How the CDC Manipulates the New Autism Rate

If you blinked, you might have missed this week’s announcement that the autism rate has remained at 1 in 68.  That’s 1.5 percent of eight year olds born in 2004 and surveyed in 2012 (what’s the hurry, right?). Perhaps because the number hasn’t changed since the last report two years ago, the news didn’t make the splash it sometimes does. Yet it’s just as shocking, not least because it highlights the way the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “manages” the autism epidemic.

Mark Blaxill, my co-author and colleague at AOA and HealthChoice, wrote about this powerfully earlier this week, contrasting the CDC report with evidence he obtained from a whistleblower lawsuit in Utah. The suit was filed by Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, who was fired in the middle of working on Utah’s autism rate. It suddenly and inexplicably took a dive — raising serious questions about how those numbers are obtained, not just in Utah but around the country.

I asked Mark a few questions to try to get my mind around the significance of these major developments.

Dan: I just thought your analysis of the numbers was a really important look at how this sausage is made. Let me start with this: What would be the right way to do a task like this, to track over time a disease or disorder that’s of public concern, that people think might be increasing, and that they wanted to get an apples-to-apples comparison for over a period of time. In other words, if they wanted to really figure out was going on, what would they do: What would be best practices as they say in business?

Mark: You’d want to start early enough, in time to observe the trend in the epidemic.  Yet the first thing that they (the CDC) do is start their surveillance in 1992, which is by all accounts after the inflection point — the autism rates were already starting to get elevated by 1992. We know from the data in Brick, New Jersey, that the difference between the rates in the  ‘88 and ‘92 birth cohorts was huge — that was sort of the critical four years when the whole thing turned from zero to about the highest rates ever recorded. (See last slide)

Dan: The EPA has said that 1988 was in fact the inflection point worldwide.

Mark: Exactly, and that inflection point shows up in other places and in other studies. The first two CDC studies were in New Jersey and Georgia. They have the data on Brick Township starting in the 1988 birth year, and Brick is in some of the other New Jersey ADDM surveys. …

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/04/mark-blaxill-on-how-cdc-manipulates-new-autism-rate.html

Review of the Film “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe”

In the film, Del Bigtree goes back to some colleagues from The Doctors, where he worked for 7 years before leaving to make this film. He presents documents to family medicine practitioner Dr Rachael Ross and pediatrician Dr Jim Sears, who are both “pro-vaccine” before reading them and shaken by what they read afterward. When Bigtree asks what Dr Ross will say to the next parent asking about the MMR, she says she will tell the truth. She will not be giving it her own children (she had a baby in November 2015), and worries about what we are doing to children’s brains. Del Bigtree, “I looked at the data that the CDC whistleblower was providing … and it is the most compelling evidence of fraud I have ever seen in my life. I realized … I was looking at probably the biggest story of my lifetime. As a journalist, I realized it was a story I had to tell.”  — Del Bigtree, Producer of Vaxxed from Cover-Up to Catastrophe

Practically from the opening scene, the film Vaxxed grabs our attention and doesn’t let go until it has elicited every ounce of empathy and outrage the human heart is capable of. Back in 2013, William Thompson, PhD, a senior scientist at the CDC was so wracked with guilt about his participation in a CDC study on the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism that he finally picked up the phone and called Brian Hooker, PhD, biologist and autism dad, to tell him where to look for the evidence of CDC deception. Vaxxed is the story of what followed, revealing evidence of collusion, corruption, and fraud at the very agency charged with protecting the public health.

The film was accepted by and then unceremoniously ejected from the Tribeca Film Festival after a firestorm of media attention which almost unanimously condemned the film even though not a single reporter had seen it. The media attention may have turned out to be a blessing in disguise, however, as it has many people who haven’t investigated the topic before asking, Why? What is so special about this film that so many people wanted to kill it? And so it was that the film opened last night to a packed house at Angelika Film Center in New York City. As a long-time New Yorker, there was a particular thrill to seeing this film at this theater. Angelika is my very favorite theater in New York. I have many vivid memories of terrific and thought-provoking films seen there, while surprisingly I have no clear recollection of any films screened at the Tribeca Film Festival. …

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaxxed-cover-catastrophe/

Former science chief: “MMR fears coming true”

A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, “the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”.

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.

He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”…

‘Why isn’t the Government taking this massive public health problem more seriously?’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html#ixzz44lu32mRa
hief: ‘MMR fears coming true’ | Daily Mail Online