Dachel Wake Up: Sharyl Attkisson on VaXxed
Dispatches From The Front: Hope Ranch Grand Opening - After the School Bus

Did the CDC Censor Vaxxed? Or Did the CDC’s Proxies Do It for them? Columbia University’s Dilemma

Vaxxed Error
By Wayne Rohde and Lou Conte

Did the CDC Censor Vaxxed? Or Did the CDC’s Proxies Do It for them? Columbia University’s Dilemma

Report 5

Please read Reports 1, 2, 3 and 4 here.

Many readers may not know Columbia University’s President, Lee C. Bollinger. However, if one explores the issues around censorship as Wayne Rohde and I have over the past several weeks, Bollinger’s name quickly emerges.

Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar, is a brilliant man and a champion of free speech. Please take a look at his biography on the Columbia University website  As the biography notes, “his most recent book, Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century (Inalienable Rights), has placed Bollinger at the center of public discussion about the importance of global free speech to continued social progress.”

Bollinger has been willing to allow free speech, even when controversy ensues. In 2007 he allowed then Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia. The decision rankled many. Ahmadinejad did say some controversial and some would say offensive things (there are clips of the speech on YouTube if anyone wishes to see it).

In 2012, Bollinger “established the Columbia Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project, a new initiative joining international experts and activists with the University’s faculty and students to survey, document and strengthen free expression. He has named Agnès Callamard, a distinguished human rights advocate who was director of the organization ARTICLE 19, as executive director of the Project.”

The project has brought together many influential leaders on freedom of speech and freedom of the press like Callamard and Amal Clooney.

According to Bollinger, “Looking around the world today and seeing the pervasiveness of censorship in so many forms and societies, none of us should be under any illusions about the challenges we face in establishing international norms for a truly free press… Doing so requires that we both understand the facts on the ground and succeed in creating a global framework for protecting speech and expression. These are steps that have become inseparable from progress on human rights and continued worldwide economic growth.” [i]

Bollinger’s vision of freedom and opposition to censorship stands in stark contrast to the conduct of one of his professors, Dr. Ian Lipkin, professor of epidemiology and Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.

From the Columbia University Public Health Now webpage:

On April 4, 2016, the Wall Street Journal ran an important op-ed from Ian Lipkin, Director of the Mailman School’s Center for Infection and Immunity. Lipkin and Mailman School Board of Overseers member Perri Peltz  (MPH ’84) worked diligently behind the scenes to persuade organizers of the Tribeca Film Festival that the fraudulent science of Andrew Wakefield’s documentary “Vaxxed” had no place at the prestigious festival. When Lipkin learned that a private distributor had arranged a week of screenings at New York's Angelica Film Center, he went to work immediately on a piece that reminds us of the importance of scientific evidence in our ongoing work to understand and treat autism. [ii]

Lipkin writes in his April 3 Wall Street Journal Op Ed: “I am among those Mr. De Niro consulted. In a 45-minute phone conversation with him, I recommended that the festival withdraw the film from the “documentary” category and not screen it.”

Wayne Rohde and I have been writing a series on the censorship of Andrew Wakefield’s film, Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe. The film has been pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival, the Houston (Texas) Worldfest Film Festival and from screenings in Arizona at Harkins theatres after that company received pressure from pediatricians.

In our previous articles, we reported that Alison Singer, the President of the Autism Science Foundation, proudly declared in a March Guardian article that she and other members of the Immunization Action Coalition’s (IAC) Listserv were instrumental in having Vaxxed removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.

Singer told the Guardian, “Four or five years ago we weren’t as well organized and people didn’t realize the importance of responding quickly and strongly,” said Alison Singer, the president of the Autism Science Foundation and a member of the IAC listserv…Today, we know that we have to respond to every incident however large or small, because if you leave any of these discredited theories unchallenged, it allows people to think that there’s something still to be discussed.”

According to Singer, the IAC Listserv is a public relations response squad that snuffs out and counters public statements of those the Listserv decides are “anti-vaccine.”

However, in our last report, the IAC denied that they were responsible for the calls that lead to the Tribeca decision, essentially leaving Alison Singer ‘holding the bag.’

Alison Singer has not responded to our requests for information about the incident.

Thanks to the Columbia University website, another member of Alison Singer’s Listserv have now been revealed: Dr. Ian Lipkin. 

We have information about other Listserv members from sources and we are constructing a list. For now, we are talking about Singer and Lipkin.

As the Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, Lipkin helped bring millions of dollars of CDC and federal health funding he brings to Columbia. [iii]  Lipkin also the Co-Chair of the CDC’s National Bio-surveillance Advisory Subcommittee.  [iv]  

It is also important to note that Lipkin’s name surfaces in the legally recorded conversations between Dr. Brian Hooker and Dr. William Thompson that serve as a critical component of Vaxxed. Lipkin likely knew about this as the Thompson/Hooker transcripts are public thanks to Kevin Barry’s book, Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism research Fraud at the CDC. [v]  

Lipkin points out in his editorial that he was involved in research that exonerated the MMR vaccine. While Lipkin feels that his work was the final word, Thompson, who had some oversight responsibility at the CDC for Lipkin’s work told Brian Hooker something very different.

Dr. Thompson: “It was the worst study ever.”

What follows is an excerpt of the Thompson transcripts regarding Ian Lipkin and his MMR research from pages 103 and 104 of Vaccine Whistleblower:

Dr. Thompson: Where they went and did the biopsies. This Larry Pickering, Ian Lipkin . . .

Dr. Hooker: Oh yeah. I know all about this.

Dr. Thompson: Okay. Did you and I talk about this study?

Dr. Hooker: Ah, no. You and I have never . . . I’ve talked to Ian Lipkin about it. In fact, he and I . . .

Dr. Thompson: Okay.

Dr. Hooker: . . . are not speaking right now, because basically he doesn’t like me very much. Okay?

Dr. Thompson: Right. I mean, Ian Lipkin . . .

Dr. Hooker: [UI].

Dr. Thompson: Right. Ian Lipkin is one of those . . . Well, I’ll give you an example. When I was trying to hold them accountable . . . It was funded by the CDC.

Dr. Hooker: Right.

Dr. Thompson: I don’t know if you know that.

Dr. Hooker: Right. Right.

Dr. Thompson: I don’t know if you know that.

  1. 104

Dr. Hooker: They ran PCR in the cases. They ran PCR in the con­trols. They found measles virus in several of the cases, and they found measles virus in the controls and then they concluded there was no effect. But the actual conclusion of the study should be, “It’s a really crappy study. We can’t tell anything.”

Dr. Thompson: It was the worst study ever.

Dr. Hooker: Thank you.

Dr. Thompson: It was the worst study ever.

Dr. Hooker: Thank you. When you talk to Ian Lipkin, he’s like, “This is definitive. This shows there’s no correlation.”

Dr. Thompson: It was the worst study ever.

Thompson’s statement about Lipkin’s MMR research casts Lipkin’s Wall Street Journal Op Ed in a completely different light.

Was Lipkin concerned that Vaxxed would again put Thompson’s comments about him in public? Or was he acting on behalf of the CDC?

We don’t know.

But Dr. Ian Lipkin, who has received CDC funding on behalf of Columbia University had no hesitancy in declaring that he told Robert DeNiro that Vaxxed should be pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival.

Was Lipkin acting as a sincere supporter of current public health policy or was acting on behalf of his own interests? Was his conduct consistent with the Columbia’s policies on ethics, respect for the views of others and academic freedom?

It must also be pointed out that Lipkin’s description of Vaxxed in the Wall Street Journal was grossly inaccurate. Vaxxed is not an anti-vaccine film. It is an anti-corruption film based on the legally recorded statements of Dr. William Thompson who revealed that he and other CDC scientists in the Vaccine Safety Division researching the MMR vaccine and its potential connection to autism manipulated data, altered research study protocols and even tossed government data in the garbage.

Vaxxed puts forth the idea that the CDC – which has poured millions of dollars into Ian Lipkin’s Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health - is so corrupt that the science CDC produced on autism and vaccines can no longer be trusted.

Ian Lipkin has been a partner with the CDC and other federal public health agencies on some of that science. And William Thompson’s description of that science is not flattering.

William Thompson’s August 2014 public statement on his attorney’s website is clear evidence that Vaxxed is centered on real events:

“I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed…” [vi]

Perri Peltz is a broadcaster, television journalist and film maker. Peltz graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Public Health. She also directed a 2014 documentary about Robert DeNiro’s father, Remembering the Artist: Robert DeNiro, Sr. She is obviously was a person DeNiro respected based on the documentary she directed about his father.

Peltz is a member of Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health Board of Overseers. [vii] The Overseers are described as “a leadership body that provides knowledge and experience from the business, government, media, and non-profit sectors to help expand the School’s reach. Overseers provide counsel and support to the Dean, serve as ambassadors among friends, associates, and colleagues, and assist in the acquisition of essential resources for advancing teaching, research, and service.”

It now appears that two individuals associated with Columbia University (one an employee) sought the censorship of a film that revealed corruption at the CDC, one of the federal public health agencies that have provided millions of dollars to Columbia University.

Their actions stand in stark contrast to Columbia University’s commendable mission against censorship – President Lee Bollinger’s Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project.

As a First Amendment scholar, Bollinger noted that censorship is pervasive and it takes many forms. Did his university act as a vassal of the CDC in seeking the censorship of a film that revealed corruption at the CDC?

Is Bollinger willing to turn his head from censorship if it is promoted by employees like Lipkin who have delivered significant federal public health dollars to the University?

And let us be clear here: Speech that questions the safety of vaccines is not illicit or verboten. Questioning vaccines and discussing vaccine injuries is not the same as yelling “fire” in a movie theatre. Vaccines are part of the nation’s public health strategy. Public health ought to mean public discourse.

People ought to be able to discuss vaccine injury and vaccine safety in public without fear of censorship and back-room manipulations by members of the Listserv.

There is even a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) – a federal no-fault compensation program for vaccine injury victims. The NVICP plays a central role in the alleged CDC fraud portrayed in Vaxxed. The film asks whether the MMR/autism study was manipulated to keep the real findings out of the hands of petitioners who filed claims in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who also administers the CDC) in the NVICP. In other words, CDC employees may be guilty of obstruction of justice in a federal judicial proceeding.

People can question the vaccine program because the First Amendment allows people to do so. It is protected speech.

Bollinger speaks about creating a global framework for protecting free speech and expression. To do so, Bollinger states that we must be willing to “understand the facts on the ground.”

The facts on the ground are that Andrew Wakefield directed a film that alleges corruption at the CDC on vaccine safety research. If one is opposed to allowing Vaxxed to be viewed then one is for allowing government officials to have free reign to destroy data, alter studies and potentially cause serious injury to thousands of children without consequence.

We do not really know if Columbia University actually supported the actions of Ian Lipkin and Perri Peltz. But we do know that Columbia has allowed the Lipkin’s Wall Street Op Ed article to be featured on the University’s website, signaling tacit support.

If Lee Bollinger intends to create “a global framework for protecting speech and expression”, then he ought to consider using the principles of Columbia’s Global Freedom of Expression and Information Project at Columbia itself.

Columbia University should not remove Ian Lipkin’s Op Ed from its’ website. The response to a call for censorship should not be more censorship. However, Lee Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar, ought to sponsor an event on campus where people with differing views on vaccines can debate those views without fear of being silenced by the mysterious members of the Listserv.

Vaccine Injuries Lou Conte The Vaccine Court book The Autism War_revised coverLouis Conte, author of The Autism War and co-author of Vaccine Injuries

Wayne Rohde, author of The Vaccine Court – Dark Truth of America’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

All books published by Skyhorse Publishing – New York City

 

[i] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/about/experts/

[ii] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/ian-lipkin-debunks-anti-vax-documentary-wall-street-journal

[iii] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/cdc-funds-program-minority-students-public-health-and-biomedical-science and https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/become-student/departments/population-and-family-health/news-and-events/family-news-2015-2016-9).

[iv] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/dr-w-ian-lipkin-named-co-chair-cdc-subcommittee

[v] http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/08/book-review-vaccine-whistleblower-by-keven-barry-esq.html

[vi] http://morganverkamp.com/statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

[vii] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/about/board-overseers

Comments

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

Wade

Dear Age of Autism: THE WORD IN THE TITLE SHOULD BE 'CENSURE', NOT 'CENSOR'.

Definition of CENSURE (pronounced ‘SEN-shur’):
[Noun] official strong criticism
e.g. The country faces international censure for its alleged involvement in the assassination.

[Verb] to officially criticize (someone or something) strongly and publicly
e.g. He was censured by the committee for his failure to report the problem.

Definition of CENSOR:
[Noun] A person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes content considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
e.g. Government censors deleted all references to the protest.

[Verb] To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove content considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
e.g. The radio station censored her speech before broadcasting it.

John Stone

Ronald

The situation which you described pretty much occured in the BBC 'Science Betrayed' programme in 2011: the BBC defended themselves by saying that Wakefield had been invited to be interviewed in the radio documentary (possibly mock-you-mentary?) and I responded to the trustee's report:

"I have commented before on the BBC’s surreal concept of fairness: inviting someone to contribute to a programme in which they have been told effectively that their character will be assassinated does not make it fair."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/12/bbc-trustees-stand-by-groundless-insinuations-against-andrew-wakefield-in-.html

Ahmadinejad would be quite a lot to swallow, but then so, of course, would Obama. It is what comes of living in a Liberal Hypocrisy.

Ronald Kostoff

"Bollinger’s vision of freedom and opposition to censorship stands in stark contrast to the conduct of one of his professors".

There's no 'stark contrast'! The main function of a university President is to raise funds. Period. Why do you think they get million, or multi-million, dollar salaries? It's certainly not for tweaking the curriculum.

One of the most lucrative, dependable, and enduring sources of money is Federal government-sponsored research. The institutions will do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain research funding. If e.g. it means doing whatever it takes to make the CDC happy, so be it.

"Bollinger has been willing to allow free speech, even when controversy ensues. In 2007 he allowed then Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia. The decision rankled many."

The context for this statement is most important. I heard the speech on live television. Bollinger introduced Ahmadinejad, and spent about twenty minutes giving the most blistering personal attack I have ever heard. Completely uncalled for, especially for a Head of State, no matter how odious. Setting the stage in that manner is a very perverted view of 'free speech'.

Suppose Brian Deer were President of a university, and invited Wakefield to speak on potential relationship between vaccines and autism. Suppose when Deer introduced Wakefield, he provided a twenty minute blistering attack on Wakefield's character, and his conduct of research. Would that be considered 'free speech'? Yes, it's 'free speech' in the distorted sense that that Wakefield was given a forum to express his views, but the pre-conditioning by Deer's introduction would distort the audience's reaction to the theoretically 'free speech' that they heard.

Bollinger did what the State Department wanted (irrespective of whether they asked him to do it or not), and his minions will do what other sponsors want with his overt or covert blessings. He is by no means unique; most of the other university Presidents would follow suit!

Grace Green

John, also, when I and my kin talk about media reported trials of "international terrorists" or "genocidal murderers" we always put them in inverted commas - unless of course we're referring to former prime ministers or other members of our western governments. It's got to the stage when one can't be too cynical!

Bayareamom

Didn't know where to place this link:

New short video with Del Bigtree, walking the halls of Congress:

https://www.facebook.com/del.bigtree/videos/vb.693705963/10153464402620964/?type=2&theater

John Stone

The Columbia issue is very interesting. I have remarked before that even where an international terrorist or a genocidal murderer is on trial the media will report the defence. But not with Wakefield and colleagues at the GMC. Even at times of national emergency people can debate whether to go to war or not, but with vaccine program the public have to protected from discussion. It is not a legal prohibition, it is just a prohibition. But every issue should be allowed scrutiny and this is a grave one.

Sophie Scholl

https://www.sott.net/article/318970-They-knew-it-all-along-CDC-forced-to-release-proof-that-thimerosal-causes-autism

They knew it all along: CDC forced to release proof that thimerosal causes autism

Over 100 Freedom of Records Act (FOIA) requests have finally forced the euphemist US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to admit a widely used vaccine preservative is the equivalent of a neurological armageddon.

With help from PhD Scientist and Biochemist, Brian Hooker, the agency has finally had to reveal that they have known for years that thimerosal, which was banned in 1999, but still used in over 60 vaccines, causes autism. Robert F. Kennedy has been trying to alert the public of the same troublesome findings that Hooker has unveiled, but he is often dismissed, or worse, made into a media fool by the pharmaceutical industry.

Benedetta

James: What is really scary, is I know it is more than just Ivy League , but even smaller universities, anything to do with public health which over reaches at times over into the other sciences.

My guess is it requires a lot of money. 1.8 billon to fight the Zika virus, and bird flu and swine flu all the way back to the late 70s is where it is coming from. It is coming from tax payers, not from big phama.

James Grundvig

It's crystal clear what is going on here. Columbia gets a lot of its research funding from CDC and NIH, thus CDC used Columbia to can the movie. So we have censorship against Vaxxed from both CDC and Columbia University. I didn't realize Ivy League schools have being a political-media battering ram for the government as part of its charter, ethics, and bylaws.

Betty Bona

The Hornig study is a showcase example of why it is dangerous to read just the abstract and conclusion of a study. Unfortunately, most pediatricians don't even do that much. As we saw in the film, Vaxxed, doctors simply rely on the word of the CDC without doing their own research. When the two doctors in Vaxxed reviewed all the information Del Bigtree gave them, they were clearly shocked to find that their go to agency, the CDC, had not given them truthful information. I hope Columbia does take action to redress the censorship that resulted from the actions of its employee. I will lose respect for the institution if it makes no effort to redress this double standard on the First Amendment.

Anne McElroy Dachel

Thank you, Wayne and Louis. All of this is very frightening.

It reminds me of an article I wrote about the Columbia Journalism Review three years ago. It seems Columbia has taken the position that the public has no right to be fully informed when the subject is vaccine safety.


Columbia Journalism Review Casts Eye on Vaccine Safety Writers - AGE OF AUTISM
http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/05/columbia-journalism-review-casts-eye-on-vaccine-safety-writers.html

"May 1, 2013, the Columbia Journalism Review published the story, Sticking with the truth--How 'balanced' coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism by Curtis Brainard

"From the title of the article, it was clear that Brainard was on the attack against those who would give equal coverage to the idea that vaccines can cause autism. He criticized the 1998 Lancet article by Andrew Wakefield because it added to parents' fears about vaccines and autism. Brainard also said that the increase in the number of vaccines in the childhood schedule and the stunning increase in autism was "only coincidental."

"According to Brainard, media sources covering the controversy were 'squandering journalistic resources on a bogus story.' And not only that, 'there is evidence that fear of a link between vaccines and autism, stoked by press coverage, caused some parents to either delay vaccinations for their children or decline them altogether,' ..."

Brainard slammed the writing of David Kirby and Dan Olmsted and said he felt that the time has come to end balanced coverage on the question of vaccines and autism. In his view, objectivity has no place in stories where "the preponderance of evidence is on one side of a 'debate.'"

Ed Yazbak

Thank you Wayne and Louis for this magnificent report.

On March 15, 2015, "Columbia awarded its first Global Freedom of Expression Prizes to courts in Turkey and Zimbabwe and to a U.K.-based legal services organization in recognition of their contributions to free speech and a free press. The awards are part of a new University initiative to encourage the adoption of international norms for the free flow of information."
http://news.columbia.edu/content/university-awards-first-ever-global-freedom-expression-prizes

A year later, Ian Lipkin seems to have successfully torpedoed Freedom of Expression in The United States of America.

What a shame!

John Stone

Mary

I don't think there is any doubt that the one thing the Hornig study succeeded in doing was confirming the Uhlmann study as the results were duplicated in three separate laboratories including O'Leary's in Dublin, so it is apart from anything else troubling that the publication of the study was held over till after the Omnibus hearing (although the study had been expected for several years) at which the government witness Stephen Bustin purported to trash O'Leary.

http://www.vaccinationnews.org/content/how-more-5000-children-were-hurt-again-YazbakFE-4/21/16

Benedetta

Thank you John Stone for the additional information. This is really a lot to wade through. This whole article is a lot to wade through - I guess because it is crime in high places.

Thank You Wayne and Lou for the reference about Iranian President and why he spoke - cause it gives me a bit of a background.

So, Lipkin -- Is he doubling as a professor at Columbia - and he was doing some lab work for the CDC ' as in a grant, or does he actually work for the CDC full time? Two jobs?

Or does he have three jobs, and have some lab where he was running the lab work on these gut biopsies and this lab was subsidized by a big Pharma company.

Well four considering he is on the IAC committee.

Busy, busy, busy.

Oh, and if any of you know off the top of your head - why the University of Columbia's Division of Public Health is called Mailman? - Heee, heeee, heeeee -- my mind flew to the possibility that they are offering correspondent courses in Public Health, or at least on line - with on hands on; sucking up money for a piece of paper.

Perri Peltz Is multi talented? Public health film maker, and reaching across to so many government agencies.

I see that Allison Singer is their mouthy weak link - stooge that would sell out any one for a dollar.

Mary S. Holland

Thanks, Lou, Wayne and John.
John, this additional information about Lipkin's study, and how it might have confirmed the Uhlmann study if larger, is very instructive.
What all of this makes clear is the urgent need to have real Congressional hearings about the CDC and autism research and real biological research on people with autism, untainted by scientists protecting their own personal interests.
Mary Holland

John Stone

Lou and Wayne,

Thanks as ever. Perhaps a slightly earlier passage in the Whistleblower transcript is even more telling (some Brian Hooker interjections omitted) p102-3:

"Right. I mean Ian Lipkin...Right. I mean Ian Lipkin is one of those. Well, I'll give you an example. When I was trying to hold them accountable...It was funded by the CDC...the money was sent to the NIH. It was the worst mismanagement of federal funds I have ever seen...In terms of how the study was carried out...If you looked at the original study design and the fact that it only ended up with twenty-five autism cases, it is just insane. So, I took over as project manager in the middle of all that. And I kept trying to hold people accountable for what they were doing with the money and the project manager at their end eventually dropped off the project, she was so fed up and and tired with it...In the middle...of the study Ian Lipkin was asking for more money, and he actually and I...don't think I actually kept the email but it is one email I wish I had kept was where he said he was going to talk to a congressman if we didn't give him more money."

And he continues on p.104:

"So, anyway, that was criminal because they published that study with 25 autism cases and the power was like zero..."

It is quite easy to see why Lipkin would be worried. Thompson is possibly saying that they varied the study design but certainly this study, tiny though it was, ended up in reality confirming the earlier Uhlmann study, not refuting it, although exactly the opposite impression was given. The conclusion was:

"This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure."

But in the discussion we find:

"Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children...Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/

So, what we actually have here confirmed is that evidence of measles inflammation has been found in both autism cases and non-autism cases, but the controls - like the autism cases - will be sick children who have had MMR. It may be noted that Brian Hooker's memory of the Hornig study was a little hazy but more important to focus on what Thompson was saying about Lipkin, which is damning and looks as bad as anything we have been told about DeStefano 2004.

Of course, it is much more interesting if you find something in a small sample (which they in fact did) than if you find nothing. You would be concerned a larger study (like Uhlmann) would likely amplify the problem. Instead the Hornig study was held up as the end of the road.

PS I bet Lipkin stares at that passage every day.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)