The Los Angeles Times and other main-stream media (MSM) networks has criticized actor and filmmaker Robert DeNiro for allowing the screening of the anti-Vaccine documentary film 'Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Conspiracy' produced and directed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The article 'How Robert De Niro's Tribeca Film Festival sold out to anti-vaccine crackpots' criticized DeNiro's decision to air the movie during the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City:
[...]
The Los Angeles Times also claimed that Dr. William Thomson's "Conspiracy Theory" has been debunked due to a "2014 survey of scientific studies" showed that the MMR vaccines are "not" associated with the "development of autism" or "autism spectrum disorder":The Los Angeles Times also criticized anchor, journalist and television host Katie Couric's decision to give conspiracy-mongers airtime exposing HPV vaccines and called former model and television host Jenny McCarthy ignorant for linking the MMR vaccine to autism:As my colleague Steven Zeitchik reports, the festival's publicity for this film endorses its conclusion that "vaccines do cause autism" and treats the controversy in pure Hollywood style: "The most vitriolic debate in medical history takes a dramatic turn when senior-scientist-turned-whistleblower Dr. William Thompson of the Centers for Disease Control turns over secret documents, data and internal emails confirming what millions of devastated parents and 'discredited' doctors have long-suspected." You would think it's the second coming of "The China Syndrome." But it's nothing of the kind. Wakefield's work, and the "conspiracy theory" of Thompson, have been thoroughly debunked.
Let's be absolutely plain about this: There is absolutely no evidence of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. In a 2014 survey of scientific studies covering 1.26 million children, researchers stated bluntly that "vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, the components of the vaccines (thimerosal or mercury) or multiple vaccines (MMR) are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder." That's just one example of the many studies finding no link. Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that was used until 1999 in the MMR vaccineThat hand-waving in favor of "dialogue" can shield a lot of damaging mischief. It's the same sentiment that was behind Katie Couric's decision to give equally irresponsible conspiracy-mongers about HPV vaccines a platform on her syndicated daytime show in 2013, exposing their science-free viewpoints to millions of viewers. Couric soon acknowledged her misstep, recognizing that children's health and even lives are at stake when parents are encouraged to doubt the efficacy and safety of vaccines. (We're not even talking about starlet Jenny McCarthy, whose claims about the links between the MMR vaccine and autism are merely ignorant.)
The problem ... is that defining a "finding" as junk science relies on our having a "clear and unproblematic understanding of what science is, and just as importantly what it is not". We might think we do. It approximates to that observation-hypothesis-prediction-experiment-new-observation-amendment-(peer review)-theory cycle with which we are all fairly familiar. But, many things we call science, such as experiments that cannot be repeated independently, the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments, large-scale clinical trials, climate modelling etc., do not fit and cannot even be forced to fit this cycle. Moreover, of the many thousands of scientific papers out there that comprise the scientific literature, very few, but for some worthy exceptions, are ever repeated by other scientists.In reality, observation studies married with statistics, or flawed clinical studies using animals with a predisposition to cancer, are being used to prove whatever the research sponsor wants to prove. It's junk science. All that is required is to tweak the questionnaire, fiddle with the statistical models, bias the clinical tests and you can have the answer you want. But only so long as that answer is politically correct. Try to use this method to prove something held to be "bad" or "wrong" in the minds of the Public Health Sector, and all hell will break loose.
According to the whistleblower, the CDC has known about this link since at least 2003 but has deliberately chosen to conceal it. The CDC has also speciously chosen to spread the myth that MMR is completely safe and in no way linked to autism.
"The CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up," states Dr. Hooker in the film, affirming the information he received from the whistleblower.
Bogus 'vaccine court' has even admitted vaccine-autism link through compensation rulings This is made further evident by the fact that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, on numerous occasions, has validated the vaccine-autism link in "vaccine court" by awarding compensation to families of injured children. In December 2012, for instance, two separate families with children who developed autism following MMR injections were awarded compensation in vaccine court.
"We've missed 10 years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism," stated the whistleblower, who has worked for the CDC for more than 10 years. "They're not doing what they should be doing because they're afraid to look for things that might be associated."
What is the motivation behind the CDC's ongoing refusal to disclose the truth behind MMR and autism? According to Dr. David Lewis, Ph.D., a former senior-level microbiologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development,government agencies routinely skew scientific data in order to save face and perpetuate the illusion of relevance."Working for the government is no different than working for corporations," said Dr. Lewis. "You either toe the line or find yourself looking for another way to make a living."
"No one would be surprised if Merck published unreliable data supporting the safety of its products. Why would anyone be surprised that the CDC is publishing skewed data to conclude that the vaccines it recommends are safe? We need a better system, where scientists are free to be honest."
Comment: It's fishy that all of these companies, after pushing so hard against GMO labeling, are all of a sudden caving in? What caused the change of heart and is there more to this than meets the eye?
'Big Food' companies plan to label GMOs - but is there more to the story?