ads that run on newscasts are from pretty sketchy firms to begin with – ads for supplemental insurance directed at seniors, "I've fallen and i can't get up!", yada, yada. But that's the way the system works. Poop runs downhill, and throwing mud at Swann just feeds the troll. The path is sponsors—>station management—>news director—>Swann.
______

Note to MarkN: CBS has nothing to do with this. Yes, folks with an interest in anything a local station runs will try to make the stakes seem bigger (for good or ill) by mis-identifying the affiliate with the network. It just sounds so much more impressive to call Swann 'CBS journalist'. You can bet CBS doesn't want to be anywhere near this, and you might consider alerting them that source 'X' is citing this junk as being associated with them. You could even play along like you buy it, and say you're outraged the network of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite would stoop so low, and you'll be letting their advertisers hear about it. The idea would be to get CBS legal to write a nasty letter to whoever is calling Swann a 'CBS reporter' telling them to cease-and-desist, and identify him properly as only an employee of Atlanta CH46. But that's probably not worth the effort.
_______

BTW: I'm quite sure Dino Ramzi #22 was being ironic, not actually complaining about the Hindenburg image as impugning the Zep. My Translation: 'Anti-vax is so screwy, comparing it to this old disaster is going too easy - especially given that the specific photo used is widely recognized as the logo of a beloved classic rock band.' Perhaps Dino's complaint would be moot if it was a different image of the Hindenburg explosion, A sinking ship might indeed be a better metaphor, but it could be giving too much cred to the AV crowd to compare them to the Titanic, which was a big, deluxe, awsome thing before it hit that iceberg, and anti-vax was never more than a small yacht with a leaky hull and a bilge pump running overtime. A small plane crash, maybe, or one of Langley flying machines that dropped right into the water at launch??

My problem with the use of 'goes down like a lead ballooon' is that you can make a floating lead balloon as Mythbusters showed, although I guess it could still be viewed as appropiate as some people will put in the effort to keep this crap afloat.

Sheesh, here we've been wondering why the antivaxxers have been so silent after pro-vax blogs were the first to release the documents that were supposedly going to bring the U.S. vaccine program to it's knees, wondering what diabolically clever strategies they were plotting to spin the situation in their favor, and in the end they've just been padding out their files to try and make it look as if they have some "extra" documents the pro-vax side were trying to hide.

The sad thing is that, as puerile and transparent a trick as this is, it will likely work. We've already seen that the rank-and-file antivaxxers will simply repeat whatever AoA & co tell them the documents say: if you try to tell them that they've been lied to they won't believe you because you're a pharma shill with an agenda, and if you point out that they can simply read the documents themselves they complain that they can't possibly be expected to read through 1000 pages of material and that you're trying to distract them from the TRUTH (TM) with your piddly little facts.

Todd #53:

Yup. Can't put it better than Science Mom did: 'a dick move'. But also off-target. Swann's sin isn't being an AVer, it's aiding and abetting the loonies for fame and fortune. And in this, he's not 'the decider', just the tool of a broadcasting firm in distress going even-more tabloid. If he got 'whacked' it would be as a scapegoat for management decisions. And AoA would have another fresh martyr to add to their mythology, and they might even get some mainstream play with a Brian Martin-esque 'look how the shills stifle all dissent!' rail – especially since Swann plays 'expose' across the political spectrum, lots of folks probably like something he's done, even if other pieces make them wretch. (Even Alex Jones, for example, is dogging MI over the lead poisoning in Flint.)

Other publicity angles I forgot to mention:

1. Though I doubt this is a big enough issue to meet their attention threshhold, you could alert a liberal media-watchdog group like FAIR ('Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting' – not to be confused with AIM, the ultra-wingnut 'Accuracy in Media').

2. A DailyKos diary entry could get some readership. You there, Grey Squirrel? What do you think?

I'd frame these not as 'oh no, Anti-Vax!', but 'irresponsible-journalism-because-anti-vax' with slightly more weight on the first, just because more people care about that. Again, the frame will go farther if it's 'this is a bad, misleading story' than if it's any kind of attack on Swann. It's the message, not the messenger so much. Though for Kos I'd do some finger-pointing at CH46 for greedhead corporate imperatives soiling the info-pool on which a functioning democracy deepens, or something like that.

Apologies for back-seat driving, but I'm just not capable of doing these things myself... too much on my plate already...
:-(

@ sadmar:

OT but more importantly. Hope your bp has stabilised.

I don't know how tho' with Pacifica right next door sliding into the great, hulking, misterioso** Pacific.

** arcane literary reference.

you can make a floating lead balloon as Mythbusters showed

Ahh, Jazzlet #55; Not only that; but, in the case of the dense atmosphere of venus, a nitrogen/oxygen mix is the most valid 'lifting gas'.. A few lead-lined bags which are filled with hydrogen and float far above the colony would serve to soak up the the x-rays that the Nibiruians use to spy on them. Also, though the atmosphere is still relatively thick up there, Venus has no magnetic field to funnel away cosmic rays -- nitrogen-filled, lead gasbags not only prevent early cancer but can also be used as detectors to yeild esoteric information on cosmic neutrino background radiation.

the upper atmosphere of Venus is “probably the most Earth-like environment that’s out there.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-study-proposes-air…

Sarah A@56:

The sad thing is that, as puerile and transparent a trick as this is, it will likely work ... if you try to tell them that they’ve been lied to they won’t believe you because you’re a pharma shill with an agenda

I don't think it's a question of them "not believing us". These are people who want to be lied to, need to be lied to, and will relentlessly lie to themselves just to keep those precious lies intact, because if they didn't have their lies they wouldn't have anything at all.

And, excepting the ones that are genuinely delusional, I'm quite sure deep deep down they know it too – which only drives them to lie even harder. The "pharma shill" accusation, the scornful dismissal of logic and evidence, are just the paper tiger dressing they put on top: I don't think they believe that crap any more than we do, but it has to be done for show anyways. Best to burn all bridges to honest reason and inquiry the moment such demons arise, lest they themselves ever be tempted to wonder what's at the other side.

Sadmar: You can bet CBS doesn’t want to be anywhere near this, and you might consider alerting them that source ‘X’ is citing this junk as being associated with them.

I wouldn't be so sure that CBS, as a corporate structure, is unaware and unsupportive of this nonsense. How long did it take them to can Ms. Atkisson?

@has #60:

Best to burn all bridges to honest reason and inquiry the moment such demons arise, lest they themselves ever be tempted to wonder what’s at the other side.

See also Morton's Demon, the concept being a parasitic version of Maxwell's Demon that exists purely to prevent contradicting information from entering the brain of the subject and disturbing the worldview inside. Originally proposed for creationists, but applies just as well here. Willful ignorance isn't necessarily 'consciously' lying to oneself, so much as a case of deliberately not thinking about any contradictions.

I might be wrong, but I think Lara Lohne also worked for CBS. So that's three reporters going full-on Tweety Bird while working for a formerly respectable broadcast network, four if you count Rather's accelerated breakdown. Smells kinda rotten to me.

@ has:

Oh, absolutely: the pharma shill gambit is simply a rationalization for ignoring information that makes them uncomfortable. The fact that they maintain their belief by flat out refusing to examine the primary sources on which their own claim is based is ample evidence that they're not arguing in good faith, if any more evidence was needed.

I also suspect that, on some level, they must be aware that they're lying to themselves. Sadly, this is a phenomenon with which I have some experience. I used to be a True Believer (TM) - not in antivax-ism but Christian fundamentalism and, by extension, Young-Earth creationism. Of course, it was precisely because I was a True Believer that I made a point of studying evolution, philosophy, and other religions - there wasn't the faintest shadow of a doubt in my mind that everything I learned about these topics would fully support the beliefs I already held (needless to say, I was an extremely sheltered child/young adult, and the fact that I likely had undiagnosed Aspergers' probably contributed.)

Of course, the result was as inevitable as it was psychologically devastating (and I'm not using that term lightly - I had anxiety attacks so profound I had to be hospitalized at one point.) But the worst part - the worst part - was when I asked my parents, pastor, youth leader, etc., about the things I'd learned, things that were both undeniable and undeniably at odds with everything they'd taught me, and they just didn't care. Oh, I don't mean that they weren't concerned about me or the obvious distress I was experiencing, but whether or not there actually was a God or an afterlife or any sort of universal justice simply wasn't the point. Once I'd exposed every fallacy they tried to hide behind (all the while hoping desperately that they had some argument, some reason for believing that I'd missed), they all ended up telling me the same thing, almost word for word: I'd rather die believing that there's a heaven. Not only had the people I trusted most lied to me my entire life, but somehow it felt like insult added to injury when I realized that deceiving me hadn't even been the point - I was just collateral damage in their determination to lie to themselves.

Well, my 50 minutes are almost up - I didn't intend to go off on a tangent like that. My point is that much of the bafflingly contradictory and even self-destructive behavior that antivaxxers (and many other groups with demonstrably counter-factual beliefs) engage in makes perfect sense once you realize that it's all about maintaining a comfortable psychological state. One might well ask how thinking that the entire world is in a huge conspiracy to harm children could possibly qualify as "comfortable," but then, you could ask the same thing about the belief that human beings are born destined for eternal, unimaginable torture simply for the crime of being born human. I'm not a psychologist, but I think it's safe to say that he psychological payoff for seemingly unpleasant beliefs is likely only tenuously based on the actual content of the belief, and may well be different for different individuals.

I think there's some misunderstanding here about the nature of TV news anchors/reporters.

We're not talking about obscure academics or unknowns holding down other public or private sector jobs. On-air staff are very much the public face of the news department (and by extension, the station) that they work for. Their "extracurricular" activities affect public perceptions of their employer.

If my previous analogies are unacceptable, how about a news anchor whose Facebook page was full of bleatings about the "9/11 hoax" or the dire threat posed by chemtrails? The credibility of the news operation that anchor worked for would be damaged, especially if he had let his beliefs bleed into his job performance. Sorry, but I don't think complaints to station management would be off-limits in such a situation.

I agree though that it looks very much like Swann's boss(es) don't care about or (less likely) agree with his "whistleblower" conspiracy nonsense, with the major factor being a perceived positive (or at least neutral) effect on ratings.

Personally I find it hard to tell if Swann is an antivaxer or he just got really well conned. I'm currently leaning towards giving him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he got conned by some fairly believable antivaxers when he was looking for a new scoop.

The Truth in Media suggests he may be a bit of a conspiracy freak and he's a natural target since he's in Atlanta with CDC on his doorstep.

My main reason for this is that while the whistleblower report is absolutely terrible, I mistakenly clicked on another Truth in Media report of his on ISIS done back in early 2015 and it looked pretty good including a lot of stuff that did not seem to be getting much attention in the mainstream US media at the time.

In the ISIS report he's stressing 'first time' and 'never reported before' which actually may be true for US media but I was reading, somewhat disbelievingly. about this in Russian media (English language versions) about the same time as Swann was reporting.

So I'm willing to suggest that he got conned and fed all the tropes that an antivaxer would love to see. As I understand it there are a lot of antivaxer sites that probably look pretty convincing to someone without a solid background in the area probably including paeans to the persecuted St. Andrew of Wakefield.

To the great Orac (all hail Great One) and his faithful minions here the Andrew Wakefield is a red flag. To most people it means nothing.

Personally I find it hard to tell if Swann is an antivaxer or he just got really well conned. I’m currently leaning towards giving him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he got conned by some fairly believable antivaxers when he was looking for a new scoop.

No he is an anti-vaxxer. He held this position well before he joined CBS. Perhaps he garnered it from his time on Alex Jones' show, but more likely it is just part and parcel of his collection of crank magnets:

Agenda 21 - check
Federal Reserve conspiracy - check
9/11 truther - check
Sandy Hook truther - check
Boston Bombing false flag - check

"At least 12"
How about *exactly* 12, or, in the interests of comparison, only 12? And I believe not all of them were even diagnosed with autism.

I was reading, somewhat disbelievingly. about this in Russian media (English language versions) about the same time as Swann was reporting.

I suspect that Swann was relying on the same sources. His job before his current gig was working for RT America. He was RT's man-on-the-ground for providing them with anti-Obama stories:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/187100-ben-swann-carney-cnn/

He still seems to rely on the Putin Times as his central source of information.

Very, very minor point, back at #20, @Science Mom, see the early draft (22 May 2002) of what became De Stefano 2004. WT is listed as first author.

"That said, 25 15 minutes is a broadcast half-hour (leaving time for commercials)..."

TIFIFY

Glad you're back. Get thee to a doctor.

^ Dang. "25" in "25 minutes" should have been a strikethrough.

jrkrideu@ 66 " I find it hard to tell if Swann is an antivaxer or he just got really well conned. I’m currently leaning towards giving him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that he got conned by some fairly believable antivaxers when he was looking for a new scoop.

I had the pleasure of corresponding with Mr Swann regarding his initial CDC 'story'. The link is below. I think it's clear that Mr Swann is a fully-vested member of the anti-vax club.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/02/ben-swann-on-the-cdctruth-…

In marginally relevant news, the New Zealand coroner was investigating the death of Jasmine Renata -- you will recall that the Aluminati had a "DNA contamination, in the drawing-room, with the Aluminium" theory of causation" -- has just released his report
No evidence to blame Gardasil. He doesn't even bother naming Shaw and Sin Hang Lee for their junk path reports.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76303256/No-evidence-that-HPV-va…

Err, well, perhaps Swan is an anti-vaxer.

Thanks to all

Very, very minor point, back at #20, @Science Mom, see the early draft (22 May 2002) of what became De Stefano 2004. WT is listed as first author.

Thanks, can you tell me which file that is in?

Wish I were better at making links. See file (A000071.PDF) in the folder CDC2

Thank you James Lind, that was sufficient for me to find it. You have my apology and I stand corrected.

@ James Lind - that's interesting; I never knew Thompson was originally the first author. I wonder if losing first authorship contributed to his ill-will towards his co-authors, or if that decision was actually the result of his difficulties in playing nicely with others.

Maybe Thompson lost first author because hypothetically he wanted to change protocol after he saw the preliminary data and treat race as an exposure variable. If that were the case then the accusation that the others were the ones that wanted to change protocol would be a classic example of projection.

^Of course, he may have repudiated first authorship rather than losing it if he didn't like the direction the paper was going in and didn't want to be responsible for it. That would be consistent with his angst about presenting the results.

It's hard to speculate as the author list on the published study barely resembles that on the draft. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936

I had an enjoyable ride down that slippery slope!

^Of course, he may have repudiated first authorship rather than losing it if he didn’t like the direction the paper was going in and didn’t want to be responsible for it. That would be consistent with his angst about presenting the results.

In that case, the most honorable thing to do would have been to remove his name from the manuscript altogether.

I was able to correspond with two of the three retired CDC employees featured in Mr Swann's 'news' story. The following is my summary of their remarks.

"We made it clear to the interviewer that we have no expertise, no interest and no experience concerning the MMR vaccine, nor do we have experience or expertise in Autism and related disorders. We did not wish to comment on the Whistleblower issue. We were under the impression that the coverage related to how the CDC has changed from a small agency to a large, difficult to manage agency as the result of additional mandates and the national response to the AIDS epidemic. Furthermore, our years of service with the CDC were misrepresented although each of us gave the interviewer correct information."

Where is the emoticon for 'Not Surprised in the Least' when you need it!

I actually heard from someone at the CDC that David Newberry never worked for the immunization branch, although he did work on smallpox eradication efforts. There's also no way he was head of anything for 45 years, a claim that on its face was ridiculous, because by the time you rise to be a major executive in an organization like the CDC you're usually over 40 (or even 50) and almost no one works into their 80s at such a job. In any case, the contact told me he was well-regarded and dedicated.

I never knew Thompson was originally the first author. I wonder if losing first authorship contributed to his ill-will towards his co-authors, or if that decision was actually the result of his difficulties in playing nicely with others.

I think we need to treat the "Thompson was originally first author" argument with a little bit of care. We don't actually know what decisions were initially made about authorship. Indeed the list of authors on this early draft may simply have been Thompson's own suggestions.

There is a second early draft in the documents dated October 2002, some 5 months later, that has no authors listed. Perhaps more significantly on this draft, three of the original 'authors' are now merely acknowledgements. See also the highlighting of only 4 'authors' on the first 'early draft', who all became authors of the final paper.

Also these early drafts are quite a long way from the final paper. This excludes material in the early drafts and includes a lot more material.

There are several possibilities:

1 That it was never agreed that Thompson would be first author and Thompson simply assumed he would be. This assumption explains best the lack of authors on the second 'early draft'.

2. That Thompson was originally to be the lead author, but his failure to progress the paper led to DeStefano completing it and being made the lead author.

3. Thompson disagreed with the conclusions of the paper and this led to him being demoted. This is unlikely. If he disagreed sufficiently, he should have taken his name off the paper.

4. That Thompson was demoted for being a bad boy and causing trouble. Unlikely.

5. There was a conspiracy to [insert your conspiracy of choice here]. Unlikely.

Although I do think there is a viable hypothesis in the idea that not being first author on this paper is what poisoned Thompson against his colleagues.

Where is the emoticon for ‘Not Surprised in the Least’ when you need it!

I'm tired enough to idly wonder whether AoA would let through comments from a "Swann Dive" pseudonym.

Science Mom, no apology necessary.

I agree, above all, that there is a lot we don't know. The file is hardly complete. We have materials from Thompson, not the others. I would lean towards a no. 2.5. There was a disagreement over how to handle race, a disagreement that emerged before the conclusions were in. Whether that disagreement was primary and how it might have interacted with other conflicts he clearly had with his coworkers are impossible to say. Or it could be door number 1.

@ Narad: BP's still wacky, going up and down with some 'scary' peaks on the systolic, but I finally forced myself to deal with the Kaiser bureaucracy, and have an appt. with a new MD tomorrow AM. I'll let you know how it goes.

@DB:
Yes, on-air talent are the public face of a TV station, and their public statements off-air would be legitimate subjects for complaint. It would just be pointless in this case. There is zero chance CH46 management doesn't pay very strict attention to what goes out on their air from the mouth of their 'star' anchorperson. Swann's Alex-Jones-Lite public face wasn't just known to CH46, but the very reason they hired him. Filing a complaint about him would just show his bosses that people are watching, and he's being effective at stirring the pot — i.e help him get a contract extension or raise.

I find it hard to tell if Swann is an antivaxer or he just got really well conned.
Neither. His 'thing' is anti-government CT: 'exposes' of the Feds keeping the public in the dark to avoid controversy and criticism. How much he genuinely believes the Security State is everywhere and behind everything, and how much that's just a lucrative act is a moot point (just as it's moot how much Ann Coulter actually believes what she writes). He's not crusading against vaccines, nor does he need to have been conned into thinking the CDC did something grossly unethical. The fact that Thompson alleged wrongdoing, and Bill Posey pimped 'forthcoming revelations' into the Congressional Record makes for a story in which Ben Swann gets to be the hero of the kind of story people go to Ben Swann to hear: one in which he Questions Authority on the subject of 'transparency'.

CH46 is in the business of selling audience numbers to advertisers. Swann's job is to attract as many viewers to CH46 news as possible. As HDB pointed out, Swann helped create the story he's reporting. To understand the 'why' of that, you need to ask how the story functions to build ratings — why large numbers of people would care about it, which goes to how that public will interpret it. Anti-vaxers are a small fringe, and I doubt Marietta GA is home to an anti-vax cluster anyway. It's a safe assumption that most of CH46's target audience doesn't give a rat's arse about vaccines one way or the other. What likely does get their attention is anything that functions as 'damn, the guvmint's hiding stuff AGAIN!' All they're likely to retain is the hiding, not what was hid.

Because there ARE conspiracies, and supposedly democratic and open goverments DO hide stuff all the time. Just ask anyone in Flint. To anyone who isn't already a partisan in the vaccine wars, #CDCwhistleblower is just adjunct reinforcement to either their understandings of real conspiracies like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, or to the fake conspiracies like The Moon-Landing Hoax that displace angsts whose true sources people can't bear to confront into 'safe' mythological obsessions.

Yes, Swann's story aids and abets the anti-vax cause. To imagine he cares in the least about that is to vastly under-estimate the size of the stage he's playing on...

Rather than one single specific narrative of government malfeasance, Swann is pushing a broader meta-narrative, a conspiracist meta-narrative -- The Paranoid Style in American Politics -- that the gubblement is always your enemy.

But that is one aspect of the Crank Magnetism phenomenon.

@Opus

Any chance that Fitzgerald and Newberry might release an official statement?

Todd W @ 92

I doubt it. My sense is that they'd rather get back to being retired from CDC and working on other projects.

According to the Null-meister ( or is it Null-macher?), the "journalist" who is in possession of the CDC documents ( Swann, not named) will be on his show on prn.fm next week.
Oh joy!
More revelations for the reality- challenged!

@DW: we know it can't be Matt Carey; no way would Null have the guts to invite someone who's actually read the information with an open mind and who isn't anti-vax.

@ MI Dawn:

I heard it over today's internet broadcast ( website?) in the last few minutes ( it's not available yet on the site)

I didn't hear the exact words as I was doing something else at the time BUT I think he meant Swann.
*Le Grand Idiot* has been promising an expose next week. He has the daily woo-fest at noon and the weekly 'Progressive Commentary Hour' which can run for several hours.

The funniest thing is referring to ( probably ) Swann as a 'journalist' but then he's an "investigative reporter'.

Gag me with the proverbial spoon.

Well I guess we know that Science blogs is another paid troll of the Feds and CDC. Tossers!

Sadmar@90

Swann’s Alex-Jones-Lite public face wasn’t just known to CH46, but the very reason they hired him.

Citation please,

Jon @ #97

"Well I guess we know that Science blogs is another paid troll of the Feds and CDC."

Since you are an expert on the topic of troll payments you shouldn't have a problem identifying payments to the blog owner as well as the commenters who post under their real names. Please let us know what you find. The database of all federal contracts is here:

https://www.usaspending.gov/Pages/Default.aspx

Good hunting and don't forget to post links!

Well, today's episode of noontide woo is up at prn.fm.
In the last 2 minutes or so the loon-in-charge, I mean * host*,
announces that he'll do ( another) special presentation about autism and the whistleblower. "Experts" will appear as well as two who had contact with the whistleblower ( Andy and Hooker, I assume) and a "journalist" ( probably Swann) who has the documents and will appear .
Swann at prn.
Heh.

I cannot find any response from SANEvax or anyone else in antivax circles to the findings from coroner Garry Evans, where he rejected the "Gardasil dunnit" theory.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/76303256/No-evidence-that-HPV-va…

This is surprising, after all the attention they gave to the case when various antivaxxers were allowed to present their speculations. Perhaps I am missing something.

I cannot find any response from SANEvax or anyone else in antivax circles to the findings from coroner Garry Evans, where he rejected the “Gardasil dunnit” theory.

Given the dentition, Sally Fallon is certainly asleep at the WAPF propaganda switch.

@97

As a retired nurse, albeit from the eastern side of the Atlantic, I clearly must be in the pay of those folk.

Since you are so knowledgeable, be a good chap and get on to the accounts department as they are quite a way behind on my cheques for shilling...

To other readers: sorry for trotting this out again, but as long as conspiracy theory numpties keep trotting out the shill thing I shall keep using it...

@ hdb

This is surprising, after all the attention they gave to the case when various antivaxxers were allowed to present their speculations. Perhaps I am missing something.

I see 3 explanations:
- of course the coroner didn't find anything, he is in pay of Big Pharma. Sanofi, Rupper Murdoch, CSI franchise, a coroner down under - connect the dots, sheeple!
- of course the coroner didn't find anything with his materialistic science. Gardasil kills by fairy dust.
With these two explanations, anti-vaxers don't bother commenting on the coroner's report.

Last possibility:
- now that the poor girl is buried 6 feet under, she has been forgotten by the antivax crowd. Narcissistic people can only spend so much time being concerned about other people's woes; they have to resume the much more important task of navel-gazing.

When I went to Null's show, be behaved like such a crook, it was unbelievable. He was badmouthing me, and so I told him I would take part in his show. I had nothing to hide and had no reason not to.

He then gets that lying buffoon Clifford Miller to keep mailing him questions, because Null didn't know what he was talking about. Then - because I made a complete fool of Null, who claimed to have personally seen "thousands" of vaccine damaged children - he added material at the end of the "programme", after I'd gone, and then wrapped hours around it of the buffoon Miller and the mother Isabella Thomas, who made bogus claims that her children had regressive autism, essentially abusing me and spreading their concoctions.

It seems to me that Null is a man utterly devoid of integrity.
The idea that there is anything "progressive" about him is just laughable.

@ Brian Deer:

Believe it or not, the hoary. old charlatan keeps recordings of his nonsense archived at prn.fm. It's still there! ( late January, 2011- Gary Null Show- I hour version) . I imagine that the padded version ( all several hours of it) is also preserved for posterity
( archived at 'progressive commentary hour'- at a later date).

I think that Orac's readers might enjoy hearing his questions and responses to you.

re progressivism
He, like Adams, advocates lower taxes, smaller government, non-intervention in the economy and less regulation of charlatans like him- which is about as progressive as Thatcher and Reagan in their prime.

Brian Deer, you should be amused by what is going on a certain ship:
https://twitter.com/Kolyin/status/693185426329313280
and
https://twitter.com/Kolyin/status/693192621955682304

:-) It seems like Wakefield is losing it. He definitely blames you for his state in life.

Roger #90.
They wouldn't say they wanted Alex Jones Lite, even if they did. And I didn't mean they wanted someone who'd do stories on similar topics or with similar positions to Jones, but someone who operate in a somewhat Jonesian style. In that, I was just going off 35+ years of studying the broadcasting biz. A major-market TV station with a network affiliation doesn't hire a news anchor without thoroughly vetting their resume. Swann's public face was 'out there' for quite some time before CH46 brought him on. There would be hundreds of anchors from down the foodchain who would have wanted that gig, presenting a wide variety of styles and images. So it's safe to assume that who they chose reflects what they wanted.

But since you asked, I did a quick Google to see what anyone said about Swann's arrival at CH46. When he was hired, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution did a profile:

fourth-place CBS46 is hiring a lot of interesting characters to shake things up... [Based on Swann's 'Truth In Media' site] he was trying to be like Vice Media: brash and bold and off the beaten path in his reporting...His Twitter sig: “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.”

The AJC also noted "Once he joins CBS46, he’ll have to clear anything he posts [at TiM.com] with the station first." So, no, the new video isn't "going rogue". Swann isn't going to go to the bother of making a piece that long if he can't put it somewhere under his name, so CH46 had to have approved it before he began production.

In another AJC article the station manager and news director addressed their all-but-complete overhaul of the news show at the time Swann was hired.

[edited excerpts]
CH46: We’re currently a fourth-place operation here. Both the research and ratings point to the fact we were having trouble attracting viewers and keeping viewers that might be provided by lead ins to our shows. It called for an examination of where we were and what we’re doing and who were key players in our operations both on screen and off screen. We are working to improve our content. [When we] got here, it wasn’t compelling. There was not a reason to stay tuned to the newscasts. We find there are dissatisfied viewers who watch other TV stations. We’ve seen the research. An improved product, a compelling product might draw them in. We have strong competitors but we know there are opportunities.
AJC: How do you get viewers to pay attention nowadays?
CH46: By breaking through the clutter. [We're] putting an emphasis on enterprise stories[original 'scoops'] that are hard news, stories that are not on the other stations. If things were perfect, [we'd] want 50 percent enterprise stories. We have to differentiate ourselves and not do pack journalism…
AJC: You seem to have hired some interesting characters.
CH46: We don’t want to be vanilla. [Ben Swann is] a strong journalist, a compelling journalist. I think when he talks, you want to listen. That’s what we saw.

They wanted scoops, so they needed an 'investigative journalist'. They wanted a LOT of scoops, so they couldn't go with old-school investigative reporting which (c.f. "Spotlight") takes a lot of time and labor. They needed someone whose 'investigations' amounted to digging up some existing material to leverage. Getting such "a story you won't see anywhere else" pre-fab obviously sends the producer away from stuff in 'the mainstream media' and out towards the fringes. 'Compelling', 'not vanilla' and 'cutting through the clutter' are codes words for controversial topics and 'sensationalism over sobriety'.

Swann scored checkmarks in all those boxes, as does #CDCwhistleblower. It's inflammatory. The other stations aren't going there. It has a strong Atlanta component, which not only appeals to the local audience, but means stories can be generated locally without any travel budget for interviews. Those are management's criteria, as dictated by their business model. The appeal to the story is exactly what the hashtag says – what the whistle at Big Guvment is being blown about is irrelevant to CH46. Without that angle, an 'anti-vax' story would be useless to CH46, and thus also to Swann.

It's not about ideology. It's about getting attention that can be translated into ad sales, so Mededith broadcasting lets the GM, news director, and Swann keep their jobs. Swann's video has ideological effects, of course, likely to help the AVers, but 'being AV' has virtually nothing to do with why it got made and presented.

whatever the case may be with CBS46 & Swann, making up a bs hatchet job piece and calling it a factual documentary/investigative news report is still wrong...wrong is still wrong.

an emphasis on enterprise stories[ [...] that are not on the other stations.

The management does not seem particularly concerned with the possibility that these stories are "not on the other stations" because they're complete fabrications.

In other "whistleblower" news, Dan and the AoA commentariat are serving up some truly painful cluelessness about the False Claims Act in the Weekly Fishwrap. You'd think that after a couple of years, somebody might sprout a clue.

Just read a semi-fawning article on a local "whistleblower", who (based on her web-accessible history) is nuttier than the entire annual output of the Collin Street Bakery.*

Sadly, I think cranks are starting to outnumber genuine whistleblowers.

*renowned for their fruitcakes.

So you pro-vaxers are cool with them throwing incriminating data into a trashcan? And with them touting this study, which was clearly a fraud, as evidence of "no link" between vaccines and autism when they quite clearly found a link in a sub group?

Cool.

Of course this is the only time pharma has used fraud to cover their asses. Honest.

Hope ya'll get your zirka vaccine. make sure to put it into your kids and pregnant women too.

So you pro-vaxers are cool with them throwing incriminating data into a trashcan?

Which data would these be? The ones that the CDC had ready to hand when Hooker requested them?

"Hope ya’ll get your zirka vaccine."

What do you have against Ukrainian music?
http://www.zirkamusic.com/

Sadmar: Anti-vaxers are a small fringe, and I doubt Marietta GA is home to an anti-vax cluster anyway. It’s a safe assumption that most of CH46’s target audience doesn’t give a rat’s arse about vaccines one way or the other.

I'd like to point out that the population of Georgia is pretty well-known for being anti-science. They elect congressman who think cosmology is the work of the devil, it's pretty obvious that they don't vaccinate. Heck, they probably don't even boil water down there. And Ch 46 knows their audience well- they hired the dude and there's no way he's ever gonna get fired for his views.

Caveat, there may be a few Georgians who actually can understand science, may work for NASA, or are doctors, but they appear not to vote.

Yes, all those CDC staffers who live and work in Atlanta are totes clueless about science.

But Shay, the study was "clearly a fraud"; what stronger evidence could there be?

BTW, yes, it's really the Crewton Ramone, blocks salesman, who is further willing to sport one-upsmanship on the Charles Carreon look.

^ I'm also amazed that NN actually ran with "OUTRAGE! Jimmy Kimmels [sic] Niggerization and Faggotization of Vaccine-damaged Children Revives Hate Speech Labels for TV Ratings," which floated right up.

I’d like to point out that the population of Georgia is pretty well-known for being anti-science. They elect congressman who think cosmology is the work of the devil, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t vaccinate. Heck, they probably don’t even boil water down there. And Ch 46 knows their audience well- they hired the dude and there’s no way he’s ever gonna get fired for his views.

Jeebus you're a horse's arse. I wonder how you can pass so many wrong-headed characterizations when it's so obvious what an ignorant, uneducated jerk you are.

"Hope ya’ll get your zirka vaccine. make sure to put it into your kids and pregnant women too."

"What do you have against Ukrainian music?"

I think he was referring to Polish music (the maZirka, of which Chopin was fond).

If Zika virus ever gets a serious foothold in the U.S., and a vaccine is available, it'll be interesting to see how antivax prospective moms react - take the chance of getting infected and risk microcephaly in their offspring, or be vaccinated.*

*a protective course of bleach enemas might be just the ticket.

@Politicalguineapig,

"Heck, they probably don’t even boil water down there."

We don't boil water around here either unless we're using it for tea or coffee, or perhaps intending to boil eggs. Do you mean they don't boil water before drinking it? We don't either. We have water treatment facilities to deliver clean water. Perhaps your community might consider investing in one.

By the way, if CBS46 is as thrilled with Swann and his conspiracy theories as sadmar keeps saying, why wasn't this video broadcast? Why doesn't it proudly bear the CBS46 name?

Here's what I wish PGP would understand:
when you make sweeping statements, you lose finer data.
Imagine a broom if you will. Or a rake. Or a vacuum cleaner.

There are truly population trends across geographical entities: they can be described verbally as well as mathematically but these comparisons suffer when attention to fine detail is disregarded- these outlines should serve as a guide not a copy of reality.

I like articles like Red State/ Blue State wikip---
first, there are red states and blue states as shown on a map-these labels align somewhat with particular general qualities which we can list- like the rural-urban dimension.

Then, you have to define what red and blue mean such as, how people vote over several elections. Then, WHICH elections are those? Only the national ones or should we look at more local ones as well? Thus, a state could be both red and blue- some are purple.

Red and blue are each also composed of multiple variables showing how people support different issues- so Blue voter A may not entirely agree with Blue voter B altho' their final votes agree.

Then, more importantly, if you look below the level of state, you'll find that the urban-rural dimension can be very important, zooming in, a red state may have islands of urban blue and a blue state may have red areas in exurbs and outlying areas. AS you look at finer discriminations like counties or cities, things look much more purple.

Like an impressionist or pointillist painter, we often mix small details or diverse hues into a larger blend, as our eyes do, when really, if we look closely, it's more like a mosaic.

@LW:
I imagine sadmar would say that they're thrilled that he is stirring the pot and glad to be associated with it in general, but in this particular case they don't want to be quite that associated with the video.

@PGP:
The other thing you should realize is that it's possible to have mutually beneficial relationships with people who don't agree with you on every point. I'm a political oddball with my habit of wanting to see empirical evidence that an idea works before I support it. If I only socialized with people who believed the same things I did, I would be very lonely indeed. Fortunately, it's possible to disagree without being confrontational or taking the differences personally.

Just remember that you tarred a lot of good people like you who live in Georgia with your broad brush. You also tarred a lot of good people unlike you with your broad brush. You did nothing to convince the people in Georgia to believe or act more like you would like them to. You did do a little bit to convince the people in Georgia to not believe or act like you would like them to. It seems like you are your own worst enemy.

"You can't treat your friends like the people you're trying to con, Hooker."

- The Sting

Interestingly enough, the video appears to have been removed from Ben's page....

@ Lawrence, it's still up on his FB page, the link Orac provides in his post. But I don't see it on his TiM site either.

@Lawrence and Science Mom

Interesting. I wonder what happened? Did CBS46 put some pressure on him? Or did he decide to actually do some fact-checking and quietly memory hole the video?

Interesting. I wonder what happened? Did CBS46 put some pressure on him? Or did he decide to actually do some fact-checking and quietly memory hole the video?

I'm going with "didn't want to pay for the hosting."

Justthestats: "Just remember that you tarred a lot of good people like you who live in Georgia with your broad brush. You also tarred a lot of good people unlike you with your broad brush."

The Centers for Disease Control is located in Georgia. I am pretty sure they are not anti-vaccine.

@ Chris:

BUT Wm Thompson still works there.

Denice, is there an eye rolling emoticon?

@Politicalguineapig,

I’d like to point out that the population of Georgia is pretty well-known for being anti-science. They elect congressman who think cosmology is the work of the devil, it’s pretty obvious that they don’t vaccinate.

I don't know about their congressmembers, but "it’s pretty obvious that they don’t vaccinate"? Do tell.

How about we look at “Estimated Vaccination Coverage with Individual Vaccines and Selected Vaccination Series Among Children Aged 19-35 Months by State -- National Immunization Survey (NIS), United States, 2014”

Go to

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/nis/child/data/tables…

and click on the Excel file for “by State (includes birth dose of HepB and 2+doses Hep A)”.

Georgia's rates are better than the national average for all of the following columns:

3+DTaP, 4+DTaP, 3+Polio, 1+MMR, Hib-PS, 3+HepB, HepB Birth dose, 1+Var, 3+PCV, 1+HepA, 2+HepA, Combined 3-vaccine series, Combined 4-vaccine series, Combined 5-vaccine series, Combined 6-vaccine series, Combined 7-vaccine series

Georgia's rates are worse than the national average for only the following columns:

3+Hib (92.6±0.8 vs 92.4±4.9), Hib-FS (82.0±1.3 vs 81.1±7.1), 4+PCV (82.9±1.3 vs 81.3±7.2), and Rotavirus (71.7±1.6 vs 71.6±7.8)

Granted, the margins of errors are large enough that we can't say that Georgia's rate are indisputably better, but they certainly aren't obviously worse. If you sort by “Combined 7-vaccine series”, for instance, Georgia comes in a respectable 15th. Minnesota -- isn't that where you live? -- comes in 35th.

And then we can consider, “Vaccination Coverage Among Children in Kindergarten — United States, 2014–15 School Year”

Go to

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6433a2.htm

and scroll down to the table. Sorting on the MMR column, I find that Georgia's rate is in the middle of the pack (21st), surpassed by several states that Politicalguineapig despises such as Mississippi (the champion!), West Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Arizona. Georgia does beat Minnesota (94% vs 93.5%).

Sorting by DTaP, Georgia remains at 21st, still above Minnesota. Sorting by Varicella, Georgia moves up to 16th, though to be fair, ten States don't require it. Minnesota remains three places below Georgia.

There are all sorts of caveats with the data, but still, it's not so obvious that Georgians don't vaccinate.

PGP doesn't need facts, she just knows.

If Zika virus ever gets a serious foothold in the U.S., and a vaccine is available, it’ll be interesting to see how antivax prospective moms react

Neither is from the U.S., but both John "C." Stone and Jenny Allen have deemed rubella vaccination acceptable at AoA in those unfortunate cases where disease missed the lintel, IIRC.

Lawrence, Science Mom and Todd W @ 130, 131 & 132

It's still on the "Truth" in Media website but he changed the title. Look on January 26, the only story without a headline.

@opus

That just redirects to his Facebook page.

If the video has been taken off the TiM page, Swann may indeed have received some flack. However, you should be careful in assuming where any flack might come from or what it might be about. But there might not have been any internal flack at all. Narad's joking suggestion might not be that far off of a scenario where Swann would 'bury a piece down the memory hole: if it wasn't getting the traction he'd hoped, he could pull it in the same sense networks cancel shows – choosing to give the bandwidth to something with more appeal. But it's not buried, it's just double-buffered: Swann's CH46 viewers can still find the TiM site, and it still links to his FB page.

By the way, if CBS46 is as thrilled with Swann and his conspiracy theories as sadmar keeps saying, why wasn’t this video broadcast? Why doesn’t it proudly bear the CBS46 name?

JTS got it. The video wasn't broadcast because it's 25 minutes long. This is 'supplemental web/social-media content', which is a Big Thing in news/public-affairs shows these days. It doesn't appear under the CBS46 name because they DO want to keep some small distance between their overall identity and his. They want to say THEY are not pot-stirrers, they just happily offer you the pot-stirrer guy as part of their spectrum of programming.

The fact Swann puts up longer TiM pieces outside of the CH46 rubric actually bolsters the image of him CH46 is trying to sell: he's not 'MSM' he's 'Independent'. CH46 wants to reap the benefit of controversy in the ratings, but position Swann as the author, so he takes any hits...

Again, if his bosses hadn't signed-off on this, it wouldn't have been produced in the first place. It takes a good amount of money and time to make a 25-minute video. You think Swann's doing this on his own dime, hiring freelancers? You think he doesn't have a non-competition clause in his contract?

Frankly, the thought that CH46 or Swann would begin pearl-clutching about the facticity of the video, and withdraw it for being 'sub-standard' journalism is laughingly naive about how the media biz operates. I realize nobody here has probably ever worked in TV, but the satire of 'Network' is closer to the reality than are pious depictions like 'Broadcast News'.

There's no evidence that the video is anything but exactly where CH46 wants it, and functioning exactly as they want it to in their efforts to use Swann to draw attention and viewers to 'CS46 Evening News'. What could make CH46 back away from such a piece would be:
1) An important sponsor of 'CBS46 News' doesn't like, and complains to Meredith Broadcasting. Then someone at corporate gets nervous, calls CH46 management, and warns them to be more careful in how they implement their strategy.
2) Something in a piece mucks up an important source relationships for another journalist employed by CH46 or Meredith, and that piece's producer gets told to chill for the sake of getting material for future stories. E.g. in this case, someone could have said, 'Damnit Ben, after what you did with those ex-CDC guys, none of my people 'inside' [X] will talk to me!'

I doubt either of those happened here, at least in any significant way, since the links opus and Todd noted are still there.

No, it's still there.

Hey kiddies, there's a valuable new addition to the antivax literature - Neil Z. Miller's Review Of Critical Vaccine Studies:

http://www.amazon.com/Millers-Review-Critical-Vaccine-Studies/dp/188121…

I mean, if you can't trust an "independent researcher" who talks to extraterrestrials, who can you trust?

Via the Reviews, we kearn that Shaw and Tomljenovic have found a new journal-shaped rubbish-bin to use as an outlet, in the form of "OA Autism". The skeevy predatory publisher in this case is OA Publishing London. Suffice to say that it is on Jeffrey Beall's list for its general incompetence and absence of standards, and that Neuroskeptic conducted some research into the general level of griftiness involved.

#145

An ordinary person looking at that book's cover would think that Neil Z Miller is a doctor. He could only have known this, which, in my view, constitutes deception even before you open it.

Brian Deer says (#147),

...deception even before you open it.

MJD says,

The book teaches vaccine cautionary principles, it appears that Neil Z. Miller has written many books about vaccines.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&field-author=Ne…

@Orac,

Will you use the same zeal to pontificate Neil Z. Miller's book as you did with mine?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/02/mr-michael-dochniak-meet-p…

@ herr doktor bimler:

I see that OA Autism has showcased other bright lights in the pseudoscience firmament:
Hewitson, Rossignol and the Geiers.-I suppose that they now have something else to do other than just speaking at conferences. Especially Old Struck-off** and son.

-btw- like a good shill I'm off to view the burgeoning art collection of a Major Elitist University (tm) so I can observe the power of money close up.

** in several locales

I see that OA Autism has showcased other bright lights in the pseudoscience firmament: Hewitson, Rossignol and the Geiers

Is Hewitson in good odour in pseudoscience circles, after her definitive monkey / vaccine study concluded "Ooops, no link to autism after all"?

Her contribution to OA Autism is a review paper, expending a lot of words to conclude that "More research is needed". She has foolishly accepted a post on the Editorial Board there and perhaps feels obliged to contribute something.

Not to be confused with Autism Open Access -- which comes to us from the sh1tweasels at OMICS, and is even lower-rent (edited-in-chief by Ruggiero's crony Siniscalco). Whoops, Hewitson has published there as well... unmindful of the fact that OMICS journals are write-only in nature, not intended for anyone to read them. Perhaps she has a large publications budget from the Johnson Centre, and has to spend it *somewhere*.

Brian: "An ordinary person looking at that book’s cover would think that Neil Z Miller is a doctor. He could only have known this, which, in my view, constitutes deception even before you open it."

Is that even Neil in the photo? It doesn't look like him as as seen on americanloons.blogspot.com or other sites.

Maybe they got the guy who empties the wastebaskets* to put on a white coat and stethoscope, and pose as a physician.

*he'd still be a solid bet to know more about vaccines than Neil.

Is that even Neil in the photo?
A stunt-doctor.

An ordinary person looking at that book’s cover would think that Neil Z Miller is a doctor.

I leave it to the reader's imagination what the cover of Terri Arranga's volume (which AoA has decided to pimp three years after it was published) invites in terms of synchronistic interpretation.

the cover of Terri Arranga’s volume

The visual equation between bowels and brains (after all, both have a convoluted appearance) seems to be a recurring theme in profitable crankery.
http://quantisana.ch/gesundheitsvorsorge/darm-entgiftung/liebe-deinen-d…

It's just plumbing, guys.

Speaking of, my kitchen sink is still clogged. Which makes it hard to do the dishes. I bought an auger and everything.

I did recently accidentally fix the pressure in a buddy's shower in Madison whilst wandering about at night in an accidentally mildly altered state of consciousness.

Apparently the key to fixing the shower was to run a bath.

Speaking of, my kitchen sink is still clogged.

That never ends well:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77b_1325533813

I bought an auger and everything.

Yah.

My view is that someone other than a medical practitioner who gives medical advice behind the cover of a white coat should be arrested.

the cover of Terri Arranga’s volume

Does the phrase "cranial-rectal inversion" apply?

Narad, yer link's broken. (#158.)

about those covers

I think that Miller is sneakily suggesting that he is a physician by placing his name right next to the white coated figure; he partially covers his ( sorry) arse by adding the MD blurb ( is the photo of Goldman?- another wanker IIRC) also he has no photo on the back cover to identify him. Skeevy, is correct.

Aranga's cover is just so extremely awfully bad: having identical figures ( double crosses? Central European crosses? Who knows!) superimposed she suggests that the brain influences or is the same as the GI .

What's wrong with these people?
I wonder if ANY of these books make money?

"I think that Miller is sneakily suggesting that he is a physician by placing his name right next to the white coated figure; he partially covers his ( sorry) arse by adding the MD blurb ( is the photo of Goldman?"

It doesn't look like Goldman either.

If you want a stock photo of a physician to place on the cover of your book or product label, they're not hard to find:

https://www.google.com/search?q=physician+stock+photo&source=lnms&tbm=i…

(the bikini-clad doc is my favorite, but tastes may vary)

For a book like Miller's the best choice might have been this image of Galen (abysmally ignorant by today's standards, but who likely had considerably more accurate knowledge about infectious disease and immunity than Miller).

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BJTY52/galenos-galen-129-199-ad-greek-medic-ph…

I see that Miller's vanity press also has a nonbook product line.

But wait, there's more! Check this out:

In Hour Two, Damiana Sage & Neil Miller introduce their book, Ambassadors Between Worlds, information and advice from Pleadian and other off planet benevolent beings to assist humans in the shift.

ht[]p://transitionsmedia.com/tag/neil-z-miller/

-btw-

I should note that herr doktor bimler's link ( # 157) is quite creepy but intriguing.

Altho' my place usually has an abundance of stray hair about
( human and cat) I've never had the problem the film's protagonist had.

Altho’ my place usually has an abundance of stray hair about
( human and cat) I’ve never had the problem the film’s protagonist had.

Oh no, not CAT hair!

I see that Miller’s vanity press also has a nonbook product line.

We also offer several top-of-the-line holistic products. These include Gifts for Women and Herbal Cleansers

Evidently a colon-blasting "Herbal Cleanser" is not a "Gift for Women".
I shall have to rethink my plan for Valentines Day .

I would think many women would resent the insinuation that their herbs are insufficiently clean.

The testimonials for the colon blaster are impressive and also include an MLM invitation from the "publisher" (Miller is the "director"; both ThinkTwice and the press share the same post-office box).

@Narad #164:

Ambassadors Between Worlds, information and advice from Pleadian and other off planet benevolent beings to assist humans in the shift.

Forgive me for asking what may be stupid questions, but:
1) Are the authors claiming we have been visited by aliens?
2) Is the "shift" that aliens are going to reveal their existence to us?

...off planet benevolent beings to assist humans in the shift.

Sounds like the plot of Childhood's End

Narad, I emailed you.

Aranga’s cover is just so extremely awfully bad: having identical figures ( double crosses? Central European crosses? Who knows!) superimposed she suggests that the brain influences or is the same as the GI .

Pretty sure those are puzzle pieces a la Autism Speaks (But We'll Talk Over It)'s iconography.

@Julian Frost - I don't know about these particular authors, but there are those who apparently sincerely believe that:
- We are currently being visited by benevolent aliens, and some people communicate with them.
- They will soon shift us to a 5 dimensional coordinate (penta-ordinate?) system where humans will attain higher levels of consciousness.

I wish I were making this up.

@ Antaeus Feldspar:

Looking at the Autism Speaks link, I see that their emblem is a 2D figure like a cut out puzzle piece which *vaguely* resembles the double crosses- or whatever they are- on the cover.
I can see what you mean but why didn't they just superimpose the actual shapes themselves?

MOB

I wish I were making this up.

Does this mean you wish you had beaten them to this grift?

capnkrunch, would you please email me via my blog?

In other news..

it seems that Ben Swann will be a regular on Mike Adams's Talk Network ( internet radio) amongst such stellar personae as Peter Breggin and ((shudder)) Gerald Celente
( today, Natural News)

Narad, yer link’s broken. (#158.)

Just <a href="the usual; my right-shift key has developed a floating nipple.

^ I feel worse about the hyphen than the malformed link, just for the record.

The CDC whistleblower data dump redux: Even William Thompson appears not to believe the antivaccine spin

oracknows — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:38:32 +0000

The CDC whistleblower data dump redux: Even William Thompson appears not to believe the antivaccine spin

Yesterday was kind of busy and a long day in the operating room rather drained me. So I only had time for a quick followup to yesterday's post on how Matt Carey obtained the entire document dump that the "CDC whistleblower" William W. Thompson gave to Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who then gave it to Alex Jones wannabe Ben Swann, who promised a story on it over a month ago but thus far hasn't delivered. Brian Deer, appropriately enough, pointed out some quotes that I hadn't really elaborated on sufficiently, as did Matt Carey in a followup post.

Back in August, Rep. Posey read an excerpt from a statement by William Thompson that read thusly:

At the bottom of Table 7 it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge. All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September ’02 not to report any race effects for the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office and I retained all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.

Sounds pretty damning, right? Well, we now have the complete statement by William Thompson, thanks to Matt Carey's having made the document dump available to all, and in context it's not quite the smoking gun that antivaccinationists thought as they started posting various "Garbage Can" memes all over Twitter and Facebook, as though the CDC had destroyed primary evidence. Let's take a look, as some of Thompson's statements were cited by both Carey and Deer. Here is Thompson's complete statement.

First, note that there was a lot of text between Thompson's description of the "garbage can meeting" and "I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper." Posey makes it seem as though the two descriptions were linked, and to some extent they are, but there's a lot of additional information between the two. Information was also left out. For instance, let's look at Thompson's quote in context:

Sometime soon after the meeting where we decided to exclude reporting any RACE effects, also between August 2002 and September 2002, the coauthors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. Dr. Coleen Boyle was not present at the meeting even though she was involved in scheduling that meeting. The remaining 4 coauthors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all our hard copy documents that we thought we should discard and put them in the large garbage can. However, because I assumed this was illegal and would violate both FOIA laws and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all my documents in my office and I retained all the associated computer files. This included all the Word files (agendas and manuscript drafts), Excel files with analysis and results, and SAS files that I used to generate the statistical findings. I also kept all my written notes from meetings. All the associated MMR-Autism Study computer files have been retained on the Immunization Safety Office computer servers since the inception of the study and they continue to reside there today.

Emphasis added on a key segment Posey left out. Why is this important? Because it has been implied in many antivaccine sites that Thompson was not at the meeting where a bunch of documents were thrown in the garbage can. We know that's not true. Note the key phrase: "the remaining four authors." There were only five co-authors on DeStefano et al. If Colleen Boyle was not at the meeting, that means the "remaining four" co-authors must have included Thompson. He was there. Of course, Thompson never actually denied being at the meeting, but his wording sure was a bit ambiguous, at least to me. Colleen Boyle wasn't there, but the "four remaining authors" were. In any case, his being at that "garbage can" or "shredder" meeting means that he must know the criteria that were used to determine which documents to dump and which documents to keep. As Matt Carey has asked, why has he never commented on this? Why didn't he comment on this to Brian Hooker in one of his many conversations with him. Or maybe he has commented to Hooker but Hooker, knowing that it would undermine the conspiracy theory that he had concocted, never let it be included in any transcript published.

As Brian Deer also points out, no data were destroyed, because, as Thompson states, "All the associated MMR-Autism Study computer files have been retained on the Immunization Safety Office computer servers since the inception of the study and they continue to reside there today."

There's another part of Thompson's statement that Posey (and Hooker and Wakefield) have never mentioned:

The fact that we found a strong statistically significant finding among black males does not mean that there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation:

The fact that we found a strong statistically significant finding among black males does not mean that there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation. This result would have probably have led to designing additional better studies if we had been willing to report the findings in the study and manuscript at the time that we found them.

This implies that even William Thompson doesn't believe that those apparent effects in African-American males in which MMR vaccination at a certain age correlated with an increased risk of autism were real. Indeed, in his statement released by his lawyer in August 2014, Thompson said:

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism.

So let me summarize what messages I take away from the CDC whistleblower story based on everything that's come before and the most recent document dump:

No raw data were deleted or destroyed.
There was a correlation between MMR vaccination and autism in a single small subgroup in DeStefano et al that didn't hold up to further analysis. It was not reported.
Even Thompson doesn't argue that this initially detected race effect means that the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism in African-American boys.
On the other hand, these are public statements. When Thompson thinks no one is listening, he does imply that these race effects are important and potentially significant, as he did in his telephone discussions with Brian Hooker.
Thompson clearly had problems playing well with others and likely wasn't able to articulate his concerns well enough to convince his co-authors. He also apparently had anger management issues and difficulty dealing with stress, leading to his paid administrative leave in 2004.
Thompson was in contact with antivaccinationists as far back as 2004. It's understandable why he was in contact with Sallie Bernard, given that she had been placed on the committee overseeing one of his studies. It's less understandable why he was apparently in contact with Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker.
Honest researchers can argue whether or not it was a good idea not to report the initial race finding in the way that Thompson apparently wanted to. There are arguments on both sides. From a PR perspective, it was probably a bad idea not to include the data, although I note that at the time antivaccinationists apparently didn't pick up on the initial race effect, even though it was mentioned in the manuscript but shown to be probably spurious with the birth certificate analysis. From a scientific perspective it was justifiable, at least in practical terms, by manuscript word count limitations. As Matt notes, however, what we've never received from Thompson is a good scientific rationale as to why it had to be reported.
If Thompson hadn't personalized his disagreement and gone to Brian Hooker with it, helping him with his incompetent reanalysis, this PR problem wouldn't have happened.

There's a final lesson here. No matter how transparent scientists are, antivaccinationists will always relentlessly look for something to use to attack vaccines, some inconsistency or something not reported (or even not reported the way they think it should have been). As I've pointed out time and time again, to them it is all about the vaccines. It was always all about the vaccines. It always will be about the vaccines. Thompson apparently didn't understand this and facilitated the antivaccine message, whether he intended it or not.

oracknows Wed, 01/06/2016 - 04:38

Tags

autism

Pseudoscience

http://www.ecbt.org/images/articles/A_Review_of_John_Stones_DeStefano_R…

Although Thompson's prose is somewhat misleading ( ' the remaining 4 coauthors' is an odd way to refer to a group that includes oneself), I always interpreted the edited version to mean that Thompson was there because of how he uses 'we' throughout it and then describes the garbage can episode as a witness.

It's slippery prose, isn't it?

Is Thompson still working for the CDC?

Yes, he is.

@Denice:

Point taken. I never said that Thompson denied being at the meeting, just that his wording, because it was so odd, could easily lead one to believe that he wasn't there if that's what one wanted to believe, and certainly certain antivaccine activists interpreted it that way. I suppose it's possible I was reading too much into this, but the language sure seemed crafted by a lawyer to be precise in a way that misleads.

@ Orac:

I wasn't critiquing what you said at all but merely mentioning that I always assumed he was reporting what he saw at the meeting and garbage-fest.

The odd, clumsy wording could have an underlying motive.

Hey, language in the hands of writers, lawyers or psychologists should be approached with extreme caution.

It's OK if you were, as I'll admit that due to time constraints this post was written a bit more hastily than I usually like to do.

The real wonder is what kind of ethics does Posey have if he would make such a scandalously defamatory allegation on the floor of the House of Representatives, while holding a document that makes quite clear that all documentation was held electronically?

Mind you, he did then release the documents.

Brian Deer,

I would not be surprised if the statement Representative Posey read was prepared by someone else. One possibility: Brian Hooker.

If memory serves, I believe AoA reported that Brian Hooker prepared the statements that Mr. Posey read at one of the congressional hearings.

Posey might not be astute enough to know that the documents didn't support him. Or he could be another ethics-free congress critter.

I will say that one Wakefield/Hooker supporter stated that Thompson was present, but I used the quote to argue the opposite.

Which is to say, I was wrong, he was correct.

On another point:

Ironically, those calling for transparency by the CDC didn't find any problem with Wakefield and Hooker withholding documents and only releasing snippets (sometimes edited).

Interestingly, I have still heard nothing from the Anti-vax powers-that-be - only a loose comment or tweet from the underlings .
Not one of the Big Guns has uttered a peep.

I wonder what's keeping them.

As I wrote yesterday, my guess is that Thompson's mental health issues contributed to him obsessing about his disagreements with his superiors at the CDC — the docs suggest it wasn't just the DeStafano paper — and when they tried to use his disagreements as cause to fire him, he came to believe their 'abuse of power' was more important than the specific issue at hand. Something like — well, we might have to sacrifice some confidence in THIS report on the MMR to 'save' the institution and it's future credibility.

Thus, i think Thompson DID understand exactly that "antivaccinationists will always relentlessly look for something to use to attack vaccines" and intentionally facilitated that to demonstrate the kind of 'PR problem' withholding the race data could create. It's not necessarily true that if Thompson hadn't gone to Hooker, the PR problem wouldn't have happened. Any number of other people or things could have pointed Hooker in the right direction. Thompson just jumped all in.

But, as Brian Deer, Matt Carey, and Orac have now pointed out, in throwing "all in" with Hooker, Thompson knew all along there was no smoking gun for the AVers.

The fact that we found a strong statistically significant finding among black males does not mean that there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation.

That's a double-whammy against what he knew Hooker wanted: a link between the MMR and autism. In his conversations with Hooker, he says the AVers should make "Thimerosal causes tics" their "mantra". Since he works at CDC he knows "MMR vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal" (CDC). And he's scrupulous with Hooker in never going beyond that rather curious grammatical construction "autism-like features". In normal conversation, most people interpret an assertion that something is 'like' something else as indicating it is NOT that something else. At the least, Thompson knew that phrasing left him an out, and I'm guessing he used it because he knew Hooker would take the bait and think 'like' indicated 'is' out of wishful thinking.

So "autism-like features" aren't autism, and the data doesn't even indicate "a true association" between the MMR and this "not-autism" in the subpopulation of black males anyway.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Thompson was out to discredit the AVers by suckering Hooker into a bogus study that would get defamed and retracted. My guess is he figured his disclosures would bolster the AV fanatics, but just didn't care. I think he felt so aggrieved by DeStafano, Chen and others that he was willing to play with fire, perhaps assuming the flames would burn out when all the limitations and qualifications were pointed out by qualified scientists. But he certainly wasn't much worried about damage in the interim.

As I'm wildly speculating, here's my thought on why he had some contact with Hooker and Wakefield back in 2004: that was when he hatched this revenge plot, amidst his pique at being placed on administrative leave. I'm guessing he thought better of it then, but it stayed in the back of his mind. As the next ten years went by, and he continued to be a pariah at CDC, his reticence slipped away. He probably thought about it often, and revised and fine-tuned his scheme. Also, by the time he finally 'confessed' to Hooker, adding fuel to the AV fire wasn't the sort of political bombshell it would have been in 2004, when Wakefield had more cred. As BD's website says "When the [Times] investigation concluded in 2011, a poll found that in the US alone nearly 145 million people knew Deer's key finding." So that made it easier for Thompson to justify 'going rogue' to himself by the time he finally contacted Hooker and spilled the not-beans.

@MikeMa: Those options aren't mutually exclusive. For politicians, Dunning-Kruger syndrome is an occupational hazard, and the temptation for Congresscritters to cut ethical corners is frequently high. Who's going to call Posey out on this? His constituents seem to be fine with it, and nobody else has the power to deter him.

It’s not necessarily true that if Thompson hadn’t gone to Hooker, the PR problem wouldn’t have happened.

Perhaps, but it is far, far less likely that this would have happened, given that more than a decade went by without any AVer figuring out how to latch on to this finding and use it against the CDC. It required the construct of the "CDC whistleblower" revealing a "coverup" of this result before it gained any traction at all.

@ Orac #14.

No doubt. I'm mainly just trying to guess what was going on in WT's fevered head. That is, if he thinks there's a possibility this kind of thing could ever get out, on this study or another, that gives him justification to rationalize, "if they think this isn't a potential problem, I'll show them how much of a problem it can be!" People do have egos, and if those get bruised badly enough, "I'll show them I was right" can wind up trumping reasonable pragmatic cautions. It's kind of perverse reasoning, but it's not totally wrong.

Sorta like a data security expert tells you your server is vulnerable, but you think you're safe because it's been up for ten years w/o getting hacked, so you tell the security guy to buzz off... and he breaks into your system to prove his point. (That's actually happened... but then they usually do hire the guy...)

At the bottom of Table 7 it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.

Could someone help me out and identify which Table–7 this refers to?

^ The '–' should have been an ' ' (and I will now wait to see whether WP makes it impossible to escape an ampersand).

Narad, You need to go to the folder CDC2 in the dropbox, the sub-folder Results and the file describe_results_2002_0702.xls

Then click on the tab Table 7.

On the topic of the wording of the statement, I always assumed that Thompson was at the garbage can meeting, because 1 ) he describes saving copies of all the files thrown out and 2) and I knew that there were only five authors on the paper. I have noted how some in the anti-vax circle have trumpeted the opposite and understand that it would be pretty easy to come to such a conclusion from the statement if you didn't read it carefully and cross-check it with other information.

Posey read the statement because he was 'paid' to do so. The anti-vax groups had contributed substantially to his campaign and this was the pay-off they got. I don't know exactly how things happen in US political circles, but if it is anything like here, Posey would not have written the speech, one of his staffers would have done so. That staffer would almost certainly have got some input from somewhere else - probably Brian Hooker. Thompson himself, other than providing the original statement, doesn't seem to have been involved. Indeed he has gone completely to ground.

What is fascinating me in this whole charade is the behaviour of Thompson. It is almost like he wants to be anti-vaccine. He wants the adulation that the stars like Wakefield and Hooker get, but seems to know that to do so he has to lie. He only seems to be unwilling to go the whole hog, so you get these fibs about the timeline of events, about the behaviour of others in the CDC, but not about the important stuff.

There is a stray 'only' in the last sentence there caused by some slack copy editing of the sentence.

I have a question; but first a couple of points. If I am wrong about anything, please please let me know.

In the DeStefano article they do include an analysis by race:

“Results According to Race, Birth Weight, and Maternal
Characteristics. We further examined associations according to selected
maternal and birth characteristics that were available from the birth certificate files. For vaccination before 18 months or 24 months of age, all of the
ORs according to different categories of race, birthweight, maternal age, and maternal education were 1.0 (Table 5). For the 36-month cutoff, there were
suggestions of possible associations within the subgroups of children whose mothers were older or had more years of education, but the CIs were very wide
and included 1.0. (DeStefano, p. 262)”

“TABLE 5.
Race Black Cases = 137 (ibid, p. 263)”

The results weren’t significant; but they did analyze race.

In Hooker’s reanalysis, he writes:

“When accounting for cases in the cohort that excluded low birth weight (<2500 g) African American children, it was necessary to report results at 31 months rather than 36 months in order to avoid reporting data from age categories or“ cells” that possessed less than 5 individuals. (Hooker, page 5)”

If Hooker had the complete original data set, why did he have to change the age categories to manage at least 5 in one of the cells? I think it highly unlikely that DeStefano et al, if they even did an analysis on the subgroup of Afro-American boys would have changed the age range of one analysis. Since it would have been a “post-hoc” analysis of a sub-group, something usually done to develop future hypotheses and not for any possible results, I doubt they would have changed the range. However, if they had changed the range, then Thompson should have informed Hooker and Hooker should have explained that he was doing the exact same analysis as the alleged discarded one and not just manipulate the data set as he did.

So my question: Mainly on antivaccinationist websites and now the quotes from the transcripts of Thompson that you have produced, we are told that a subgroup analysis of Afro-American boys was discarded. Is there any independent verification for this? From the transcripts you have studied, from DeStefano, from anyone besides Thompson. Several antivaccinationists directed me to Sharyl Attkisson’s interview of DeStefano. (https://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-possibility-that-vaccines-rarely-trigge…) I listened to the audio and carefully read the transcripts and NADA. So, I am getting old and maybe missed something. In any case, I would greatly appreciate it if there are independent sources if you would give me the names and URLs to each one.

DeStefano F, Bhasin T, Thompson WW et al. (2004 Feb) - Age at First MMR Vaccination in Children with Autism & School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics; 113(2): 259-266.

Hooker BS (2014. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and
autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. Translational Neurodegeneration; 3: 16

Interestingly, I have still heard nothing from the Anti-vax powers-that-be. . . . Not one of the Big Guns has uttered a peep.

Regarding the "CDC Whistleblower" manufactroversy, AoA stalwart John Stone wrote "The whole thing has reached impasse, no doubt."

Note that Stone is a true believer. For example, he routinely claims that Dr. Paul Offit believes that a child can simultaneously be injected with 10,000 (or 100,000) vaccines (with the associated liters of fluid) rather than, as Offit wrote, that a child has the theoretical immune capacity to respond to [the number of antigens present in] about 10 000 vaccines at any one time. If even Stone thinks the "Whistleblower" issue is at an impasse, that's a bad sign for anti-vaxxers..

I have a question; but first a couple of points. If I am wrong about anything, please please let me know.

In the DeStefano article they do include an analysis by race:

“Results According to Race, Birth Weight, and Maternal
Characteristics. We further examined associations according to selected maternal and birth characteristics that were available from the birth certificate files. For vaccination before 18 months or 24 months of age, all of the ORs according to different categories of race, birthweight, maternal age, and maternal education were 1.0 (Table 5). For the 36-month cutoff, there were suggestions of possible associations within the subgroups of children whose mothers were older or had more years of education, but the CIs were very wide
and included 1.0. (DeStefano, p. 262)”

“TABLE 5.
Race Black Cases = 137 (ibid, p. 263)”

The results weren’t significant; but they did analyze race.

In Hooker’s reanalysis, he writes:

Hooker BS (2014. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. Translational Neurodegeneration; 3: 16

Interestingly, I have still heard nothing from the Anti-vax powers-that-be – only a loose comment or tweet from the underlings .
Not one of the Big Guns has uttered a peep.

I wonder what’s keeping them.

How in Hades do you spin this with all of the alleged garbaged-documents in the public domain? That and explaining why their bought-off politician Posey gave the document dump to "shills".

@ Joel Harrison, read this and the link to his previous post at the beginning and that should answer at least part of your question:
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/analysis-and-rean…

@Science Mom

Ah, MINITAB. Brings back memories. I used the absolute first version of Minitab for PCs where one had to insert one floppy disk, then take it out and insert the next just to do some simple statistics; but it beat paying for time on the main frame, writing Job Control Language (which cylinder, how much, etc) and then SAS code. With that said, I did read the Miniab blob, part 1 and part 2. Nicely done; but didn't answer my questions.

1. If Hooker, with Thompson advising, was trying to recreate the alleged discarded analysis, then why didn't he explain that the CDC had also changed the age range, which he was duplicating? Because it is highly unlikely that the CDC would have changed the age range for one subset analysis just to get a minimum of five in one cell. In other words, Hooker was NOT showing a result that was discarded by the CDC but was torturing the data to get it to confess to what he wanted.
2. Besides claims by Thompson and antivaccinationist blogs that the CDC discarded a subgroup analysis on a very small sample of Afro-American boys, I haven't found any independent confirmation that this even happened, that they ran such an analysis. Matt and David Gorski have looked through the 1000 pages or so of the documents, so, maybe, they found confirmation there. In any case, if anyone can supply me with confirmation, the more sources the better, I would greatly appreciate it.

And, as I mentioned in my comment, even if they had done such an analysis on such a small subset, it would have been at best exploratory, that is, to generate hypotheses for future research, not confirmatory, that is, nothing to write home about.

In any case, your webpage is great! Keep up the good work.

@ Science Mom and brian:

I still haven't seen anything yet.
BUT I do think that these people could spin anything after all, they turned a research cheat and lawyers' tool into a sainted martyr fights _the Children_
-btw- ((shudder))

WHO fights FOR _the Children_

He only takes blood from children for money

1. If Hooker, with Thompson advising, was trying to recreate the alleged discarded analysis, then why didn’t he explain that the CDC had also changed the age range, which he was duplicating? Because it is highly unlikely that the CDC would have changed the age range for one subset analysis just to get a minimum of five in one cell. In other words, Hooker was NOT showing a result that was discarded by the CDC but was torturing the data to get it to confess to what he wanted.

Joel, the main problem with this question is that it is the wrong question. I will try to explain and hope I don't get it too wrong through simplifying.

The basic problem is that DeStefano et al. conducted a case-control study and analysed it through conditional regression analysis. What this means is that they identified a group of cases (autistic children in this case) and then matched them to a group of controls. They then conducted a regression analysis where all individuals were in the same test and all the factors could be included all at once. Factors that came up significant could be further analysed without the non-significant factors.

Hooker to the same data set and analysed it as a cohort study, where he broke the population up into discrete cohorts and analysed each on their own. This introduced several problems 1) the data set was not a cohort study data set; 2) it introduced the problem of multiple comparisons that Hooker failed to correct for*; and 3) one of the cohorts was too small, so Hooker had to change the boundaries of the set to make it bigger.

So DeStefano et al. didn't need to change the age range, because they didn't analyse the data in a way where this would become a problem.

2. Besides claims by Thompson and antivaccinationist blogs that the CDC discarded a subgroup analysis on a very small sample of Afro-American boys, I haven’t found any independent confirmation that this even happened, that they ran such an analysis. Matt and David Gorski have looked through the 1000 pages or so of the documents, so, maybe, they found confirmation there. In any case, if anyone can supply me with confirmation, the more sources the better, I would greatly appreciate it.

There are in fact sub-group analyses in the documents and some of these are producing significant effects. However, these only occur in the analyses that have not been adjusted for known confounders or in analyses where information on the confounders was not known - such as the non-birth certificate group. Once adjustment of the model for known confounders was undertaken, then the effect disappeared. This did mean excluding all those without birth certificates from the analysis.

Now there is some argument that they should have included the results from the unadjusted analyses in the paper. Epidemiology is not my field, but in my field we would almost never do this. We wouldn't publish the statistical results from analyses of skewed data, because they are not useful.

*This is something that I am increasingly seeing researchers do with data sets in order to create statistically significant results where none would really occur. It is wrong and its wrongness should always be pointed out. Sometimes it is simply ignorance, but in some cases (Seralini and possibly Hooker) it is done deliberately to drive an agenda.

Joel, I wrote a response, which seemed to post, but has now disappeared. I will see if I can re-create it.

1. If Hooker, with Thompson advising, was trying to recreate the alleged discarded analysis, then why didn’t he explain that the CDC had also changed the age range, which he was duplicating? Because it is highly unlikely that the CDC would have changed the age range for one subset analysis just to get a minimum of five in one cell. In other words, Hooker was NOT showing a result that was discarded by the CDC but was torturing the data to get it to confess to what he wanted.

The problem here is that you are asking the wrong question. To understand why, you need to understand how the original study was done. DeStefano et al. conducted a case-control study. So what they did was develop a list of cases (in this case children with autism) and matched them to a larger group of controls. They then conducted a conditional regression analysis, which contained all of the subjects and all the possible factors. From this they can separate out factors that may be significant and do further analyses.

Hooker took the data and analysed it as a cohort analysis. That is, he divided the cases and controls up into groups and compared cases and controls within each group. This introduced 3 problems: 1) the data was not set up as a cohort study and so the results were unlikely to be informative, 2) he ran into the problem of multiple comparisons and didn't try to correct for that by conducting an omnibus test*, and 3) he ran into a problem of having too few individuals in one of the cohorts, so had to alter the boundaries of the set.

DeStefano et al. didn't have to change the age range, because the way they did the analysis meant they wouldn't have an analysis involving small numbers of individuals.

2. Besides claims by Thompson and antivaccinationist blogs that the CDC discarded a subgroup analysis on a very small sample of Afro-American boys, I haven’t found any independent confirmation that this even happened, that they ran such an analysis. Matt and David Gorski have looked through the 1000 pages or so of the documents, so, maybe, they found confirmation there. In any case, if anyone can supply me with confirmation, the more sources the better, I would greatly appreciate it.

There are certainly subgroup analyses within the documents released that did not appear in the paper. Some of these had statistically-significant outcomes, but these were only for analyses where known confounders were not adjusted for. In the adjusted analyses, these statistical significant results were absent. This did mean that all individuals without information about known confounders had to be discarded including all those without birth certificate data.

There has certainly been some argument that DeStafano et al. should have included the unadjusted analyses in their paper. I am not an epidemiologist, but in my field we would rarely report on the raw statistical analyses where we knew the data was skewed, you correct for the skew and report on the analysis of the adjusted data. This is because the former result is not likely to be real. So I don't give this argument much credence. Even if DeStefano et al. had reported these analyses, they would have then had to say the results were unlikely to be real.

*I am increasingly seeing multiple statistical analyses being reported in research without correction for multiple comparisons. It seems to me that this is a device for finding a statistically significant result from any data set. It is wrong and its wrongness should be pointed out wherever it occurs. Sometimes, this is just ignorance, but at other times (Seralini for example and probably Hooker) it seems to have been done deliberately to push an agenda.

OK so that seems to be why my comment didn't appear.

For some reason my comments are going into a moderation queue.

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH@25

If Hooker, with Thompson advising, was trying to recreate the alleged discarded analysis, then why didn’t he explain that the CDC had also changed the age range, which he was duplicating?

The problem is that you seem to be operating under the assumption that Hooker has integrity. Simpliest explanation would be that Hooker is dishonest. His consistent failure to disclose financial COIs lends credence to this theory and would be motivation for him to be dishonest

...and I reread Joel's comment and see he already reached that conclusion.

OK so that seems to be why my comment didn’t appear.

What that?

PS:

Go to the new Patreon page of "Yoru Teruhiko" if you want to be a "patron." It could be fun!

Wheeeeee!

;-)

-The Mutineeeeeer!

Chris Preston, both of your comments have posted. It seems you hit a size limit.

Chris Preston - I think it is because you used The Name that Shall not be Mentioned Here.

a size limit
This is RI. Is there such a thing?

I think I have encountered a size limit. But MA may be closer to the truth, I kind of forgotten about who should be nameless.... if only to provide an informal intelligence test.

@Chris Preston

I am quite aware that the DeStefano study used a conditional logistic regression. The point is, even in a case control study one would have to have a minimum of case, so I really doubt, given that Hooker could not get even 5 cases using the interval used for all the other analyses in the DeStefano study that DeStefano actually even performed the subgroup analysis on Afro-American boys. With that said, as I wrote, given that Thompson was advising Hooker, and Hooker was claiming to recreate the alleged data discarded by DeStefano, he still would have had to explain why he needed to change the interval range. I also remind you that when one does a conditional logistic, one often does a set of preliminary Chi-Squares which DeStefano did. You are preaching to the choir; but I find it also insulting that you assume I didn't understand what they did even though I actually quoted from their article.

Joel, I am sorry if I have offended you.

Your comment about whether the CDC would have changed the age structure of the group led me to think that you didn't understand the difference between a conditional regression model and the chi-squared tests that Hooker used. It would be unnecessary to do such a thing with a regression analysis.

Of course Hooker was not recreating the analysis done by DeStafano et al. He lied when he said he was.

Thompson did run an analysis where he reported the results of the models by race and time of MMR in the documents released See Table 5 here for example even though some of the groups had as few as 11 cases. He also produced results for other analyses where some groups had no cases. These were also not used in the paper for obvious reasons.

I am sure he must have run an analysis with boys separated from girls as well, but I haven't been able to find it yet - it may not be in the documents that Thompson passed on to Posey. This is where he told Hooker to look, so he must have known it would come up with a significant statistic.

@Chris

Let me know if you find the analysis of boys separated from girls. Also, if you find it, let me know if you find anything that mentions the planned analyses and if it was part of them or it was a post-hoc analysis. I have worked on several projects where there was a set of planned analyses; but then after they were completed we started to look at subgroups, not as hypothesis testing; but, at best, as hypothesis generating. I suspect that if you find the analysis of just Afro-American boys that it was such and, thus, would not usually be included in a paper. If it was a post-hoc analysis, then we have the problem of multiple comparisons and the level of significance would have to be accordingly adjusted and with such a small n the confidence interval would be quite wide.

You might be interested in what I wrote about it in a paper I wrote for Every Child By Two at:

Go to section "Did Frank DeStefano and CDC Colleagues Destroy MMR/Autism Data" beginning on page 7. I finished it a while ago and would probably make some changes. You might actually find the entire paper an interesting read.

a size limit

This is RI. Is there such a thing?

If there was, friend sadmar would be S.O.L.

Ow, wow, that is so true. I am truly corrected

This is RI. Is there such a thing?

There's an auto-mod WP length trigger, IIRC, but I don't know what its criteria are.

Joel, thanks for that. It brought back memories of that epic comment thread where John Stone was vigorously defending his post from n davis and others who were pointing out the paper specifically stated that it only covered US cases.

We used to call Stone "The Pope of JABS" due to his activities on the JABS Forum before he became the UK editor of AoA. The relevance of this is that JABS was the recruiting ground for the Wakefield 12. John Stone's friend Clifford G. Miller (who runs the blog childhealthsafety and refers to himself in the plural including in a series of strange emails to me) acted as Andrew Wakefield 's UK attorney during Wakefield's recent failed defamation suit.

Back to topic. The analysis plan for the DeStefano et al is available and did not contain an intention to analyse explicitly as Thompson claimed. There was always the intention to use birth certificate data to correct for known confounders.

I had a completely different, and, I like to think, far more accurate name for John Stone.

Rebecca is correct.

Whilst we're on the topics of loons...
Jake shows up at LBRB saying that the documents we're reading are *forged*.

Denice Walter@47

Jake shows up at LBRB saying that the documents we’re reading are *forged*.

Called it. If they're so worried they could always ask Posey or Swann or Hooker or Wakefield but then they would lose their convenient excuse so the chances of that happening is nil. Or if they did those documents would also be forged and whoever provided them branded a turncoat (as Posey already has been).

Chris Preston @35

I'm interested if you have anything about Miller. That ludicrous crank spent about a decade plotting with Stone, Wakefield and others to try to destroy my career.

They devoted thousands of hours concocting allegations - including in a "secret report" running to dozens of versions, claiming that I was paid by drug companies, stole documents, "perverted the course of justice" and just everything they could think of.

They were even filing countless freedom of information requests to anyone they learnt I'd filed one with, to try to find out what I'd got and then filing complaints that I'd supposedly failed to dislose what I've got. And he also totally screwed a deposition hearing that Wakefield's lawyer did with me, with hour after hour consumed with his malignant conspiracy theories which, of course, yielded nothing. I should think it cost a few parents of disabled children quite a few bucks.

I was too busy sorting out the Wakefield stuff, which was of obvious public interest, to deal with Miller. But that such a foul buffoon hides behind the pretence of child health safety is truly disturbing.

@Chris Preston

You wrote: "Back to topic. The analysis plan for the DeStefano et al is available and did not contain an intention to analyse explicitly as Thompson claimed. There was always the intention to use birth certificate data to correct for known confounders."

If I read you correctly, then I was right, the DeStefano analysis plan DID NOT include a subgroup analysis of Afro-American boys alone. If this is correct, then I still would like to know if they did it as a post-hoc analysis, a fishing expedition for possible future hypotheses for research. I realize that even if this is true that antivaccinationists won't understand; but I would still like to know. What's more, if you can, somehow, copy the text to the plan that includes the above and post it and, if they did the subgroup analysis, that would be great (if you do, please give detailed reference where it came from, e.g. document name, date, page number, whatever. I try to never sign up for anything and when I went to look at the Posey supplied documents it required some sign-up. In addition, I am getting old and really don't want to go through about 1,000 pages to find or not find things. If you or someone else is already checking it out, that would be great.

As for Wakefield, if you check out my other articles on ECBT, you will see I wrote a review of his book "Callous Disregard". You can find ALL my ECBT articles at:
http://www.ecbt.org/index.php/facts_and_issues/article/expert_commentary

And directly, my review of Wakefield's book at: http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOVACJ/TOVACJ-6-9.pdf

I am well-aware that Wakefield actively recruited and used kids from either Dawburn lawsuit or JABS who were supporting the lawsuit. It is fascinating the hypocrisy of the antivaccinationist when criticizing any possible financial conflicts of interest. Wakefield earned about $750,000 over his research salary for a couple years of part-time advice to Dawburn and then, totally unsubstantiated by his garbage article, suggested safer to use monovalent vaccines, and, yes, he had applied for a patent for a monovalent measles vaccine. Not one that would have worked; but what else would you expect from Wakefield?

So is there really still not a single anti-vaccine website talking about these documents? This is nuts!

@ Annie:

So far I haven't seen anything except a few comments and tweets from the lesser beings** ( AoA, LBRB, @ tannersdad etc) despite our friends' best efforts to inform them.. I also follow altie horrors like prn.fm and NaturalNews.

Perhaps they're far too busy monitoring and providing astute commentary about the economic situation in China.
That last line was a joke.

** oh wait, they're all lesser beings

Jake shows up at LBRB saying that the documents we’re reading are *forged*.

At what point along the chain of provenance?
Naturally I assume that Jake has copies of the original unforged documents, and is making them available. Otherwise he's just making stuff up.

@ Denice #52

Never fear, they will simply carry on as if nothing has happened. They will learn nothing, evaluate nothing, reconsider nothing.

@ Brian Deer:

There is definitely a diagnosis/ diagnoses for what you describe but I'm not at liberty to disclose what it is.

I'm sure that you and others can guess quite accurately.

Jake did put a smiley face after saying the docs were forged, so I'm willing to accept that he was joking. I am also willing to accept that the kid doesn't have the guts to admit that the whole whistleblower mess was a lot lies and bad science.

Hey Team,

Sadmar Posts are a marvel of briefness compared to some of the 25>75 PgDwn-key scroll[1] post of some raving lunatics who has been banned here.

[1] == understatement of the year...

Alain

correction: "s/'post'/'cryptic punctuation-less Wall\'o\'text competing Orac for absolute length'/

Brian Deer - I didn't realize until last summer that you were THE journalist that stood up against Wakefield and his minions. I've been procrastinating - just one more person saying "Thank you!" You have my admiration for not letting those lying slimeballs intimidate you and give up exposing the truth.

And in other ( non) news,,,

Dan's Weekly Wrap ( AoA) doesn't mention anything at all about the availability of the documents although commenters- including one we know- have informed readers about it.

Dan does tell us about his 'adventures" as an 'investigative reporter' and what Greg** has to say.

If his work at AoA is investigative reporting I am a large white cat what can type well.

** well known to Orac's minions as one of the few to have been sent off unceremoniously via the ban hammer.

Denice: Not that I was terribly prescient yesterday when I said they'd ignore it, but what other choice would Olmsted has. Like his buddy Wakefield, they are skimming money off the lives of distraught parents of children with developmental disorders. There's no way that the veil can be allowed to slip.

I had it with him once before when one (of several) parents accused Wakefield of fraud in his Lancet paper. The guy wrote to Olmsted telling him this, and the actual data was produced proving it. So Olmsted lied to the readers of that site pretending that the father attacked me.

They may eventually say something about the Thompson documents - particularly his statement - but you can be absolutely sure they won't say: "Hang on, how did we get that wrong?"

It wouldn't occur to Olmsted that his "daily newspaper of the autism epidemic" ought to report news, or tell the truth, or anything like that.

It's all about skimming the money. "Investigate journalist?" Pass the sick bucket.

Dan’s Weekly Wrap ( AoA) doesn’t mention anything at all about the availability of the documents although commenters- including one we know- have informed readers about it.

Gerg's in midseason form already:

"Rouler, we are discussing Thompson's confession. We are not talking about Wakfield, or Hooker, or Kennedy, or even Olmstead! Why is it always so hard for you guys to stay on topic?!"

The only person there who has mentioned Wakefraud, Hooker, and Kennedy is... Gerg.

Heh. I've been Tweeting under the #CDCwhistleblower hashtag the link to the Dropbox folder that contains the documents. No bites from antivaxers yet, but I encourage everyone here with a Twitter account to do the same.

This is terribly funny:
what they had expected to be their greatest revelation/ coup de grace is merely another set of misquotes, malapropisms, slipshod observation and sundry lies tarted up and sent to congress.

Dan illustrates his abilities in journalism once again.
Greg proves that he can't correctly copy a general English spelling pattern in a name which he's probably seen on hundreds of occasions.
The Faithful display that they can't take hints from Orac, Dorit, Matt, Boris et al even when they are pounded into their heads virtually many times via blogs, twitter etc.

I'm on my way to a ridiculously hip event throughout which I shall certainly keep laughing all evening. People will wonder what substances I've ingested I suppose making me even more fashionable than usual.

Jane Ostentatious write (#59),

Brian Deer – I didn’t realize until last summer that you were THE journalist that stood up against Wakefield and his minions.

MJD says,

Brian Deer is a great read and RI is fortunate to have his participation and full disclosure..

Moving forward, maybe Brian Deer could write an article about Orac's herculean efforts (10+ years) to criticize anti-vaxxers?

I'd like to read that article, Orac deserves it.

This is terribly funny:
what they had expected to be their greatest revelation/ coup de grace is merely another set of misquotes, malapropisms, slipshod observation and sundry lies tarted up and sent to congress.

Oh and to have their paid-for Congress Critter send the Garbage-gate documents to "the enemy" is sending them into collective apoplexy. I have to speculate that Posey figured out who he got in bed with, got fed up with the AV-ers relentless hounding to get a hearing and welcomed the request by Matt and Prof. Reiss as a way to slither from the AV grasp. Now if poor Ben Swann could only figure out how to parse those documents, we can continue to point and laugh.

I can only imagine the mental gymnastics that the folks over at AoA are going through trying to figure out how to spin this....the docs have been available for days now & not a single official article has been posted....

I'm even curious to see what the "Boy" has to say about this - officially.

I was laughing about this all evening- a few glasses of wine didn't hurt either- it's enough to make me forget about the Market ( yiiii) and the price of airfare.

At any rate, can we take wagers on which anti-vax thought leader will be the first to discuss this imbroglio?
I was hoping for Dan but he missed his opportunity today.

Who is the one to unite them together and keep their minds off the obvious inconsistencies in the tale being told thus far?

Denice Walter@68

At any rate, can we take wagers on which anti-vax thought leader will be the first to discuss this imbroglio?

My money is on Mikey. He will some claim about forged documents, conspiracy, Big Pharma, something, something! However, it won't unify the movement because it will be too crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if Dan eventually posts what becomes the consensus among the rest.

The conspiracy must get bigger. Rep Posey is in on it. He may be the richest congressman in the House, but they'll start going through his campaign contributions looking for fifty grand from Pfizer, or looking for whether he has a brother who ever bought a pack of Advil.

@Brian Deer: Hey, if Mark Zuckerberg is a shill and can be bought, Posey is small fries.

Hah, it's obvious from his campaign contribution record that Posey is a puppet of Big Medicine. Just look at which industry has funded him the most, according to opensecrets.com:

Health Professionals$404,800:$163,300 (individuals)$241,500 (PAC money)

The following two groups are among his top sources of campaign cash:

American Society of Anesthesiologists$45,000
Medical Assoc of Brevard$41,450

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00029662&cycle…

As they say, follow the money.

I'm confused now. I thought he was supposed to be on the anti-vaxxer side, and now you're telling me he's a shill for the Medico-Surgical Complex (MSC).

Which scoundrels would benefit from GENERATIONS of English-speaking boys/ men becoming autistic or having Asperger's Syndrome?

I have a few guesses:

- manufacturers of computers, computer games and software
- pharma and the medico-psychological establishment
- the French
- the worldwide feminist/ lesbian consortium
- manufacturers/ sellers of cheap housing units
- manufacturers / sellers of highly unfashionable clothing

And there you have it: my list includes Mssrs Gates, Zuckerberg, Murdock. Mme Clinton and many many more.
Dare I say 'us'.

Ah, the England hypothesis! Anyone who hasn't seen this video is in for a treat. This is as good as it gets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p3DHtxjLlg

At any rate, can we take wagers on which anti-vax thought leader will be the first to discuss this imbroglio?

I don't know if he qualifies as a "thought leader," but when this first went down I would have put my money on Jake Crosby, since he's not exactly a friend of AoA. He did leave a comment on the Left Brain Right Brain blog, but its rather confusing - he says that the documents were forged, but adds a winky face and a link to an old article of his (Jake's) criticizing Kevin Leitch (?) for a LBRB post accusing AoA of forging some document(s) related to Paul Thorsen. I don't know the backstory but it appears that Jake is just trying to get in a pot-shot at LBRB, not seriously alleging that the docs are forged. Given that Jake appear to be a genuine True Believer, its possible that he's actually reading the documents prior to posting his opinion.

Obviously that reasoning doesn't apply to Wakefield and Hooker, who've had the documents this entire time. Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the whole debacle. It's not like antivaxxers have ever been constrained by reality before - why not just make something up? Under normal circumstances, I'd say it's because they know whatever story they come up with is going to be met with demands that they produce the documents themselves, but this is AoA we're talking about - anyone with two neurons left to rub together abandoned ship a long time ago. The ones that are left would likely believe anything that allows them to maintain their cherished fantasy that they are Warrior Mommies striking back at Big Bad Pharma on behalf of their victimized children. etc. I have two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) theories on the delay:

1) They are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing among the AoA commentariat. Whatever story they come up with is going to challenge even antivaxxer levels of willingness to suspend disbelief, so it would be smart to let the peons come up with their own story and then confirm it ex cathedra. However, such a course would conflict with Wakefield's narcisistic need to control the narrative for his own self-aggrandizement, so the more likely scenario is:

2) Wakefield and/or Hooker are making another video. May God have mercy on our souls.

Sarah A (#76) said, "2) Wakefield and/or Hooker are making another video. May God have mercy on our souls."

Wakefraud has already announced he is deep into his next video propaganda and fund raising effort:
ageofautism(dot)com/2015/12/leadership-longevity-2015-dr-andrew-wakefield.html#more
Quoting Dachel quoting Wakefraud -
""The story we're making now is about William Thompson, and we're very very close to going into post production. This is the greatest medical fraud in the history of the world, and we have some extraordinary characters that you will meet."

Wakefield said the documentary would be out in April 2016, right in time to affect the election."

This, I believe, is from early December 2015 long before Posey released the "whistleblower documents" to Matt and Dorit which reveal the level of lying and dishonesty Wakefraud & Co. have gone to create this hoax.
I predict a late release as there will necessarily be an extended editing of the original to cover up and deflect the damning information revealed in the Posey released documents.

Will the anti-vaccine cultists use Wakefraud's dishonest spin or a variant of it to alleviate their cognitive dissonance?
Probably. They are ignorant followers, not independent thinkers.

He will doubtless continue to do to Thompson what he did to a British (in fact Scottish) doctor who gave him information in confidence.

Firstly, he sabotaged the doctor's information (since it undercut Wakefield's own moneymaking plans)

Then he publicly betrayed the doctor's confidence, abused him, threatened him, and ultimately pretended that he, Wakefield, was somehow responsible for the disclosures,

I put together a little clip about this. Maybe Dr Thompson hasn't seen it yet.

http://briandeer.com/solved/whistleblower-betrayed.htm

Interestingly, anti-vaxxers and alt med folk endlessly rant about complicated plots hatched by pharma-government-media in order to control people and make mountains of money**

BUT if you looked really closely you'd notice that we have much more fertile material if any of us were to write at length about their MO and hidden motives.

** in fact, two of them, Conte and Stagliano, have written mystery novels along these lines

Denice Walter@74

Which scoundrels would benefit from GENERATIONS of English-speaking boys/ men becoming autistic or having Asperger’s Syndrome?

The Spanish Inquisition?

@79

BUT if you looked really closely you’d notice that we have much more fertile material if any of us were to write at length about their MO and hidden motives.

Why is Wakefield who is demonstrably an acutal shill a martyr in their eyes? Why is Hooker's consistent failure to disclose his ongoing NVICP petition acceptable but every legitimate researcher has imagined COI's?

Heck, just looking at blogs nearly all the AV blogs either do affiliate advertising or sell their own crap. That alone provides much more financial incentive than the ad networks like Google's Adsense that most skeptic sites use. Talk about wearing blinders.

Brian Deer@78

I put together a little clip about this. Maybe Dr Thompson hasn’t seen it yet.

Stand up guy, that Wakefield.

Denice: In my case, they ran an overt conspiracy, complete with secret reports between themselves and directions from Wakefield, involving woman called Carol Stott, Clifford Miller, Stone and sundry others, to try to destroy my career.

They were even in negotiations with a publicist called Max Clifford to place a false story in a newspaper. Ulimately, it fell apart when a journalist they got involved found there was no truth in any of their allegations, and Max Clifford was jailed for sexually assaulting women. He's still there.

The nature of their conspiracies is very, very overt. And that's why it's so important to them to believe that "big pharma" etc do likewise.

Sarah,

The article that Jake Crosby wrote about and linked to in that column was written by someone who was a contributor to LBRB. He did a few articles and out that particular article up without clearing it. It was not a good article. We pulled it, stated that it wasn't correct and Kev personally apologized to Dan Olmsted for it.

In the 10 year history of LBRB I believe that is the only time something of that nature happened.

Kev deserves credit for apologizing. That takes courage.

Ever see an apology from AoA or Jake Crosby? Or even an admission of a mistake?

They lack backbone. Courage. Integrity. Guts.

Consider this: JB Handley accused Bonnie Offit (Paul Offit's wife) of running a blog (LBRB) and impersonating an autism parent.

Handley did not have the guts to even email Paul Offit to fulfil his commitment (to hand over a domain name to Paul Offit). That's what people recall. On, that and Handley word that he would not write or talk about Paul Offit again (his word wasn't worth anything)

That's what most people think about.

Did Handley ever apologize to Bonnie Offit? No.

Because he's a gutless loudmouth.

He founded AoA and AoA follows his example to this day.

Brian #81: They were using Clifford? Really? That alone is an indication of their level of integrity.

For non-UK-ians: even before the sexual assault allegations and subsequent conviction which Brian mentions, Max Clifford was pretty much a byword for sleaze and dodgy dealings...

Carol Stott brought Max Clifford to Wakefield's GMC hearing. When I found out that Clifford's agency was preparing a big cover-up campaign for Wakefield, I wrote a story about it, Clifford phoned the Sunday Times deputy editor and denied it, then he went ahead and tried to mount the campaign, but was then arrested and jailed for sexual assaults.

Maybe when he gets out of jail they can set up in business together.

@Matt Carey

Indeed, JB Handley is definitely not a man of his word. After his inability to keep his word in such a simple matter as the Offit nonsense, I wouldn't trust him in anything else. He can't keep up his end of a simple contract.

@ Brian Deer:

Many of us here at RI know about- and have read- the truly horrendous campaigns which AJW's supporters have mounted against you. HOWEVER, finally, as the dust settled and the deadly biofilm retreated back into its native putrefied marsh, it has become quite clear to most literate people who exactly is fabricating defence and who has done an important service for public health.

Wakefield, because of your efforts, has been relegated to the darkest, dustiest corners of cyberspace where only accomplished cranks, frauds and charlatans manage to attract an adoring audience who will willingly waste their money on meaningless- and sometimes dangerous- nonsense.

He used to be mainstream but he ain't now!

Unfortunately, he has a lot of company there - that's why Orac and his minions are on high alert most of the time.

"The nature of their conspiracies is very, very overt."

Seeing that an essential component of any conspiracy is secrecy, I sense a massive fail here. :)

@ Dangerous Bacon:

I've always thought that successful charlatans actually seek out customers who can't see into their rather obvious COIs- e.g. a quack discusses in detail how psychiatric meds are POISON!!! and pharma's history of malfeasance
and then sells supplements or foods to address exactly the same set of symptoms.

Their spiel mimics a test for social cognition or person perception so only he least gifted in these departments need apply- those are the ones they want.

@Reality #77 - Ugh, I should have known. So maybe they're just hoping to lay low until their new video is out - I imagine that film is a better medium for emotionally manipulating people than text.

@Matt Carey - thanks for clearing that up, but there's really no need to explain: the simple fact that an article was written by Jake is enough for me to know not to take it at face value. To the extent I thought about it at all, I thought perhaps there was a time when you blogged anonymously and "Kevin Leitch" was a figment of Jake's over-active imagination.

@Brian Deer #78 Andrew Wakefield has an interesting definition of spontaneity.

Of course, in this case Thompson's main interlocutor was Dr. Hooker. I wonder when and how Wakefield got involved.

Somehow, I read the exchange between Brian Deer and Carol Stott (linky here: http://briandeer.com/mmr/carol-stott.htm) and it left me pondering what kind of messy business she got involved with Max Clifford...

Ben Swann's on the case:

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Swann will release a Truth in Media documentary which details a study of CDC cover-up and suppression of medical findings.

http://truthinmedia.com/truth-in-media-to-release-documentary-cdc-docum…

I wonder if Swann will feature the Nazi themes that are likely to dominate Wakefield's upcoming video that covers the same material.

So it seems the central theme of your analysis is that this omission of data was 'justified' to your standards. The lead author is quoted in an interview with Sharyl Attkisson as saying he does not believe this statistically significant relationship to be biologically plausible. If they don't think it is biologically plausible for vaccines to lead to autism then they would feel 'justified' in omitting data, restructuring the age brackets, or excluding study participants from certain analysis in ANY study.

@The Big Picture:

Yes, that publication decision was justified. It is not biologically plausible that a particular vaccination (out of the entire schedule) would lead to a neurological condition that begins manifesting itself well before the shot in question is administered, and only in males of a particular demographic group, and only when administered later than usual (if I remember correctly).

If you accept that subgroup analysis, why do you reject the other subgroup analyses showing that vaccination is preventive for autism?

Are you aware that exercising appropriate statistical controls doesn't involve excluding data?

Ben Swann’s on the case

I'm inordinately amused by the fact that he's sporting a pocket square.

Swann's report is posted and not surprisingly is more a regurgitation than an investigation. It's all Hooker, all the time, the same tired conspiracy-mongering all dressed up as fact. Swann calls for transparency but fails to identity any of the team of independent scientists and researchers he relied on to analyze the documents. Perhaps because that team consists of the same group of anti-vax and "health choice" activists who paid for and promoted his report. Mr. Fiercely Independent Journalist is silent on the fact that his "report" was simply a PR product bought and paid for by people with a direct stake in the outcome.

Oh, and his analysis is just Hooker warmed over and dressed up, failing to mention or explain Thompson's own statements about reasonable scientists disagreeing about the findings, the lack of proof of causation, the fact that data was in fact never destroyed, or that Hookers published reanalysis was retracted.

Weak sauce.

The CDC whistleblower documents: A whole lot of nothing and no conspiracy to hide an MMR-autism link

oracknows — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 02:00:05 +0000

The CDC whistleblower documents: A whole lot of nothing and no conspiracy to hide an MMR-autism link

One of the stories dominating my blogging in 2015 was a manufactroversy that started in August 2014 when, after several months of rumbling in the antivaccine crankosphere that there was a CDC scientist ready to blow the whistle on an alleged coverup of evidence that vaccines cause autism, Andrew Wakefield, ever the publicity hog, released a video entitled CDC Whistleblower Revealed, in which he claimed that he had evidence of a "high level deception" of the American people about vaccine safety and revealed the "CDC Whistleblower" to be one William W. Thompson, PhD, a psychologist by training who worked for the CDC studying vaccine safety in epidemiological studies and who had had many telephone conversations with a biochemical engineer turned incompetent epidemiologist named Brian Hooker. Unbeknownst to Thompson, Hooker had been recording their conversations, and carefully cherry picked excerpts were included in the video, interspersed with Andrew Wakefield making hyperbolically offensive claims that this "coverup" was as bad as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, with the CDC being worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. (I kid you not.) We now know that Thompson had been assisting Hooker in a "reanalysis" of a pivotal study of vaccine safety by DeStefano et al for which he had been co-author looking at whether the MMR vaccine was associated with autism in children in the Atlanta area. (Spoilers: It wasn't.) The reanalysis claimed to have found an increased risk of autism for a small subset: African American males who had been vaccinated before age 3. Of course, the study, even with Hooker's incompetent reanalysis, had failed to find a correlation in any other subgroup, leading me to refer to it as having proven Andrew Wakefield wrong.

Thus was born the saga of the "CDC whistleblower," a.k.a. William Thompson, which has dominated Twitter through the #CDCwhistleblower hashtag for over a year now. There's been a major new development in this story that I just couldn't wait to tell you about: Matt Carey now has the CDC whistleblower documents, and, as a result, so do I and so can you. Let me explain.

But first, let me note that Hooker's study was unbelievably incompetently done, with failure to control for some obvious key confounders, which is not surprising given Hooker's misplaced love of "simplicity" in statistical analysis; that, and the fact that he did a cohort study using data collected to do a case control study. Epic incompetence indeed, so much so that his study was ultimately retracted by the journal—and rightly so. Unfortunately, it had been the supposed "coverup" of the preliminary "positive" result in a small subset of the study population that didn't hold up when confounders were controlled for that had infuriated Thompson, who had felt dismissed and used. He's been silent since, but the events he set into motion fueled more paranoid conspiracy theories in the antivaccine movement, which led to its teaming up with the Nation of Islam, pulling Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. out from whatever rock he had been hiding under and dusting him off, and holding a protest at the CDC in October. Meanwhile Kevin Barry published a book of transcripts of four of Thompson's conversations with Hooker, which revealed a rather angry, troubled man out to strike out at his former CDC colleagues even though he still works at the CDC in another branch.

Right now, here's where the manufactroversy stands. Thompson provided Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) with a bunch of documents that he claimed to have saved from being disposed of that "prove" that there was a coverup of unwanted results. One of his key claims was that the CDC changed the analysis plan after the study had started because the CDC didn't like the race results that implied a correlation between MMR vaccination and autism in African American boys, which is a definite no-no. He also accused them of destroying original documents. Posey called for an investigation in a little seen speech a couple of days before Congress left for its summer recess, resulting in a resounding yawn and no action. Ultimately, an opportunistic Alex Jones wannabe anchor of the Atlanta CBS affiliate, Ben Swann, acquired the documents from Posey in late November and promised to do a report on them. There has been no story yet, and now, thanks to Matt, I know why. There's nothing in those documents that support allegations of a coverup.

How did Matt acquire the documents? Let him explain:

Congressman Posey released the documents to a journalist recently and, given that they are now in the public domain, Dorit Reiss and I requested that they be made available to us as well. Mr. Posey’s office graciously granted our request and I have spent some time going through them.

Matt has also made the documents available to several other bloggers, including me, and I thank him for that. I, too, have gone over the documents, albeit not every single one of them and not in as much detail as Matt. He has also made them available at a DropBox link for anyone out there who is curious and wants to read them. I warn you, though. It's very tedious reading, particularly various meeting agendas and the like, as well as SAS spreadsheets. In all, there are over 150 MB worth of scanned PDFs. However, there are most definitely not 100,000 documents there, as some antivaccine cranks have claimed. Matt says there are about 1,000 pages, and that seems about right to me, not having counted them all myself.

There are a few key points that arise from this document dump. First, there are multiple drafts of the analysis plan; that is, the protocol for collecting and analyzing the data that Hooker and Wakefield claim was changed after the first analysis of race data. They confirm what we already know, namely that the final analysis plan was dated September 5, 2001 and the first race analysis didn't occur until October or November. But there's more than that. Matt found what appears to be the first draft of the analysis plan, complete with markup and notes in the margins:

Note that this draft analysis plan is from April 3, 2001. Well before the final version, the “protocol”, which was September 5. More importantly, this is a long time before a race analysis was started. But even more, notice how there’s an annotation “I would include race as a covariate, not as an exposure variable.” That’s critical–they decided against using race as an exposure variable from the start. Before they did a race analysis. Another point: they were already planning on using birth certificate data right from the start.

A word of explanation here. In his original video, Wakefield zeroed in on a single sentence that says “The only variable available to be assessed as a potential confounder using the entire sample is child’s race.” Based on that, and allegedly confirmed by Thompson during conversations with Hooker, Wakefield and Hooker claimed that “decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data was collected,” further claiming, “Thompson’s conversations with Hooker confirmed that it was only after the CDC study coauthors observed results indicating a statistical association between MMR timing and autism among African-Americans boys, that they introduced the Georgia birth certificate criterion as a requirement for participation in the study. This had the effect of reducing the sample size by 41% and eliminating the statistical significance of the finding, which Hooker calls a direct deviation from the agreed upon final study protocol – a serious violation.’” Of course, the reason they did the birth certificate analysis is because it allowed them to "obtain additional information, such as each child’s birth weight and gestational age and the mother’s parity, age, race, and education." More importantly, as Matt discovered, the very first draft of the analysis plan indicated that the investigators were already planning on using birth certificate data. There was no change in protocol to "cover up" results the investigators found "inconvenient," namely the initial finding of a seeming correlation between a specific age range of MMR vaccination and autism in African American boys.

There's no way Thompson didn't know this, at least at the time he was working on this study with his collaborators. Perhaps he forgot. (I'm being charitable.) Of course, I'm not so charitable about Wakefield and Hooker, who also had all these documents. Surely they were poring over them with a fine-toothed comb for any dirt they could find, and in doing so they had to have read the early versions of the analysis plan. I also noticed, as did Matt, that Thompson annotated a number of the documents, in particular a file containing all the agendas for meetings on the study. It's impossible to know when he did this, whether it was contemporaneously or long after the fact, but it looks as though it was probably after, given how prominently some dates are circled. As Matt notes, it also looks as though Thompson was trying to make the data fit his story, rather than the other way around. His purple marker is all over the place the annotations in purple appear everywhere.

There are other things in these documents as well. For instance, there is this statement by William Thompson with a timeline of his version of events dated September 9, 2014. The funny thing is, even his own timeline doesn't really support the allegation being made by Hooker and Wakefield that the protocol was altered post hoc in order to "hide" the effect. Rather, he claims:

The final analysis plan described analyses for the TOTAL sample and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE sample which included assessment of the RACE variable. (See pages 7 and 8 of the Final Analysis Plan). There were two primary endpoints for the study. One was using a threshold of 36 months (see Table 3a of Final Analysis Plan), and the second was a threshold of 18 months. (See Table 3b of Final Analysis Plan). We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either the 18-month or 36-month threshold, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with the MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We never claimed or intended that if we found statistically significant effects in the TOTAL SAMPLE, we would ignore the results if they could not be confirmed in the BIRTH CERTIFICATE SAMPLE.

I note that the protocol didn't mandate reporting effects whose statistical significance went away when tested in the birth certificate cohort, either. Whether or not to report spurious results that disappeared when a more confounders were accounted for would have been a matter of judgment more than anything else. We can argue whether it was good judgment to leave the preliminary result out as insignificant (more on that later), but it wasn't a violation of the protocol as far as I can tell. Also, as yet I haven't seen anything objective or contemporaneous that even hints at hiding data, destroying data, or otherwise manipulating data. Instead, there are plenty of comments about including things to avoid any appearance of willful omission. If this is a coverup, it's the worst coverup ever. None of that stopped William Thompson.

We also learn from these documents that Thompson was causing trouble resulting in his being in trouble. Matt was too circumspect to mention that, but I think it's important to mention in order (1) to show that Thompson has an axe to grind now and (2) because you know that when it comes out the cry from the antivaccine crankosphere will be that Thompson was being "persecuted." Thompson's description in his own words is in the timeline:

On March 9th, I was put on administrative leave. In the Annex to the memorandum, they provided a list of my “inappropriate and unacceptable behavior in the work place” which included “you criticized the NIP/OD for doing very poor job of representing vaccine safety issues, claimed that NIP/OD had failed to be proactive in their handling of vaccine safety issues, and you requested that Dr. Gerberding reply to your letter from a congressional representative before you made your presentation to the IOM.” (See scanned Memorandum dated January 9, 2004.). I stand by that statement and I do not think it was unacceptable to convey that to Dr. Gerberding.

Elsewhere, there is a handwritten note from 2/4/2004:

And another annotation (click to embiggen) from 2/12/2004:

Why would Bob Chen have wanted to fire Thompson? It's not entirely clear from the documents, but Thompson was clearly making trouble—and not just about the Atlanta MMR-autism study. It's also not clear why it was Frank DeStefano who ended up warning Thompson his job was in danger. What were the reasons Thompson's job was in jeopardy? This letter telling Thompson he was being put on administrative leave lists several instances of inappropriate and unacceptable behavior and makes it sound as though this action was being taken out of concern that Thompson was under extreme stress, which was certainly possible, given what we know from Hooker and Wakefield's complaint to the CDC and Thompson's own words in the transcripts of his phone conversations with Hooker. The letter notes the issue described above by Thompson as well as:

Refusing to assist Dr. Gina Mootrey when she asked Thompson to clarify some points in a slide presentation regarding influenza so that Dr. Walter Orenstein could modify some of the slides for a different presentation.
Approaching Dr. Orenstein in the parking lot and demonstrating "inappropriate anger towards Dr. Orenstein, his request, and your perception that Dr. Orenstein was responsible for permitting a hostile environment within your organizational unit.
Sending emails to Dr. Orenstein requesting an apology
Writing emails to senior staff complaining about Dr. Orenstein, accusing him of harassment.

The final paragraph:

The general tone and content of your e-mails were inappropriate and gave the appearance that senior management had not fulfilled their public health obligations as they pertain to vaccine safety. Your actions had the effect of eroding the employment relationship between supervisor and subordinate, and appear to make a mockery of management's authority to direct the activities of this office. Furthermore, your interaction with Dr. Orenstein created concern about your level of anger being out of proportion to the facts.

One notes that none of these incidents, with the possible exception of Thompson's e-mails complaining about the leadership's handling of vaccine safety issues, appears to have had anything to do with the DeStefano et al study. Interestingly, the memo specifically said that it would not be placed in Thompson's Official Personnel Folder, which means Thompson himself must have included it in the document dump to Rep. Posey's office. This implies that Thompson likely wanted it to be seen by Posey, perhaps as "evidence" of "persecution" or retaliation for his complaints about the study that became DeStefano et al. Moreover, given that we know from elsewhere in the documents and from transcripts of his discussions with Brian Hooker that Thompson really, really wanted a congressional hearing on what he viewed as a coverup, he must have been OK with these documents becoming public. After all, that's what would have happened if he had gotten what he wanted. In any event, it's clear that Thompson appears to have had (and probably still has) what are referred to as anger issues. This is consistent with previous evidence that we have suggesting that Thompson doesn't play well with others.

So what emerges from all these documents? One thing that doesn't emerge is any evidence of a coverup. There's no contemporaneous documentation to suggest an effort to "hide" findings viewed as "inconvenient," although Thompson's retroactive markups of the meeting agendas sure tries to make it seem as though there were. In the end, after this document dump, we're left with no evidence of scientific malfeasance or attempts to whitewash data. Even in the part where Thompson states that the co-investigators got together to throw unneeded documents in the wastebasket, one has to wonder: What was thrown away? If this document dump is any indication, they probably got rid of old meeting agendas and old drafts of the protocol. No wonder Matt quipped, "I hope people at CDC are not keeping all this paper." Even Thompson notes that all the original computer files still reside on CDC servers.

All of this brings us back to a point that Matt makes regarding whether it was a good idea to leave out the spurious statistically significant result:

Ah, one will say, what about the finding of an association between the MMR and autism for African American boys vaccinated late (between 18 months and 36 months)? Why wasn’t that included in the published paper or public presentations? The reasons given by Thompson/Hooker/Wakefield don’t hold water as I’ve shown. So, what was the scientific reason for not including this result in the paper? Many online writers have discussed how weak this result is; how it is a spurious result. But I’d like to know the reasoning at the time behind the CDC decision to leave this out. As a community member–an autism parent–I’d like to see all the results and understand the reasons why certain results are spurious. Of course it is easy to say now, but leaving this out of the public’s eye was a mistake. It gave Thompson, Hooker and Wakefield the chance to cherry pick, hide information and craft a story that has been very damaging to the autism communities and to public health.

Matt has a point. On the other hand, as a scientist myself, I realize that decisions are made all the time over what data to include and exclude from a manuscript. We frequently leave out raw data that seemed statistically significant at first but didn't hold up to correcting for confounders. But, then, I don't do research in an area where antiscience loons are waiting to pounce on any inconsistency in order to sow fear and doubt, something we know antivaccinationists were doing even in 2004 when the manuscript that became DeStefano et al was being written and submitted for publication. Still, it must be noted that word limits and limits on the number of figures and tables were generally tighter in 2004; it's not like today, when journals seemingly encourage authors to dump every last bit of data that isn't in the paper itself into supplementary online files, a practice that I've found to be a mixed blessing. It was necessary back then to be a lot more selective about what went into a paper because you couldn't just dump everything else into supplemental figures.

Even so, although it's easy to ask why the CDC didn't see the potential for mischief at the time, it's important to note that we're viewing history through the retrospectoscope, which, as everyone knows, is 100% accurate. At the time, how could anyone ever have predicted that Thompson's disillusionment and anger at his colleagues would lead him to pal around with Brian Hooker and funnel enough information to Hooker and Wakefield to make so much mischief? Maybe if the leadership had seen the handwritten note included in this document dump) that Thompson made to himself to get Andrew Wakefield's contact information, there might of some indication. (Yes, it's true, Thompson appears to have been in contact with Wakefield—or at least tried to contact him—12 years ago; see pp 66-68 in document A000561. Outside of that it's hard to think of something that would have allowed the CDC leadership to have predicted this. That's not to say that the CDC leadership is without blame; based on the contents of these documents, it's hard not to conclude that it could have done a better job of dealing with a troubled employee.

One thing's for sure. As unrevealing as Thompson's document dump is, you can be sure that the antivaccine movement will, reality be damned, continue to spin it as proof of a coverup. Same as it ever was.

oracknows Mon, 01/04/2016 - 21:00

Tags

autism

Pseudoscience

Quackery

Categories