Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

  • Retractions are not about punishing authors.
  • Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

The Weaponization of “Science”

Source:  CorbettReport
May 22, 2017

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=22774 |

“Science” is being turned into a political weapon. Not the scientific method, but the reified “science” of scientism, exemplified by the politically-motivated March For Science, the politically-biased peer review process, the politically-charged infotainment from political hacks like Bill Nye, and the politically-appointed scientific regulators who always put their corporate interests and political worldview ahead of scientific accuracy.

Study: Safety Issues Plagued 1/3 of FDA-Approved Drugs from 2001-2010 Even as President Trump pushes for quicker drug approvals

drugs
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
May 19, 2017

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is tasked with making sure that drugs and medical devices are safe and efficient for Americans to use. However, it appears that the agency doesn’t take its job seriously enough, because a new study shows that nearly 1/3 of medications approved from 2001 to 2010 had safety issues years after they were made widely available to patients, and some were quite serious. [1]

The study, published May 9 in JAMAshows that 71 of the 222 drugs approved during that time period were withdrawn, required a “black box” due to their side effects, or warranted a safety announcement about new risks.

Source: Center for American Progress

Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine, says:

“While the [Trump] administration pushes for less regulation and faster approvals, those decisions have consequences.”

A 2015 independent analysis of drugs approved using the agency’s expedited approval process found that the trend of speeding approval “is being driven by drugs that are not first in class and thus potentially are less innovative.” [2]

But President Trump isn’t the first president to pressure the FDA to speed up its drug approvals.

On December 13, 2016, President Barack Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act. The law provides speedier routes to approval by pushing the FDA to consider evidence beyond the normal 3 phases of clinical trials. The move upset many researchers who feared the law would allow the approval of drugs that haven’t been adequately studied.

Says Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at Oregon Health and Sciences University, who wasn’t involved in the study:

“I’m actually sympathetic to the idea that there are ways in which the FDA can be more streamlined and do a quicker job. The one place you don’t want to cut a corner is safety and efficacy prior to coming to market.”

According to the study, during the first decade of the millennium, the FDA approved drugs faster than the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the majority of clinical trials in drug approvals involved fewer than 1,000 participants, and lasted 6 months or less, according to the findings. [1]

On average, it took 4 years and 2 months after the drugs were approved for safety issues to emerge. The most troublesome drugs included psychiatric medications, biologic drugs, drugs granted “accelerated approval,” and drugs that gained approval at the tail end of the regulatory period.

But drugs that were granted accelerated approval had the worst track record. Dr. Nicholas S. Downing, an author of the study and a resident physician of internal medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says:

“The key message with all new drugs and technology is that there is an ongoing learning process that will continue through the lifetime of the drug.

Downing says that scientists need to continuously test drugs to make sure they work with a wide range of variables, and used aspirin as an example. The medication has been used for hundreds of years, yet “there are still countless new studies coming out, and we learn more about it all the time.” [2]

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Kaiser Health News

[2] CNN

Center for American Progress

New Safety Concerns Identified For 1 in 3 FDA-Approved Drugs


Source: News.Yale.edu
Ziba Kashef
May 9, 2017

Nearly one out of every three drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have a new safety issue detected in the years after approval, says a Yale-led study. While most of the safety concerns are not serious enough to require withdrawal of a drug from the market, the finding highlights the need for ongoing surveillance of new drugs in the post-market period, said the researchers.

The findings were published May 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

To assess new drugs for safety and effectiveness, the FDA relies on premarket drug testing and clinical trials. Most of the trials involve fewer than 1,000 patients studied over a period of six months or less, making it difficult to detect safety issues that might be identified once more patients use the drug over a longer time period. To identify factors that might enhance patient safety and regulatory surveillance efforts, the Yale-led team analyzed data on new drugs approved between 2001 and 2010, with follow up through 2017.

The research team, led by associate professor of medicine and public health Dr. Joseph Ross, found that 32% of new drugs were flagged for a safety issue after approval. “That is very rarely a drug withdrawal, but more commonly a black box warning, or drug safety communication issued by the FDA to let physicians and patients know that new safety information has been determined,” said Ross.

The researchers also identified characteristics of drugs that were more likely to be associated with a safety concern, including biologic therapies and drugs that were approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway.

While the study results point to the need for ongoing monitoring of newly approved drugs, they also demonstrate that the FDA’s current process is working. “The fact that the FDA is issuing safety communications means it is doing a good job of following newly approved drugs and evaluating their safety up in the post-market period,” Ross noted.

At a time when the FDA is under pressure to accelerate drug approvals, the study findings provide key information about the agency’s process. “It shows that there is the potential for compromising patient safety when drug evaluation is persistently sped up,” said Ross. At the very least, the study should inform ongoing debate about premarket drug evaluation, the researchers said.

Other authors on the study are Nicholas Downing, Nilay Shah, Jenerius Aminawung, Alison Pease, Jean-David Zeitoun, and Harlan Krumholz. All authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, which are detailed in the study.

There was no funding for this research.

Read More At: News.Yale.edu

Human Embryos “Edited” In China

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 14, 2017

It has finally happened: human embryos have been genetically modified in China, by utilizing the CRISPR technique of genetic modification. Indeed, while the development is not surprising, as one might imagine, I have a few high octane speculations about it(and I would also like to thank all the readers here who sent me these two stories):

Engineering the Perfect Baby

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

Frankly, I found the second article so disturbing that it is difficult for me to write about, particularly in connection with my habit of high octane speculation. Nonetheless, I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs from the second article:

The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.

Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.

He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them. (Emphasis added)

There you have it: using the latest CRISPR technique, embryos were successfully modified, and those modifications would have been hereditary had the embryos been viable. But note what I can only hazard was probably a completely unexpected (and hence, ‘played down’) result: there were “off target mutations,” in other words, DNA mutations that were not planned and not expected, and might also have been passed down. Notably, we’re not informed what those “off-target mutations” actually consisted of; would they have resulted in entirely new congenital diseases or, alternatively, special “uniquenesses”? Might they have resulted – to exaggerate my point here – in people born with three eyes or six digits or truncated brains, or conversely, with expanded intellect or physical strength and endurance? We simply don’t know; the article does not say, and in that silence, I strongly suspect lies a tale.

Of course, as the article points out, critics of the study pointed out that these “off target mutations” may simply have been the result of the unusual embryos – fertilized by sperm from two different donors and hence of non-normal genetic derivation – that were used in the study.

Herewith my high octane speculation: what if they were not the result of the unusual embryos, but rather, in innate – perhaps epigenetic – response to the whole process of this type of genetic editing altogether? what if we are looking at a kind of “programmed-in defense mechanism” against tinkering in a fundamental fashion with DNA in general, or human DNA in particular? Many geneticists are in fact already questioning the standard genetic explanations for the development of individual life and its characteristics, suggesting there is another mechanism “beyond the genes” – hence the term “epi- (beyond) genetics” (genes) – that we do not yet understand.

In short, I think humanity was just served a timely warning with the appearance of “off target mutations,” the warning being: tread with great care, and great caution, and perhaps even, “Don’t tread here at all.”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

Image: American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE
Source: JeremyHammond.com
Jeremy Hammond
May 7, 2017

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.

On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.

This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.

In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:

  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.

With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:

  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?

With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:

  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?

An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.

The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website HealthyChildren.org.

However, none of the listed studies on that page supports the AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent … forms of cancer”.

None apparently considered the possibility of a susceptible subpopulation with a genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines.

And none compared health outcomes of fully vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children.

The list provided does contain numerous studies finding no association between vaccines and autism, but even the listed safety review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) doesn’t go so far as to say that the hypothesis has been “disproven”.

On the contrary, the IOM acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that vaccines might cause autism in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, but characterizes this hypothesis is still “speculative” and “unsubstantiated”.

That is a world apart from saying it has been “disproven”.

One would think that the IOM’s conclusion, if its inquiry was a scientific one, would be that since this is such an important question and this specific hypothesis is plausible and not well studied, therefore there should be further study into this question of whether vaccines could trigger autism at least in some children with a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury.

But rather than calling for more research into this area, the IOM actually advocated that no further studies to test this hypothesis be done. Its stated reason for this was partly medical, but at least equally political — and certainly favorable to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The IOM’s reason was:

Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

In other words, since studying this hypothesis further would undermine public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention, therefore no further research to test the biologically plausible hypothesis should be done.

The AAP was sent a follow up email noting that none of the studies listed appeared to support the claims it made in the press release. The AAP was welcomed to correct the record, but did not dispute the observation that none of the studies listed showed that vaccines can prevent cancer, considered genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury, or compared health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The additional follow up questions were also asked:

  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?
  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that compared health outcomes between children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained unvaccinated, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?

The AAP did not reply via email to the follow up questions.

In a second phone call requesting the AAP to produce such studies to support its claims, Ms. Black replied that she had provided everything the AAP was going to provide.

When confronted with the observation that none of the studies provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines can prevent cancer, she repeated that the AAP was not going to provide any additional information.

When asked whether the authors of the press release, AAP President Fernando Stein and Executive Vice President Karen Remley, would like to comment, Ms. Black abruptly ended the phone call by saying she was going to hang up and then doing so.

Questions Unanswered

The questions seem pertinent, particularly given the fact that the government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in developmental regression.

In 2008, then director of the CDC Julie Gerberding offered the following carefully worded acknowledgment:

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 a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

The context in which she was speaking was with respect to Hannah Poling, a child with a mitochondrial disorder who developed autism after receiving numerous vaccines on the same day and whose family was awarded compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The VICP was established in the mid-1980s under a law that granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. The government’s reason for doing so was that vaccine injury lawsuits were threatening to undermine public policy by putting vaccine manufacturers out of business.

The Supreme Court has upheld that legal immunity on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.”

Around the same time as Gerberding’s admission, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, the late Bernadine Healy, criticized the refrain that any link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. She pointed out the kinds of studies that would be necessary in order to confidently draw that conclusion hadn’t yet been done.

Specifically, she noted the lack of studies taking into consideration a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

Ms. Healy also slammed the IOM for advocating that no further research be done and noted that as a potential cause of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

Similarly, in contrast to the AAP’s claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”, one of the CDC’s lead researchers on that very question, CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano, admitted in an interview in 2014 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

“It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, DeStefano observed, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

The AAP’s list of studies includes one or more for which DeStefano was an author.

The CDC also admits the need for further study in this area. Its website at the time of this writing acknowledges that “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

So how can the AAP claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven” when the studies that would be necessary to invalidate the hypothesis haven’t been done?

No comment.

That’s the AAP’s answer to the question, anyway.

The AAP’s attitude should perhaps come as no surprise, given its close relationship with the vaccine industry.

As CBS News reported in 2008, “The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters.”

A Discussion to Be Had

The AAP argues in its press release against the formation of a federal commission, but its argument would apply to any public debate about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. By the AAP’s logic, like the IOM’s, also unnecessary are any discussion about it in the media and any further scientific inquiry.

But as Daniel Sarewitz observes, “as science approaches the cutting edge, it tends to raise as many questions as it resolves, so there is always room for debate about what the science is actually saying.”

Parents dubbed “anti-science” by the media are naturally curious why that label doesn’t seem to apply to those calling for no further inquiry into pertinent questions.

Parents aren’t just asking legitimate questions about vaccines. They’re doing what most doctors haven’t and spending a lot of time researching vaccines themselves. And they’re not just going to “anti-vaccine” websites to research it. They’re organizing, sharing information, and digging into the medical literature for themselves.

Parents can see the fundamental contradiction between public health officials and the media constantly insisting that vaccines are harmless even while the government grants legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and while the government manages a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in order to shift the costs for damages and keep the vaccine manufacturers profitable — all to maintain public policy.

Parents understand how government and industry funding influences the direction and findings of scientific research, and how the medical establishment that has given us soaring costs and a population in which nearly 40 percent are chronically ill will tend to justify itself despite its abysmal performance and a long history of being wrong time and again, from tobacco science (older generations may remember how the industry used to get product endorsements from doctors) to the USDA recommended high-carb diet (which has contributed to the obesity epidemic and is more about satisfying food industry lobbyists than providing science-based advise) to the role of cholesterol in heart disease (scientific research no longer supports the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol contributes to blood cholesterol and heart disease risk).

Parents are aware of how government agencies like the FDA and the CDC serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They see the corruption and the “revolving door” of Washington, such as how Julie Gerberding left her government job pushing vaccines as head of CDC to become president of the vaccine division for the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

They see how the AAP, too, has an incestuous relationship with “Big Pharma”. They understand how willful ignorance goes beyond the individual operating within the system and becomes institutionalized. And they watch as an organization that influences how their child’s pediatrician practices medicine accepts money from an industry they feel the AAP ought to be protecting them from.

They can witness how the AAP makes statements it claims are solidly backed by science, but which it is unwilling or unable to provide any studies to support. They understand that the truly “anti-science” position is the one that says no further scientific inquiry into an admittedly biologically plausible hypothesis is necessary.

Parents know there are many studies that have found no association between vaccines and autism. They don’t need the AAP to point this out to them. But they wonder why the AAP ignores all the studies that do support the hypothesis.

They wonder how the AAP can claim that the vaccine-autism hypothesis has been “disproven” when the most any of the studies it cites have concluded is that those particular studies, with their own particular focus, designed around their own particular assumptions, using a particular methodology, did not find an association between vaccines and autism.

And parents are asking questions like: What was the actual purpose of the study? What were the underlying assumptions made by the authors? What vaccines were being studied, and what outcomes? Who were the study groups? What were the criteria for their selection? What was the study’s methodology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Do the conclusions drawn follow from the actual findings? How conclusive is it? What does the study actually prove, if anything?

Parents can see for themselves the huge disparity between what they are told science has to say about vaccines  — by public health officials, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media — and what science actually has to say about it.

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children aren’t doing so because they are uneducated or unintelligent. On the contrary, studies show that they tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than the general population.

They aren’t choosing not to vaccinate because they are ignorant of the science. They are choosing not to vaccinate because they are digging into the medical literature (which can be searched via PubMed.gov) and awakening to the deceit they see coming out of the government and the mainstream media.

They see how mainstream journalists, rather than seriously investigating what the science actually says, rely on statements from agencies like the CDC and industry-funded organizations like the AAP to “inform” the public about the subject.

They see how the establishment is seeking to stifle debate not by respectfully addressing their legitimate questions, but by bullying them into silence and conformity, and they understand how such a phenomenon can arise because institutions with a life of their own feel threatened by the truth and act to preserve the status quo.

The AAP and other actors interested in preserving the public vaccine policy so far seem to have assumed that they can end the discussion by declaring authoritatively that there is no need for further discussion.

But if they ever hope to truly end the discussion, they are going to have to start taking parents’ concerns seriously and answering their legitimate questions with more than disingenuous public relations talking points that might as well have been written by the vaccine industry.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Artificial Womb Created


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 7, 2017

In case you didn’t catch the story, artificial wombs have been successfully created and tested… at least, for sheep, according to this article shared by Mr. B:

An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep — and humans could be next

Now, of course, this is all being sold – predictably enough and just according to the playbook – as a potential health benefit, for if it can be applied to humans, the technology could conceivably help premature babies; here’s the way the article puts it in its first three paragraphs:

Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.

It’s appealing to imagine a world where artificial wombs grow babies, eliminating the health risk of pregnancy. But it’s important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. “It’s complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there,” he says.

Instead, the point of developing an external womb — which his team calls the Biobag — is to give infants born months too early a more natural, uterus-like environment to continue developing in, Flake says.
(Emphasis added)

True enough, such a technology would be a boon for care of premature babies.

But like Mr. B., I have difficulty believing that this technology is not applicable to the earliest stages of pregnancy. And that brings me to my high octane speculation of the day…

… while such a technology might be beneficial in the care of premature babies, I strongly suspect there’s another reason set of reasons entirely for the creation of this technology, and that set of reasons boils down to just two words: genetic engineering. Conceivably, such a technology could fulfill two dreams – or rather, nightmares – of the transhumanist “community,” for it would be (1)  a means not only to create but to gestate chimerical life forms, and (2) a means to create and gestate clones. Both purposes could be served by the perfection of this technology. In the latter case, it would be a kind of real world fulfillment of the film Island, staring Scottish actor Ewan McGregor, where human clones are literally gestated in such ‘biobags” and then “birthed” surgically on a pre-determined date.

The reason? There organs are going to be harvested for their “real” counterparts, and the clone – who is not viewed as a real “person” of course – is butchered, murdered, and thrown away. The technology, in other words, raises moral and jurisprudential issues. I’m one of those that maintains that human clones are persons, unique and different from their “originals” in the same way identical twins or triplets are different unique persons, regardless of the DNA similarities.

But watch, the transhumanist-progressive crowd will consult medical “ethicists” from the University of Oxford, who will contrive sophistical arguments why this is not the case.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.