Why CDC whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism never made headlines, and what that mean

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Nov 3, 2015.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,537
    Why CDC whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism never made headlines, and what that means for science |292|
    by Alex Tsakiris | Nov 3 | Skepticism

    Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport explains why the media intentionally ignored whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism.
    [​IMG]
    photo by: Art Writ

    My wife is the medical expert in our family. She has a PhD in psychology, works with doctors, and performed medical rounds as part of her training. I, on the other hand, can’t stand to drive by hospital. So I was surprised when on a ride home from the movies Joni launched into a bit of a rant about a recent measles measles and accompanying media reports on the public’s lack of confidence in vaccines. “But what about that whistleblower from the CDC who revealed that there really was a link between the measles vaccine and autism,” I said. Joni looked at me with incredulity. She smart, well informed, watches the Today Show, reads medical journals and even blogs for Psychology Today; how could she not know about this large-scale medical fraud that destroyed the lives of thousands of children?
     
    Ian Gordon, Mazda, Bucky and 4 others like this.
  2. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    Seems like a microcosm of science in general, this particular quote could be applied to so many branches that its frustrating:

    "They’re incurious people. They don’t have that kind of independent curiosity that leads them to go where they will on their own. They attach themselves to what they consider to be the establishment, the best version of science. And they roll the dice on that for the rest of their lives."
     
    Hurmanetar and Saiko like this.
  3. K9!

    K9! New

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,570
  4. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,047
    Alex's questions at the end of the interview:

    Did you know about the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson? If so, when? How? What do you make of the fact that most of the people you know probably don't know about it?

    How is something like this hidden in plain sight?
     
  5. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
  6. I found out about it on skeptiko-forum.com
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cdc-autism-whistleblower-admits-vaccine-study-fraud.1217

    The problem is not just science journalism. Journalism in general has sunk to a very sorry state. I posted about this in another thread:





    Also see my posts in the thread on the politicization of science:
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/video-on-the-politicization-of-science.2072/

    People don't know what to believe. They don't trust "science" and they are right not to.
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/62014-...erlife.html#articles_by_subject_bogus_science
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2015
  7. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,999
  8. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
  9. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,047
    Did you know about the CDC whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson? If so, when? How? What do you make of the fact that most of the people you know probably don't know about it?

    How is something like this hidden in plain sight?


    I can remember reading something about it fairly recently, can't remember exactly when, but it was on the Web.

    Jon Rappoport has his own ideas about how it is hidden in plain sight, and a quick glance at his site seems to point at some kind of conspiracy. He's selling a number of items, namely The matrix revealed, Exit from the matrix, and Power outside the matrix, which comprise large amounts (gigabytes) of written and audio information that one can download. I'm not sure at first blush whether his use of the term "matrix" is literal or figurative or something in between.

    I don't know how much is cock-up and how much is conspiracy, but I'd agree that in many areas, science has become corrupted: moreover, a lot of that is in plain enough sight and is being tackled head-on on the Internet in areas such as climate change, AIDS, vaccines, the electric universe theory, neo-Darwinism, and so on.

    Despite the explosion of interest on the Web, and despite these kinds of things being openly discussed there, they have yet to gain the kind of traction they deserve, precisely because of the vested interests found in the media, which still control the flow of information to the public at large. However, I'm optimistic that the grip of these interests is waning and that at some point in the not-too-distant future, there'll be a seismic shift of that control to the Web, which can't be dominated so easily by special interest groups, although they are fighting a rearguard action all the way.

    The breaking point will come soon enough. I hope I'm still around to see it.
     
    Laura O likes this.
  10. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,999
    Oops! Thanks. They're all filthy materialist shills on that site ;)
     
    Arouet likes this.
  11. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    Oh, I am sure that he is a full blown conspiracy theorist, but it's not like the topic is new or even esoteric.
     
  12. Max_B

    Max_B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,155
    Home Page:
    Oh yeah I discussed this last year on here with Linda. That's the thread where I finally discovered just how bad her cognitive dissonance was, and thus why she's so good at spotting bias in others (but not herself).

    IIRC the issue was that the researchers didn't follow their own agreed protocols, and decided not to report statistically significant data, after it had been found.

    Deliberate omissions, seem just as bad as including false data to me. The data should have been included, and the researchers could have qualified it. Obviously the authors were in disagreement.

    Just goes to show that those with money and power can influence things, and that the media is very good at self-censorship.

    But deep down everybody knows these things anyway. It's just that most people have probably discounted these facts sometime in their past, making it enormously difficult to perform a U-turn in the present. Only a crisis is capable of precipitating any change.
     
  13. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,157
    I think that was a really fascinating interview. It touched on a problem that has puzzled me for a long time. Information is thrown up that should be headline news, and it gets ignored.

    I can think of a number of examples, and I do wonder if the mechanism by which this happens is quite as obvious as simply threatening reporters and researchers that step out of line. I mean, the suppression seems to operate almost worldwide, and to cover a range of topics.

    I seriously do wonder if some sort of psychic effect is used that forces most people's minds to skitter off certain facts. This would be a crazy suggestion in most places, but maybe not here.

    Could this be why many of the Skeptiko guests who are supposed to be experts in consciousness, have never actually read the studies into NDE's?

    David
     
    AryaS and Hurmanetar like this.
  14. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    He reports the facts. And if you'd bothered to check you'd have found that his reporting on these issues is far from new. He's been doing it for over thirty years. You toss around vapid cliches like "conspiracy theorist" yet fail to do due diligence and basic research on who and what you're commenting on.
     
  15. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
  16. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    Which, as you can see in the very post that you quoted, is exactly the same thing that I said when noting how the "topic is not new". I do find it curious that you singled my post, because Michael was the first to note the whole conspiracy theory element in his writing. Even you must admit that some of the posts in his blog are extrambotic.
     
  17. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,254
    Home Page:
    Judith, Hurmanetar and Bucky like this.
  18. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    I hope you are right, but there is nothing in that mess of a post that states so, except the reader's own common sense.
     
    Bucky likes this.
  19. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,157
    I think the scale of this problem of the media simply ignoring evidence is breathtaking. Here is a list off the top of my head:

    They ignore the various medical scandals where the evidence for various policies simply isn't there, and when studies are done the outcomes are spun in extraordinary ways. It isn't that they don't take the other side, it is that they seem to skitter off the evidence - almost as if they don't see it.

    They ignore the fact that the West deliberately destabilised the Ukraine, and discuss the whole mess as if it was something President Putin created.

    They ignore a lot of evidence that climate change is insignificant.

    Then there is the evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS.

    They ignore all the evidence that consciousness does not fit into the materialist model.

    There are a whole range of medical scandals bubbling up, and they more or less ignore these too.

    Etc etc.

    It isn't just the media, lots of people with professional involvement must do the same. I find it really hard to believe that this is a conventional conspiracy - but there is unquestionably a process that saps the very concept of an open society.

    Unlike a conventional conspiracy, people do expose what is going on - usually without getting bumped off, but then nobody seems to notice!

    David
     
    AryaS, Michael Larkin and Hurmanetar like this.
  20. Bucky

    Bucky Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,681
    In broad terms we don't deal with controversies very well. Information that challenges any belief generates doubt, uncertainty,anxiety... When the challenged idea is a core belief we automatically trigger natural defenses such as denial, dismission, refusal etc...Which is okay, no one is expected to take a U turn on any subject in the blink of an eye, but often times we stop there, at the subconscious defenses. Very few have the time and energy to dig mountains of documents, claims, rebuttals and rebuttals of the rebuttals etc...

    Controversy doesn't allow for a clear cut answer, which is what most of us really want. Instead it generates more doubts... as with the case of vaccine safety: life is already darn complicated and we'd like a simple Yes or No, Black or White solution instead of more uncertainties.

    Problem is, some topics need decades of research and vigorous discussions to reach a consensus, and often times consesus is reached and then overturned again in light of new discoveries... Unfortunately we're not well suited to deal with the staggering complexity of the world around us... and that's why Zen was invented, isn't it? :D

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015

Share This Page