I feel it is incumbent upon me to inform you that your assessment of the retraction and your explanation of the autism community's inability to accept it is weak and incomplete. I've convinced myself that this was not your intention so I am willing to sacrifice my children's nap time (aka my 45 minutes of free time) to school you in art of investigative journalism. Let me back up and start fresh by way of introduction (I like to know my students and vice versa). My name is LJ Goes and of the aforementioned offspring one is in particularly dire straights medically. He's been poisoned via environmental insults manifested because of a genetic predisposition (due to a family history of allergies, asthma, and auto-immune dysfunction) which causes severe gastrointestinal and mitochondrial distress that is exacerbated by his hyper-immune response (perpetual antibody production) to viral injectables. Your people call it autism. I call it what it is. Now lets get to work. After a brief synopsis of the Lancet retraction you address the stubbornness of Wakefield supporters by stating, "Despite a wealth of scientific studies that have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism, the parents fervently believe that their children's mental problems resulted from vaccinations." Mr. Harris, we do indeed believe a large part of our children's overall health (not mental) problems is the result of repeated environmental insults from the now 55 vaccines on the schedule. We have the science to back it up, too. Please see http://www.sarnet.org/ and http://www.generationrescue.org/ and http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sick_monkeys.html. This is the first part of your lesson. Do you see what I did there? I told you what we believe, then I showed you why and gave you the evidence that demonstrates a correlation. When did it become common practice for high profile journalists to throw around phrases like, "a wealth of scientific studies," without citing said studies? Is it that you can't find them? How about just one? And no, you may not refer me to the VSD studies that have been engineered to reflect the desired outcome of CBER, FDA and CDC officials. I mean real scientific studies. This is your homework for tonight. You then point out that, "Dr. Wakefield had subjected 11 children to invasive tests like lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need and for which he did not receive ethical approval." "Ethical approval?" During your last physical did the doctor excuse himself to text the AMA for approval to check your blood pressure? Did he present you with a signed permission slip allowing him to check your reflexes? I certainly hope so or he might find himself in a court of law. I can scarcely imagine the bureaucratic red tape and stacks of triplicate forms the GMC requires to ensure an "ethical" prostate exam. These children had colonoscopies. Gads. I wonder how that one time test compares to a young lifetime of chronic explosive diarrhea. Or PANDAS. Or seizure disorder. Or any other co-morbid condition that might accompany autism. Either way, my dad recently had this procedure performed so I will be sure to let him know he has been violated and should seek legal advice immediately. The second part of your assignment is to tell me (in writing) about the testimony from these unethically treated children's parents. Did they testify against Dr.Wakefield? What did they say, exactly? Get a quote if !
you can.
Remember, doing the work yourself is fun! You move on to spokesman for the CDC, Tom Skinner's quote, ''It builds on the overwhelming body of research by the world's leading scientists that concludes there is no link between M.M.R. vaccine and autism," and you explain that this information came from an email. Can you tell me Mr. Harris, is Mr. Skinner a doctor? A scientist? Or is he the guy who sends out the press releases and gets coffee for everyone? Who did he send this email to? What was the context of the email? Was it sent to you for the purpose of writing this article or did you get it as a third party? Sloppy, Mr. Harris. Very sloppy. Mr. Skinner seems to have mastered the art of speaking without meaning as he too references the same conclusive-beyond-all-shadow-of-a-doubt "body of research" that the autism community and the America public have yet to see. Which is odd, considering it was authored by "the world's leading scientists." Do you know any of these scientists by chance? It's a good rule of thumb to know the names of the people you are writing about. Maybe you could ask your brother Crane if he knows them, given his history with Jolla Pharamceuticals? I know it's sort of cheating to let your brother do the work for you, but since I've assigned so much homework I'm willing to throw you a bone. It just gets better when you explain, "With each new theory, parents� groups have called for research to explore possible links between vaccination and autism. Study after study has failed to show any link, and prominent scientific agencies have concluded that scarce research dollars should be spent investigating other possible causes of autism." Mr. Harris, I know it's embarrassing to hear this from a nobody like me, but--science is actually the process of discovery. Clearly in your many years as a journalist no one has pointed that out to you so for this infraction you will not be penalized. Going forward just keep in mind that real science asks all the questions. It doesn't originate with the int!
ent to d
ismiss, disprove, or disassociate, it simply observes and reports. Ergo our "theories" which evolve over time, may be better understood as the logical progression of knowledge that accompanies true scientific investigation. Coincidentally, criticizing us for "each new theory" is absurd. Do you discredit research physicians who are developing radical chemotherapy treatments to help patients with rare forms of cancer? I suppose not. They make drug$. No criticism or investigation necessary. In this age of point and click technology couldn't you at least link the conclusive evidence Mr. Skinner believes "study after study" demonstrates, to your article? Or maybe include a list of the "prominent scientific organizations" that affirm these vast amounts of proof for us? Since the CDC is the only organization you bother naming I assume you consider it among these hailed bastions of public health and safety. I visited the CDC website, found here, http://www.cdc.gov/ and was shocked to see they've not published a graph charting the drastic rise in autism rates since 2006. That's four years and many thousands of ASD cases ago. You might want to talk to your pal Tom about that. Let him know that even with the blindfold on the freight train heading toward him has the same obliterating effect upon impact. 3.2 million dollars per boxcar, and escalating. For this next and last transgression, Mr. Harris, you and your contemporaries should pay, as Amy Wallace, Paul Offit and Conde Naste may soon be forced to do for accusing Barbara Loe Fisher of lying, and as Paul Offit has already done for his inaccurate comments about JB Handley chronicled in his book, Autism's False Prophets, according to Ginger Taylor, author of the blog, Adventures in Autism. You must stop falsely referring to us as anti-vaccine. We are anti-toxin, anti-mercury (the second deadliest neurotoxin know to man), anti-formaldehyde, anti-aluminum hydroxide, anti-aluminum phosphate, anti-ammonium sulfate, anti-antifreeze, and anti-cellular matter from aborte!
d human
fetal tissue. We are anti-ALL preservatives that have been grandfathered into FDA approval without proper investigation that poison our children and are administered on an aggressive vaccine schedule that literally banks on latent symptomology. We are anti-immunization schedules that do not take our children's individual medical histories into consideration. We are anti-infectious diseases. We are against an autism pandemic. We know BOTH can be avoided with green vaccines. Do you understand, Mr. Harris? Do you get it? All the adjuvants (and many more) listed above are still in our children's vaccines. We have witnessed no decrease in childhood autism, despite the questionable removal of Thimerosol (which still exists in our children's flu shots), because the same cost-effective, inferior, autism promoting preservatives are still in them. Right now, at this very moment. We are experiencing skyrocketing reports of ASD diagnoses and we have ADDED more shots to the schedule! Add shots, get autism. Add more shots, get more autism. Golly it's just so complex. Sadly, lots of parents really do believe the science is beyond them. They leave the truthful reporting and scientific interpretation to you. You know you can skate by with generalizations and half truths because your readers won't know the difference. They trust you. I've never said this to anyone in my life, Mr. Harris. You should be ashamed. Your writing is less about information and more about deflection. Which, come to think of it, vaguely resembles propaganda. Right here on American soil, in one of our most respected daily journals, no less. What you have attempted to pass off as journalism is nothing more than regurgitated hand-outs from government agencies trying to stave off awareness of the biggest conspiracy in american history. Perhaps world history. Think about it. A little back story. In college I had a professor who talked to me in much the same manner that I have spoken to you today. I hated him. Years later I realized he made me think and !
rethink
my work obsessively. I was always asking questions and refining my papers until I was certain I'd done the best I possibly could. I hope you will allow my tutelage to improve the quality of your work. It's not personal, I just know you can do better. Your readership deserves it. I look forward to your enthusiastic response and improved future publications. Best, LJ Goes

ARTICLE REFERENCED (if any):
None