Then Shall The Eyes of The Blind
Dear Hillary, Can We Talk?

Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: Yes, It’s a Conspiracy.

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted Dan 1976

Back in the 1970s when I started as a full-time journalist, I covered the usual beats – police, fire, the courts, city hall, in my hometown on Danville, Ill. (That's me in a contemporary rendering from, gosh, 40 years ago this new year.)

I’d show up at what we called “the cop shop” at about a quarter to seven in the morning, copy down arrest reports, make the other rounds and then go back and write them up for that afternoon’s paper. If I had time and the cops were in the mood, I’d check in with them on what was going on. There was one detective who always seemed to know. On his office wall, although I didn’t focus on it at the time, was a dollar bill that had been cut up in small pieces and reassembled in the shape of a question mark.

One day, someone came to us and told an amazing story, one that was kind of hard to believe. He said that earlier in the decade, a number of police officers, some of who were still there, had been involved in a burglary ring. They would break in somewhere – backing their cruiser through the bay of an auto body shop, say, or busting out the glass in the door of a drugstore. They’d take what they wanted, and then they’d call in the incident. So not only would they get the dough, or the bottle of Scotch, or the new car battery, they’d get the credit for discovering the break-in.

This was interesting -- in fact, it was sensational -- but how would you prove it, especially at this late date? That’s when “the source” said something that really made me pay attention: One detective who knew about the burglary ring found a way to remind everyone of it, he said. That detective took a dollar that he suspected had been stolen in one of the break-ins, cut it into small pieces, made it into a question mark, framed it and put it on his office wall. Suddenly, I realized he was telling the truth.

I went back and looked at what, if anything, had been written at the time about suspicions that the cops were crooks. The only thing I found was an editorial – from my own paper! – saying that murmurs that some cops were doing bad things were scurrilous, and if anyone had information to the contrary, they should come forward.

It’s a long story, but based on information we developed from this new source, a grand jury convened, called witnesses including the cops under oath, and issued a report. The report named officers who participated in the burglaries – one category – or who knew and had a duty to report it – a second category. The statute of limitations had expired, but the naming and shaming was a necessary purgative, since some of these names were still police officers. It needed to be known.

The upshot: Sometimes, “conspiracy theories” are true. Sometimes, the bad guys get away with it, abetted by the idea that such a claim seems so unlikely and so unfair to those who put their lives on the line every day.


Now let’s talk about autism. We’ve been publishing articles and comments lately about bad ideas that perpetuate the autism epidemic, and one of them is that a vaccines-autism link is a “conspiracy theory,” end of discussion. Daily Kos, as I’ve written, called it a CT and won’t let in any such comments. The idea that vaccine safety concerns are just a fancy name for "anti-vaccine" and are kooky has really become a meme.

This meme links vaccine-autism concerns, 9/11 trutherism and Sandy-Hook-never-happened into one big lump and expect those of us concerned about vaccine safety to try to explain how we got such a crazy collection of counter-factual ideas.

I can’t be responsible for every speculation or hypothesis, but I can tell you this, based on four decades of reporting, the last one centered on autism: Vaccines do cause a major portion of the autism epidemic, and some version of a coverup and conspiracy – not a “conspiracy theory” – is part of the picture. There are people in important places who have “breathed together” (co-inspired; con-spiried) to subvert the public’s right to know.

What conspiracy, you say?

The conspiracy by the CDC-funded National Institute of Medicine panel, whose leaked minutes showed it wouldn’t cross the line to say vaccines were involved, no matter what the evidence.

The conspiracy by the public health and pharma insiders convening at Simpsonwood to bury the already flogged-to-death data showing mercury in vaccines was a huge risk for autism.

The conspiracy by William Thompson and his colleagues dumping raw data into a wastebasket after they had twisted it into obscuring a link between the MMR and autism.

The conspiracy by Wyeth employees distributing DPT vaccines randomly to keep another SIDS cluster from being linked to a bad lot. The conspiracy by Merck scientists using rabbit blood and their own chicken-scratchings to doctor the data that proved mumps vaccines didn’t work any more.

The conspiracy to muddle the fact that the autism rate has soared since 1988.

This is not the generic “conspiracy theory” nuttiness that vaccine safety apologists attribute to us. This is not a claim that “every single pediatrician” involved in a grand coordinated effort to damage children and hide the truth.

This is the real, no-air-quote deal, a conspiracy/conspiracies and cover ups by a relative handful of deeply conflicted and implicated people, working together in formal and informal ways to save their skins, and their precious vaccine ideology, at the expense of everyone else’s and, ultimately, the vaccine program itself.

And just like my old newspaper, the media says that’s all ridiculous and if someone has any evidence, let them produce it (actually, it’s the media’s job to go get it!). My own belief is that the media sneer and slack because they haven’t, for whatever reason, actually seen  or recognized what a conspiracy looks like up close. They’re too cozy with the potential conspirators and too keen to get a slice when the dollar is carved up.

It's a failure, among other things, of imagination, of moral clarity, of connecting the dots, a failure that has cost us in so many ways over these past many years.

My point is, it’s not that I see “conspiracies” everywhere. But I do know they can happen where you least expect it, I do know what they look like, and I do know how they can persist. The effort to hide the truth about autism and vaccines involves enough people to bury the data, enough people to know about it and do nothing, and enough people to claim, or be convinced, it’s “a conspiracy theory” that should be suppressed instead of taken seriously. That's not thousands of people.

And it's not a “conspiracy theory.” It’s a conspiracy.  One really Good Idea for stopping the autism epidemic is to expose it for what it is, and the new year is a good time to renew our commitment to doing so.


Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.


Kendra Pettengill

I once read that Americans, for some reason, are especially prone to conspiracy theories. They have a love affair with them. What they failed to mention in the article though was that American history is rife with conspiracies, making it easy to believe in just another one in a long line of examples; those with money and power manipulating the world in their favor, lying and cheating and stealing to maintain their position of power and profit. I believe George Carlin said it best, "They try to make it seem like you are somehow out of the norm, that you are a kook, that you are a conspiracy buff. Do I believe in conspiracies, nah. Do I believe powerful people would get together and plan for certain outcomes, nah. Do I believe powerful interests would operate outside the law, maybe even kill people, nah. Do I believe secret government agencies might feel the need to assassinate a person and cover it up, nah. I think everything in America is open, clean, and above board and powerful people always play by the rules." Anyone familiar with Carlin knows he was using irony here and made it very clear that conspiracies are a part of everyday life in America. You would have to be a kook to not see it is really business as usual.


I wonder, whether extreme medical fascism which exists in the US with massive, mandatory poisoning of babies with toxic vaccines, ensues only from extreme corruption of American political system, where nearly all politicians are bought by the pharma mafia. Such a degree of political corruption does not exist in any other developed country. I suspect that behind this medical fascism hides something much more sinister. Since many global pharma corporations were created by formers Nazis, I wonder if this anti-American genocidal vaccination policy represents Nazi revenge for loss of WWII and subsequent American occupation of Germany. Germany itself has only voluntary vaccination system and a few Germans still vaccinate their children, hence their young generations are much healthier, while majority of young Americans are biologically and neurologically maimed by vaccines and chronically ill. This massive disabling of Americans seems to be by design to destroy the US with help of American idiot-politicians.

Jeannette Bishop

Thank you for another year helping us to keep up with and get better informed on autism, and vaccine/environmental injury.

I agree it's conspiracy in our government and other captured institutions, and it's corporate policy as Mr. Stone/Dr. Wakefield pointed out, and IMO it has become pervasive in all fundamentally important aspects of our lives. Here's a report on another aspect:

The only ideas I have for going forward are 1) perhaps looking for ways to stop supporting the multinational corporate conglomerates, i.e. be conscious of what we're voting for when we vote with our $$$, small as most day to day choices seem to be, 2) support consumer-funded watchdog groups that are trying to do what the government is supposed to do (provide government employees with some severely needed competition perhaps) and 3) perhaps support defunding and dismantling government bureaucracies, especially the ones outside of Constitutional purview (is that all of them?). Bureaucracies aren't accountable to voters who don't have much say in how they operate even though they are theoretically voter funded. In fact failure in government usually translates into more calls for more funding (and sometimes promises of lucrative work for some corporation when periods of public "service" end as we've seen) (even if there aren't national or possibly globally organized criminal groups willing to "suicide" healthcare providers, etc. who go against some policies...) there is much incentive to fail (not that there aren't many such as the above trying to do their jobs, but we see how they are treated for their efforts...).

My alternative to 3), so maybe this is idea 4) is to get angels into public office, starting at local levels perhaps, and then also provide an army of angels willing to take bullets for the elected angels with them...something like that. Most of us have gotten ourselves a life-long full-time obligation to care for some of society's most angelic that one is tough to propose (particularly without hypocrisy on my part ... I don't see myself as someone who could even consider giving public service, if the idea didn't make me sick to the stomach, but I do see value in the early American? Colonial? cultural view that civil service is a civic duty--not a career opportunity).

The video shown here needs to go viral

I know this point has been made before:
Weapons of mass destruction
All it took was some high placed people we may not trust (like dick Cheney) to lie to people we did trust (like Colin Powell) for that tragic and lucrative war to start and be covered up from the very start. Cheney and the leaders were the conspires. They fixed the data. Anyone who knew about the fixing was probably terrified into silence or convinced it was for the greater good --and all the others are unwitting participants. But we attack them as they are doing the damage --they are the ones we see not the puppeteers who deserve it the most --and they cannot fathom that they have been lied to. Until it happens to them. I ask all Drs who woke up--please help understand what else could have woken you up how do we reach the others before more lives are ruined ?
Even Elmo has been recruited. Elmo getting a vax injury :

 Teresa Conrick aka AW


The photo is great and so is all that you do for our kids. Never give up!


The media is being gagged not only by economic control, but by the threat that if they publish one word that discourages someone from vaccinating and that person becomes ill and starts what is then called an outbreak or an epidemic, that the entire corrupt system will come crashing down on the media outlet that allowed that word to be published. They will be blamed and held legally accountable for whatever damages the CDC trumps up, and we all know how the CDC can exaggerate when it suits them. I think that's the real underlying clamp at this point, because there has to be many journalists who want to do their job where vaccines are concerned but this is the wall they hit. The censorship comes from the CDC and their frontmen Offit, Caplan, Reiss etc. Open your mouth and you will pay dearly is the wall that the media hits.

You know, when I think of the CDC and Offit et al, I really do think of Nazis - misguided, dangerous, driven people with evil intent.

Michael Schachter MD, CNS

Hurray Dan,
Great job. I wonder if any of the politicians will be able to take this information and run with it.


It is odd that the NYT does report on adverse medical situations, as long as it has nothing to do with pediatric vaccines.

For dog flu vaccines NYT reports that the senior veterinarian for AKC is "careful" not to vaccinate sick dogs, and dog owners are not ridiculed for being thoughtful about the shot:

AAP taking money from Coke to display Coke label on can on website, and diverting research funds away from sugary drinks-

and last week, NYT reports on chicanery with cell phone science.

Yet for years, NYT and msm reporting on pediatric vaccine injury looks like this:

So NYT does report on bogus science for hire- just not with pediatric vaccines. Why?

I agree with Ms. Dachel- laziness, complacency, misplaced trust in government regulators, and, oh yeah, shit loads and shit loads of m-o-n-e-y. The media makes money regurgitating CDC talking points and never forget they are in this deal to sell soap. Whatever sells they print.

Look at the comment section on this piece:

When the popular press is forced to look at vaccine injury- when the money pendulum swings over to favoring coverage- when their corporate survival depends on covering vaccine injury-when vaccine safety becomes a fervent talking point in politics- then NYT and Klugler and Huff Post and all the rest will instantly flip. Think about how NYT whored itself out to get us into Iraq- and how they changed their tune when kids starting coming home in body bags. When the money is there, the media will follow.


Vaccinations are crimes against humanity, pure and simple. Crimes which exceed in scale the holocaust of WWII and are conducted with premeditation by medical-pharma mafia supported by the criminal regime's bureaucrats. For now the only way to avoid being killed or maimed by vaccinations is to stay away from all vaccines, as none is safe. Massive public resistance against forced vaccinations is necessary for survival of American nation. However, there is no hope anymore for normal development of US, as soon the majority of young generations will be autistic or maimed otherwise by vaccines.


Whenever someone says "you must be a conspiracy theorist" then the best response is:

"don't you believe in terrorism? Organised crime? Gangs? Hostile foreign armies? That is quite a claim because they all require a group of people acting nefariously in secret and are therefore conspiracies."

This deals with the emotional side of their rhetoric which is "conspiracies are exceptional". But the above makes clear that conspiracies are in fact mundane. Of course not all conspiracies are equally plausible but the point is that they are not of necessity implausible.


Thank you Dan! It doesn't get much better than this. When I'm here on the planet "Age of Autism" I am with extraordinary people. Too many to list by name, but they are here today.

A quote from the eulogy for Bobby Kenendy--

"who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

I think this is who we are and will continue to be as long as it takes.

The Force is With Us

go Rand

I would suppose the “conspiracy”

STARTED ...WHEN the CDC met in SECRET for 2 days at SIMPSONWOOD in 2000 to talk about MERCURY in VACCINES.

CAN anyone see the Autism DATA for this meeting ??... NO... just “never mind” says the CDC.

CAN anyone talk with Dr. Thompson who says the CDC is LYING about the MMR vaccine which they noticed caused Autism ???

The CDC says they did a “do over” on the data and there was no problem.

I would suppose the “conspiracy” shows up in CONGRESS where only ...ONE PERSON out of 535... has a concern that vaccines are harming and killing American children each and every day.

(good photo Dan, you look like one of the Watergate investigators... except this issue is much much bigger....

Anne McElroy Dachel

Once a newspaper editor that I had sent lots of information to wrote me like this:

"You have a lot of claims about vaccine safety and autism, but what you're talking about is a conspiracy involving the government regulators, the medical community, and the vaccine makers, and there's just too much oversight for that to ever happen."

I should have told him that the main reason all the lies and cover-up continues is because members of the press refuse to do their job. They take the industry's side every time. They are too scared, ignorant, lazy or corrupt to honestly and thoroughly coverage this issue. They report on vaccine safety like PR people for the vaccine makers. None of this could have happened is the media were honest. Someday soon they'll be sharing the blame with all those responsible for a generation of sick and disabled Americans.

Anne Dachel, Media


Dr. Kostoff,
Football continues because we are a brainless, soulless society that eats its young.

Those players cannot be blamed. They are weaned onto competitive sports. They don't remember a time when their identity wasn't wrapped up in being on the field with proud Mommy and Daddy cheering them on and winning medals every season. Then they get all kinds of positive feedback and encouragement all through high school, to college and then as professional players. It would be the rare person who could walk away.

I'll say this though - I have no use for parents who put a helmet on their child and send them out to get their head bashed in, regardless.

Denise Anderstrom Douglass

Well said. Thank you!


"Well, I could apply your paragraph quoted above, and say the consumer has no responsibility. That's just a variant of the Government-Industrial-Media complex I mentioned in the book. It certainly is true, but it is not the whole truth. The reason the cell phones and WiFi continue along with their adverse effects is partly because we want them and are addicted to them; the reason football continues along with its adverse effects is because the League, the colleges, the high schools, the parents, the kids, and especially the TV viewing audience, want it and are essentially addicted to it. Not everyone, but enough in each toxic stimuli to insure that their use continues. We will never solve these problems until we admit them fully, no matter how disquieting the results."

No truer words and precisely sums up this entire vaccine issues quagmire.


The passive conspiracy as described in the book "When Teams Work Best" (LaFasto/Larson):

The Passive Conspiracy
Often, teams engage in a passive conspiracy to avoid confronting the root cause of their dysfunction. By "conspiracy" we do not mean to imply that something overtly heinous is going on. Instead, an implicit and unspoken agreement emerges as a norm for the group. The implicit agreement may be to accept a condition as it is rather than to talk about it openly and address it directly. Even if the condition is one that affects the team's performance in a major way, ways are found around the problem.

There is some research that suggests that problems in organizations are seldom approached in a problem-solving or collaborative manner. Other ways of handling the problem predominate. People ignore the problem Or they create activities and structures that maintain the illusion the problem is being addressed. Or they accommodate by giving in to the conditions and avoiding them whenever possible they use the problem as a justification for adopting forcing strategies; attempting to impose some principle of power or position on each other.

We are amazed at the number of times we have encountered teams that operate under oppressive or stifling communication climates. Even disturbing is the fact that when we've asked team members how conditions have been present, the response often translates into "a very long time." The adjustments have been made, accommodations have been reached. The passive conspiracy is in place.

John Stone

Hi Ronald

Of course you are only saying what Andy W told Sharyl Attkisson a few years ago, something like "It isn't a conspiracy, it's policy" and he went on to cite the Merck executive who emailed colleagues to say it would be necessary to destroy scientists where they live (over Vioxx). At the end of the day, of course, it is fraud, it is what we call in the UK "grievous bodily harm" and it is homicide (against vulnerable patients). And, of course, if Merck was subject to criminal fines, and massive civil suits (which were blocked btw in the UK by the government) one has never heard of any of it's senior employees suffering any penalty (so much as the loss of a bonus, let alone being sacked): the risk was a financial one to shareholders, who may even have considered it reasonable.

It's a bad genre and we have discover how as citizens we can become more effective against it. At least vaccines are perhaps less of a way of life than wifi.

Ronald Kostoff


"No, the consumer/victim is not to blame because the (scientifically illiterate intellectually numb) consumer is the target of government approved, highly sophisticated billion dollar marketing campaigns developed by an army of social scientists, experts in psychological and social manipulation."

OK, let me give you another example, from a completely different application. I heard a C-SPAN panel recently on concussions in football. It consisted of two authors who described the seriousness of the problem in their book, a leading players' agent who has been concerned about the problem, and a retired pro football player.

There have been a number of pro football retirees who have suffered from various neurodegenerative diseases, including some notable suicides. According to the panel, the League has tried to downplay the link between the concussions and the diseases. No surprises there.

What about the players? They have been made aware of the data from myriad sources. Except for a few rare cases who quit at the peak of their career, with the remainder it's business as usual.

What about the parents of children in their teens? According to the panel, hard hits that don't result in concussions are still dangerous, and their effects are cumulative. These could start the process when children are in high school, and especially in college. According to the panel, a few percent of the parents advised their children against playing football.

Well, I could apply your paragraph quoted above, and say the consumer has no responsibility. That's just a variant of the Government-Industrial-Media complex I mentioned in the book. It certainly is true, but it is not the whole truth. The reason the cell phones and WiFi continue along with their adverse effects is partly because we want them and are addicted to them; the reason football continues along with its adverse effects is because the League, the colleges, the high schools, the parents, the kids, and especially the TV viewing audience, want it and are essentially addicted to it. Not everyone, but enough in each toxic stimuli to insure that their use continues. We will never solve these problems until we admit them fully, no matter how disquieting the results.

Anna Quandt

Love the picture. Thanks for all you do.


According to professor Lance deHaven, the word "conspiracy" theory" entered American political speech when the CIA in order to stop criticism of the Warren Commission encouraged media outlets to use the word to discredit doubters. Ever since that time it has been used about once a week, and is used routinely to tarnish dissident opinion. This propaganda strategy has worked incredibly well. If one goes down the rabbit hole into a "conspiracy theory" you can see how it works.

Take 9 11 conspiracy theory that revolves around two planes taking down three buildings. The third building, number 7, fell later than the first two and isn't as well known. Essentially 9 11 conspiracy theorist want to know why that building fell so fast (in a matter of seconds) when not hit by a plane. The government agency that investigated the collapse of building 7 (it took them several years to get around to it) concluded that it fell from office fires due to a new phenomena called "thermal expansion." The agency would not release their models on this phenomena because of national security. Still, an alarmed building industry needed to know how to avoid having their high rise steel framed buildings collapse from "thermal expansion" if a fire should break out. The agency countered that "thermal expansion" is just a hypothesis and unproved. Life returned to normal in the building industry and thermal expansion was ignored, that is with the exception of the "conspiracy theorists". I have a child that works as a commercial real estate manager and she was taken aside the first day of her job and told that "we do not believe that buildings fall down from office fires and we do not believe in talking about politics in the office." End of story.... except most building engineers are now dissidents, or hummm conspiracy theorists.

The conspiracy theory about the anti-vaxers really peaked with the incidence of 100 or so measles cases in Disneyland. The conspiracy (misinformation) that vaccines cause autism had really now caused a demise of general public health. These dissidents were a threat to everyone and must be stopped. There were cries to jail them. Then California passed this draconian SB277. It didn't seem to matter much that it turned out that probably the measles was not caused by an unvaccinated child but by a tourist from the Philippines where measles is still endemic. Life returned to hasn't returned to normal yet. California has maybe the highest taxes in the nation and tax paying parents can't send their kids to school if they don't have all of the required 36 doses of vaccines....(no need to explain here why a parent might not want to do this and in fact probably won't). Maybe it's harder to ignore autism then it was to ignore thermal expansion. We'll have to wait and see....

Jonathan Rose

Thanks for the nostalgia trip, Dan. It's so long ago I can hardly remember, but way back then newspapers were still doing what was then called "investigative reporting". Today, of course, Woodward and Bernstein would be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists". (Hey, they actually thought it went all the way to the top.)

Today the label "conspiracy theory" is applied to any allegation of government or corporate wrongdoing, but originally it had a much narrower and precise meaning. In his classic "The Paranoid Style in American Politics", historian Richard Hofstadter carefully drew that distinction. A conspiracy theory of history, Hofstadter argued, portrayed "conspiracy as the motive force in historical events". It imagined that the machinations of some small group (Freemasons, Jews, the Illuminati) explained all of history over the centuries -- and that, of course, was completely daft. But Hofstadter readily acknowledged the reality of more mundane conspiracies. "There are conspiratorial acts in history," he wrote, "and there is nothing paranoid about taking note of them. This is true. All political behavior requires strategy, many strategic acts depend for their effect upon a period of secrecy, and anything that is secret may be described, often with but little exaggeration, as conspiratorial." It's a useful quotation to remember when you're accused of conspiracy-mongering.

Ronald Kostoff


"Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems;"

One could replace "cellphone signals" by "vaccines" and "brain cancer" by "autism" in that NYT article, and it would be equally credible. Both published literatures are swamped with manufactured research showing no adverse effects from vaccines or (non-ionizing) EMF. There are more than a few EMF researchers who have risked their careers to disseminate the truth about adverse health effects. Most have been shut out by the mainstream media and the 'professional' journals, but there is more than enough evidence of harm. My published paper on EMF in concert with other toxic stimuli shows the synergistic effects of even simple combinations of toxic stimuli that include EMF, but does not begin to address the synergies of myriad toxic stimuli (including EMF) acting in concert.

Recently, I was involved in a project to block construction of a cell tower near the border of our community. I was not in the radiation danger zone (it was essentially outside our community), but, because of the studies I had done on EMF health effects, believed I could add some value to the effort. I bought an RF meter, and made radiation measurements from existing cell towers in the area with different topographies. I read the latest literature on health effects from cell towers. As bad as I had thought cell towers were, my readings and measurements convinced me they were even worse.

There were at least four good studies (none of which were performed in the USA) that measured increase in cancer incidence relative to cell tower proximity. Within about 500 meters from the antenna, there were substantial increases in cancer incidence, and they increased as one went closer to the antenna. While the exposures varied, my rule of thumb is that people exposed to ~a thousand or more microwatts/square meter (m^2) were at increased risk of developing cancer, with a latency period of about five years. During my own measurements, I found that one antenna, located in a park with minimal obstructions, was producing radiation fluxes of 2000+ microwatts/m^2 at distances of 700 meters!

Even more disconcerting, I came across articles on other sources of EMF, such as cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi, smart meters, etc. Depending on where one was located in proximity to these sources, the radiation fluxes could be as large as, or larger, than that from the cell towers. For example, the following article describes EMF radiation in schools with WiFi


There are some classrooms where the radiation measured was on the order of hundreds of thousands of microwatts/m^2, or more!

So, if people are willing to be exposed (and allow their children to be exposed) to high levels of non-ionizing radiation from all these other sources, why would they be concerned about the radiation from cell towers? Especially if 'credible' organizations like the CDC and FCC tell them it's essentially safe, and 'credible' media dutifully report the government's conclusions.

We lost the cell tower battle.


"...if the NYT published the adverse effects of EMF on page 1"

Speak of the devil. Yesterday (excerpts, but please see the whole article):

"At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk"

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published new guidelines 18 months ago regarding the radiation risk from cellphones, it used unusually bold language on the topic for the American health agency: “We recommend caution in cellphone use.”

The agency’s website previously had said that any risks “likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.”

Within weeks, though, the C.D.C. reversed course. It no longer recommended caution, and deleted a passage specifically addressing potential risks for children....

C.D.C. officials began debating how to back away from their recommendation of caution, internal emails show...

Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the C.D.C. division that made the changes, disagreed with the decision to pull back the revised version. “I would not have removed it,” he said in an interview. “I would have been in support of a recommendation that parents look carefully at whether their children need cellphones or not.”

Mr. Portier, who led the center when the revision process was initiated, said he believed parents should have been presented “with enough information to say caution isn’t ill advised, because we really don’t know, and there are enough indicators to say we should be cautious.”...

The European Environment Agency, like some others in Europe, strikes a more cautious tone than American agencies. “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,” the European agency says. It advocates “a precautionary approach to policy making in this area.”

Regarding children, the European agency says, “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.”...

When Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance last spring requiring retailers to warn customers that radiation emitted by cellphones could be hazardous, CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group, sued. It called the ordinance “scientifically baseless and alarmist,” adding that the federal government had determined that “cellphones approved for sale in the United States, however worn, are safe for everyone.” The lawsuit is pending....

The C.D.C.’s internal email traffic shows a lengthy revision process for the agency’s recommendations. After the announcement by the I.A.R.C. in 2011, one agency official wrote that there was “outdated information on our current website.” Some changes were made within days, though they did not mention the I.A.R.C. determination.

That would take another three years. It coincided with the C.D.C.’s effort to use clearer language on its website, a bureaucratic process that led to tension between the communications staff and the agency’s Radiation Studies Branch.

One draft of the new language was tested on a focus group in 2013, prompting complaints that the “material did not provide any concrete answers.” Another draft was criticized by an outside expert for including “statements that are scientifically incorrect,” an agency official wrote...

“Some organizations recommend caution in cellphone use,” the agency’s guidelines now say. But the C.D.C. is not one of them."


Elaine Willingham

Great article! I appreciate all you do and all the information I get from this site. I read your book "The Age of Autusm" back in 2010 and my eyes were opened. Thank you again!

Tony Bateson

Well done Dan, that is an excellent article making it very clear that this is no more or less than a conspiracy. There are laws against this in the EU they are called Abuse of Dominant Position, that gives rise to concerted practices that are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. It remains for someone to open a complaint before the European Court of Justice. Both the European Commission, some years ago complained about the state of the US Pharmaceutical Industry as did the Cochrane Collaboration an evidence based medical research group founded in the EU twenty five years ago or so. The EU is rather bigger than the USA and probably has more influence internationally than the USA in the modern world. Perhaps we should look to an EU framework to get justice, I believe that's mostly what we want to see, nobody wants to see a bankrupt pharmaceutical industry, we want to see a responsible industry.
Tony Bateson, Oxford UK


Dr. Kostoff,
The normal order of business for the industries you have listed is to conspire against consumers by suppressing science and advancements that threaten their business.

"to what degree are we, the public, part of these 'conspiracies'? Is our overwhelming addiction to, and craving for, all the myriad wireless communication systems not supportive of that conspiracy/institutional modus operandi?"

To no degree and no. Because we are trained in government institutions (schools) to go along to get along, to be good consumers, to buy and consume the latest, to fit in or be lost, to do what others are doing, to internalize whatever the school wants us to "know" and to turn off undesired thoughts and ideas in order to get the grade and stay alive academically, and, schools turn out scientifically illiterate intellectually numb graduates by the millions, all the way up through the highest levels of "education".
Re your second question - No, the consumer/victim is not to blame because the (scientifically illiterate intellectually numb) consumer is the target of government approved, highly sophisticated billion dollar marketing campaigns developed by an army of social scientists, experts in psychological and social manipulation. Because in the workplace, for decades now, people have been required to use these technologies, many 24/7. In the workplace people have had to conform and keep up or end up living on the street. Beepers became blackberries which became smartphones, etc. I know I've missed some steps in there, but you get the point. Workers didn't have a choice. It was 'here is your new device. This is how we will be communicating and working from now on.' (until the next newest thing comes out.)

"After I published the EMF health effects paper, I conveyed the adverse effects to a number of highly educated colleagues. Do you think even one made any changes in their use of wireless devices? "

Because they are brainwashed and addicted. It will take a lot more than the voice and research of one person in their face to overcome the massive indoctrination. And because they have been intentionally deceived into believing that by virtue of their training and degrees that they possess superior almost infallible powers of discernment which ironically makes them easily led and intellectually locked into place.

If the NYT published one article on page 1, it would make a tiny dent in societal behavior. Those who are prone to keeping their head to the ground would notice and act, depending on the quality of the reporting. In others, seeds would be planted but you might not see behavioral change beyond that. If the NYT published a series of high quality articles (which they scarcely do these days - referring to quality), and if other media outlets did the same (instead of attacking the NYT), then you'd see a change in behavior all the way up to the telecommunications industry. They would have no choice but to address the media's reporting and accusations and the public's concern. Unfortunately, as you know, the telecommunications industry, along with Pharma and a few other industries, owns the media, among society's other institutions, like government, education and medicine.

John Stone


Thanks. One of the key features in this bad cycle is the "magic thinking" of politicians. They simply do not want to be told anything bad by their bureaucrats: they want policies which are effective which in effect means they want to be lied to if they are going wrong, and this in turn leads to criminal deception. David Lewis was very insightful about this in his book about the Environmental Protection Agency - I seem to remember that one of his bosses had actually named the commercial product made from toxic waste "magic fertiliser" as if there was some not to be explained scientific process which rendered it safe (of course there wasn't).

You might actually have said that the creators of the the US constitution were "conspiracy theorists": people who were afraid of over-powerful interests dominating the interests of ordinary citizens. Human history, unfortunately, is full of people doing wicked things if they are allowed to. In this case a lot of it probably in itself comes from wishful thinking - even people thinking they are not really too bad when actually they've sold the pass.

Remarkably, a decade ago a group of British politicians wrote a report on the pharma which showed that the government agencies, the Department of Health and the medicines licensing authority were completely out of control. Nothing of course was done and things are ten times worse now. This a story of debauched and decadent institutions everywhere in the world - it isn't even the story of capital it is the story of corporatism and latterly global corporatism.

On the whole I am less worried about dear old Prince Philip or even the Bilderberg Group than about Bill Gates or Sir Andrew Witty.

Bradstreet Hero

For everyone in California worried about sb277

Dr Rima thinks its very easy to circumvent these illegal "BrownShirt" laws.


Dr. K:


"Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems; rather, behaviors like texting while driving are seen as the real health concerns. Nevertheless, more than 500 pages of internal records obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets."

Ronald Kostoff


Good article. I think there's a fine line between 'conspiracy' and normal operation of institutions. For example, the Pharma companies exist to maximize returns for their shareholders. This means having as large a customer base as possible, charging as much for their drugs as possible, and limiting their liabilities as much as possible.

To achieve these ends, they use a combination of carrots and sticks. The carrots are 1) large donations to politicians to pass laws favorable to the companies; 2) large advertising and sponsorship donations to the media to disseminate information favorable to the companies; 3) large donations to academic and similar institutions to insure the 'proper' employees are hired and kept in line; 4) potential of cushy lucrative jobs to government officials who benefit the companies by how they enforce regulations and what research they sponsor that will enhance the companies' products; 5) potential of cushy lucrative jobs and large grants to researchers who produce results that support the companies' products.

The sticks are 1) the possible manufactured research they support to disallow any consensus for regulatory purposes; 2) the 'Wakefielding' of researchers and clinicians who disseminate information adverse to the companies' interests.

These are the carrots and sticks about which we know. There may be others of which I'm unaware or that have yet to be uncovered; it's difficult to address the unknown with any degree of credibility.

In addition to the above direct actions (one might also call these the 'active conspiracy'), there are the indirect actions of other players (the 'passive conspiracy'). There are a large number of organizations that benefit from the adverse effects of drugs and vaccines; e.g., assisted-care institutions, therapy organizations, the Pharma companies themselves who produce drugs to attenuate these side-effects, etc.

So, as we have seen in the case of the MMR vaccine, is there a 'conspiracy' to minimize/cover-up its adverse effects or is what happened just the consequence of the normal order of business of the institutions involved? For the telcoms and electric power utilities, is there a 'conspiracy' to minimize/cover-up the adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation (RF and ELF-EMF) or is the present state of affairs just the consequence of the normal order of business of the institutions involved? We can go down the list of pervasive causes of disease and ask the same questions: fluoridation, biosludge, glyphosate, etc.

And, most importantly, to what degree are we, the public, part of these 'conspiracies'? Is our overwhelming addiction to, and craving for, all the myriad wireless communication systems not supportive of that conspiracy/institutional modus operandi? Is our reluctance to admit the adverse effects of non-ionizing radiation, and thereby allow our elected politicians not to challenge and reverse the status quo, not part of the problem?

After I published the EMF health effects paper, I conveyed the adverse effects to a number of highly educated colleagues. Do you think even one made any changes in their use of wireless devices? I am almost convinced that if the NYT published the adverse effects of EMF on page 1, it would have minimal impact on the use of wireless systems.

In the AoA community, there is the belief that if only the true information about vaccines were relayed to the public, there would be a dramatic change. I remain to be convinced; information dissemination was not the key factor in the partial reduction of smoking among adults, and it is less than clear to me that it would impact vaccine use to the degree we believe. Obviously, I support maximum information dissemination, but its impact remains to be seen.

Bradstreet Hero

"conspiracy theory" a term coined by the CIA (no doubt to try to discredit those who spot their machinations).

Prince Philip says engineers are key to global population solutions

Absolutely riveting and a MUST (37mins for Bradstreet dets)

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.)