Ten Day Countdown in Connecticut after HB5044 Moves Forward
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler Presents Coronivirus How Bad Can It Get

CBC Responds to Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Lyons-Weiler Responds Back

James Lyons WeilerCBC Responds to Dr. Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Lyons-Weiler Responds Back

CBC launched an all-out attack on the vaccine risk aware in February with an aired program that attacked my character and my integrity under the auspices of a “journalism”. I present the latest in three parts – my reply to their reply, and then a response from CBC forwarded by a concerned citizen with no ties or affiliation with me or IPAK. CBC has now doubled-down on their defamatory attack on me, and I would encourage everyone to write to CBC specifically bringing the matter to the attention of their President. Catherine Tait (email catherine.tait [at] cbc.ca).

Part I. Dr. Jack Brings CBC To School on Objective Journalistic Integrity – Again


I am utterly confused by your response. First, I think you should know there is no need for you to “regret” my positions on my behalf, which is done twice in this non-apology.  I will speak for myself, thank you.  If you meant to say that you regret that your organization's behavior led me to those positions, then I could understand, and I would then reply “I’m sure you do”.

You should certainly regret that CBC was so callous toward parents of vaccine injured children that they have failed to perform due diligence on the reality of risks associated with vaccines. The actual risk/benefit ratio of any vaccine schedule is unknown until a randomized, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is conducted comparing the long-term health outcomes of that schedule to a completely unvaccinated group - and only then if the placebo used is truly inert – such as saline.  When confronted with this fact, the proponents of current vaccines and the current vaccine schedule claim that it would be unethical to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated randomized trial – presuming the net benefit ratio – and that is not Science.

Second, your statement on the risks of vaccines relative to the risk of the infections they are supposed to prevent is mystifying, given all of the material that I sent, and that I know others have sent to you.

I want to thank you for admitting in part the wrong doing in the misrepresentation of events around who said what.  It is important that I clarify, however:

  1. I’m not an “anti-vaxxer”.  I’m for safer vaccines. Your inclusion of me whatsoever in your piece or your report is defamatory.

  • To whit, you say that your reporter never meant to malign my character.  How then, in the report, does she introduce the segment with “Others have more creative ways of fundraising?” She assaults my integrity.  She claims that I (he) “says he’s not an activist”.  Really?  That’s odd.  I actually do consider myself an activist – for objectivity in Science.  If she had bothered to ask me, I would have been happy to tell her just that. She goes on to insinuate that because I report my Scientific position that I think that vaccines do cause autism in some people, that I’m an activist, which is non-sequitur. Then she goes to say “how does he raise his money?” – as if donations to IPAK are “my” money.  “He wants to be seen as a Scientist” – well, we’ve dealt with that, but the insinuation is still there. The entire segment intro is sleazy.  I’m sorry, there is no other word for it. In no way is IPAK ever running a science day for which public donations are requested as a “quid pro quo” for anything else.  Therefore, as I stated, I would never say “That’s right” re: a statement like “So now we have quid pro quo”.  Your clarification now posits that your reporter said “that way there is no quid pro quo” and the full video, without the cutaway, shows that by my reaction the idea is abhorrent to me.  The implications of that statement are of course the exact opposite of the implications of the first representation. You owe the public an apology of the form “We regret our error, and apologize if our representation led anyone to believe that IPAK or Dr. Lyons-Weiler implied a deal or work-around.  We now understand that Dr. Lyons-Weiler was offering to educate the public on the balance of science conducted on vaccine safety”.

  • Even with the correction you made, the video still implies I’m doing something wrong or unethical.  Does your definition of “journalistic integrity” include the narrating reporter stating that it is  “creative” of me to request donations w/registration to a Science Day?  Why? I see research organizations charging fees for conferences all of the time. What exactly was I “working around”?  Why would the undercover reporter even mention “quid pro quo” – there was no discussion of me talking to legislators; he mentioned no bill; he mentioned no meeting with legislators; what was the exact potential but non-extistent quid pro quo?  Insinuations of this form are covert accusations. During the entire interaction, your reporter presumed that he was speaking with me in manner in which what I do – research on vaccine safety and the link between genetics, environment and neurodevelopmental and immunological disorders – is wrong.  Your reporter came up with a purely fictitious 400 people – lying to my assistant, and to me, about a purely fictitious event – and his math is also therefore a fiction.  Why 400?  Why not 4,000? This is not a proud day for CBC.

    Even if there was real event, sometimes when I travel I also educate legislators, and sometimes I do not.  Big deal – a research institute running a conference is hardly material for an undercover reporter. When I do testify, there is never any understanding in any way that my testimonies to committees or to legislative bodies are in return for any donations related to another event as compensation to me; the funds go to IPAK via online registration, and are used to conduct scientific research.  No one influences my words, or my terms in any manner.  I choose my own position and topic, which points I make, which scientific studies I reference and which events I attend.  I recently testified in CT and there was no financial or material transfer, none expected, and no IPAK Science Day.  The public understands that I stand for objectivity in Science; your reporter and the resulting report, and your reply still leads to insinuations that in some way my participating in society’s attempts to formulate public health policy as a Scientist is wrong.  The “report” and the video your team published is a pack of lies and harmful to society deriving evidence-based public health practices based on the full balance of the available science.

    1. There remains the issue of the purpose of the timing of the cut-away to the production studio, the existence of two edits of the words on the screen with the same video, all pointing to this particular segment being highly edited.  The “public” cannot “decide for themselves” because, as your reporter boasted to me, you broadcast from coast to coast.  Posting a video online is insufficient and will not reach the public you misinformed. Media professionals with years of studio production experience have informed me that it’s clear and obvious what’s happened to the video; what your team did was highly unethical. Your review of the matter is still misleading.  You should retract the story and the video and issue an apology to the public.

    2. Your review of the matter not only also leaves open the impression that in some way I needed a work-around – it also implies that I need to distinguish myself from activists at the event.  That concept is, similarly, a construct in the mind of your reporter and it appears to be the product of speculation on your part.  I would expect an organization like yours to offer substantive reactions, not idle speculation of my motive as defense of your organizations’ bad behavior. I am free to travel and to conduct IPAK Science Days, seminars, participate in  workshops, etc. without any restrictions either as an IPAK event – or as an invited speaker.  Sometimes at conferences, etc. I AM personally compensated as a speaker via an honorarium, a standard practice in academic research, regardless of whether my lecture topic involves vaccines or not.  Your reporters and the report slandered me – and still defames me – by insinuating that in some way I am trying to “get around” something.  That construct is theirs; the reality is quite different.  Your reply commits the same offense.

    3. If your reporters had wanted an honest piece, they would have identified themselves as reporters and asked those of us in attendance, including parents, of why they were there in first place.  They would have collected vaccine injury stories, but mainstream press has left that job to Polly Tommey and the entire VAXXED and VAXXED II team.  Your reporters participated in the current unethical practice of bullying, demeaning, and mischaracterizing people who put their children in harm’s way and paid the price for our fight against infectious disease. CHILDREN, Paul.  Parents of dead children should be treated with respect and, frankly awe, for fighting back in such a civilized manner against oppressive government agencies run by for-profit corporations.  These parents would have welcomed you with open arms.  Your pieces characterize the parents of vaccine injured children as weak-minded, and they find that treatment inhumane, as do I.

    Let me ask you – did CBC or Marketplace receive funds from vaccine manufacturers to run this hit piece?  See, Paul, that’s how it’s done.  I am coming to your organization directly and asking you point blank, in the open.  Your company can deny it in your own terms.  You of course have no obligation to respond, but please let me know if my question is ambiguous or hard to understand. True objective reporting would allow those being interviewed to speak for themselves. Instead, your team set up straw man after straw man and the only thing they exposed was their own ability to conduct yellow journalism.  Read more here.



    Just a small clarification - to the best of my knowledge, Neil Miller is not a Dr.
    I think he is an investigative journalist.
    I think that the study you meant was performed by him with Gary Goldman, who is - a statistician ?
    Gary Goldman is probably a PhD ?
    Thank you!

    John Stone

    I think a cogent point would be that if JLW was trying to exploit his status for personal profit he would be sucking up to pharma like CBC.

    Kate C

    I have emailed Catherine Tait expressing my disappointment with the CBC program.


    It always disgusts me when I hear our local NPRor PBS stated mission statement which is a sick joke when it comes to any coverage of the subject of vaccines.
    Its always:
    1) Safe and Effective; or
    2) Hit pieces on anything or anybody who points out everything that points to its not safe or effective and just how significant "unavoidably unsafe" applies.

    Here are some the CBC guidelines:

    WE SERVE THE CANADIAN PUBLIC We strongly believe in our mission of expressing Canadian culture and enriching the democratic life of all Canadians. We put the interests of the Canadian public first when making decisions and carry out our duties with independence and impartiality.

    WE ARE TRUSTWORTHY We carry out our activities in a manner that promotes and maintains trust, reflects our professionalism, takes into account the possible impacts of our actions, and can bear public scrutiny. We are accountable for our actions and our decisions, and we use our assets and resources wisely.

    The CBC professes what they are not. We all know this; they will be the last to wake to their delusion.

    John Stone


    I recommend Ed Yazbak’s 2007 article ‘The CDC, Spinach and Autism’:

    “The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) usually solves medical mysteries in record time, as evidenced by the recent bagged spinach health scare. https://www.vaccinationnews.org/sites/default/files/CDC-Spinach-and-Autism.doc

    “However, when it comes to autism, the CDC has been slow and subversive in its genuine investigations. After more than ten years of insistent parental pressure, the CDC still does not know what causes autism, even though it has estimated the average prevalence of autistic disorders at 1 in 150 children born in 1994. This may have been because any association between autism and MMR vaccination or Thimerosal was always ruled out a priori.

    “This report will review several aspects of the long-running Autism-Vaccine debate, and will show that the CDC failed to reveal important data that would have contradicted its public stance and supported and encouraged questionable epidemiological research denying any association between vaccination and regression.

    “Unless there is a serious change in philosophy at the highest level, the CDC will fail to solve the most important and destructive medical mystery it has ever faced – Autism....”


    So they have dissipated another 13 years and the problem is many times worse. As said Ed Yazbak they would have found the answer if they’d ever wanted to...All this deference to authority - to whatever is expedient up there - is destroying us.

    Bob Moffit

    The CDC's constant mantra there is "no evidence" that vaccines cause autism is ludicrous .. the absence of evidence .. is NOT EVIDENCE that vaccines cause autism. What it is evidence of .. is that the CDC refuses to pursue ANY credible studies that WOULD ACTUALLY BE EVIDENCE .. such as .. the nonvaccinated v vaccinated study.

    Once again .. NO EVIDENCE … IS NOT EVIDENCE …

    John Stone

    Vaccines cause autism from my response to the NHS website:-


    Again, this is a loosely couched statement:

    “(vaccines) do not cause autism - studies have found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism”

    On the one hand the apparent elision of vaccines as a class with MMR is misleading, while the fact that some studies may not have found something is insufficient grounds for saying it does not happen. When, last year, I queried the evidence base for general MMR safety the CMO cited only the review by Taylor (2014) which was restricted to the issue of autism, MMR and thimerosal – there were just six MMR studies, the first of which was published a full fourteen years after MMR was first introduced the British schedule (when the issue was already highly contentious) and which perhaps only closed the door after the horse had bolted. It does not answer the ethical problem of what evidence health officials had that the products were safe at the time of introduction. Indeed we know that the most favoured MMR product in 1988, SKB’s Pluserix, was already withdrawn in Canada at the time [25, 26].

    While our health officials have succeeded in not finding a connection between the vaccine programme they promote and autism they also have no explanation for the rise of autism from 0.2% for those born 1984-8 and the 3.3% rate recorded in Northern Ireland schools earlier this year [27,28]: they have neither predicted it, nor can they explain it while every day the reports of chaos pile up [29]. The United States government in its Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, however, have acknowledged the connection between vaccines and autism on a number of occasions.

    The HHS HRSA told journalists Sharyl Attkisson and David Kirby on separate occasions [30,31]:

    "The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."

    And CDC director Julie Gerberding admitted to CNN following the Hannah Poling settlement [32]:

    "Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism…"

    An investigation into US vaccine injury court in 2011 found 83 cases of compensated vaccine injury in which autism is mentioned, but which because they are sealed cannot be used as precedents [33]. In an unsealed ruling relating to autism it is stated [34]:

    “The Court found, supra, that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.”

    [25] John Stone/CMO correspondence, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/536265/response/1323604/attach/2/Redacted%20correspondence%20CMO%20and%20John%20Stone%20003.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

    [26] Canada Diseases Weekly Report, 15 December 1990, https://gsg.uottawa.ca/gov/Docs/CDWR%20RHMC%20Vol.16-50.pdf

    [27] Metzler et al, 'The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain' National Statistics 1999, p.33 Table 4.1 'Prevalence of Mental Disorders', Pervasive development disorder is listed under 'less common disorders', http://www.dawba.com/abstracts/B-CAMHS99_original_survey_report.pdf

    [28] Ian Waugh, The Prevalence of Autism (including Asperger Syndrome) in School Age Children in Northern Ireland 2019', Information Analysis Directorate May 2019, https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/asd-children-ni-2019.pdf

    [29] Chaminda Jayanetti, ‘Special educational needs crisis deepens as councils bust their budgets…Observer investigation reveals 30% rise in overspending against backdrop of a failure to meet demand for services’, Observer 18 August 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/aug/18/special-educational-needs-councils-in-crisis-budget-overspends-rocket

    [30] Sharyl Attkisson, ‘Vaccines, Autism and Brain Damage: What's in a Name?’, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-autism-and-brain-damage-whats-in-a-name/ (Downloaded 28 August 2018)

    [31] David Kirby ‘A new theory of autism causation’, Huffington Post 29 March 2009, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vaccine-court-autism-deba_b_169673

    [32] House Call with Dr Sanjay Gupta, 29 March 2009, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/29/hcsg.01.html

    [33] Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow and Lisa Colin, ‘Unanswered Questions: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury’, Pace Environmental Law Review, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/

    [34] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf

    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.)