• CDC Director Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccine to Autism

    By

    Health Impact News Editor Comments

    Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson has posted a recorded phone call she just had with Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety. Dr. DeStefano was a co-author with CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson on a 2004 study that originally was put forward as research showing there was no link between vaccines and autism. Dr. Thompson has come forward and revealed that data was withheld from the public that showed an increased risk of autism in certain populations, specifically African American boys. The CDC has already made a public announcement admitting that they did withhold some data.

    Dr. DeStefano has publicly stated that he will reveal the data again, but he is standing by the original study. A new audio recording of a conversation he just had with independent investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson can be heard here.

    In this interview, Dr. DeStefano admitted that the CDC omitted a large group of African American children based on the absence of birth certificates. When Sharyl asked him about Dr. Thompson’s concerns about the data showing a stronger link between vaccines and autism he replied:

    yeah, I mean at the time he did these analyses he did, you know, he did point out that in one group, you know in that larger group the the the measures of association [between MMR vaccine and autism] were higher than in the, uh, birth certificate group and, you know, we discussed that and for the reasons I mentioned, uh, we came to consensus that the, uh, birth certificate uh results were more valid.

    The CDC’s response, which Dr. DeStefano also repeated in this interview, is that the absence of birth certificates among some children meant that key data, such as race, birth weight, the mother’s age, and the mother’s education was missing, but present among those with birth certificates, and therefore they were not included in the study.

    Sharyl stated that she had a copy of a birth certificate with her as she was talking to him on the phone, and she asked:

    Um, I was looking at one of the birth certificates and it doesn’t have – maybe you could find one that has birth weight, mother’s education, the one I’m looking at doesn’t have any of that on there.

    Dr. DeStefano’s reply, or the lack of a reply from him and the CDC explaining exactly how they obtained this data, has opened up a lot of questions as to just how this data could have been available simply on the basis of a birth certificate.

    Ah, I mean I don’t know what, which one you’re looking at, I mean we get to these data were, uh, you know, right from the birth, birth, uh, the Georgia birth certificate files that contained those data.

    Sharyl then asked him why the excluded data would not be important enough to investigate further since it contained such a higher rate of autism. Dr. DeStefano’s reply was very typical of the bias that currently exists among CDC scientists when it comes to autism:

    you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old.

    In other words, autism is completely due to genetic factors, and not environmental. Of course, this flies in the face of both scientific evidence, as well as the experience of many tens of thousands of parents who saw their completely normal child rapidly digress shortly after receiving vaccines. Even the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out damages to children with autism as a result of vaccines.

    So Sharyl asked if this bias towards their view of the causative factors regarding autism in general skewed their view of the data related to vaccines:

     Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

    to which Dr. DeStefano replied:

     No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results?

    So it would seem that Dr. DeStefano, who is not a whistle-blower, has come out with his own confession of bias and way of interpreting data so that it does not have to be shared with the public if it is not favorable with what they want to communicate regarding vaccines and autism.

    Transcript:

    Dr. Frank DeStefano: I think what [Thompson’s] saying there was a larger, um, uh, odds ratio or association among the–the larger group and that there was not, uh, as strong an association among the birth certificate sample. And I mean, what I say to that, I think we discussed that, uh, as I recall, this was like, you know, over ten years ago, and, uh, I think at the time we had consensus among all co-authors that the birth certificate sample provided the more valid results because it could uh, it had more complete information on, uh, on race for one, and secondly, more importantly, it had information on important factors that, uh, had to be you know controlled for particularly in studies of autism, in particular, it would be things like birth weight, the mother’s age, the mother’s education. So I think for those reasons we were able to adjust for these factors and we thought, you know, we uh, our opinion was that that the results of the birth certificate sample provided the more reliable results. And I think, you know, as I recall, we all came to consensus and, uh, signed off on that, uh, in the paper.

    Attkisson: Were you aware of any of his concerns of, you know, have you been aware before today of any of his concerns about this?

    DeStefano: Uh, uh, yeah, I mean I’ve continued to see, uh, uh, see him for over the past ten years and we’ve interacted fairly frequently, and, uh, uh, no I wasn’t aware of this.

    Attkisson: So whoever he raised his concerns to, he didn’t, he didn’t raise it to you or anybody you knew of?

    DeStefano: No, I mean the last time I saw him was probably about two months ago, and he didn’t mention anything about this.

    Attkisson: And at the time he didn’t seem concerned when you said there was a consensus?

    DeStefano: No, yeah, I mean at the time he did these analyses he did, you know, he did point out that in one group, you know in that larger group the the the measures of association [between MMR vaccine and autism] were higher than in the, uh, birth certificate group and, you know, we discussed that and for the reasons I mentioned, uh, we came to consensus that the, uh, birth certificate uh results were more valid.

    Attkisson: Um, I was looking at one of the birth certificates and it doesn’t have – maybe you could find one that has birth weight, mother’s education, the one I’m looking at doesn’t have any of that on there.

    DeStefano: Ah, I mean I don’t know what, which one you’re looking at, I mean we get to these data were, uh, you know, right from the birth, birth, uh, the Georgia birth certificate files that contained those data.

    Attkisson: Ok. Does is it a valid way of you know, you guys, scientists decide things before papers are published, of course, you use your own judgment on things, but isn’t there a way, is there a valid way to look at it the way Thompson is, where he thinks, apparently, that the larger group without the birth certificates was reason for concern and something that should have been reported? To me, as just as a layperson, I would like to know that– even if, even if it culled out when you, when you got the group down through the birth certificates, I would, I still think it would be pretty important to know…

    DeStefano: No, I mean, I think, you know, the other, the other important consideration here is looking at what, what time period we’re talking about. We’re, you know, autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb. And, you now, it doesn’t, some of the behaviors and such don’t come apparent, become apparent until maybe the child is one, two, three years old. But, uh, uh what we know about autism that, uh, the, uh, characteristics or behavioral signs do become ava–, you know, apparent by 24 months of age, so. So we had different cut-offs, before 18 months of age, there was no difference in, in any group in terms of, uh, vaccination levels, between the cases and controls. At 24 months of age, when, uh, au—you know—behaviors of autism or some features of autism become apparent, there was no difference between the, uh, cases and controls in any group, it was at 36 months where there was a slight differen—and the difference was we’re talking about a difference between 93% versus 91%, not a, a big difference. But, so that’s at 36 months. And at 36 months, an exposure around that time period is just not biologically plausible to have a uh, uh, a causal association with autism. I mean autism would’ve already started by then.  [I me?] I reiterate it probably starts in the womb, but even if you’re saying, you wanna call it starting by the time some behavioral features become apparent, it had started before 36 months. And then, you know, we, from, so I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association. And then I think we have, uh–pretty convince–

    Attkisson: Let me just, let me just interrupt what, before I lose that thought. So you already made up your mind regardless of what the stats show that if it, certain things show that it didn’t make sense, you wouldn’t, you would try to find out a way to…

    DeStefano: No, that’s not we said, I’m just saying, you know, you interpret, you interpret findings, also, you know, there’s the statistics, then you have to also interpret, bring in things like biological plausibility, how do you interpret these results? So I think we had pretty strong evidence that these results at 36 months were primarily a reflection of requirements to attend early intervention special education programs for the for the children with autism. And why do we say that? We say that because the effect was almost all seen in children 3-5 years of age and those were the ones that early education programs and 98%, you know, 98% of that of that age group was in special education programs for which vaccination was of a requirement.

    Attkisson: Is there any possibility that it is biologically plausible and you just haven’t, you know, that that’s, the consensus is that it’s not, among you guys, but that it is and you’re overlooking that?

    DeStefano: I’m, I’m not aware of any data would, that would s–, you know, that would say that, uh, you would have, um, onset of autism after 36 months.

    CDC Director of Immunization Safety Admits Bias and Withholding Data Linking Vaccines to Autism – Vaccine Impact

    https://vaccineimpact.com/2014/cdc-director-of-immunization-safety-admits-bias-and-withholding-data-linking-vaccines-to-austim/

  • How Fake News Tries to Control Reality

    By

    CNN and NBC Caught Faking Photo of Baby with Measles

    CNN AND NBC CAUGHT FAKING PHOTO OF BABY WITH MEASLES

    April 25, 2019

    In the midst of what is being referred to as the worst measles outbreak in 25 years, the mainstream media is doing their part in stoking national hysteria. The point is to convince the general public that measles is the number one health crisis at the moment, and that it is so bad that we must forfeit our right to health freedom and submit to state-sanctioned, forced vaccinations.

    Never mind that there a thousand more pressing and more dangerous health crises to address. Not the least of which is the fact that pharmaceutical drug overdoses kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, with over 70,000 preventable deaths in 2017 alone.

    Never-the-less, the mainstream media is doing everything it can to create hysteria, even doctoring photos of newborn babies, giving them scary measles looking sores to dupe the public into demanding the government take action. But they are faking photos. They are presenting evidence that is fake, as though it were real, when it is not.

    In a clip from a news segment originally aired on CNN, a stock photo of a healthy baby was photoshopped with measles sores, then shown on air along with the message the anti-vaccination information is dangerous.

    Here is the original stock photo, before the image was doctored:

  • Wuhan Virus: Gates Involvement

    By

    “Double-think means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”George Orwell

    Gates is very proud of his investments in pharmaceutical companies. He is also a proponent of mass vaccination, benefiting those pharmaceutical companies in the billions of dollars. His ideals border on genocide, as proven in his Ted talks about drastically reducing the world population. His vaccines are proven sterilizing agents, as exposed in Kenya. They also accidentally kill. Villages in Africa send out word when the vaccinators are encroaching, warning moms to hide their babies (true story). Let’s investigate these facts below.

    Financial Interests

    Philanthropy…such an endearing term. When we hear the word, we think of starving children in Africa being given food, or at-risk youth completing college on full-ride scholarships, or life-saving medicines given to those in need at no cost. However, the word philanthropy in today’s day and age can be used as a way to cause what George Orwell may refer to as “double-think.” Gates has allegedly used his philanthropy to sterilize, maim, and kill children in Africa. India has launched a lawsuit against him claiming that his foundation tested vaccines on low income families and children without informed consent. He loads money into companies with less-than-desirable interests. He brags of his investments in pharmaceutical companies, not for the lives it will save, but rather, the additional check that will end up in his $98.9 billion asset stockpile. Investments in vaccines, and pushing vaccines worldwide; if that is not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.

    Family Bloodline

    Bill Gates is not a doctor, though he has been touting vaccines and various medical procedures as if he is, for years. He is the descendant of a woman who was on the board of a world bank, and a father who is a lawyer. His mother, Mary Maxwell, Gates’ father and grandfather were both bankers as well. Her grandfather served as a director of the “Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco”, and “National City Bank” from 1911-1929. This was right around the time of the secret Federal Reserve meetings, which occurred in 1910, and then President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913.

    ID 2020

     He wants to microchip the world via what he calls “ID 2020” so that people’s medical records, vaccinations, name, and personal information can be tracked. ID 2020 is also funded by the Rockefeller foundation that has a grand history of funding wars and genocide. He puppets the ID chip as a means for the “greater good.” The term greater good is used throughout history as a means to pull on the heartstrings of a populace to coerce them into harm. It is a Trojan horse term. Anytime you see it, keep your eyes wide open.

    Event 201

    Event 201 was an eerily timed pandemic ‘exercise’ funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and John Hopkins Center for Health Security in October of 2019, just 2 months before Co-Vid19 began to be announced in worldwide news. It was a 3.5 hour exercise that demonstrated the effects of a pandemic would have on the world – from economic depression to the number of deaths. This “event” had a panel of members from the CDC, UN, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He flaunts his desire to decrease the population in order to decrease the CO2 in our environment. Do we really trust someone who wants to lower the population, being the one funding pandemic exercises and vaccines? And what does Bill Gates really know about Global Health? He is not a doctor, he’s just a computer nerd.

    Gates speaks at a TedTalk explaining how to lower the population to save the planet.

    Forced Vaccination

    Gates wants to force vaccination on the world. This is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Code, which came out of The Nuremberg trials, when Nazi generals were tried for crimes against humanity. “No experiment without consent…” is one of the rules that came out of the trials and, considering the fact that no doctor gives patients true informed consent when they are vaccinated, vaccines must be considered an experiment without consent. Gates claims that his investments into vaccines and global health initiatives (i.e., UN, WHO, CDC), were the best investments he has ever made. These “government entities” also own the patents on vaccines, which means they profit from the sale of them as well. Someone promoting vaccines, who also makes billions of dollars from the distribution of vaccines, creates a conflict of interest, period.


    Nanotechnology

    Bill Gates is heavily invested in nanotechnology companies. Nanotechnology has the capability of being placed into the body without any knowledge, awareness, or consent of the recipient. It supposedly creates an immune response in the body. While some speak on the possible benefits of nanotechnology in cures for diseases, elimination of poverty, or benefits for food production, many concerns accompany the creation of something so tiny it cannot be seen by the human eye, yet so powerful it could completely alter the course of an individual’s life.

    I often hear people ask how Bill Gates has so much power over decision making across the board. From vaccines, to common core education, to nanotechnology, to being at the table of decision makers for the CDC, WHO, and the UN. Bill Gates is the second largest funder of the WHO. He is a large investor in the CDC, an alleged government agency. The reason he has so much power is because it is, first and foremost, the power that comes with money, then his bloodline and banker family ties, and also the fact that his interests coincide with the globalist agendas of these “institutions.” The UN has been caught sex trafficking children in Africa and Eastern Europe, is responsible for botched vaccines that caused death and suffering of children in South Sudan, and even though the UN has no jurisdiction in America, they have job listings for “reintegration troops” to put Americans in concentration camps if they don’t comply with mandatory vaccinations. Gates’ unison with these companies is not philanthropy, it is supporting the agenda of Rockefeller, Soros, and other dangerous powerful family bloodlines.

    Planned Parenthood Ties

    So why does Gates seem so determined on lowering the world population by force with no consent? Bill Gates’ father became the head of Planned Parenthood, which doesn’t exactly have a great history of not using eugenics. While PP promotes itself under the guise of accessible services to low-income populations it’s original founder, Margaret Sanger, makes her intentions clear; she wants to sterilize those she does not see fit as raising babies. Not only for the sake of their capabilities or income, but also for their skin color, mental health issues, and those she considers having “objectionable traits.” Globalists throughout history have been known for their gruesome fascination with eugenics, as a way to perfect the population. Hitler was one of the most popular figures of eugenicists that made it into the public eye, however, globalist eugenicists lurk in the shadows, doing their dirty work by the darkness of the night.

    Knowledge is power. When we are aware of the powers that attempt to manipulate and control humanity, we are able to transmute their control and regain our power. For millennia there have been forces set out to do evil to enslave us, and now is the time to stand up in truth and integrity to restore our Sovereignty over ourselves. We come in peace, we stand in knowledge, we love our neighbor, we overcome darkness and bring it into the light. Be empowered and walk your path in peace knowing that each of us can contribute to hope.