Vaccines News | 13 Jan 2016
In 2014, CDC whistleblower William Thompson admitted to omitting statistically significant information in a 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested African American males receiving the MMR vaccine had a 340 percent increased risk for autism. In light of Thompson’s admission, there has been a growing list of health practitioners in France who are openly questioning the safety of vaccines and trustworthiness of scientific journals.
Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Center for Disease Control (CDC), stated in 2014:
My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.(1)
Dr. Thompson verified the fact that he had multiple phone conversations with Brian Hooker and that the CDC has not been honest about the risks attached to MMR vaccines. The most significant part of the letter, however, is bound in the first paragraph, where Dr. Thompson admits to scientific fraud at the CDC.(1)
Since the letter was published, there has been a growing number of experts and countries that have openly expressed concern about the safety of several vaccines, particularly in France.
For instance, a new study published in the journal EbioMedicine that examined the public’s mistrust of health authorities found that up to 43 percent of French physicians sometimes, or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine for their patients. The percentages varied because the study was broken down for each vaccine, determining whether the vaccine was recommended never, sometimes, often or always.(2)
The study concluded that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French [general practitioners], whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”(2)
Other experts, such as Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has stated that peer-reviewed scientific journals, like the ones purporting the efficacy of vaccines, cannot be trusted.
[The] case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.(2)
These remarks were reinforced by Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and editor-in-chief of the New England Medical Journal, which is bolstered as the most prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal in the world:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.(2)
It’s good to see scientific papers and health officials finally acknowledging the trust issues that some physicians are having with pharmaceutical-grade products. This was practically unheard of just a few years ago. Thanks to the alternative media’s consistent coverage on the dangers of vaccines, however, the tables are beginning to turn. Now, many respected and influential medical professionals are questioning the very industry they serve.