"I stand by my conclusion: "What is crystal-clear from Thompson's statements over all these documents and postings is that at least two sub-groups were shown to be at increased risk for autism from the MMR vaccine, research misconduct/fraud/malfeasance (pick one or more) had been committed, and the cover-up occurred with knowledge at the highest levels of the CDC.""

No argument there. We need to be careful not to make and accept as fact assumptions about circumstances, motivations and events, especially when it comes to observations of Thompson's behavior.

Rouleur,
I don't understand your point. Why are we trying to glean intentions from the documents rather than hearing about the actual intent from the participants. Let's have a Senate hearing and haul all the culprits in to explain what actually went on at the time. Personally, I don't agree that the documents show that there was no change in the study design, but it hardly matters. The CDC is set up to protect us and our precious children from harm. How on God's earth can it possibly be acceptable to ignore the MMR/African American/Isolated Autism finding even if it did not arise from a strict interpretation of the study design? I think some people think it is Pharma's earth, not God's earth. Do you really think that Americans will be happy to hear that the CDC found evidence that supports a connection between the MMR and autism, but they didn't report it because they wouldn't have found it if they had stayed with the study design that you claim they had in the beginning? It's bad enough when pharmaceuticals don't report data from unfavorable studies, but the government is supposed to protect us. I can't respect anyone who puts pharma profits above the health of our children, and that's all your argument does.

Greg,

I have been doing some temporal tracking of Thompson's statements, and the results are interesting.

On 8 May 2014, in his first taped conversation with Hooker, he states (as documented in Vaccine Whistleblower): " I got a really strong effect with African-American males. It was statistically significant at thirty-six months as well as twenty-four months."

On 27 August 2014, he states (as documented on his lawyer's Web site): " 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.....My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine."

On 9 September 2014, in a document purportedly written by Thompson, with unknown purpose and audience (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5ddc82s7/AAA-CRgw3dwNLJewm9suZG1Ea/CDC2/Sept%209%202014%20WT%20Docs/Statement%20of%20Dr%20William%20Thompson%20re%20MMR%20Study%2009092014.pdf?dl=0), he adds caveats to the statements on his lawyer's Web site, and states additionally: "In addition to significant effects for black males, we also found significant effects for "isolated autism cases"".

Now, one would expect he would be most honest when speaking in what he believed was confidentiality to Hooker, which is the 8 May statement. Look at the statement; there's no ambivalence.

By 27 August, he has already been 'outed' on some Web sites, and, given initial reactions, one would expect a more guarded statement. Instead of 'really strong effect', he uses the word 'suggested'. However, the 27 August statement is crystal-clear; no ambivalence. There was a cover-up, and there was fraud/misconduct/malfeasance, whichever politically correct term one chooses.

By 9 September, two weeks have passed since the statement on his lawyer's Web site. In the published phone transcripts, he stated his desire to remain in government. We can safely assume that in this two week period, he is doing what is necessary to keep his job. Rappoport's comments (appended) are probably an accurate description of what took place.

Thompson had no choice if he wanted to save his job, qualify for a Federal pension, and maintain the semblance of a normal life. During that two week period, he was undoubtedly subject to major pressures from the CDC to minimize further public statements damaging to the CDC and the other vaccine 'pushers'. He observed that his confidentiality with Hooker had been broken. He also observed the modern-day incarnations of Julius Streicher (who infest the blogosphere and control the mainstream media) had arisen from their Crypts to malign and distort and misinterpret his crystal-clear admissions of research misconduct and cover-up. So, on 9 September, he added (in my view) a relatively meaningless caveat on the African-American findings, but, interestingly, added the 'significant' findings on 'isolated autism' that were not included on the 27 August posting.

What is crystal-clear from Thompson's statements over all these documents and postings is that at least two sub-groups were shown to be at increased risk for autism from the MMR vaccine, research misconduct/fraud/malfeasance (pick one or more) had been committed, and the cover-up occurred with knowledge at the highest levels of the CDC.

RAPPOPORT'S COMMENTS
(https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/cdc-vaccine-whistleblower-the-silence-that-kills/):

"It is my conclusion that Thompson entered into an arrangement with his bosses at the CDC. After his public confession of a year ago, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and cork it. But damage control could be undertaken.

Thompson could say (and he did) that he was willing (and only willing) to work with Congress to present the truth. His CDC bosses were confident that they could, with the help of powerful friends in government and in the pharmaceutical industry, prevent serious Congressional exposure.

And if Thompson maintained silence otherwise, refusing to talk to reporters, there would be little or no coverage of the scandal.

The CDC assured Thompson that he could continue to work for them and retire and receive his full pension".

Greg,
Quite the goalpost shift there. I didn't get off-topic with Wakefield, Hooker, Kennedy--you mention them although I didn't. You also dodge the question I ended with--now that Thompson's documents clearly give lie to the oft-made claim that original or raw data was destroyed, will you or anyone else who claimed that the data was destroyed retract that claim?

As to your three questions...

1) the documents include drafts and notes of study plans as well as the final protocol. Nowhere is there described a requirement that all data run results be included in the published paper. The early finding regarding a small subset of African-American boys was apparently analysed by the investigators including Thompson and after legitimately controlling for confounders the relationship disappeared. So the documents show that there wasn't a relationship/finding to report. The data runs identifying the finding and them the subsequent runs are all still sitting on servers (undestroyed and not "dumped"), and I think some of the SAS printouts in these documents include those data runs. So the documents refute your first claim.

2) The study plan and protocol does NOT include a requirement that the results of all data runs be published. The plan certainly does not require that spurious preliminary results be included. You wishfully believe that such a requirement existed in order to claim "foul, they broke protocol," but that imaginary rule that you would like to read into the study design simply isn't there. The documents make that clear.

3) Finally, you've alleged that Thompson make a "confession" of criminal misconduct. That's laughable, and a willful misreading of what he said. These materials describe him saying that reasonable scientists can disagree, and that while he thought the early finding should have been mentioned in the paper, he clearly states that it didn't support a causal association. There is no mention anywhere in these documents where Thompson says there's causation, no mention of a crime, no description of fraud. You are making that up.

So having moved the goalposts all over the field, you still miss, "wide right."

Greg,

"Even if we were to add up all the vaccine related injuries and arrive at 1 in 10, we would still have the vast majority who are unaffected. Why should they take vaccine injuries seriously?"

That's why the financial cost numbers become important. My estimates in the post(s) below addressed potential costs to the VICP. The 1986 Vaccine Act transferred liability from the vaccine manufacturers to the VICP through the pathway of the Vaccine Court. So, the cost estimates below for autism potentially resulting from MMR vaccine injury to the two sub-groups would impact the VICP (a government operation), and would essentially be an unfunded liability for the American taxpayer.

For every trillion dollars the VICP would be required to pay out according to the assumptions used in my computations, that translates into ~$3110 PER CAPITA. Thus, for every trillion dollars of vaccine injury compensation costs, a family of four would have a debt of $12,440. Depending on the level of award per case of MMR vaccine-generated autism, as discussed in the computations below, the debt incurred by this average family of four could be as high as $50,000! So, while this family's children might not be afflicted by autism, they would be responsible for a substantial amount of debt that was caused by the vaccine manufacturer and the CDC et al, but transferred to them.

"the only time I see the public and politicians taking autism costs seriously is when such costs cause a major economical downturn that they can no longer be ignored"

For the two sub-groups allegedly affected by the MMR vaccine over thirty years, the USA costs alone could range from TWO TRILLION DOLLARS (based on the numbers in my book) to FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS (based on maximum awards from the Vaccine Court to autism victims). Why would we assume these would be the only groups affected by the MMR vaccine, given the apparent operational objectives of the CDC to do whatever is necessary to show there is no major effect from vaccines? Why would we assume the myriad other vaccines wouldn't have similar serious consequences, after honest studies were done to examine both short and long-term adverse effects, over all time periods? I would not exclude costs of TEN(S) OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS if this integration over all vaccines were performed. If the average awards were sufficiently high, and if the VICP was forced to assume this presently unfunded liability, it could (in theory) bankrupt the government. That's what's been hidden from the public, and that's why the vaccine apologists in the blogosphere and the 'manufactured research' performers and sponsors are working 24/7 to shift the discussion.

Greg,

"it would be better for everyone if we 'quietly' end vaccination".

There are times when numbers count. As I showed in the estimates of a previous posting (below), the numbers of those in the African-American and Isolated Autism sub-groups (of the CDC MMR vaccine-autism study) potentially adversely affected (based on Thompson's allegations) are substantial, and the potential costs to the Vaccine Court (if Thompson's allegations are validated) are astronomical - on the order of the Federal budget! And, my numbers of afflicted were based on extremely conservative estimates.

The costs are so large that there would be value in disseminating them to the public at large, well beyond the AoA readership. I think one or more journal articles addressing this issue would be most effective. I have in mind addressing a world-wide audience. There are a number of documents posted recently on the Web purported to be some or all of the released documents (e.g., https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5ddc82s7/AADaZvp7yu_daBhbuZwMfQy4a?dl=0). If and when I can get some verification of the completeness and 'chain of custody' of these documents, I could use them to refine my estimates, and publish one or more articles in the appropriate journals. My guess is the numbers of afflicted will come out much larger, because of my extremely conservative assumptions used for the estimates below. Again, just to emphasize, the two sub-groups are those alleged by Thompson to have been impacted by the MMR vaccine. There could be other sub-groups not identified by Thompson for myriad reasons.

One area I neglected in the estimates below was numbers of afflicted and attendant costs from the MMR vaccine adverse effects world-wide. I included such an estimate in my book only for the African-American sub-group. The global costs were estimated to be about four times the USA costs.

I think that when the larger public becomes aware of the magnitude of the alleged crime/misconduct/malfeasance that was committed, they may begin to develop a different perspective on the vaccine issue. The problem hasn't been framed in stark enough terms so far, in my opinion. USA costs on the order of the Federal budget for one small corner of the vaccine adverse effects parameter space could be what it takes to spark strong indignation.

Linda,
Having detected a statistically significant relationship in a subpopulation of African-American boys the investigators, including Thompson, did what they should have done. They properly controlled for confounders per the study protocol (they didn't change the protocol and they didn't make a post hoc decision to use birth certificate criteria). Using proper biostatistic methodology the analysis indicates that the original potential association was spurious. The data they relied on to do this is not deleted or destroyed or in a garbage can. It's housed on servers as its been for nearly 15 years.

The discussion itself wasn't covered up--Thompsons documents include meeting agendas and notes that cover the duration of the study.

Greg, your earlier comments are non-explanatory and demonstrate nothing other than an unwillingness to acknowledge that the documents say what they say and not what you wish they would say. It's hand-waving and excuse making that fails to address the fact that the documents don't support--and in some specifics directly contradict--claims made by proponents of the CDC whistleblower/cover up narrative now for some 16-18 months.

Limit it to just one issue for example. Much has been made of the claim that data was deleted and destroyed, as Dan Olmstead recently wrote, "dumping raw data into a wastebasket." Thompson explicitly says that the data and all related material is now and always has been stored on servers. Anyone willing to either retract the "data dumping" claim based on what these documents now prove?

Greg

I think you meant 1.02pm yesterday. The LB/RB article was signed by Matt Carey but I think it was typical Dorit Reiss: she quibbles and quibbles but at the end of the day the narrative is basically the same - Thompson's memory may have been imperfect as to details but the big picture of something bad being buried is no different. What it actually demonstrates for all the intense industry that they could not impact on the central issue. Obviously, Thompson is a haunted man. Technically you cannot say correlation is causation, you can say these people cheated and they cheated many times over - and now we have an "unexplained" autism rate of 1 in 45.

Rouler,

Please skim down to my post yesterday at 1:02 pm. I believe I addressed all your assertions of the documents revealing no coverup.

Greg

The Thompson documents are online and a read through them suggests that several key claims that make up the "CDC coverup" or "CDC whistleblower" narrative simply are not true. These are matters of fact rather than matters of interpretation or analysis, and they appear quite clearly in the documents.

First, it has been claimed that "raw data" was dumped into a garbage can and destroyed so as to cover up an alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African-American boys. That is categorically untrue, as Thompson says that "all the associated MMR-Autism Study files have been retained on the Immunization Safety Office computer servers since the inception of the study and they continue to reside there today."

Second, it has been claimed that birth certificate data were used late in the study to intentionally obscure a supposed signal of an association between MMR and autism in African-American boys. That is demonstrably untrue, as the original study design plan way back in April 2001 (many months before the first data analyses were run) includes the use of birth certificates.

Third, it is claimed that the study design/protocol was changed after a result was found in black males, a change that was somehow improper because it intended to suppress the finding by changing how race was used as a variable. The documents, however, indicate that the decision to not use race as an exposure variable was made at the outset of the study, before data was analyzed. It was simply not a change made after the finding regarding black males.

Fourth, it has been claimed that the documents will show that Dr Thompson had proved a link between the MMR and autism in a subpopulation of African-American boys and the established link was intentionally covered up. The documents give lie to that claim, as Thompson himself says that the statistical finding "does not mean there was a true association between the MMR vaccine and autism-like features in this subpopulation."

These 1000 or so pages (not the claimed 100,000) don't take too long to at least review, and just a cursory first read raises these issues. Anyone making claims such as the above after having seen these documents needs to explain why they made claims that are so clearly not supported or even flatly contradicted by the documents. Anyone making such claims without having seen the documents, as well as anyone who believed the claims, should be intellectually honest enough to re-examine their claims and beliefs upon review of the documents.

Just read your latest post, Ronald. Wow -- those are some scary numbers! So what's next? Do we not call vaccination into question and keep maiming 1 in 45 kids, and that's not including all the other vaccine related injuries, in hopes that we won't have to compensate and bankrupt the nation? And, what are the costs involved with this option? This might sound crazy, but perhaps it would be better for everyone if we 'quietly' end vaccination -- and even if we've to compensate pharma for lost profits. A grave injustice, yes -- but less costly!

ANOTHER REASON FOR THE CDC COVER-UP

I came across a HuffPo article on payouts by the Vaccine Court (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html). It describes two cases where children received vaccines, including MMR, and ended up with autism. Interestingly, even though the court awarded damages, it did not admit that the vaccines caused autism.

The key point here is the size of the awards. One family was awarded:

" A lump sum of $969,474.91, to cover "lost future earnings ($648,132.74), pain and suffering ($202,040.17), and life care expenses for Year One ($119,302.00)," plus $20,000 for past expenses.

Another undisclosed sum, several millions more, will be invested in annuities to cover yearly costs for life, which could total $10 million or more, not accounting for inflation. Nearly $80,000 was earmarked for ABA in the first two years."

The other family was awarded:

" a lump sum of $1,030,314.22 "for lost future earnings ($739,989.57), pain and suffering ($170,499.77) and life care expenses for Year One ($119,874.88) plus $190,165.40 for past expenses." Some of that money will go to ABA therapy.

Based on the first year payout, another estimated $9 million will buy annuities for annual expenses through life, which after inflation has the potential to pay over $50 million dollars."

So, the initial lump sum payment was on the order of one million dollars per child, and there appear to be subsequent payouts in the millions of dollars per child, although the wording is less than clear. So, what are the implications of these numbers?

Suppose Thompson were to go fully public, either through a Congressional Hearing, or other forum. Suppose he were to make the case that there is indeed a strong linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism, strong enough for the Courts to believe. Suppose all the MMR vaccine injured were to file suit against the Vaccine Court (subject to any Statute of Limitations rules being waived due to deception/cover-up). What sorts of numbers are we talking about?

In my book, I estimated about 7,000 additional cases of autism annually among African-American children that could have been avoided. I viewed these numbers as very conservative. I made no estimates about the Isolated Autism group, but the filing to the Office of Research Integrity (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5ddc82s7/AABVE_pRs6AfB6wpyOOpVFbaa/ORI%20Complaint.docx?dl=0) suggests substantial additional cases of autism for this group that could have been avoided. For purposes of estimation, I will conservatively assume about 10,000 additional cases annually for this Isolated Autism group, given that its base pool is much larger than that of the African-American pool. This would give a total ~17,000 additional cases of autism annually that could have been avoided had these groups known about the potential increased risk.

What would be the levels of payout from the Vaccine Court for these numbers of additional cases? The MMR vaccine has been on the market for over forty years, but let's confine the time period of interest to the past thirty years. In that period, with the above assumptions, about 500,000 additional children will have developed autism from the early MMR timing. If the awards average the initial lump sum for the two children described above (~one million dollars), this is a total of FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS! If the awards average the number I used in my book, based on recent published lifetime costs for autism (~four million dollars average), then the payout would be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS! If, in the extreme case, the awards average the total compensation for the above two HuffPo examples (~ten million dollars), then the payout would be FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS! This is larger than the Federal budget of ~3.7 trillion dollars.

The numbers could be scaled down for lesser payouts per person, and would have to be scaled up if the numbers of afflicted have been under-estimated. And, these numbers are only for ONE VACCINE FOR TWO SUB-GROUPS. If, as I am assuming, the Courts accept Thompson's findings and the cover-up, we would have to assume that some credible studies would have to be performed on the adverse effects of ALL vaccines on ALL groups over ALL time periods, and the number afflicted by all these vaccines added to the total above. When we add in the long and short term effects from all vaccines on all diseases, it is hard to see how the Federal government would not go bankrupt under the more extreme payout assumptions. That's why I really believe there is zero chance of the Government-Industry-Media Complex, and its coterie of apologists in the blogosphere and research manufacturing community, allowing the truth about vaccines (and many other of the pervasive causes of disease shown in my book) to ever see the light of day!

@Bayareamom - you may have missed this link the last time I posted it. The documents are in the public domain. You can download them ALL from this link.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5ddc82s7/AADaZvp7yu_daBhbuZwMfQy4a?dl=0

Linda1,

"There is no way that Thompson can be blamed for this cover-up."

The cover-up has been in effect since 2001, according to Thompson, and he has participated in every phase. By his own admission, he (and his collaborators) released no information of their alleged misdeeds for over a decade. He then decided to discuss his version of the truth with Hooker. As I understand it, there were ~thirty phone conversations, and only the last four were taped (please correct me if this is in error). It is by no means clear to me that Thompson wanted to be associated with the public release of the information. His posting of a confession on his lawyer's Web site strikes me as a pre-emptive action.

Was his action courageous? From one perspective, it was courageous relative to the actions of his collaborators, since none of his collaborators were willing to make this revelation. Alternatively, his revelations to Hooker could have been a blunder, if he expected confidentiality. With the information at hand, we have no way of knowing. But, allowing perhaps a hundred thousand or more children to develop autism (who could have theoretically avoided it if they had known they were at high risk from the MMR vaccine) so far, and then not releasing the information directly to the public immediately after the Web site posting, means that 'courageous' comes with many caveats. Ask the parents (of children in that high risk group who developed autism) how they would characterize his silence for a decade, and his not releasing the critical documents to the public immediately after his Web posting.

Rappoport has it right (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/cdc-vaccine-whistleblower-the-silence-that-kills/):

"It is my conclusion that Thompson entered into an arrangement with his bosses at the CDC. After his public confession of a year ago, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and cork it. But damage control could be undertaken.

Thompson could say (and he did) that he was willing (and only willing) to work with Congress to present the truth. His CDC bosses were confident that they could, with the help of powerful friends in government and in the pharmaceutical industry, prevent serious Congressional exposure.

And if Thompson maintained silence otherwise, refusing to talk to reporters, there would be little or no coverage of the scandal.

The CDC assured Thompson that he could continue to work for them and retire and receive his full pension".

As I reported in Chapter 9 of my book, government whistleblowers usually don't fare very well. They tend to be fired (Marcus, Lewis [EPA]) and/ or prosecuted (many examples from NSA, CIA). David Graham, who blew the whistle on FDA, was saved from dismissal by the intervention of Sen Grassley, before whose committee he testified in 2004. Government has its own methods of dealing with non-team players, and it usually doesn't involve allowing them to continue doing business as usual!

"If those documents reveal an intentional mass poisoning of the world's children, then the release of those documents to anyone is a matter of national security. What do you think would happen if America's allies (and others) around the world get wind of the fact that their population has been deliberately poisoned by American CDC scientists, with the full blessing of the rest of the American government?"

I don't believe the alleged perpetrators wanted "an intentional mass poisoning of the world's children". But, even if they did, they are senior enough bureaucrats that they would never commit it to paper. The rationale that I would guess they used is actually used all the time. It is used in both open publications and documents to be kept hidden from the public. The reasoning goes as follows: 'use of this vaccine/drug has great value for controlling symptoms, but there will be some side effects. We believe the benefits outweigh the costs.'

Your comments give little credit to foreign governments. Do you think they don't do epidemiological studies in their own countries, or laboratory studies? Do you think they are really unaware of the adverse effects of vaccines? Read the section of Chapter 9 (9D3) on off-shoring of medical experiments. Many of these governments, not limited to developing ones, are fully cognizant of, and complicit with, the unethical nature of many of these studies/clinical trials and the lack of voluntary, informed participation and adequately informed consent. Vaccine side effects would be business as usual.

These documents have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with protecting reputations, careers, and profits! They are the main domino. When they fall, the other dominos will come crashing down. Who will then believe any studies from the CDC, given that its upper management was alleged by Thompson to be part of the cover-up; such actions imply this is operational policy! And, who will believe the sister biomedical Federal agencies were unaware of the problems, given the integrated nature of their collaborations with CDC? That's why every vaccine apologist on the blogosphere has been going all-out 24/7 since Thompson's posted confession to distort and downplay the potential significance of Thompson's revelations. And, that's why giving these apologists the critical information first is so damaging to the cause of justice!

Greg,

"using the crucial ammo that the confessions have provided."

"Ammo" is usually produced for the expressed purpose of protecting our nation. Unfortunately, that "ammo" was sitting on a train at a railroad siding for eighteen months, and it has now been sent to the enemy! Their distorted message is the one that will get emblazoned in the mind of the public, and by the time that the honest analysts can get their hands on the data and show the real impact, the damage will have been done. Sorry, I don't believe this is an accident. The stakes are too high for this sequence of events to have occurred by chance.

"Bayareamom and Ronald, rather than bemoaning that Swann, Posey and Thompson are not doing enough, I think our advocacy is best served by apprecating and using the crucial ammo that the confessions have provided."

I wasn't 'bemoaning,' inasmuch as clarifying the entire assertion that Thompson is either a whistle-blower or a hero.

I have pretty high standards for both; Thompson falls into neither category. He DOES fall into the category of someone who has apparently felt enormous guilt and thus came clean during several conversations he held with Dr. Hooker. And he is to be commended for the purging of his soul, but at the same time, I'm sure he felt enormous relief when doing so.

In the end, whatever blowback from this purging of the soul on Thompson's part remains to be seen.

Understand what has happened here: We have a gentleman, a good man by all accounts, but also one who is most definitely flawed as we all are, come clean with Dr. Hooker. This man's 'confession' then becomes a public event through the release of his information via Drs. Hooker and Wakefield.

But then what happens? Thompson immediately seeks refuge under his attorney's cloak, retains his employment at the CDC and most probably remains there due to mutual agreement more or less along the lines of which Rappoport has surmised.

Thompson states he will ONLY speak via subpoena before a Congressional hearing, but as Rappoport has stated, even if this were to occur, the chances that anything that Thompson has to reveal before any sort of Congressional hearing makes it to the public, and/or would change ANYTHING regarding the malfeasance of our medical institutions, is remote.

There are powers that be who control the flow of information and thus far, the documents of which now journalist Ben Swann claims to have under his wraps, have not been mentioned, nor released, to the public since Swann claims to have received them.

And just who now has those documents? I am assuming, from what I've read, that Swann's superiors have those documents, affiliates who have sponsors who make decisions as to what gets released to its listening public.

I'm not so certain Posey did not realize that most of those witnessing his remarks during that five minute speech would never, would ever show the slightest interest in reviewing those documents. He's very familiar as to how this game of controlled opposition is played, else he wouldn't be in the position he is in at this time.

All is never as it seems; people are not always who and what they seem. Do not always be fooled by those that APPEAR to have your best interests at heart.

There have been many whistleblowers who have risked their very lives and livelihoods to release the information they knew to their public. I would never, ever tell someone what they SHOULD do should they find themselves in the sort of predicament as has Thompson, but on the other hand, do not prop Thompson up as the hero of the day, when in truth, he has not come clean, he has not revealed all that he knows, to his public.

Many children have suffered because this information was suppressed and many more children will continue to suffer because this documentation has now fallen into the hands of those that are still controlling and suppressing that very information.

Do not be deceived, otherwise.

Bayareamom and Ronald, I agree 100% with your assessments that at most Thompson is a reluctant whistleblower. But, what I would like to stress is, regardless, Thompson has been an incredible boon for our advocacy. If you were a parent debating vaccines perhaps you might be tempted to buy into the propaganda that vaccines are 'safe and effective'and dismiss the 'nut-jobs' who say otherwise, but how can you dismiss the confession of a senior CDC scientist who say the CDC buried a vaccine-autism link and criminally destroyed documents in the process?!

To be honest, the way shills were taking to the internet with claims of no coverup, I was truly fearing that they found things in the documents that contradict Thompson's claims. Seriously, this is the only way to undermine Thompson claims of a coverup. From what I have seen, however, the documents fully support Thompson's central narrative of research fraud and criminal destruction of documents. Perhaps there are no new bombshells, but no coverup? Far from it!
I might also add that none of Thompson's colleagues and 'co-conspirers' have refuted his claims, and despite the CDC claiming that they are investigating the matter, they too have not refuted the claims.

Not surprising, what we have are shills trotting out the most pathetic defenses in response to the documents. They claim...

1. The strawman argument that the birth certificate sample was decided on from the start, despite Thompson never denying this and it being irrelevant to the fact that a significant finding was withheld.

2. They point to Thompson's claim that a finding of a race link does not mean it is so, despite this being standard caution from scientists whenever they establish links that are usually undesirable or unexpected.

3. They argue that Thompson's written words do not match Posey's quotes of Thompson, despite Thompson's written confession indeed specifying criminal wrong doing.

4. Running out of excuses, they simply dismissed not reporting the race finding as a mistake.

Bayareamom and Ronald, rather than bemoaning that Swann, Posey and Thompson are not doing enough, I think our advocacy is best served by apprecating and using the crucial ammo that the confessions have provided.

"Paid" to do what? I'm paid to do my day job, but that has nothing to do with vaccines or autism. Or pharmaceuticals, or any government department or agency.

@Georg Elser - I haven't a clue what you're talking about. That's a link to the "Thompson" documents as supplied to Matt Carey and Dorit Reiss. I think John Stone has posted the same link elsewhere.

Linda1,

"It would have been very bad if he had gone to the media. I'm sure that Thompson is worried about his family."

The Thompson case, whose details are based mainly on his comments and documents, is a textbook example of an ethical dilemma. Let's re-visit the Original Sin, or at least Thompson's version of it. He and his collaborators performed a case-control study to (mainly) identify linkages (if any) of MMR vaccine timing on autism development. They laid out a study plan, collected data according to the plan, and analyzed the data. According to Thompson, the initial analysis showed that two sub-groups were at increased risk for autism: African-Americans, and Isolated Autism. The collaborators then eliminated data to arrive at a final conclusion that there was no increased risk for autism from the MMR vaccine. They eventually published these results in a 2004 Pediatrics journal paper.

The researchers were essentially epidemiologists. They certainly could estimate the impacts of withholding this information, as I did in my book. For the very conservative assumptions I made in the book, approximately twenty African-American children PER DAY could be expected to develop autism due to this increased risk, and this development of autism could (in theory, at least) be avoided by either vaccinating at a later date, or not vaccinating, or....... I haven't seen the incident risk data for the Isolated Autism sub-group, but since it includes all children, not limited to African-Americans, it would probably be larger than the numbers for the African-American sub-group.

So, in 2001, Thompson et al have this data showing that additional cases of autism can be expected for certain sub-groups based on existing vaccination recommendations. What should they do? What are their ethical obligations? Well, we can envision a full spectrum of potential actions, ranging from the full cover-up that most of the collaborators decided to do (according to Thompson) to immediately disseminating all the critical information to the media (mainstream and alternative), Congress, foreign media and politicians, etc.

The ethical path is clear; some variant of the latter option. Yes, the careers of anyone who took this path would be ruined, and they might face financial ruin as well. I doubt whether they would face the same problems as Manning or Snowden relative to confinement, since national security was not an issue in this case.

Fast forward fourteen years. Over 100,000 African-American children have developed autism that could have been avoided (based on Thompson's incidence numbers). Every day that the truth about the MMR vaccine remains concealed, another twenty African-American children will develop autism that could have been avoided. While Thompson or his other collaborators cannot undo the past, they have the ability of potentially eliminating further unnecessary development of autism from this source. At what point do the ruined lives of an additional twenty FAMILIES every day trump the comfort of Thompson and his family?

What would you have done, Linda1, if you had been in Thompson's position in 2001? Would you have gone public, with all the risks I stated above? What would I have done? One thing I can state for sure; I would have never signed my name to the journal paper. Would I have gone public with the data; I have no idea? Most of the researchers who worked on tobacco effects, asbestos, wireless communications, biosludge, etc, did not go public, and seemed to have no major ethical problems with people developing serious diseases as a result of these cover-ups.

Chapter 9 of my book is devoted to examining sources and examples of distortions and omissions from the biomedical literature. A portion of the biomedical research community, perhaps a large portion, does not seem to have problems producing these distortions, and condemning large numbers of people to unnecessary disease and perhaps premature death. That doesn't mean it is right or ethical, or that it should be condoned.

@Bayareamom. The documents are here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5ddc82s7/AADaZvp7yu_daBhbuZwMfQy4a?dl=0

Bayareamom,

"I have stated in the past that I've never considered Thompson to be a whistle-blower. Yes, absolutely - he was a reluctant whistle-blower at best."

In reading the taped transcripts from Barry's book, I had the impression of a person with a troubled conscience going to Confessional. Hooker was the Priest, but he decided not to retain confidentiality.

Thompson was in a bind. As I understand it, he didn't have sufficient time in government to retire and qualify for a pension. If he left his job, who would hire him? The Pharma companies? The FDA/EPA/NIH? He took the steps that would protect himself and his family, which I suspect most people in his position would have done.

Rappoport is correct in his assessment of the impact of Thompson's silence. But, Rappoport is asking another person to step forward and risk ????? in order to benefit the greater good. We've seen what happens to the Snowdens and Mannings of this world when they stepped forward to benefit the greater good. Such people are an extreme rarity, and, as much as we would like it to happen, it is unrealistic to expect Thompson to do the same. The fact that he was a participant in the deliberate cover-up of critical data that may have resulted in many thousands of children developing autism makes his situation even more precarious than that of Snowden or Manning.

One of several articles written by Jon Rappoport re the Thompson issue:

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/cdc-vaccine-whistleblower-the-silence-that-kills/

SNIP:

"...Short of a hearing, we want Thompson to sit down with a reporter and speak on camera, extensively, and submit himself to questions.

He has said he will not do this. He and his lawyer, Rick Morgan, know there are a number of reporters who will do a proper interview, without edits. I could easily name a dozen reporters who would conduct an in-depth interview, live, online, for the whole world to see.

Thompson’s reluctance? It appears he believes his public testimony, under oath, in front of a Congressional committee, will protect him from harm. I’m talking about harm from people who will do anything to maintain the reputation of vaccines.

But what if there never is a full-blooded open Congressional hearing? What then? Will Thompson maintain silence for the rest of his life?

More is at stake here than the danger of the MMR vaccine. The CDC has done hundreds of key studies on vaccine safety. They are all thrown into doubt by Thompson’s assertion— recently quoted by Congressman Bill Posey on the floor of the Congress—that Thompson and his colleagues brought a garbage can into a CDC office and threw out documents that would have shown the MMR connection to autism.

This speaks of a massive indifference to human life and safety.

Thompson should also know, and certainly does know, that Congressional hearings have a way of soft-pedaling accusations against government agencies. There is no guarantee that, in such a setting, he would be able to air his confession and his grievances in full.

Whereas, in an interview with independent investigators/reporters, he would have complete latitude. Time constraints would not apply. He would be asked for many, many details. The full story, from his point of view, would emerge.

It is my conclusion that Thompson entered into an arrangement with his bosses at the CDC. After his public confession of a year ago, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and cork it. But damage control could be undertaken.

Thompson could say (and he did) that he was willing (and only willing) to work with Congress to present the truth. His CDC bosses were confident that they could, with the help of powerful friends in government and in the pharmaceutical industry, prevent serious Congressional exposure.

And if Thompson maintained silence otherwise, refusing to talk to reporters, there would be little or no coverage of the scandal..."

Bayareamom

The transcripts show that Thompson regarded the mainstream media as entirely manipulated by the industry and his employers. He was very worried about what they might do to him. You have to remember by this juncture even Sharyl Attkisson was out of a job.

Ronald

These are good points. We see here a guy who is terrbly uneasy with culture - horrified would be more like it - and just doesn't know what to do (and still doesn't) and is very anxious about his pension. It looks like I was an error about him giving the documents to Posey at the beginning - there was talk about it in the first conversation. He was still talking about doing it through normal channels (FOI request). By the second call he had taken up with a whistleblower lawyer. And the situation spins out of control. What's true is that the info is now in the public domain. The partnership of Matt Carey and Dorit Reiss have entered some minor quibbles but it looks to be pretty much what he said nevertheless.

I agree with John that with the Whistleblower affair things have reached an impasse. I will also not accuse anyone of being a turncoat just based on suspicion. What we must remember is the impasse cut both ways, and as long as the Whistleblower affair is left hanging in the air, it does not bode well for confidence in vaccines. Why do you think we have shills now relentlessly blitzing #cdwhistleblower with tweets about how the documents prove no coverup, despite the fact that we now have hard evidence of a finding of a race-effect that wasn't reported and Thompson's direct confirmation of a clandestine meeting involving documents destruction? Shills are not just seeking to stop hearings, they're seeking to outright kill the Whistleblower ordeal. Unfortunately for them, with the truth not on their side, this is proving to be a truly tall task.

Hi Ronald,

Not sure about that chronology. Reading the tape transcripts if memory serves Thompson had already handed over the documents to Posey before the first conversation and applied for whistleblower status at least by the time of the second conversation (but quite likely at the same time - May 2014 or before). I think he was a real whistleblower but he had no clear plan about how to go about it (he didn't consider mainstream media an option - he despised them). Maybe he hoped Posey would make more progress. But the whole thing has reached impasse, no doubt.

I was seriously considering voting for Trump based on sole autism issue, but after hearing his declaration that he would start war with Iran - meaning also war with Russia and China - I am scared of him to death. Such war would definitely annihilate all US and Americans.

Trump seems insane and is completely ignorant of global history and politics, which makes him extremely dangerous. If he kills us all in WWIII, autism problem does not matter. In this situation, we are left with R. Paul or we may try to educate Clinton about vaccine causes of autism. However, I have lost hope for political solution to autism epidemics, it seems that we need to go to national war with criminal pharma-medical mafia.

Shanti: That YouTube clip of Hillary on autism is from 2008. If you look at her 2016 plan for autism, all references to "cure" or "prevention" or "epidemic" are gone, even though the epidemic is now far more widespread. And Ari Ne'man has said that he's very, very happy with Hillary's new plan, so apparently they did get to her. The 2016 plan also fails to acknowledge the existence of low-functioning autistic people, focusing only on those who can live independently. And it never mentions wandering as problem, though kids are now drowning themselves at the rate one of every week. Of course if she did mention wandering, then she would have to acknowledge that autism is a disease which is sometimes fatal.

We have seen shills straddle three excuses for not reporting the race-effect, and even with some being contradictory. We're told the race data wasn't available without birth certificates, they had to control for confounders, and, now, it was a mistake. Yet, is Matt Carey reaching for a new one here with talk of the researchers planning from the start to only study race as a covariate? I noticed even Orac had the 'good sense' to ignore this, and stick instead with the strawman that the researchers planned to use the birth certificate sample from the beginning.

Note that this draft analysis plan is from April 3, 2001. Well before the final version, the “protocol”, which was September 5. More importantly, this is a long time before a race analysis was started. But even more, notice how there’s an annotation “I would include race as a covariate, not as an exposure variable.” That’s critical–they decided against using race as an exposure variable from the start. Before they did a race analysis. Another point: they were already planning on using birth certificate data right from the start.

Greg,
So, instead of Congressional oversight and formal hearings to investigate governmental criminal fraud that involves the release, recommendation and aggressive promotion and mandating of drugs that have allegedly harmed and continue to harm millions of children worldwide every day,

this will be settled via a mud fight on the blogs? As if there are no laws and there is no government?

That's just great.

Another important development from the documents is we now have 'hard' confirmation of the race-effect finding. Before it was just Thompson's claim, and which the CDC appeared hesitant to confirm. And now that it is confirmed, can someone please explain to me where exactly Hooker went wrong?! I can also see why shills would now say it was a 'mistake' to not report the finding. Now that it is confirmed they are flat out of excuses.

And again folks, they're 'celebrating' as if these documents are a big win for them!

Linda

I believe they applied to Posey.

Didn't know where to put this, but did anyone see that shills are now blitzing that they have the Whistlebower's documents and they don't show a cover-up. This blows my mind when just about every document they referenced so far supports Thompson's central allegation that they veered from the study's protocol by not reporting the significant race-effect finding for blacks in the general population.

Making a claim for no cover-up Gorski has also decided to launch a new strawman. He points to the study's initial analysis plan that called for using birth certificate info, and the reasoning goes that this proves that such info wasn't introduced to mask the race-effect finding for the total sample. Yet, Thompson never alledged this (maybe Hooker and Wakefield did), but, regardless, this is irrelevant. The central issue is whether the researchers breached the study's protocol by withholding key findings. How they did it is essentially irrelevant.

And, what is their new excuse for whitholding key findings you ask? First it was they were unable to obtain race information for the entire population without birth certificates info (CDC), and then it was about controlling for confounders (Destafano to Atkinson,and essentially contradicting CDC's insinuation that they obtained no race results for the entire sample). And now the excuse for witholding key findings is -- wait for it-- it was a mistake (shills).

The dishonesty is truly a thing of marvel. Give them props though for their preemptive blitz.

Hi Reader

Do you mean 18%?

Let us talk about the real financial costs of autism for those who only understand power and money.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/06/still-covering-up-the-new-autism-speaksjama-study-of-the-cost-of-autism.html

Wow? How pathetic! She's obviously been drinking the Koolaid by the neurodiverse crowd when she talks about talents and doesn't even mention wondering why in hell so many kids are autistic and of those only 82% will be employed.

Folks, self-funded Donald Trump has been autism advocate for years before it was "cool". And he is the only candidate willing to take on Vaccine Industry.
The corporate media wants to take him down. Wonder why?

Here is a web address for contacting Hillary Clinton. Perhaps we should all let her know our views on autism, what are our concerns, what we believe is necessary.

https://forms.hillaryclinton.com/contact

For chronic diseases, there are three main issues: the cause, treatment, and prevention. For many/most of these diseases, there are organizations that profit from the cause: e.g., vaccines, wireless communications, glyphosate, biosludge, fluoridation, etc. There are other organizations under the umbrella of 'healthcare' that profit from the treatment: pharmaceutical companies, doctors, therapists, nursing homes, etc. Both of these groups lose big-time when it comes to prevention. Much prevention (eliminating the cause) translates into taking products off the market.

Hillary's response to the questioner supports the profit-making side of the equation: more treatment, more supportive care, etc. This is certainly necessary for those already afflicted. There is nothing in her response that addresses preventing future occurrences of autism, mainly taking the profit-making causes off the market. It is the type of response the profit-making therapy community would want to hear, and the type of response that the profit-making causation community (vaccines, EMF, etc) would want to hear. It is the same type of response that the other Presidential candidates would make, and that most members of Congress would make, if pressed.

My daughter was diagnosed as autistic in 1965 in Edinburgh, Scotland, we had to move home 400 miles to Surrey to find a special school that knew anything about autism for her, the first of its kind in Britain. Later in 1983 I led a group that established Stroud Court, a residential care center for autistic school leavers, only the third of these in Britain. Today in 2015 there are hundreds of both types of centers, so much for the claim that autism has always existed, my daughter is now fifty two, where are her elders cared for?
Tony Bateson Oxford UK