Mike Adams & Andrew Wakefield on Scientific Revolutions

Dr Andrew Wakefield speaks on the structure of
scientific revolutions: Vaccines, viruses and evolution

An excellent discussion on the history of science and how revolutionary figures are often savagely attacked, despite being correct.

The stuff about cold fusion was interesting. Steven Jones was also a leading name in cold fusion, but his work was separate from Fleischmann and Pons. In 2009, US Navy researchers presented new evidence supporting its existence. Not surprisingly, the Randi-crowd continues to assert that it's a load of bull.



One other example of this sort of thing is the reaction to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. When it was first proposed, many scientists resisted it and passionately defended the old dogma of Newtonian gravity. Today, Einstein's theory stands as probably one of the most successful theories in science. It's been rigorously tested and has passed every single experimental test devised for it. But even it is not the whole picture, as observations that we invoke the mystical concepts of dark matter and dark energy to explain suggest the need for a new physics. I expect in the future a new theory will be proposed that overturns Einstein, and it too will be met with the same level of resistance.

The same thing is happening today in various areas of science, such as climate science and medicine. The old dogmas of vaccines and anthropogenic global warming are collapsing as more and more scientists begin to question their merits. The elitist 'intellectuals' and their 'rational' fans can only resort to smearing their opposition as they cling to their outdated theories and desperately try to prevent scientific revolution.

F U Brian Deer, Steven Novella, David Gorski, PZ Myers et al! [Updated]

Sometimes it just needs to be said. :)

Brian Deer lies, Steven Novella, David Gorski and PZ Myers parrot lies.

---

Truth On Alleged Fraud In The Study Of Autism Cases Revealed

These libelous accusations are based on the flimsiest possible construct. Deer claims fraud on the basis of differences between the case histories in the Lancet study and the children’s private medical records which Deer obtained under questionable circumstances. Since the team at the Royal Free Hospital never had access to the children’s private medical records, it was impossible for them to know what was in them and, therefore, impossible for them to fraudulently report something different.

Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS

Here is another example of Deer’s evidence of “fraud”.

“Professor” Brian Deer implies in his recent publication in the British Medical Journal that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

“One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious.”

But what Deer fails to disclose is that review of the additional GP records (not available to the Royal Free team at the time of writing The Lancet paper) shows that Deer failed to mention the entry documenting his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. This concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection. But “Professor” Deer decides in his inuendoed non expert opinion it did. But this would have been sufficient reason for his mother to express possible concerns about Child 1’s hearing. Here we have an example of Deer’s selective reporting of results that were not available to the authors of The Lancet paper at the material time. Throughout his reporting, Deer appears to rely selectively on such “facts” that support his premise that Wakefield perpetrated a fraud.

Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent;
BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts

"Remember, Dr Wakefield has been accused of completely fabricating his findings about these same children in his 1998 paper, but these documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism."

"The British Medical Journal's accusations against Dr Wakefield -- that he fabricated his findings -- are therefore false. The mainstream media accusation that Dr Wakefield's findings have "never been replicated" is also blatantly false."

Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents
prove innocence from allegations of vaccine autism data fraud

"The BMJ, in essence, has been caught pulling off what may be the largest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by any medical journal in the history of the world. It grossly misrepresented the facts in falsely accusing Dr Wakefield of fabricating the clinical trial data that led to his landmark study being published in The Lancet in 1998. The innocence of Dr Wakefield has now been established by these newly-released documents."

"The first document describes 7 of The Lancet children and was written by Professor John Walker-Smith in December 1996, 14 months before The Lancet paper was published. Professor Walker-Smith prepared this document in an exercise that, in his words, “was totally unrelated to Andy Wakefield”. The document was a report prepared for a scientific meeting, and was based upon Professor Walker-Smith’s own independent assessment of the children’s condition."

Dr Andrew Wakefield answers critics in video interview,
says BMJ has been hijacked by false journalism

"To debate with the conclusions of a physician is one thing; to outright destroy the career and reputation of a man engaged in what can only be called "unpopular" but important scientific investigation is the action of a dogmatic, unscientific institution which can tolerate no real questions at all.

That's not science. It's dogma. And in its desperation to vilify Wakefield, the BMJ has proven to the whole world, once and for all, that the vaccine industry is so afraid of the weakness of its position that it must resort to publishing false accusations in the name of science in order to try to fend off real scientific skepticism.

In seeking to destroy Dr Wakefield, in other words, the British Medical Journal, we will shortly observe, has only succeeded in destroying its own credibility. This story continues in the weeks and months ahead..."

---

The new documents (PDF):

NO FRAUD, NO HOAX. Here's Proof.

Studies That Support Wakefield

BMJ Must Retract

Evidence of Professor Walker-Smith

Wakefield Response to BMJ

http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com

Download ZIP Archive (Rapidshare)

---

---

The Robert Scott Bell Show - 01/09/11

The Gary Null Show - 01/27/11

"[Dr. Gary Null] is doing the very best investigative journalism on this topic anywhere in the world. His four-hour "deconstruction" of the BMJ, Brian Deer and the barrage of false claims against Wakefield stands as perhaps the single most important investigative piece that has yet been produced on this topic. It makes the BMJ's own report by Brian Deer look like a late-night tweet from a drunken blogger." ~ Mike Adams, NaturalNews

---

Skeptics eating up Big Pharma crucifixion of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The funny thing is, let's assume the allegations against Dr. Wakefield are true. What they have shown is how easy it is to get bad science published! It's like, congratulations, you've proven Wakefield's a fraud. You've proven financially motivated doctors can get their crackpot quackery published in an established journal. Now imagine what a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical giant can do! How about sending some of that skepticism the other way?!

'Don't investigate the finanical incentives of drug companies, investigate the financial incentives of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!', 'Don't investigate the intellectual honesty of the pharmaceutical industry, investigate the intellectual honesty of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!' - It's completely backwards!

'Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!' - That should be the new slogan of the Skeptics Society!

I'm sick and fed up with these corruption denialists and their cult-like obsession with defending the bullies and attacking the victims. It's so pathetic.

"The little dog deserved it, the big dog says so!"

---

Some things 'skeptics' would be more concerned
about if they were real skeptics:

Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines

Flu vaccines judged ineffective

Publication Of Flu Vaccines Studies In Prestigious Journals Are Determined By The Sponsor

Placebo fraud rocks the very foundation of modern medical science;
thousands of clinical trials invalidated

False Foundations of Science: Can Vaccine Studies Be Trusted?

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent;
cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Elsevier

Corrupt Census Company and UK Publisher Spins Science:
Doctors Poisoned by Medical-Media Monopoly

Did Reed Elsevier interfere in the editorial decisions of Neurotoxicology?

Skeptics eating up Big Pharma crucifixion of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal has published a report by journalist Brian Deer and accused Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who in 1998 published a study suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, of fraud.

Over the last 12 years there has been considerable media misrepresentation of Andrew Wakefields study. The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses. The paper concludes...

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don't prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.

Wakefield's paper however generated enormous controversy that last year resulted in him losing his license and the paper being retracted. The GMC panel that found him guilty of "callous disregard" focused on alleged conflicts of interest and unethical treatment of test subjects, it had nothing to do with the quality of his scientific research.

But it seems accusing him of misconduct wasn't enough, now they have gone further and accused him of outright fraud. The so-called 'skeptics' have not surprisingly eaten this up...

PZ Myers
Orac
Skepacabra
VaccinesandEvolution
GodlessGeek
Steven Novella (Thermite & Desiree Jennings Dystonia Denialist)
Skepchick

"Children died because of the hysteria fomented by the contemptible Wakefield. How does that guy live with himself? Here's how: he's in denial." - says the contemptible PZ Myers, the darwinist/atheist featured in the movie Expelled who compared religion to knitting and admitted the NWO agenda to destroy it, and recently had this to say about abortion: "What's at stake is a mere embryo, so it's no big loss if it's flushed and incinerated ... there's no person" - Nice man! I don't consider myself anti-abortion, but I found Myers' quote about Wakefield kind of ironic.

The smear campaign against Wakefield has been a Big Pharma conspiracy from the start.

The Lancet, the journal the paper was published in, is owned by global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier own 2,460 scientific journals, aswell as the magazine New Scientist.

I'll say that again, 2,460 scientific journals! - It's no wonder scientists who dissent from any 'consensus' are so easily shut out of the 'credible' peer-reviewed literature when a significant amount of that literature is owned by a single publishing conglomerate. They're like the science and medicine equivalent of News Corp!

It gets worse. Reed-Elsevier's CEO, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline! And his brother, Sir Nigel Davis, was a judge who withdrew legal aid from families who claimed their children were damaged by GlaxoSmithKline's MMR vaccine.

Worse still, in 2009 the pharmaceutical giant Merck was sued for paying Elsevier to create a fake journal to promote their products.

Reed-Elsevier's former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended Bilderberg in 2007 and 2010.

Interestingly, Reed-Elsevier was also the company Peter Power of visor consultants was running mock terror drills for on the morning of 7/7.

Brian Deer, the journalist making all these allegations about Dr. Wakefield, has been supported in his efforts by Channel 4, Murdoch's Sunday Times and MedicoLegal Investigations, a private company owned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry!

The network of corruption is so in your face it's a wonder anyone can buy into this blatant smear campaign.

"We have a turd in the punchbowl!"

Wakefield isn't even anti-vaccine, and neither is celebrity 'anti-vaxxer' Jenny McCarthy, whose son contracted autism from a shot and has completely recovered thanks to alternative medicine.

In a CNN interview two years ago, she said: "We're not telling people not to vaccinate. I don't understand why it's so freakin' hard to comprehend we deserve safe shots!"

Dr. Wakefield appeared on CNN yesterday to defend himself...



Families have been awarded compensation for vaccine-autism cases, yet they still deny any connection...

Family win 18 year fight over MMR damage to son: £90,000
payout is first since concerns over vaccine surfaced

Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award

Oh that's right, they don't cause autism, they "result in" autism!

The funny thing is, let's assume the allegations against Dr. Wakefield are true. What they have shown is how easy it is to get bad science published! It's like, congratulations, you've proven Wakefield's a fraud. You've proven financially motivated doctors can get their crackpot quackery published in an established journal. Now imagine what a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical giant can do! How about sending some of that skepticism the other way?!

'Don't investigate the finanical incentives of drug companies, investigate the financial incentives of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!', 'Don't investigate the intellectual honesty of the pharmaceutical industry, investigate the intellectual honesty of small fries like Dr. Wakefield!' - It's completely backwards!

'Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!' - That should be the new slogan of the Skeptics Society!

I'm sick and fed up with these corruption denialists and their cult-like obsession with defending the bullies and attacking the victims. It's so pathetic.

Last year, Bill Gates said in a TED talk that vaccines would play a role in depopulation. A number of people have tried to rationalize what he said, but I still don't follow the logic.

In his 1952 book The Impact of Science on Society, iconic liberal philosopher Bertrand Russell envisioned a world where the government controls its people using 'injections':

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so."
- Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society" (1952), Page 62.

The safety of childhood vaccinations against things like MMR and Hepititis is still very much debatable. However, one thing that isn't is the clear ineffectiveness of flu shots.

A 2010 Cochrane Library review of 50 reports - 40 of which were clinical trials of over 70,000 people - found that in the unlikely event of a flu shot matching the circulating strain of flu, 33 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid just one case of flu. In average conditions, 100 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid just one case of flu. The review found no evidence that flu shots in any way affect transmission of the virus - which is the main reason flu shots are promoted, to block transmission. At least 15 of the 40 trials were industry funded. So even the industry's own, probably biased studies make a poor scientific case for flu vaccinations.

An earlier review by the BMJ found that industry-sponsored flu vaccine studies were more attractive to prestigious peer-reviewed journals, regardless of their size or quality. The authors lamented, "In most cases, what you see is not necessarily what you get".

What's especially frustrating is how the establishment defenders always put the burden of proof on us. We're supposed to just assume that tainted vaccines and drinking water is fine until proven otherwise. In my opinion, the burden of proof should always be on the side challenging common sense. If I went up to someone with a glass of water spiked with cyanide, told them it was spiked with cyanide and offered them it to drink, would they? No, coz common sense would tell them that water spiked with cyanide isn't gonna be good for them and they'd want some kind of guarantee that it isn't going to kill them before they even consider it. It's called rational thought! They wouldn't say, 'Sure, I'll drink it, there's no proof that this specific drink is going to do me any harm!'

But with things like Mercury, Aspartame and Fluoride the logic is reversed. I don't need a peer-reviewed study to tell me food, water and medicine tainted with toxins is bad for me. Common sense does just fine. What I want to see is a thorough, peer-reviewed, non-industry funded study that proves these things aren't bad for me!

More:

Elsevier Terrorists scared shitless that everyone knows VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM

Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive

A Roundup of Responses to the British Medical Journal

AGE OF AUTISM reponses

Jenny McCarthy: In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?

Autism One: A Conversation of Hope, January 11, 2011

YouTube: GoldenHawkprojects

Dr Andrew Wakefield on The Alex Jones Show, May 25, 2010 Part 1, 2, 3 & 4

Sunday Times’ Discredited – Wakefield’s Autism Research Verified

Wakefield’s Lancet Paper Vindicated – [Yet Again]

Peer Reviewed Papers Support Findings

Autism and the Gastrointestinal System Research

Callous Disregard - Research

Annoying Religions and Torture

So I have recently had a number of conversations with some old friends of mine who are atheists and I've come to the conclusion that atheists are really difficult to wake up. Due to my simple, comedic way of highlighting the absurdities in the norms of modern day society, most of the people I talk to about things like 9/11, central banking, climate change, vaccines, the new world order etc tend to agree with me. But my atheist friends always seem to disagree. Must be the "skeptic" influence. Most so-called skeptics are atheists, and most atheists are skeptics. They practically read from the same playbook - they both use ad-hominem, they both take scientific authority and questionable computer simulations as gospel, they both have that same dislikable, condescending arrogance and they both have no concept of probability.

I’ve always enjoyed probability. When I was only thirteen, I figured out that I could use that exclamation mark button on my calculator to calculate the probability of winning the lottery. And the main reason I know there’s more to 9/11 than what the official story tells us, aside from all the hard evidence, is because of all the improbable coincidences. While I'm no fan of religion, and I somewhat agree with Part 1 of Zeitgeist, I do, like many great minds, including Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, acknowledge the physical improbability of life without a creator. My views on atheism, like my views on most things (even 9/11 truth to some extent), can basically be summed up in an episode of South Park. Atheists tend to sit on their high horse and claim not to follow any religion, when in reality, atheism is a religion. There are numerous points in the evolutionary timeline which have not, as of yet, been satisfactorily explained by science and currently require huge leaps of FAITH to fully support without question. And with numerous unexplained mysteries in this world such as crop circles (the atheist explanation for such phenomena amounts to little more than a baseless conspiracy theory involving thousands of artistic pranksters creeping around at night with sticks!), how anyone can flat out say that there is no chance of a higher power is beyond me!



If you want to believe in enormous improbabilities go ahead. It’s your right to believe whatever you want. But for the love of Dawkins, at least admit that it’s a religion!

I think it was summed up best by Ryan Mackey in the recently uploaded Hardfire debate when he was accusing truthers of having an "irreducible delusion". His exact words can be thrown right back at him.

Speaking of 9/11 truth and annoying religions... no-planers! It seems UK's Channel 4 plans to smash a plane into the desert. The Pentagon no-planers seem pretty confident it will prove the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757. They're going to crash it into the desert sand at an unspecified angle ... hardly a concrete wall! It may however, assuming it crashes at an angle perpendicular to the ground, shed some light on what happened to Flight 93. I look forward to watching the engines roll half a kilometer!

Why are we still asking questions? ... As CNN said today, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is "the confessed organizer of the September 11, 2001, attacks". That's right, after being waterboarded a mere 183 times, KSM confessed! ... Well I'm convinced! ... He's going to be defending himself in court. I'd be amazed if he has any free thought left. Talk about trauma-based mind control.



And I really wish they'd stop saying it "simulates drowning". It isn't simulated drowning, it IS drowning! ... At least from your brains point of view... People think it's just having your head submerged in water and you can hold your breathe and whatever ... No ... It doesnt trick ur brain into thinking you're submersed in water, it tricks your brain into thinking you are at the point when you run out of air and you actually are drowning. Your body's reflexes kick in and your heart goes nuts exactly as it would if you actually are drowning. It's drowning without the relief of death. No living thing should have to go through that, I wouldn't even wish it on Henry Kissinger.