Congratulations to Sam Wessels 10 year old CNN iReport Award Winner for Autism
Chicago Bound For Autism One

Weekly Wrap: Gag Me

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted

There's a moment in the 1950 movie Born Yesterday where the malaprop-prone Judy Holliday says, "This country and its institutions belong to the people who inhibit it." I'm starting to think Judy got that exactly right.

It's hard to conclude otherwise after this week's Columbia Journalism Review piece that singled out me and AOA (flattered, to tell you the truth), and said we were mangy dogs, all right, but that even balanced coverage of the vaccine-autism debate is, effectively, killing babies. It reminds me of the time after 9/11. If you criticized the invasion of Iraq, the terrorists win. If you didn't go shopping, the terrorists win.

Why not just root for the terrorists since about anything you did or didn't do would help them win?  It's more straightforward that way.

Nowadays, if you echo, let's say, Darrell Issa or Elijah Cummings or the late great Bernadine Healy, not to mention Andy Wakefield, and ask questions about vaccines and autism or even, apparently, quote those people disapprovingly, the babykillers win. Perhaps the most exotic babykiller allegation I came across was the idea that Susan Dominus's whack job on Andy Wakefield in The New York Times shouldn't have been published either -- even viciously anti-anti-vaccine attack pieces kill babies by continuing to bring up the subject.

Seriously, they do! Paul Raeburn said so on the Knight Journalism at MIT blog in 2011:

"So why would the Times do this story now?

"Here's why not to do it: I believe that this story will prompt more parents to refuse to vaccinate their children. Some of those children will suffer or die from illnesses that the vaccines would have prevented.

"Stories have consequences, and it's often difficult to predict what those might be. I could be wrong about this. But I would have stayed far, far away from this story."

So, even if you write a story attacking Andy Wakefield, children will suffer or die. Actually, I kind of like the ultimate extension of this logic. Since doing anything at all on this topic will cause children to suffer and die, I'm just going to keep on defending Andy Wakefield as a good man who did good science. I'm going to keep saying that vaccines triggered the autism epidemic.

What difference does it make?

Speaking of which, next Saturday at Autism One, we're unveiling a new nine-minute video, How Mercury Triggered the Age of Autism, that we very much hope will go as viral as a cat in a teacup or Kony 2012. Please, see it, share it, and let's stop the autism epidemic that thimerosal, the MMR, too many vaccines too soon and God knows what other insanities inside the CDC immunization schedule are causing.

There, I said it. Because if we don't, babies will suffer or die.

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cherry Sperlin Misra

I am like totally confused here. Help me out. I guess the Columbia Journal Review is gonna blame themselves next time a child dies from a vaccine reaction, because they aren't letting us talk about it and try to prevent it ? Cool, I like that idea.


I know that autism parents don't generally mix causes related to vaccine safety and medical treatments for vaccine injuried, autistic spectrum, etc. with politics; but I can't resist reminding everyone that it was the New York Times that pushed us into the Iraq War with their hysterical claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And they didn't apologize for two years, until we were already committed to the War.

They also were the ones that published that bogus study that organic produce was no different than the pesticide laced variety--so go enjoy a bowel of pesticide coated blue berries and eat up on those heavily doused apples. At the time of that article I thought there might be something to it for the "general population" because it was the New York Times. Still, I knew that not all kids or adults can handle pesticides and I thought it was irresponsible that they didn't make that clear in the article. It turned out that the study was flawed. I'm not sure the New York Times ever apologized for that boo boo. Probably lots of people are laughing at those silly people who eat organic because the New York Times says there is no difference between organic and non-organice. I hope the editors of the Times are among them, but probably not.

So am I not surprised that the New York Times is promoting vaccines and trashing those who advise parents to exercise caution. Again, just because "some" people can handle vaccines does not mean ALL people can, especially if there are autoimmune diseases in the family or the child has a fragile immune system. But I'm sure that wasn't mentioned in the article. It gives me one more reason to doubt anything written in the New York Times.

Birgit Calhoun

That means these types of articles are really, really counterproductive. It would have been much better if the Columbia Journalism Review, The New York Times and all the other anti-Wakefield (MMR), anti-Thimerosal etc. articles had instead promoted scientific honesty and helped us parents with our quest to make vaccines as safe as possible. The way I see it now, any further article of that type is going to move parents into the anti-vaccination camp.

As to the subject of Whooping Cough, there was an article in MedPage Today "Newer Whooping Cough Vaccines Fall Flat" by Michael Smith

that indicates that the a-cellular vaccine (DTaP) is not nearly as effective as the previous versions (DTwP).


This writer seems to have her panties in quite a twist. (Oddly, the piece is decorated with a big, very attractive photo of Jenny McCarthy.) Just why is it that can't we send our kids to school with peanut butter sandwiches all of a sudden? The inventor of the cervical cancer vaccine wants to ban unvaccinated children from daycare? No kidding!:

"The call for unvaccinated children to be excluded from childcare centres and public schools is gaining momentum and has the conditional support of Dr Steve Hambleton, federal president of the Australian Medical Association who is concerned about vaccination rates in pockets of inner-city Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

'We should certainly make it difficult for (unvaccinated) children to get to school,' he said.

It seems absurd that we can't send children to school or childcare with a peanut butter sandwich, but we can send an unvaccinated child who is a real and present danger to others. Our pets are afforded greater protection; you can't leave a cat or dog at a kennel without providing up-to-date vaccination records, but irresponsible parents who fail to immunise their children have no issues gaining a place in childcare centres or public schools.

The inventor of the cervical cancer vaccine, Professor Ian Frazer, has called for childcare centres to have the right to ban unvaccinated children."


I was hoping to win that big powerball lottery last Saturday, so I could fund the research of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Sorry, but I didn't win it. So now we must wait for some other source of funding to get the truth. I find it very interesting that Purdue University's veterinary research department has already done such a study of health outcomes on dogs that have been vaccinated vs unvaccinated. The vaccinated dogs health was much worse than the unvaccinated. So, they have already got the answer in the dog world. Here's the study link:

Jeff C

Regardless of the issue, ideology, or politics, when one side claims certain topics are off limits for discussion or whines about "false balance" in reporting, it's a sure bet two things are happening:

1) They have no interest in an honest discussion of the facts but seek to impose their will on others

2) They think they are losing the argument

Most people intuitively understand this and become suspicious when when told they are not allowed to think for themselves. These tactics show desperation as those confident in their position don't need to scream that everyone else must be silenced.


Thank you for being so vocal. I do believe that many parents don't want to accept the vaccine injury truth because the truth would be that we have to do more than just send our children for behaviour therapy. The flip side for others is they have to aid in seeking change. This job I always wanted to leave to the "activists" but now I know it must come from the many. Is there any losing now anyways!?!

Eileen Nicole Simon

Bob Moffitt, thank you for reminding us more than once recently to follow the advice, “See something? Say something.” I have been trying to say something for over 40 years for which the response has remained a stony silence.

The vaccine schedule should have been changed as soon as any doubts were expressed. Hep B at birth in particular should have been stopped, just as the synthetic vitamin K injection had to be stopped.

What is the “predisposition” to vaccine injury? I will continue to try to point out that clamping the umbilical cord immediately after birth (even before the first breath) risks causing a lapse in oxygen delivery, and the resulting selective damage of brainstem auditory centers has been known for more than 50 years now.

This is bad enough, but adding any unnatural substance into the circulation following injury by asphyxia is a recipe for disaster. See for references and more discussion.


Search the internet for images of Curtis Brainard and you'll find a rashy-necked Bill Gates clone barely out of his teens, whose self-absorbed mien matches the self-importance oozing from his shallow, cronyistic prose.

Just wait until Junior changes his first diaper. Everything changes then -- and far more so when your bright-eyed, verbal child loses eye contact, stops speaking, and his/her gastrointestinal system goes haywire shortly after vaccination.

Jeannette Bishop

@ John Stone: "unfortunately I was, on the mistaken ground that I didn't believe even a government I didn't like would be quite that blatantly deceitful over the basic information"

Who wants to learn that they live in times where suspicions that seem too cynical and rather threatening in implication are the right guiding impulses?

That's essentially why I accepted HepB for my first child at three days of age and continued on from there for far too long. As with going into Iraq (again), it didn't feel like a certain moral course of action, but I thought at least that they would in no way continue a vaccine if there were any problems.

I assumed someone was looking, obviously, and at the very least above harming tiny newborn infants. I guess I see now a system where most have too much incentive to not look, too much leaving off of responsibility to someone else, sometimes leaving it in the hands of those who aren't "assigned" the needed authority for decisions made, and likely there are some not above what I thought, who weigh in on who is "assigned" authority, and of course feel no responsibility.

It's as painful as seeing how our nation is being used in perpetuating worldwide war.


This bent for suppression will ultimately fail. One cannot eliminate with a 'delete' key the significant risks of the current vaccines and vaccine schedule. Collaborating with public health officials' denials does nothing to change the the broken vaccine approval, recommendation and safety protocols. Ignoring those harms and risks (from vaccine contamination and injury to antigenic drift/vaccine efficacy issues to inadvertently pushing viral illnesses to later, more dangerous ages) may cause as much damage as would exposing those harms and risks so they might be thoughtfully resolved. The media, in arguing for suppression of facts, presupposes that human scientific ingenuity cannot possibly rise to the challenge of producing safer vaccines or devising a schedule that would lead to better health outcomes. They must be made to realize that reporting the truth will in the long run avert more harm than burying their heads in the sand. The Fourth Estate has place of pride atop the Bill of Rights because they are meant to protect us from these types of abuses of power; they're not supposed to be the lookouts protecting the criminal class from scrutiny.

John Stone


I suppose it doesn't really matter how silly, illogical, self-contradictory it gets providing it helps to perpetuate the aura of spurious shame.


It is an interesting area: of course once you have a state of war you inevitably have control of information - this is why these people have to have a constant state of war and why there was a constant state of war in Orwell's '1984'. Of course, at least in the UK we had an intellectually much more open debate prior to the Iraq War than we are seeing in this territory now, and although it was undoubtedly stolen by lies about half the population weren't taken in (unfortunately I was, on the mistaken ground that I didn't believe even a government I didn't like would be quite that blatantly deceitful over the basic information).

Maurine Meleck

I actually saw a dog in a teacup the other day on facebook. I would have forwarded it to Dan if I were more savvy on the computer and knew how. Sorry. I hope this dog in a teacup post doesn't kill more babies but it probably will.

Jeannette Bishop

Regarding reporting on Iraq, I'm seeing too many parallels with "disease prevention" and war-making (can't feel too surprised or brilliant--they do constantly talk about the "war on disease"). False-flagging seems to be more the norm than the exception in war once all things come out in history, so I've been lately wondering what would CDC et al do without non-compliant members of society to blame outbreaks and problems on. Create them themselves I guess? Like seemingly happened with that poor guy that was left to believe he could take an airplane trip, then suddenly became a MAJOR transmission risk...

It hit me in the middle of the night how far Brainard's conclusion twists things, as he expresses concern that balanced coverage of a "bogus" vaccine problem will lead to others in the media avoid covering "real" vaccine safety issues, effectively saying your coverage of safety problems, not the character assassination and much more he and others engage in, will be blamed for future media negligence? Or something like that. I'm having a really hard time here putting this suggestion into a concise wording... "Look, the next time vaccine makers get away with hurting someone, it's will be your fault because you tried to prevent it this time...?" Is that what he's actually saying? Or, "As the public figures out we're not really covering vaccine problems, we're blaming you, vaccine-autism reporters...?" (That one might actually make some sense, but I don't think public will view it in the way he implies.)


I always enjoy your weekly wrap-up.


Denying vaccine injury bestows multiple rewards:
(1) falsely simplifies the issue by polarizing it as yes/no, wrong/right;
(2) reduces workload -- one needn't investigate, write, treat, prevent;
(3) self-anoints one as intellectually superior and possessed of the moral high ground;
(4) reinforces "science" as the new religion -- facts can be, and are, changed far more easily than belief;
etc. ad nauseam.

"Weaseling out" sums it up colloquially.


If Paul Raeburn felt Susan Dominus was wrong to bring up the subject, then wasn't Paul Raeburn just as wrong for bringing up the subject? I guess he's not the sharpest tack in the box.


And the truth is that the lowest infant mortality is in western EU countries, where a minority of parents vaccinates, and if they do, they choose only w few vaccines. This truth is prohibited in the US and UK. It must be smashed at all costs by pharma-medical establishment, responsible for biological destruction of Americans and other nations.


CJR the real meaning of hypocrite ..follow the money that will lead the CJR to the baby killers..



Dear Mr. Olmsted-

Hate to burst your bubble, but you are not the only "media type" to get ink this week vis a vis "the vaccines cause brain damage" story. There is a difference- you are apparently a journalist, who in the past has posted contra viewpoints to your own. The other media type is "Dr."Nancy "Just Get your Damn Flu Shot" Synderman.

"As concern surged this January over a worse than usual influenza season, members of the media seemed unsure whether the CDC’s announcement that “vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62%”7 represented good versus disappointing news.8

NBC anchor Brian Williams: “I worry about this number. I woke up to reports of this number. It can disincentivize people to go get that flu shot which all of you are saying is still so important.”

Chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman: “And I had the same concern when you see 62%, because I’m afraid people will say ‘well, it’s half and half.’ But remember, if you have a 62% less chance of getting of getting the flu, it means less chance of being on antibiotics, less chance of ending up in an intensive care unit, and as we’ve seen from this uptick in numbers, 62% less chance of dying.”9

This article calls out the CDC as liars. It exposes Synderman as uninformed at best, a paid propagandist more likely. It discusses the 1/110 febrile seizure rate in kids who got flu shot. It exposes the lack of evidence and the systemic corruption underlying all CDC supported vaccine policy, not just the flu shot.

CJR is on the wrong side of history. With the knowledge that MMR was reported to cause meningitis and ASD as early as 1988, Dr. Wakefield is proven to have been too early for his own good in reporting his team's findings. Additional support for Wakefield comes from Journal Pediatrics November 2012 Supplement ASD and Gut Disease, and Wake Forest University last month publishing that ASD is associated with a unique form of IBD.

CJR got the story exactly backwards. Snyderman, Brian "Those Children Don't Have Bowel Disease" Deer, Seth Mnookin- these are the flacks for a collusion between government policy and corporate interests. They enable the injury of children by not using their media megaphones to decry the contract of medical fascism that we are finally starting to see more clearly.

Note to CJR: the story won't get out of the news because every family in the United States knows someone who has been brain damaged by the vaccine schedule. The truth is finally starting to out, the BMJ article posted in this comment clearly describes the CDC as nothing more than incompetent, bought off corporate hacks who are demonstrably lying to the American public about the safety and efficacy of vaccines,


Great article! At last some one turns that` babies will suffer and die thing around the other way!

Bob Moffitt

"It reminds me of the time after 9/11. If you criticized the invasion of Iraq, the terrorist win. If you didn't go shopping, the terrorists win."

Nowadays .. following the terrorist bombing at the Boston marathon .. we are told it is our duty if "we see something, we say something".

Apparently, the Columbia Journal Review would prefer to attack AoA for following that very same .. sound advice .. regarding vaccines and the policies by which those vaccines are recommended, approved and administered.

Instead, the CJR demands AoA .. KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT .. and let the carnage continue unabated .. because .. THEY SAY SO.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)