– Time Magazine accidentally reveals greater autism fraud (Jon Rappoport, Sep 2, 2014):
Time Magazine (8/28) is covering the ongoing CDC whistleblower scandal. (“Whistleblower Claims CDC Covered Up Data Showing Vaccine-Autism Link,” by Alice Park)
In one piece of one sentence, without meaning to, the article blows another hole in the 2004 study that whistleblower William Thompson exposed as a fraud.
A hole beyond what Thompson has admitted to in his public mea culpa statement of August 27th.
What Time Magazine revealed demonstrates that the entire study is based on a lie.
Here is the sentence-fragment from the Time article: “Now one of the authors of a 2004 study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism…”
There it is. For people who can see it.
According to conventional medical researchers, demonstrating that children with and without autism have similar vaccine rates means: vaccines couldn’t cause autism. Because many children who were vaccinated didn’t develop autism.
But suppose you proved that a virus in the bodies of 1000 children caused actual illness in only 160. Would you then say the virus couldn’t be the cause of illness, because some children didn’t get sick?
Not if you were a conventional researcher. You would say, “Well, of course, most children didn’t fall ill. But for those that did, the virus was the cause.”
Applying this line of thinking to vaccines, you could say, “Well, many children who get the MMR vaccine remain healthy. But for those who fall ill and are diagnosed with autism, the vaccine was the cause.”
Naturally, vaccine researchers don’t say that. If they did, they’d never work again.
“So, Dr. X, you’re saying that 1000 children were vaccinated. They all had ‘similar rates’ of vaccination.”
“And some of these children developed autism, and some didn’t.”
“Therefore, vaccination couldn’t be the cause of autism.”
Let’s consider this situation: A thousand children have a particular virus in their bodies.”
“Sure. All right.”
“Some of those children go on to develop the flu, and some don’t.”
“Yes, that would be a standard situation.”
“Therefore, you’d say the virus couldn’t have caused the flu, because some children didn’t get the flu.”
“No, I wouldn’t say that at all.”
“What would you say?”
“The children who did get the flu—the virus was the cause.”
“But in the case of the vaccine, you didn’t say that.”
“A virus isn’t the same thing as a vaccine. In the case of the virus, we already know it causes the flu.”
“No, Dr. X, you don’t know that. Not by the standard you’re applying to vaccines. Let’s review. If 1000 children are vaccinated, and only some of them develop autism, you say the vaccine couldn’t cause autism, but—“
“I have to go now. I’m late for a meeting at the CDC, where we’re writing up our millionth press release claiming vaccines are perfectly safe.”
It gets much, much worse. Here is the crux:
Researchers conveniently assume that autism is one condition with one and only one cause in all cases.
But there is no conclusive evidence, after all these years, that autism is a single condition. If such evidence existed, you would see it presented, front and center, in the definition of autism, contained the in the psychiatric bible of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
The evidence would appear in the form of a physical diagnostic test for autism. A blood test, or a brain scan, or a genetic assay.
There is no such definitive test. It isn’t there.
Instead, autism is entirely defined by a cluster of behaviors.
There is a reason for that.
There is no defining diagnostic test.
Therefore, saying autism is a single physical condition is belief and opinion and surmise and “could-be” and “everybody knows”, fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying “autism” has one cause is also an opinion fabricated as fact.
Therefore, saying that vaccines don’t cause “autism” is meaningless—because the label “autism” doesn’t refer to a specific defined condition.
However, saying vaccines cause damage is true.
Use this label or that label to name the grave damage—the labels don’t matter.
Except to the devious game players who invent the labels and thereby exonerate vaccines.
The 2004 study that CDC whistleblower William Thompson confessed to falsifying—and thousands of other such studies—are all based on the same fundamental fraud.
In a sane world, as opposed to the lunatic world of disease research, you would only declare you’ve found a single condition if you could put forward an accurate physical test for it.
That test would, for every patient examined, show whether he had the condition. Yes or no.
Assuming you could do these things, you could then and only then try to rule out vaccines as the cause of the condition.
Until then, you would remain silent. You wouldn’t construct devious vaccine studies. You wouldn’t lie every day of your research career. You wouldn’t pretend to knowledge you didn’t have. You wouldn’t work hand in glove with paid propagandists to assure the public, and in particular, parents of vaccine-damaged children, that injecting germs and toxic chemicals is safe and effective.
You would remain silent and you would do no harm.