September 20, 2018

Lawyer Benjamin J. Horwich "Proud" of Removing Your Right To Sue Vaccine Makers Who Kill Your Children

Hey kids... wanna read something super gross?

This is the evil PR murder goo that slimed out of gates of hell to praise the tool of the Devil that "won" Wyeth's case in SCOTUS so that no vaccine injured family could ever access their 7th Amendment right to sue when a vaccine kills or disables their child.

Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com
Rising Star: Munger Tolles’ Benjamin Horwich
Law360, Los Angeles (April 11, 2016, 4:00 PM ET) -- Benjamin J. Horwich’s career achievements include helping convince the U.S. Supreme Court to effectively prevent drug companies from exiting the vaccine market, a critical matter of public policy, earning the Munger Tolles & Olson LLP partner a spot on Law360’s list of the top six appellate attorneys under age 40.
Horwich, who recently turned 39, was named a partner in January, just 17 months after he joined the firm. He attributes part of his success as a Rising Star to being exposed to an enormous number of different legal issues through his time as Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as clerkships in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Third Circuit and the Northern District of California.
“As an appellate lawyer, there is really no substitute for having a broad base of areas of the law where you have some familiarity,” Horwich said. “Our stock in trade is talking to generalist judges who tend not to have extremely deep knowledge of any single subject matter but rather a desire to fit the pieces of the law together in a harmonious way. Coming to an appellate court with that common ground is really valuable.”
During his more than five years with the U.S. Solicitor General, Horwich was able to argue 10 cases before the nation’s highest court. One of the most memorable and rewarding cases, he said, was Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, a 2011 ruling that held the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts design-defect tort claims against vaccine manufacturers.
Horwich, who argued on behalf of the federal government as a friend of the  court siding with the drugmakers, said it was important because it helped prevent pharmaceutical companies from exiting the less than lucrative vaccine market due to tort liability.
“The law stands as one of the most ingenious and successful pieces of tort reform ever,” Horwich said.  “I’m certainly proud of being a part of delivering on the promise that Congress sought out to make in the 1980s and certainly take only the smallest amount of credit.”
Horwich said he uses that experience and many others, as well as his time clerking for Justices Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O’Connor, to help him in his practice. His ability to “marry the understanding of the local courts with the long view of what a case looks like if it’s impacted by the Supreme Court” brings value to his firm’s clients, he said.
In advising Swedish telecom equipment maker Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Inc. in its patent licensing dispute with tech giant Apple Inc., one of the biggest mobile tech cases of the past year, Horwich said they were preparing to address the unresolved issue of how courts will assess damages for standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms.
“That’s an issue at the forefront of the intersection of IP and antitrust law,” Horwich said.  While the issue wasn’t decided due to a global settlement reached between the parties in December, Horwich said his appellate experience provides him with a key long-term outlook at the trial level.
“Understanding how precedent develops in appellate court gives you an advantage at trial court, where you’re building that record,” he said. “Bringing that long-term perspective is valuable to a client who is interested in the sound development of the law that governs its business activity.”
One piece of advice that he offers young lawyers looking to advance their careers is to distinguish yourself from other attorneys.
“The background I have developed is something distinctive,” Horwich said. “Being able to explain what you as an attorney can offer that is distinctive is the path to success, because it puts yourself in the best position to tell clients, ‘I’m the right person for this job.’”
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
All Content © 2003-2016, Portfolio Media, Inc.



Super, super gross.

He is "PROUD" to have left hundreds of thousands of people without the right to walk into a courtroom and tell their story to a jury, or compel anyone in the entire $30B per year industry to testify under oath on product safety... or even hand over one single document.

Totally disgusting.

He believes that gutting the 7th amendment to protect a business that kills babies by chemical poisoning, even when they are still in the safety of their mother's womb is "ingenious."  And of course that the massive violation of the Bill of Rights to make open fraud that has resulted tricking parents into destroying the health of their own precious children, decimating more than one generation of children, is a "success."

Well, to be fair, he is not wrong on that last point.  NCVIA and VICP are the most successful frauds in US history.  No one has ever managed the consiquence free murder and maiming of children for profit like the post 1986 US National Immunization Program.

"But, Ginger," you may say, "Why attack him personally... he is just a lawyer doing his job, right?"

Nope.  He "takes only the smallest amount of credit" for my lack of ability to hold Sanofi responsible for lying about the safety of the vaccine that gave my son brain damage, and prevent any other children from suffering what my son did, but he has taken credit none the less.  So...

Meet Ben Horwich.  The smiling face of evil.  At your service for the right price.  Not even the slaughter of innnocent babies will stop him from getting you the money and power you want.

HIRE HIM TODAY!



September 1, 2018

Meet Frank DeStefano


So today I heard the one millionth politician say another version of, "The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks," and got my panties in a huge bunch, repeatedly hammering "DATA PLEASE!!!" into my poor keyboard. And then the politician sitting next to her became the one quintillionth to say a version of, "I just refuse to believe that all the public health professionals and scientists and doctors and nurses in all the land everywhere in perpetuity would be in a conspiracy to....,"and it is just driving me crazy.

So I took a deep breath and I am writing this to respond to those who repeat what they have been told with out critical thought. I will not name them, as they have agreed to meet with and listen to some of our moms (pray that normal reason guides the conversation), but I am writing this response to them as a primer to people who are stuck in the "that conspiracy is not possible" paradigm.

OK... great point. Conspiracies fall apart faster the larger they get, and if all people involved in vaccination were part of a conspiracy, it would have burned itself out by now.

But can you believe a group of people I can count on my fingers might decide to tell big giant lies to keep themselves from getting in trouble? How about just ONE GUY? Would one guy try to get away with it, if for example, he had allowed bad policy, corporate influence, arrogance and flat out laziness to create THE most rampant epidemic of neurological damage in American history? Would that one guy try to lie and cover it up?

And do you believe that a top down profession like medicine, would simply believe that ONE GUY, if he was supposed to be the NATIONAL EXPERT entrusted with issuing stances on such matters that all those in medicine had to carry out, or be shoved out of the profession?

Let's meet Frank DeStefano. 

Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, FACPM is a medical epidemiologist and researcher at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he is director of the Immunization Safety Office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_DeStefano

Frank is in charge of telling everyone in the country whether or not vaccines are linked to autism.

Here is what Frank tells us, and the whole wide world, on this critical matter on vaccine safety:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"
"There is no link between vaccines and autism."
"Vaccine ingredients do not cause autism."

Simple, straightforward, emphatic statements.

But wait... here is what Frank told Sharyl Attkisson about that very same issue:


"He acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism."
“I guess, that, that is a possibility,” said DeStefano. “It’s hard to predict who those children might be, but certainly, individual cases can be studied to look at those possibilities.”

That is NOT AT ALL even remotely like what he said in is official position that ALL MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THE COUNTRY HAVE TO RELY ON.

So why would Frank say that it is a possibility that vaccines can cause autism?

Because Frank already KNOWS that vaccines can cause autism. He found out in 1999 the first time he looked into it.

You see, Frank screwed up.

In 1988, when CDC began to jack up the number of vaccines from 23 given in the 70s and 80s, to the 70ish doses given now, they created the largest epidemic of life long neurological damage in US history. The autism rate went from 1 in 10,000ish to now 1 in 68ish (but probably really 1 in 36ish.  we can't get CDC to give us a straight answer.)

This started becoming apparent at the end of the 1990s, when one woman at the CDC issued a memo that said, "Hey guys... do you realize we have delivered truck loads of mercury into babies by giving them 8 vaccines at a time now?" Well clearly it was not a problem, because vaccines are the best thing ever and can't hurt anyone, but Frank's job was to look at that stuff, so he kinda had to look into it.

And that is when The Frank Squad found out that Team CDC was delivering 250 times the daily limit of mercury to babies, and babies getting the most mercury in their vaccines had a 600% higher chance of getting autism than babies getting no mercury.

Frank had a choice. Admit to what he had done, or lie.

Frank decided to lie.

He decided NOT to publish what he found, instead having his squad spend four years trying to unfind what they found. They couldn't. So they added on some garbage, published it, called it a "neutral study" and then a dude wrote a New York Times best selling book on the fraud. Which Frank, and everyone else at CDC, ignored.


But they had to ignore it, because they had charted their course and could not turn back now!  Once you commit the first fraud, you have to keep on frauding or you are super busted.

Plus they had already published their second fraud. Because they had also looked into the idea that MMR was linked to autism, and found that IT WAS. In two different groups. One of the black males given the MMR under age 3. Of course they didn't publish that either, but literally held meetings with a garbage can in the room to throw out cases that they had to get rid of to make the research to fit the narrative.

Of course parents of MMR injured kids knew the paper was BS, but no one could prove it for 10 years, when one of Frank's boys admitted to Congress that they found the links and covered them up.


http://canaryparty.org/commentary/timeline-of-events-in-the-william-thompson-cdcwhistleblower-scandal/

Which is why Frank FINALLY had to admit to Attkisson that it was in the realm possibility that vaccines can cause autism.

But he never bothered changing the CDC page emphatically claiming that vaccines don't cause autism.


Now for above referenced politicians, there is a LOT MORE ON ALL THIS. But I am going to stop here because it only gets more complicated.  But I have laid out so basics.  Do you see how, even from a 30,000 foot level, there is an obvious problem??

I ask you to consider this....

Yeah...  of course.... you can't keep a conspiracy quiet when millions are involved.

But when the leader of an organization, given total power over what US vaccine safety policy is, decides to lie and commit fraud, and everyone inside his organization has to live by his pronouncements, and in the medical profession has to work according to CDC pronouncements, you see how a very small conspiracy can come to rule the medical profession?

They become participants in the fraud, either knowing or unknowing... either willing or unwilling... but they HAVE to participate in the fraud in order to keep their jobs.  They have to tow the line, (so it is best no to look to closely at the issue, because what if parents are right?)

Now factor in the legal liability protection that the 30 Billion dollar vaccine industry has for vaccine induced autism, and every other adverse vaccine reaction, and the number of very smooth lobbyists that the 30 Billion dollar per year vaccine industry has to lie to politicians on a daily basis, and you see how the medical professionals might be believing a lie...

...without being involved in any conspiracy what so ever?

I appreciate you agreeing to meet with moms. If you could also invite Frank DeStefano to attend, so we can ask him direct questions on his work and conflicting public stances, it may clarify what is really happening in this very controversial issue very quickly.

Also, if you could invite a judge to swear him in, under oath, I think you will come to understand our complaints about the veracity and trustworthiness of vaccine safety claims with crystal clarity.

Bring a stenographer and a video camera.

This is not a vast conspiracy.  It is a small one, reinforced by those who need to believe it to keep their jobs, and those who refuse to listen to parents and investigate the charges that they make.

And every time you parrot "I can't believe that all doctors would participate in a conspiracy to cover up vaccine damage."  Pretend you just said, "I can't believe that all catholics would participate in a conspiracy to cover up child molestation."

Because the reason that both have persisted decade after decade, is because you and people like you "refused" to take reports of injured children seriously.

Usually because it is such a monstrous thought that no one wants to entertain the possibility that it could be true.

So see, I don't really have a problem with you.  I have a problem with Frank.  And with those who helped and protected Frank knowing full well Frank was committing one of the most massive frauds in medical history.

But I can't get to Frank.  Frank does not talk to people like me.  Frank has security guards and laws that prevent me from forcing Frank to answer questions under oath.

And because you, unknowingly are running interference for Frank by dismissing Frank's massive fraud when parents like me report it to you, WE (you and I) end up having a problem.

But there is a line for everyone in this discussion, when dealing with super loud moms like me, that when crossed turns sincere ignorance on the fraud into willful ignorance.  Have you crossed that line yet?  If you are still willing to listen to moms, then probably not.  Be careful of crossing it.

Finally.... seriously... why are you letting Frank use you as a human shield?  Respectfully... you guys don't actually know what you are talking about on vaccine safety, and you are not actually responsible for the false claims Frank DeStefano Inc. are spitting out.  You didn't do the research.  You have not even read the research, much less understood the criticisms of it.  Why don't you just step out of the way and make FRANK answer for the fraud that he has perpetrated on the American public, and the world.

Stop protecting Frank DeStefano.  It is not your job.

August 9, 2018

My Apology For My Denial And Failure To Offer You Informed Consent


I have done something very wrong for a very long time.

When I learned that some vaccines were made from aborted fetal cells, and still contained those children's biological material, I was so upset that I shut it out of my mind and work and life.

I pretended in my heart to unknow what I knew, and not say it out loud so I would not have to know it is true.

And I didn't include it in many of the warnings to parents when I was offering them information to give them greater informed consent on vaccination. People whose religion or world view may have precluded them from getting such shots.  Even while purporting to do my best to offer them informed consent on vaccination. 

I didn't even tell all my fellow Christians.

That was wrong. And it was done out of fear. Because I didn't want to deal with the horrid truth that I had administered these things to my children, and had administered to me.

So here I repent. I am sorry. Everyone is due that information and I didn't give it to everyone.

So I won't leave that out any more just because it is upsetting. Because it is so upsetting.

If you were one of the parents I should have warned, I am sorry.

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11

August 1, 2018

So You Saw A Meme Of A Bunny Holding A Sign That Says, “Vaccines Cause Autism,” And You Have Some Questions



On July 14th of this year, I was scrolling through twitter and saw a graphic of graphic of a bunny holding a sign, and thought, “cute, Imma try that. cut/paste/fill in sign text/ what could it say... umm... "Vaccines Cause Autism.” Tossed up the little throw away tweet and didn't think of it again.

I have been investigating and writing about the relationship between vaccines and autism since 2004, and put out a few thousand tweets on the subject, that get a bit of discussion, but none prepared me for The Great Vaccine Autism Bunny Ratio of 2018.

A few days ago someone RT'd it somewhere, and twitter noticed and it made many of them very unhappy. Hundreds of comments flowed in. I was all, “Wait... THIS is what gets people to pay attention to this subject and engage with us on vaccine risk?!” A decade of documenting fraud, discussing research, sharing government vaccine safety guidelines, sharing videos of official government meetings on vaccine safety, and apparently I should have just tweeted three word bunny memes.

But no worries. Ultimately I am grateful for the bunny as he has brought us together, and you have asked a question that I want to answer. And because I have been unable to keep up with answering the questions, and so many are repeat questions (that I have started cutting and pasting answers to) I decided to give you a one stop destination for answers. Some have not been phrased in the kindest way possible, or given me much of the benefit of the doubt, but they are important questions none the less, so...


1. “Wrong... lies. Where's your proof?”

While it is not in the initial tweet, so many didn't see it, the second tweet in that thread is a link to a list of papers that I have been compiling over the last 11 years to rebut the false claim that, “There is no evidence of any link between vaccines and autism.” Because the vaccine industry has spent a great deal of time and money cultivating that falsehood, few know that research show multiple links between vaccines and autism. You can read the list here:

151 Research Papers Supporting the Vaccine/Autism Link

Despite decades of parental requests to have these and other lines of inquiry followed up, CDC and NIH have refused to conduct any large scale follow up research on these findings.


2. “Well 150,000 prove they don't.”

There are no studies proving that vaccines don't cause autism. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers 48 papers that fail to find an association between vaccines and autism.

Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence

Note that unlike my list which makes clears that it is ONLY offering the evidence that supports the vaccine/autism link, AAP's article title suggests that you are getting ALL the evidence. It then proceeds to give you ONLY the research that fails to find an association between vaccines and autism, while presenting not one of the papers I have offered.

Further note that the AAP's position statement no longer claims that vaccines don't cause autism. They don't claim anything at all, one way or the other. It is a carefully worded statement that talks about research that fails to find an association, but notes that there is other research on vaccine-autism causation that they do not include. I have written a piece on their position here:

The AAP No Longer Claims that Vaccines Don't Cause Autism


3. “So you would rather your child have polio than have autism?”

My initial response is, “What? How did you get from “Vaccines cause autism” to there? I haven't made ANY vaccine recommendations here! Then I remembered that there is a 30 billion dollar per year vaccine industry committed to you making these kinds of leaps.

You seem to have assumed that I am advocating for an end to vaccination. I am not anti-vaccine, and my children are vaccinated. I have written a lengthy discussion of my vaccine position and experience for the Johns Hopkins Journal, Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics

This is not an either/or proposition. There is risk from both complications from any vaccine, and the diseases that the vaccine is targeting. We must have an honest evaluation of both, and use that information to prevent harm in either case to individual children with DIFFERENT biological risk factors for each.

I do not give advice to others on whether or not to vaccinate, or how to vaccinate, I merely offer resources to families so that they can make their own decisions.

But did you know that the vaccine schedule when I was growing up was 24 doses, birth to 18, and the current schedule is 70 doses? And that the tripling of the vaccine schedule began in 1988, two years after Congress gave the vaccine industry complete immunity from lawsuits against vaccine injury or death?

You know that there was no autism epidemic in the 70s and 80s OR epidemics of vaccine targeted diseases, right?  Even for the diseases that we now vaccinate for, but didn't then.

So how is this a choice between fully vaccinating now, or death?  If I survived with a third of the vaccines kids get now, then why must I have to vaccinate my children the way I was vaccinated or watch them die?

And why arn't children dying left and right in Denmark?

Could it be that you have been lied to by the vaccine industry about exactly how badly their products are needed?



Here are the vaccine coverage rates in the US when I was in high school.  Where were all the epidemics?






4. “Then what is your point?”

THIS IS ABOUT INFORMED CONSENT. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights asserts that:
“Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

The vaccine industry, which includes the vaccine patent holding CDC, has committed fraud in asserting that vaccines are not linked to autism. As demonstrated above, there are many links between vaccines and autism. HHS has admitted this in their response to reporters in the Hannah Poling case, where a girl with autism was paid for her vaccine induced encephalopathy by the government's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, that:
“Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”

Context and lengthy discussions of the admissions that the government has had to make can be found here:

I work toward vaccine safety reform and informed consent. We need a dramatic overhaul of the National Vaccine Plan, including prescreening for genetic and autoimmune risk factors before vaccines are administered, immediate treatment of symptoms arising post vaccination, mandatory education for doctors and health care providers on government and manufacturer vaccine safety guidelines, alternate schedules for high risk cases for reactions, low cost readily available titers testing, and most importantly, the repeal of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

There is a rapidly growing research base on autism causation and treatment that health officials are ignoring, that can make vaccination safer, and improve the quality of life for those with autism. Health officials must implement this established science and end the false dichotomy of “fully vaccinate or die” arguments.

5. “...better education for doctors” lmao how about better education for ginger taylor instead?"

We introduce a bill in Maine to mandate training for doctors on manufacturer and federal vaccine injury guidelines. In their testimony, the doctors showed that they didn't even know there were federal guidelines.

Maine Doctors Submit Testimony Showing That They Are Not Qualified to Advise Patients on Vaccination

Let the doctors themselves tell you how much they were taught about vaccines in medical school:



6. Yes you ARE anti-vaccine!

No. Talking about vaccine risk and vaccine injury does not make one anti-vaccine, and more than talking about the serious side effects that some people have from antibiotics makes one anti-antibiotic.

Here the Department of Heath and Human Services discusses many of the serious adverse reactions some have to vaccines, including death. This does not make HHS anti-vaccine.


7. “Did you know that this theory was caused by ONE dude in I believe Europe who made this claim with no scientific evidence. And to this day there is no evidenced them being linked?”

No, The Theory of Vaccine Induced Autism Did Not Begin With Andrew Wakefield.

The first paper to link the two was the first paper on autism, by Leo Kanner in 1943. The idea was discussed for decades, to the point that in 1991 the Institute of Medicine was including it in their reports on vaccine safety funded by the National Institutes of Health, published by the National Academy of Sciences and edited by none other than Harvard's Harvey Fineberg... seven years before the Wakefield paper.

And again, as shown above, there are now more than a hundred papers discussing the link. Yet the public has been sold the lie that there is just ONE retracted paper by this ONE guy who came up with the whole thing that has been “debunked.” Details on the 75 year continuous history of vaccine-autism discussion in the medical literature here:



8. "But I know someone who has autism and was never vaccinated, so you fail!"

There are several genetic and environmental causes of autism. Vaccination is merely ONE of the environmental causes. They also include medications taken during pregnancy, medications administered in childhood, and contaminants in the food, air and water.  There are unvaccinated children with autism.

9. "But I got all the vaccines and am not autistic."

Not everyone who eats a peanut goes into anaphylaxis. Nor does everyone who gets a bee sting or takes penicillin.  But some do.

It is the same with vaccines.  Not everyone will have a vaccine adverse reaction, but some do.

Spend some time reading the adverse reactions of each vaccine, and what contraindications each shot has, that can help predict who will have a bad reaction ahead of time.

The Institute for Vaccine Safety, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 
Package Inserts and Manufacturers for some US Licensed Vaccines and Immunoglobulins.


10. "Well then why don't you just shut up and sue them?"

This is a very, very good question. Kudos. I wish I had asked it before my kids were vaccinated.

In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that was eventually interpreted by the Supreme Court, which barred those injured by vaccines, or families of loved ones killed by vaccines, to file lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that made the dangerous vaccines.

At the same time, Congress declared all FDA approved vaccines, "Unavoidably Unsafe" which means it cannot be made safe for it's intended use.

Then Pharma started a campaign to declare that "Vaccines Are Safe," and to mandate them for first school children, then medical professionals, then those dependant on social services, and soon for everyone. Based on the claim that "vaccines are safe" even though they are "unavoidably unsafe."

You think that this would be an easy law suit to win, but again, no family has be able to get into a civil court and have a jury hear any vaccine injury case in more than 30 years. It is a mess.

So to those who are vaccinating. Buyer Beware. Do your homework first. Thousands of families like ours have learned the hard way. Once you have a vaccine injury, you are on your own.


11. "Why does that number keep changing?  It was 130-something. Then 149, 150, 151...Every time you posted this the number has been different.  You having a go?

I have been compiling this list for 11 years, it started with 18 papers.  Every time I add a new paper ScribD changes the link.  You are just seeing copies of the old link. The current list in 151. I already have more to add, but have not done so yet, so you will likely come across higher numbers, and the science behind vaccine autism causation is growing rapidly.  By contrast, there has not been a paper that failed to find an association between vaccines and autism since 2015 according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/151-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link


12."You are not a good person."

As a Calvinist, I have no rebuttal to offer you.


13. “Fuck you.  You're an idiot.”

Your contempt has been noted. Thank you for your input.

I am still grateful that the Vaccine Autism Bunny and his ratio has brought us together. I know that this hit you the hard way, but I still hope you are able to glean a little something from this discussion, even if it is only that it is not as straight forward a matter as you initially thought it was.


14. "Shut up."

I can't. I have a duty to warn.


July 22, 2018

No, The Theory of Vaccine Induced Autism Did Not Begin With Andrew Wakefield

“The story of how vaccines came to be questioned as a cause of autism dates back to the 1990s. In 1995, a group of British researchers published a cohort study in the Lancet showing that individuals who had been vaccinated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) were more likely to have bowel disease than individuals who had not received MMR. One of these researchers was gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, MD, who went on to further study a possible link between the vaccine and bowel disease by speculating that persistent infection with vaccine virus caused disruption of the intestinal tissue that in turn led to bowel disease and neuropsychiatric disease (specifically, autism). ” - The History of Vaccines, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia.  

No.


The story of how vaccines came to be questioned as a cause of autism dates back to the first paper describing autism in 1943.

1943

In his disorder defining paper "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact," published in Nervous Child in 1943, Leo Kanner of Johns Hopkins University included the first report of vaccine induced autistic regression. In Kanner's case series describing the first 11 children documented to have the disorder, case number 3, “Richard M.” is reported by his mother to have begun his developmental regression following a smallpox vaccination.  From the paper:

“Case 3. Richard M. was referred to the Johns Hopkins Hospital on February 5, 1941, at 3 years, 3 months of age, with the complaint of deafness because he did not talk and did not respond to questions.” 
“Following smallpox vaccination at 12 months, he had an attack of diarrhea and fever, from which he recovered in somewhat less than a week.”
“In September, 1940, the mother, in commenting on Richard's failure to talk, remarked in her notes: I can't be sure just when he stopped the imitation of words sounds.  It seems that he has gone backward mentally gradually for the last two years.”

The time line of Richard M, according to the paper, is thus:

November 1937 – Born

November 1938 – Vaccinated with Smallpox vaccine

September 1940 – Mother reports developmental regression beginning approximately two years previously, the autumn of 1938.

February 1941 – Referred to Hopkins for evaluation, and in 1943, becomes the third child to be described as autistic by Leo Kanner in his disorder defining paper, the first paper published on autism, 55 years before Wakefield.

Yet Wakefield et. al. Included parental reports of vaccine induced regression in their 1998 paper, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” in the Lancet in 1998, and are credited (or blamed) with originating the discussion on vaccine induced autism.

Despite the fact that the 55 year old discussion had been developed, published on, and the subject of official HHS inquiries before anyone ever knew the name Wakefield.

In the 40s and 50s, the Freudians were in command of the narrative on childhood mental health, and maternal rejection of the child was asserted as the source of the rare disorder.  This until Bernard Rimland, Ph. D. ended the supremacy of the unfounded and misogynistic theory, and began the era of medical investigation into the origins of autism in the 1960s.

1976

In March of 1976, in Germany,  Eggers published, “Autistic Syndrome (Kanner) and Vaccination Against Smallpox” wherein he described that:
“3-4 weeks following an otherwise uncomplicated first vaccination against smallpox a boy, then aged 15 months and last seen at the age of 5 1/2 years, gradually developed a complete Kanner syndrome. The question whether vaccination and early infantile autism might be connected is being discussed. A causal relationship is considered extremely unlikely. But vaccination is recognized as having a starter function for the onset of autism.”


1989

From the first time I heard the name “Wakefield” in the media in the early 2000s, I had always known that the story that Wakefield kicked off the suspicion that vaccines may cause autism in 1998 was bogus, because the first time I heard the theory was in an undergraduate psychology class in 1989 at George Mason University.  During a very short discussion on the rare childhood developmental disorder called “Autism” that Dustin Hoffman had in that movie Rainman, our professor noted that it might be cause by vaccines.  I made a mental note of that and decided to look into it when I had kids someday.


1991

By the opening of the 1990s the vaccine-autism causation discussion was so widespread that the Institute of Medicine was including it in their reports on vaccine safety funded by the National Institutes of Health, published by the National Academy of Sciences and edited by none other than Harvard's Harvey Fineberg:

Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines: A Report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines.
Editors
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines; Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV, editors.
Source
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1991.
The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health.
Excerpt
Parents have come to depend on vaccines to protect their children from a variety of diseases. Some evidence suggests, however, that vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) and rubella (German measles) is, in a small number of cases, associated with increased risk of serious illness. This book examines the controversy over the evidence and offers a comprehensively documented assessment of the risk of illness following immunization with vaccines against pertussis and rubella. Based on extensive review of the evidence from epidemiologic studies, case histories, studies in animals, and other sources of information, the book examines: The relation of pertussis vaccines to a number of serious adverse events, including encephalopathy and other central nervous system disorders, sudden infant death syndrome, autism, Guillain-Barre syndrome, learning disabilities, and Reye syndrome. The relation of rubella vaccines to arthritis, various neuropathies, and thrombocytopenic purpura. The volume, which includes a description of the committee's methods for evaluating evidence and directions for future research, will be important reading for public health officials, pediatricians, researchers, and concerned parents.
Copyright © 1991 by the National Academy of Sciences.”

1998

Andrew Wakefield, according to the current false narrative and revisionist history pushed by mainstream medicine and their media partners, magically erases 55 years of history and discovers the vaccine-autism causation theory for the first time, in much the same way that Christopher Columbus “discovered” the Americas, half a millennium or so after the Vikings had made my home state of Maine a vacation spot.

He did what Kanner did in 1943.  Took patient histories, and including parental reports in a paper.


CURRENT YEAR

The scientific record on vaccine autism causation began with the scientific record on autism, and extends to today.  The vaccine industry narriative that Wakefield was the beginning and end of the plausabilty of vaccine induced autism theory is an absurd lie.  Read the record for yourself:

151 Research Papers Supporting Vaccine/Autism Causation
Ginger Taylor, MS

Mainstream research has found that vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that committed physicians and researchers are commonly finding in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include gastrointestinal damage, immune system impairment, chronic infections, mitochondrial disorders, autoimmune conditions, neurological regression, glial cell activation, interleukin-6 secretion dysregulation, brain inflammation, damage to the blood–brain barrier, seizures, synaptic dysfunction, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, oxidative stress, impaired thioredoxin regulation, mineral deficiencies, impairment of the opioid system, endocrine dysfunction, cellular apoptosis, and other disorders.

Caviat emptor.

June 20, 2018

A Letter to the Vaccine Developer Who Just Bought the LA Times UPDATE 6/30/18: (and then immediately went after Bob Sears)

June 11, 2018, Fiercebiotech: Soon-Shiong planning to take cancer vaccine subsidiary public: report
"Billionaire healthcare mogul Patrick Soon-Shiong hopes to take public later this year one of his companies that is spearheading development of a cocktail of biologics as a vaccine aimed at multiple facets of cancer, according to an interview with Reuters..."
June 18, 2018, Breitbart: Billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong Takes over L.A. Times, Declares War on ‘Fake News’
"Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire who earned his fortune in the biotech field, will officially take full control of the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune on Monday when the $500 million sale is completed and Soon-Shiong becomes executive chairman of the California News Group...   He added:
I believe that fake news is the cancer of our times and social media the vehicles for metastasis. Institutions like The Times and the Union-Tribune are more vital than ever. They must be bastions of editorial integrity and independence if they are to protect our democracy and provide an antidote to disinformation. We will continue our papers’ dedication to truth, integrity, journalistic independence, and storytelling that engages, informs, educates and inspires with care and compassion."
Update:  Well that didn't take long. The LAT has put doctors on notice that writing medical exemptions will get them in trouble with the medical board.  The article actually admits that the ruling will have a chilling effect on doctors, and quotes a woman celebrating that fact.

Missing from the story is the disclosure that the paper is owned by a vaccine developer, which would be done if the LAT were a, bastion of editorial integrity and independence."
June 29, 2018: LA Times: California doctor critical of vaccines is punished for exempting 2-year-old boy from all childhood immunizations
"In a decision that could signal how California’s fierce vaccine debates will play out in the coming years, the Medical Board of California has ordered 35 months’ probation for Dr. Bob Sears, an Orange County pediatrician well-known for being sympathetic to parents opposed to vaccines... “It’s not a trivial decision, it’s not a slap on the hand,” said UC Hastings law professor Dorit Reiss. “It really is strongly limiting his ability to practice … he’s a doctor under supervision now.”"



Subject: The LAT and its history of irresponsible science journalism
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:35:11 -0400
From: Ginger Taylor <mail@adventuresinautism.com>
To: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, Executive Chairman, LA Times <Patrick.Soon-Shiong@latimes.com>, Norman Pearlstine, Executive Editor, LA Times <Norman.Pearlstine@latimes.com>, Nicholas Goldberg, Editor of the Editorial Pages, LA Times <Nicholas.Goldberg@latimes.com>, Karen Kaplan, Science and Medicine Editor, LA Times <Karen.Kaplan@latimes.com>


Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and The Management of the LA Times,
Today I read about the change in ownership of the LA Times, and Dr. Soon-Shiong's commitment to leaving behind the era of fake news so that the paper may become a "bastion of editorial integrity and independence."  I am writing to offer you a starting point for where that change may begin.  I encourage you to humbly examine the paper's previous lack of integrity in science journalism, so that it may be repented of, to lead to a new course of honest reporting.
My faith in mainstream media "science journalism" ended in 2009 because of the LA Times, the abysmal and juvenile reporting they were publishing on very serious vaccine safety issues, and the appalling exchange I had with their science writers and editors on their "fake news."  It resulted in a, widely circulated, in-depth piece on the bad faith of the paper, and in science reporting in general.  At the time I cautioned that the course the paper was on would only lead to the complete loss of public trust on these matters, and we have seen that come to fruition in this era.

It is my understanding that Dr. Soon-Shiong is in the vaccine industry himself, and unfortunately we have seen how that kind of conflict of interest in media ownership results in bias, so I am dubious that the LAT will make the changes needed to conduct earnest, objective reporting on these issues.  However, if the California News Group is serious about developing integrity and demonstrating that they are independent from industry influence, then this is the place to start:
Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lori Kozlowski, Rosie Mestel, Thomas Maugh, David Gorski, Virginia Hughes, Science Journalists, The Dying of the LA Times and an Angry Autism Mom
Ginger Taylor
Adventures In AutismFacebookTwitterVaccine Epidemic

Update:
Yeah, so apparently they were not interested in responding.  Instead:

Step 1. Become a billionaire vaccine developer.
Step 2. Buy the LA Times and claim to bring integrity back to news
Step 3. Go after Bob Sears and make all doctors fear punishment for writing vaccine exemptions.
Step 4.  Profit. (more.)

All over the course of 18 days

Subject:
You missed an important disclosure
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:29:49 -0400
From: Ginger Taylor 
To: soumya.karlamangla@latimes.com

Vaccine developer Patrick Shoon-Sheon bought the LA Times this month, with the promise that it should become a, 'bastion of editorial integrity and independence."
Yet your LAT article on Dr. Sears, that celebrates the chilling effect that the ruling will have on physicians writing medical exemptions, fails to disclose that the newspaper is own by a vaccine developer in the process of taking his vaccine products public.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-letter-to-vaccine-developer-who-just.html
--

Ginger Taylor, MS




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: The LAT and its history of irresponsible science journalism
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:46:20 -0400
From: Ginger Taylor 
To: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, Executive Chairman, LA Times <Patrick.Soon-Shiong@latimes.com>, Norman Pearlstine, Executive Editor, LA Times <Norman.Pearlstine@latimes.com>, Nicholas Goldberg, Editor of the Editorial Pages, LA Times <Nicholas.Goldberg@latimes.com>, Karen Kaplan, Science and Medicine Editor, LA Times <Karen.Kaplan@latimes.com>

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and The Management of the LA Times,
Only ten days ago I wrote to you on your commitment to make the LAT a, 'bastion of editorial integrity and independence," and urged you to start by correcting the errant and irresponsible reporting that the paper has published on vaccine issues.
Yet your LAT article today on Dr. Sears, that celebrates the chilling effect that the ruling will have on physicians writing medical exemptions, fails to even disclose that the newspaper is own by a vaccine developer in the process of taking his vaccine products public.
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-letter-to-vaccine-developer-who-just.html
I call on the paper to either disclose the serious conflict of interest on this and all vaccine related articles, or publicly withdraw the "integrity" claim.
Ginger Taylor

On 6/20/2018 2:35 PM, Ginger Taylor wrote:
> Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and The Management of the LA Times,
>
> Today I read about the change in ownership of the LA Times, and Dr. Soon-Shiong's commitment to leaving behind the era of fake news so that the paper may become a "bastion of editorial integrity and independence."  I am writing to offer you a starting point for where that change may begin.  I encourage you to humbly examine the paper's previous lack of integrity in science journalism, so that it may be repented of, to lead to a new course of honest reporting.
> My faith in mainstream media "science journalism" ended in 2009 because of the LA Times, the abysmal and juvenile reporting they were publishing on very serious vaccine safety issues, and the appalling exchange I had with their science writers and editors on their "fake news."  It resulted in a, widely circulated, in-depth piece on the bad faith of the paper, and in science reporting in general.  At the time I cautioned that the course the paper was on would only lead to the complete loss of public trust on these matters, and we have seen that come to fruition in this era. 
> It is my understanding that Dr. Soon-Shiong is in the vaccine industry himself, and unfortunately we have seen how that kind of conflict of interest in media ownership results in bias, so I am dubious that the LAT will make the changes needed to conduct earnest, objective reporting on these issues.  However, if the California News Group is serious about developing integrity and demonstrating that they are independent from industry influence, then this is the place to start:
> Chris Mooney, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Lori Kozlowski, Rosie Mestel, Thomas Maugh, David Gorski, Virginia Hughes, Science Journalists, The Dying of the LA Times and an Angry Autism Mom
> Ginger Taylor

More on Patrick Soon-Shiong's "integrity" problems:

 March 6, 2017 Stat News: How the world’s richest doctor gave away millions — then steered the cash back to his company

"For months, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong would continue to reap praise for his generosity in publicity put out by the university. Not mentioned in any of the tributes: $10 million of his donation would be sent right back to one of his companies. And the contract for his gift was worded in a way that left the University of Utah with no other choice..."

March 6, 2017, Fortune: Biotech Billionaire Accused of Funneling Donations Back to Companies

"But several tax lawyers had a very different take on the donation’s structure. “They’re laundering the funds through the University of Utah,” said one of the experts, Marc Owens, adding that “I think that this transaction was deliberately structured to attempt to disguise self-dealing.”

April 9, 2017, Politico: How Washington’s favorite cancer fighter helps himself: Patrick Soon-Shiong is a philanthropist and a businessman. But a prime target of his philanthropy is his businesses.

"A POLITICO investigation found that the majority of its expenditures flow to businesses and not-for-profits controlled by Soon-Shiong himself, and the majority of its grants have gone to entities that have business deals with his for-profit firms...
The POLITICO investigation found that:
• Of the nearly $59.6 million in foundation expenditures between its founding in 2010 and 2015, the most recent year for which records are available, over 70 percent have gone to Soon-Shiong-affiliated not-for-profits and for-profits, along with entities that do business with his for-profit firms.
• Six employees of Soon-Shiong’s for-profit companies were also paid by the foundation, which raises questions of whether the foundation is covering overhead for his for-profit firms, according to tax specialists.
• The foundation contributed $3 million out of a total of $12 million donated by Soon-Shiong-controlled entities to a University of Utah program to map the genomes of 1,000 state residents. University officials say they let Soon-Shiong’s entities write the grant specifications. The specifications gave a major advantage to his for-profit firms, which got the $10 million gene-mapping contract.
• Soon-Shiong-controlled charities gave a total of $15 million — including $10 million from the NantHealth Foundation — to a fund that benefited Phoenix Children’s Hospital, which concluded a pair of deals with Soon-Shiong’s for-profit companies for many millions of dollars."

October 17, 2017 , Salt Lake Tribune: Hughes questions whether University of Utah had a ‘Cinderella-slippered’ deal when it directed donation money back to donor's company

"U. faculty failed to go through a competitive bidding process before awarding $10 million gene-sequencing contract to lab owned by billionaire donor Patrick Soon-Shiong."

No wonder he decided to start buying newspapers. 

June 6, 2018

I Should Have Warned More Families About Fetal Cell Line Use in Vaccines

I have done something very wrong for a very long time. 

When I learned that some vaccines were made from aborted fetal cells, and still contained those children's biological material, I was so upset that I shut it out of my mind and work and life.

I pretended in my heart to unknow what I knew, and not say it out loud so I would not have to know it is true.

And I didn't include it in many of the warnings to parents when I was offering them information to give them greater informed consent on vaccination.  People whose religion or world view may have precluded them from getting such shots.

I didn't even tell all my fellow Christians.

That was wrong.  And it was done out of fear.  Because I didn't want to deal with the horrid truth that I had administered these things to my children, and had administered them given to me. 

So here I repent.  I am sorry.  Everyone is due that information and I didn't give it to everyone. 

So I won't leave that out any more just because it is upsetting.  Because it is so upsetting.

If you were one of the parents I should have warned, I am sorry.