Eindeker, you should have quit while you were ahead.

I will show you the data from the original paper and show how they calculate the odds ratio, so that we can settle this.

In the original paper, it says:

"More case (93.4%) than control children (90.6%) were vaccinated before 36 months (OR: 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.04–2.14 in the total sample"

MORE CASE than CONTROL children were vaccinated before 36 months. All the CASE children were autistic, which means that there is a larger population of autistic children vaccinated BEFORE 36 months, in comparison to the CONTROL children.

Here is the actual data from the original study: https://goo.gl/15w1x2

Let me explain to you how these "age at first MMR vaccination" cut off works.

When they say 18 months cut off, it means that for each case and control group, you add up all the numbers BELOW 18 months, and add up the numbers ABOVE 18 months, and compare the ratio.

And when they say 36 months cutt off, it means that for each case and control group, you add up all the numbers BELOW 36 months, and all the numbers ABOVE 36 months, and compare the ratio.

I'll perform the calculations for this for 18, 24, and 36 months, you'll see that my calculated Odds Ratio is close to the actual study for 36 month cut off.

DE = Case Children UNDER cut off
DN = Case Children ABOVE cut off
HE = Control Children UNDER cut off
HN = Control Children ABOVE cut off

Odds Ratio OR = (DE/DN)/(HE/HN)

18 months

DE = 448

DN = 176

HE = 1268

HN = 556

OR = (DE/DN)/(HE/HN) = 2.55/2.28 = 1.12

24 months

DE = 538

DN = 86

HE = 1528

HN = 296

OR = (DE/DN)/(HE/HN) = 6.26/5.16 = 1.21

36 months

DE = 583

DN = 41

HE = 1655

HN = 172

OR = ( DE/DN )/( HE/HN ) = 14.22 / 9.62 = 1.48

You can see from the ratio, that there are MORE CASE (autistic) children with first MMR EARLIER than 36 months vs AFTER 36 months in comparison to the CONTROL children.

That means that there is a higher risk (or odds) of being austistic when you are vaccinated EARLIER than 36 months compared to being vaccinated AFTER 36 months.

Your conclusion that being vaccinated AFTER 36 months is at higher risk for autism is completely false. Are you still going to deny that you are wrong?!

Linda1
"It showed that the younger babies had the bulk of the severe reactions, which makes sense"
Now just remind me where exactly that was stated in the paper or DeStefano's, and no, I'm not saying "You're saying that African American boys are at increased risk of autism if they get the MMR after 18 months" I'm saying (a) the stats Hooker used were wrong & (b) It's highly suggestive of a confounding factor giving this false association, but we'll see what a proper re-analysis shows, I'd recommend however that you don't bet against all the wheels coming off AW's latest bandwagon

So Eindecker,
You're saying that African American boys are at increased risk of autism if they get the MMR after 18 months, the "normal time" (normal, like they come down the birth canal with a prescription in their little hands that says, 'Give him the MMR at 18 months')? You might want to inform the CDC so they can revise their "catch-up" schedule to, if you didn't get it by 18 months, you shouldn't get it at all.

Of course, you're full of it. That's not what the data showed at all. It showed that the younger babies had the bulk of the severe reactions, which makes sense (not that an older baby or person couldn't react). Younger babies that catch these 3 wild viruses all at the same time would be in big trouble. Injecting them attenuated versions doesn't work out that well either, especially with the kitchen sink load of other crap they get at that same "well child" visit.

Whyser it is you who needs to read & understand the paper, look at Hookers paper, don't take my word for it
> Table 2: Afro American males No significant increased risk of autism for children vaccinated 0-18 months risk of autism increases 0-24 months & even more so 0-36 months so it is males with delayed vaccination that is driving the apparent risk.
>Table 4: Afro American males (excluding low birth weight babies) No significant increased risk of autism for 0-18 month & 0-24 month cohorts

Statements such as "All African American (male) children receiving the MMR vaccine in under 36 months are at increased risk of autism" is clearly not substantiated by this paper, something else could well have been happening in the delayed vaccine group to drive this (apparent) association

So Whyser it is clear from Hooker's own analysis that there is no significant risk of autism in Afro American males receiving MMR vaccination at the recommended time, ie 0-18 months, it is the delayed vaccination group that is driving this flawed statistical association.

A conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories.

No Whyser unfortunately it is you who needs to assemble a few brain cells in a straight line, the flawed Hooker analysis showed a link between time of MMR vaccine & autism in Afro American boys at 24 & 36 months, but not at 18 months, 18 months is the normal vaccination time. Get it????...the delayed immunization correlates with autism risk, now I respectfully suggest you go and read & understand the paper

Barry
I don't thank him for anything. The only he should be entitled to, is jail time.

I agree with you. He put his security, his financial well being and JOB ahead of the health and well being of millions of children around the world not just in the US and the UK. The US isn't the only country with an autism epidemic.

**********

His job WAS to protect all of those children. What he protected ahead of all those children, was his paycheck.

I don't live in the US either, so I do understand that the US isn't the only country with an autism epidemic.

Bill you still trying to earn that new car bonus or what..

A Former PR Worker Whose Job Was To Defend Fracking Online Describes How They Mislead The Public

http://trofire.com/2016/04/25/former-pr-worker-whose-job-defend-fracking-online-describes-deceptive-forced/

MMR RIP

Bill
What are you basing that on other than conspiracy theories?

And there it is. I was waiting for it. Whenever a troll gets backed into a corner they throw out the "conspiracy theory" tactic. The Term “Conspiracy Theory” — an Invention of the CIA-http://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia/

“What about terrorism? Organized crime? Gangs? Hostile foreign militaries? What about J. Edgar Hoover telling the country decades ago that the Mafia didn't exist? What about those WMD's In Iraq? That little conspiracy killed millions from all different countries and because of the toxic fallout continues to kill to this day. How about Iran-Contra? Operation MONGOOSE? WATERGATE? All of those require conspiracies are you telling me they do not exist? That is quite a claim.” What would you base that on?

Usage of the meme "conspiracy theory" is a well documented tool used by corrupt governments and corporations. Even though the term was coined decades ago it continues to be refined by the CDC's office of Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS)aka CDC's Medical Mafia. Jon Rapport reports this:

"While I was writing my first book in 1987, AIDS INC., I spoke with a media rep at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). After a bit of wrangling, he told me what I wanted to know: the CDC sends certain people to Langley for CIA training, and when they come back they have advanced security clearances.

This melded nicely with what I was learning about the CDC’s little-known Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in media outlets.

They invent medical reality out of thin air."
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/zika-the-cdc-is-the-medical-cia/.

What you fail to see, since you threw out the meme is the person, group, corporation and especially a government that accuses others of---are the ones involved in a conspiracy. It is a way to distract--saying hey look over there, not here. Usually, conspiracies cannot not be accomplished without the assistance of other groups (doctors & researchers) and the MSM who, because a substantial amount of the operating cost is funded by big pharam-they go right along and of course the online propagandist aka TROLLS. They all use the Edward Bernays playbook. Found this gem online years ago. Below are links to the document, sort of a birth certificate of the 'conspiracy theorist'. This official government documents reveals an ongoing and the unprecedented strategy to intimidate by using misinformation tactics that the American government has and is using to ridicule and malign citizens who do not bow to the official narrative. http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html. Original: http://thewebfairy.com/masonic/Ciaa.jpg

"I'm not a statistician, but he apparently didn't adjust for confounders or use correct statistical models or even understand the difference between a case-control study and a cohort study.
So again I ask what's the controversy?"

Bill Pembry, did you actually look at the study, or are you coming to these conclusions based on astroturf websites?

Tell me this then, if the original study could perform an analysis on timing based on age and gender on the TOTAL population, then why couldn't they do it on race? Did they adjust for confounders for gender and age in the TOTAL population? And if they did not, then why did they include it as part of their analysis? And if they DID, then why couldn't they do it for race?

In fact, why did the original study even bother with the TOTAL population in the first place when they may have not adjusted for confounders? I suppose because it had to do with following their analysis protocol, but that doesn't justify removing the race effect.

As well, it stands in contrast with the memo stated by Thompson:

"The final analysis plan described analyses for the TOTAL sample and the BIRTH CERTIFICATE sample which included assessment of the RACE variable. (See pages 7 and 8 of the Final Analysis Plan). There were two primary endpoints for the study. One was using a threshold of 36 months (see Table 3a of Final Analysis Plan), and the second was a threshold of 18 months. (See Table 3b of Final Analysis Plan). We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either the 18-month or 36-month threshold, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with the MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We never claimed or intended that if we found statistically significant effects in the TOTAL SAMPLE, we would ignore the results if they could not be confirmed in the BIRTH CERTIFICATE SAMPLE."

Thompson specifically states that analyzing the TOTAL population based on race was part of the plan. Like you said, you are not a statistician, so are you telling me that you are smarter than Thompson when he made these statements?

"He said he did..."

No, this is all he said:

"Competing interests

Dr. Hooker has been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation."

"The accuracy of the Hooker paper, based on the data provided by Thompson is clear DESPITE the hundreds of online paid for troll reanalysis of it."

What are you basing that on other than conspiracy theories?

Hooker didn't reveal that he's a board member of Focus Autism which funded the study, nor did he specify that his son's autism case is active in the vaccine court.

He said he did and he has been consistent, however it doesn't warrant removal of the paper as John stated.

The various people in removal of the Wakefield paper removal did not disclose their various conflict of interest but that doesn't seem to be a problem for people with ice water in their veins instead of blood. Here are the conflicts of interest:
1. Brian Deer-hired by Murdoch to find something big-Murdoch is heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry and now that the sh-t is hitting the fan he flips and says:

-“Who Can Say?” -- Journalist Who Alleged Wakefield Committed Fraud Backs Off Key Claim. From Article:
Brian Deer, the British journalist who claimed researcher Andrew Wakefield committed fraud by linking the MMR vaccine to autism, now admits one of his key allegations against Wakefield may be flat-out wrong. Yet he insists it's no big deal -- that it does nothing to undercut his claim that Wakefield is "an elaborate fraud."

“Not one of the children were reported on truthfully. Wakefield lied again and again,” journalist Brian Deer said in his post on Saturday, referring to Wakefield 12-child case series published in the Lancet in 1998. But in the same post, Deer acknowledged that, contrary to his previous reporting, he is now unsure whether Wakefield falsely changed the timing of the MMR shot to put it before the autism symptoms began in a key case.
“Who can say?” Deer wrote Saturday. (AOA)

David Lewis in his research revealed:
"When the Deer/BMJ findings came under the scrutiny of Dr David Lewis in November 2011 they were forced to re-trench (reported in Nature):

“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don't clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records.
"The data are subjective. It's different to say it's deliberate falsification," he says.
“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…

"Brian Deer finally admitted he filed the complaint". Not the parents of the children, not another doctor-a journalist-and not a very good one. He currently trolls the comment boards looking for his name so he can explain his part in the Wakefield witch hunt.

2. Fiona Godlee: Did not disclose her conflict of interest to the Lancet.
Today she says:
“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal's conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children's records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”

But in 2011 she stated:
“The case we presented against Andrew Wakefield that the 1998 Lancet paper was intended to mislead was not critically reliant on GP records”. It is primarily based on Royal Free hospital records, including histories taken by clinicians, and letters and other documents received at the Royal Free from GPs and consultants."

-BMJ & Lancet Wedded to Merck CME Partnership
http://ahrp(dot)org/bmj-lancet-wedded-to-merck-cme-partnership/.
-Holier than Thou BMJ Editor Godlee Fails to Acknowledge Merck MMR Conflict:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/holier-than-thou-bmj-editor-godlee-fails-to-acknowledge-merck-mmr-conflict.html

3.Best of: Sir Crispin Davis and James Murdoch Leave GSK Board
http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/04/best-of-sir-crispin-davis-and-james-murdoch-leave-gsk-board.html

--*England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court)
Decision Between: PROFESSOR JOHN WALKER-SMITH Appellant- and - GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL- Respondent.
MR STEPHEN MILLER QC AND MS ANDREA LINDSAY-STRUGO
(instructed by EASTWOODS SOLICITORS) for the Appellant MISS JOANNA GLYNN QC AND MR CHRISTOPHER MELLOR (instructed by FIELD FISHER WATERHOUSE LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 13th. 14th, 15th, 16th & 17th February 2012

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html
FINDINGS THAT SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR LANCET RETRACTION HAVE SINCE BEEN OVERTURNED.

With regard to the GMC’s false claims that the patients in the paper were not “consecutively referred”:
“157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the [GMC] panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.”

Similarly, the GMC’s rulings that the children in the Lancet paper were subjects of a research project that did not gain ethical approval ALSO PROVED UNFOUNDED:

“158. …The [GMC] panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

The judge found only one misleading statement in the paper, but it was not because investigations undertaken were unethical experiments described as gaining ethical approval in the paper according to the now-overturned findings on which the paper’s retraction was based. On the contrary, it was because investigations in the paper were described as being ethically approved when most were clinically indicated and required no such approval, although a few investigations were ethically approved. This may require an erratum, but it does not justify keeping the paper fully retracted. Reinstatement of the paper would literally expose the industries fraudulent activities. It would be a game over for the vaccine industry because it would not be able to financially pay off the lawsuits-at least outside of the US. Pharmetutical companies in the US have blanket immunity but they would still feel the sting.

Remember Godlee made the clear concise statement the paper was not removed because of it's findings. Deer, being the bumbling idiot that he is seems to be experiencing multiple Alzheimer moments.

The accuracy of the Hooker paper, based on the data provided by Thompson is clear DESPITE the hundreds of online paid for troll reanalysis of it. Now, because of vaxxed and the fact that Wakefield is not going down but actually has been elevated thanks to the CDC/pharma and trolls like you, the Lancet paper is getting read by thousands because it is still online and coupled with the fact that Fiona Godless has confessed the PATHOLOGY was never in question-the removal of scientific papers today are just red flags for people to scrutinize them more. Parents are asking questions and they are coming to the realization that the dialogue is tremendously one sided which to a person who uses critical thinking and common sense is a red flag (shades of WMD's). Thanks to people like you and your ilk-push back has increased 1000%.

Hooker didn't reveal that he's a board member of Focus Autism which funded the study, nor did he specify that his son's autism case is active in the vaccine court. The journal's editors also said, "...post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings."
I'm not a statistician, but he apparently didn't adjust for confounders or use correct statistical models or even understand the difference between a case-control study and a cohort study.
So again I ask what's the controversy?

In relation to Vaxxed it should be noted that those who have already lent their assessment of the film without having seen it, then opt to see the movie anyhow for want of a review, do so purely in order to validate their formerly pronounced preconceptions (i.e. in effect a self-fulfilled prophecy).

Paradoxically, in seeking to validate those assumptions already publicly deliberated, such actions, the integrity of their purpose already having been thoroughly undermined, effectively invalidates the entire content of the review itself.

I thank Mr Thompson for all he has done helping us trying to expose this evil.If he`s having a "wobble" he`s entitled to it..

********

Wobble... you mean like the struggles all of those vaccine injured children are having, because he chose to keep the truth from their parents??

I don't thank him for anything. The only he should be entitled to, is jail time.

Exactly Grace Green as Dan says to late now.I thank Mr Thompson for all he has done helping us trying to expose this evil.If he`s having a "wobble" he`s entitled to it..

MMR RIP

Hooker already published a paper using the data Thompson saved and it was retracted.
http://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-22
What is the controversy?

Thanks to Go Trump for the immortal phrase- Wakefielded or Bradstreeted. Let no one criticize William Thompson, until they have known what it is to feel an arrow in the heart each time the phone rings,to know what it is to function on very little sleep- for months. No one to talk to- Perhaps even your lawyer has been turned against you.
The suffering caused by the Great Poisoning seems to have no end.

Rae,

"What I have never understood is why Thompson stayed on at the CDC in the first place. True a mid-career scientist like himself would have difficulty finding a comparable high level position elsewhere, but if he was as tormented by conscience as he claimed to be, I should think leaving the institution that that caused his distress would be a no-brainer."

You have identified one of many inexplicable anomalies in this sordid affair. On the recent Thorsen thread, I have posted four comments outlining some of these anomalies, and offering an alternative (albeit improbable) scenario in which these anomalous events become more understandable.

In terms of your question above, most real whistleblowers usually don't have a choice. They tend to be fired and/or otherwise persecuted/prosecuted. I suspect Thompson didn't have adequate time-in-government to qualify for a Federal pension, and therefore was motivated to stay for financial reasons. He could theoretically stay if he qualified for whistleblower protection. However, if the whole affair was a contrived hoax, which is one of the possibilities I examine if the rumors turn out to be true, then there was no reason to leave. Further, if it was a hoax, there was no issue of conscience in reality; there was in fact no timing effect. If the rumors turn out to be true, the study results will be spun that there was no MMR vaccine-autism link, whereas, since it was a case-control study, the real conclusion was there was no increased incidence of autism due to vaccine administration timing! That does not rule out the possibility of a base MMR vaccine-autism link.

Laughable and I'm sure they know it. But it will give formal retroactive justification for the dismissal by the VICP of those thousands of MMR cases in 2004, and potentially how many hundreds of thousands since, an action whose legal basis has been in doubt since WT released his statement through his attorneys. Why else muddy the waters when nothing they say now, other than full candor, could make them look any more credible?

What I have never understood is why Thompson stayed on at the CDC in the first place. True a mid-career scientist like himself would have difficulty finding a comparable high level position elsewhere, but if he was as tormented by conscience as he claimed to be, I should think leaving the institution that that caused his distress would be a no-brainer.

OK, I understand how Thompson would get "a major cash reward" for staying with his employer until the normal retirement age. That's how many retirement plans work, mine included

********

And you think it should still work that way for a scientist, who knowingly withheld scientific information, that could have saved thousands of children from being injured by vaccines?

I disagree. But maybe that's because one of those statistics.... I mean, injured children, is mine.

So here it is, the CDC 'Godfather' uncut...

(Scene: CDC officials and Thompson seated together at a private lodge)

THOMPSON: I just had to do it, you know, I couldn't live with myself, I mean I...
BOSS: Hey, hey, we're friends, remember? You talk like we never known each other! We're a team, remember?
THOMPSON: Well, after I'd...
BOSS: Hey, ya did the right thing, believe me.
THOMPSON: I what?
BOSS: I repeat, ya did the right thing. Boys, didn't he do the right thing?
BOYS: Yeah, sure he did boss, yeah, the right thing.
BOSS: There, ya see? We need people like you, to set an example. It's no secret that this place needs cleaning up. And you're just the type we need. Doesn't he set an example boys?
BOYS: Yeah, that's right boss, an example.
BOSS: That's right. Hey, now don't get upset. Just to show you how much we value what you've done, we're gonna throw a little something in, waddya say?
THOMPSON: I...don't...know what...
BOSS: You don't need to thank me, we're thanking you! It's our way of saying thank-you, pure and simple. Say thank-you boys.
BOYS: Err, yeah, thanks doc, thanks for everythin'.

Mwalimumtoro
I don’t think Thompson can be fired legally by the CDC, as he has claimed whistleblower status I presume under the whistleblower act, and he can’t be shut up either as he has reported wrongdoing,. What they are probably trying to do now is “ kill him with kindness” buy him off, one way or another as Keith Robert says" 30 pieces of silver".

Like here in the UK ,I scratch my head and shake it until it falls off,surely if it is FRAUD it should be treated as fraud by the FBI.No FBI agents with damaged kids reading this..

MMR RIP

difficult to count them but it looks like 30 pieces of silver at the top of this piece. Apt or what?

Surely there are more whistleblowers . If enough are emboldened by Vaxxed and they all speak out they won't be pressured like this. Can you imagine the mind games they have been playing on dr Thompson? If now, this week, this month, this year, more come out and speak out -- if more journalists speak out if more celebrities speak out more nurses more doctors they will all gain courage from each other if we tell our hair dressers our teachers our principals our clergy our best friend best friend everyone who has looked the other way what we are here for and that it happened to us and that we cannot be silent any more if we all speak up it will be a tidal wave and it will bring the walls of denial down and stop this insanity now. If you are a lurker sick to your stomach about this and can help speak out reach out. If you work for the MSM hide nuggets of truth in the stories you tell --kind of like the nursery rhymes of old where the truth was hidden lest you lose your head but those who knew it could see it. I love j b handley who pointed out that going after the runaway slaves did in the south and that going after mandates will do in the cdc. Hope. If we had 1000 Andrew Wakefields if the science and medical community had defended him we would not have autism at nearly these rates .if we had 1000 Rfk jrs and 1000 Sheryl Atkins ... 100,000 families would not be watching their children grow up with heartbreak behind their smiles as they marked milestones 10 years behind their time... Please if you are out there join us. If you believe in a God it will save your soul. And if you believe in human decency even if your denial has caused this much harm at least now that you know you can stop the next descent into autism or the next obscene preemie pin cushion death.

As a cinematic example, how about the following 'Godfather' scenario...

CDC official: (with arm around Thompson) "Why would we be upset? Sure you did the right thing, we're all for transparency, you didn't betray no-one! Hey, don't get upset. In fact, we're grateful for what you did! You don't believe us? Might a little raise help convince you?"

Am inclined to believe that Thompson is a somewhat bumbling, politically naive figure, albeit idealistic (which is what can make such a person invaluable in one instance, and a liability in the next). It is reminiscent in a certain way of how the Nazis manipulated the politically clueless P.G.Wodehouse by allowing him to simply 'speak his mind' in the knowledge that his views, given the political climate of that period, would be misconstrued by the British and that he would be denounced as a traitor. (This sad episode was elucidated by George Orwell, who put his entire credibility on the line in insisting that Wodehouse was innocent of such Nazi sentiments.). Simply put, the Nazis used Wodehouse to achieve their ends.

Such figures stand out a mile to those who are politically adept and vicious, and as a rule are easy to manipulate. Having said this, Thompson most certainly should have 'smelt a rat' in presumably being offered a large cash sum to remain at the CDC, and promptly left rather than leaving himself open to the inevitable outcome of their apparent 'generosity'. But I don't know the inside story, maybe he did smell the rat. For what might have been the 'implications' had he decided to leave etc? What would you or I do? Nasty stuff.

brilliant link there Angry father - thanks

reposting to highlight to all * pls read

http://www.naturalnews.com/053790_MMR_research_data_William_Thompson_vaccine_safety_science.

Ahh this now makes perfect sense for why they censored Vaxxed . They need their message out there first .

Ronald - "gamed" - pls explain

Eddie Unwind - all excellent points

The cdc has had nearly 2 years with WT to use both the carrot and stick to get him to see things their way.
The stick would undoubtedly include assassination.

Very confused. I thought they fired him? How is he a whistleblower yet working there and getting cash rewards?

OK, I understand how Thompson would get "a major cash reward" for staying with his employer until the normal retirement age. That's how many retirement plans work, mine included. However, how does Thompson--or anyone--"get his own autism research foundation?" That does sound shaky. What does it mean?

Has the data itself been released? Or is he sitting on it?

If the raw data has been released, there is no reason whatsoever others couldn't run independent analyses on it.

He also got a major cash reward from the CDC for maintaining his employment he said, until he qualifies for retirement.

*********

Wow, he confessed to publishing fraudulent data, designed to obfuscate the link between vaccines and autism.

And his 'punishment' for that crime … was a cash reward.

In other words Dr.William Thompson has sold out big time. What a creep.

If this indeed happens it will back fire on the CDC, since it only makes them (CDC) look even worse, my guess is that they will use this explanation at the hearings, if it gets to that point.

Like asking people to believe that your last undeclared hand was a royal flush...

If this transpires it will be fascinating to see how MSM 'introduce' this, the second half of the story, since it necessitates introducing the first 'whistleblower' half - that which they will have to 1) usher in without any alarmist overtones, as though it were of negligible importance, since 2) MSM never reported on that part of the story.

Yet this is an absurd contradiction, since it is entirely due to the gravity of the whistleblower incident - as revealed in Vaxxed - that (would have) prompted the necessity of the CDC via Thompson retracting those earlier claims.

Ultimately, it is a situation embracing Shakespeare's tangled web in the most blatant terms, its poetic aspect being that the CDC seem no longer to be able to resist the temptation of even the most hypocritically transparent manoeuvres.

I am sure Brian has it right: it is just what you expect from those people but Thompson's recantation does not make them look remotely more credible - or as Dan put it last night "Too Late Now!".