The first link below is to a video recording the confession of the whistleblower to Brian Hooker (apparently made by Dr. Andrew Wakefield). Link #5 is to Brian Hooker's re-analysis of the data from the original study (link #6, abstract only);
The video makes some alarming comparison's to the infamous Tuskegee Syphillis experiment as Dr. Hooker's re-analysis shows a significant corelation between MMR vaccination and autism in black male children - especially if they receive the MMR "early" (before 36 months).
The study in question is about the MMR - there may be something unique about it which impacts autism/ASD, but given the complexity of human life, autism/ASD is likely multi-factoral. It may not be just the vaccine antigen which is problematic - many other ingredients in vaccines could be contributing to adverse effects of vaccination (not just autism ... ) - mercury, aluminum, human and animal dna, viruses, among others.
But if the allegations are true, it could lead many to question the legitimacy of many studies proporting to show the safety of other vaccines - indeed there is already reason to question vaccine safety as many studies do not use a true, inert placebo (like saline) in comparison to a vaccine - vaccine A is compared to vaccine B and if the results of side effects are similar vaccine A is declared "safe";
Given the amount of money involved in the whole vaccination paradigm this type of scandal is not surprising. Many people have rea$on to maintain the vaccine $tatu$ quo.
Given the cozy relationship (technically referred to as CONFLICT OF INTEREST) between those responsible for vaccine policy (and by extension those doing studies to support said policy) this is not surprising.
What would be downright SHOCKING is if someone actually did something about it:
- Made changes to eliminate conflicts of interest (in other words - stopped the revolving door between the companies that make the vaccines and benefit from government policy regarding vaccines and those setting government policy regarding vaccines). If you work for pharmaceutical companies you would be prohibited from working for government agencies directly or indirectly involved in vaccines and vice versa. Not a token 1 year waiting period either.
- Another practical suggestion would be to remove the legal liability shield from the companies that make vaccines.
- Does the ACIP (Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices) have full access to safety studies? Are they allowed to see this "proprietary" information? Perhaps they could develop a policy that they will not review a vaccine for addition to/inclusion in the vaccine schedule unless they have complete and full disclosure of ALL data from which safety studies draw their conclusions (not just the "results" of said safety studies). This, of course, is only relevant once the ACIP has been purged of those with conflict of interest!
- Schools and workplaces could scale back on draconian mandates regarding vaccination status for students and employees. Even if results of studies regarding vaccination are not compromised the case for mandatory vaccination is still weak - simply from a civil and human rights standpoint.
Hopefully more information will come out, more details about they workplace culture in which the whistleblower worked and how that impacted the results of their studies.
The impact of money and politics upon science has a long history - just ask Galileo, Copernicus, Sammelweis, Pasteur (among others). Consensus isn't science, nor is it necessarily a guide to what is true. Far too often and for far too long medicine has made pronouncements about this or that treatment/procedure/medication only to find out after the fact that their initial enthusiasm (ie: recommendations/mandates/guidelines) was not warrented.
Good ideas, good products do not need mandates or manipulation to create demand. It is long past time for vaccines to live or die in a free marketplace of ideas and products. Those who want them should get them. Those who do not should not be penalized.
#5) - reanalysis of original paper
#6) - original paper
#7) - critique of Hooker's re-analysis