Above: Yates Hazlehurst (right) with personal aide Lane Hodges[hr]
The following is an update of a story first published Oct. 19, 2016[hr]
The father of an autistic child has filed a federal lawsuit against the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in his son's medical malpractice case. Rolf Hazlehurst is attempting to force CDC to let a vaccine whistleblower scientist, Dr. William Thompson, testify in the case of 17-year old Yates Hazlehurst. Dr. Thompson, a senior scientist at CDC has told Congress that he and his CDC colleagues manipulated data and destroyed evidence to downplay a link their study discovered between autism and vaccines in African American boys. CDC had earlier blocked Dr. Thompson from testifying.
Hazlehurst is represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Bryan Smith and the law firm of Morgan and Morgan.[hr]
Original story follows
A current senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), William Thompson, stunned the scientific community in 2014 when he confessed that he and his colleagues have allegedly conspired to cover up or downplay links between vaccines and autism, particularly in African American boys. Thompson alleges their actions included literally sorting through and throwing away data that they didn't want made public. However, Thompson revealed he saved original copies of the material in a safe, contacted an attorney, and sought whistle blower protection. He has provided the material to Congress. Pharmaceutical industry interests have successfully lobbied to prevent hearings and investigations into the alleged scientific fraud. (The accused CDC officials--William Thompson's colleagues--deny they did anything unethical or illegal.)
Read CDC vaccine safety information here
Now comes word that CDC Director Thomas Frieden has blocked Thompson from testifying in a medical malpractice case brought on behalf of 16-year old Yates Hazlehurst alleging that Yates' autism resulted from vaccine injuries.
Read more about the Hazlehurst case from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. here
Read "autism" listed as possible adverse event on vaccine warning label here
In blocking the testimony, the CDC said it was not necessary or relevant to the Hazlehurst case. Hazlehurst's attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. disagrees: “Yates, and thousands of others, lost their cases in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because the CDC and Justice Department submitted fraudulent science wrongly denying the vaccine-autism link.” He and his co-counsel say they will appeal the CDC's decision.
Read the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule here
Most children who receive childhood vaccinations are not injured. However, a small but significant minority suffers severe reactions including brain damage and death. Federal vaccine court compensates certain accepted injuries but the government has long carved out autism, claiming it's not one of the brain damage injuries that can result from vaccines. On the other hand, the government has compensated many brain damage cases of autistic children when the term "autism" isn't used in the legal arguments. Further, the government secretly settled a landmark vaccine-autism case and ordered it sealed, meaning other families wouldn't learn of it. But the case leaked out to the public.
Read about $3.4 billion in federal vaccine injury awards here
In 2014, a top CDC official acknowledged to me that vaccines may rarely trigger autism in a susceptible group of children.
Hear the interview with CDC official about vaccines possibly triggering autism here
The pharmaceutical industry, government and astroturf groups have lobbied hard to deny, discredit and controversialize the notion of any such ties. When Hazlehurst's representatives hired the public relations service "PR newswire" to issue a press release on the case this week, PR newswire reportedly insisted on heavy edits (see below), including claiming the Hazlehurst case "has nothing to do with" the press release, even though it's the legal case for which the CDC testimony was blocked.
Read about top astroturfers here
Read about CDC addressing concerns about autism and vaccines here
Read more vaccine safety stories here
Read about peer-reviewed published studies suggesting a link between vaccines and autism here
The Hazlehurst case was decided long ago. Why would they be suing for medical malpractice when the "vaccine court" already opined that there was no evidence to link vaccines to Yates' autism?
Also, having just watched Del Bigtree talk about this, if William Thompson is so committed to talking about this, why doesn't he just quit the CDC job and hit the talk show circuit? He could write a book and probably get a job with Dwoskin Foundation or some other group devoted to researching vaccines and autism.
The talk show circuit would NEVER entertain this scientist. After all, Pharma owns the networks. They are 80 % of their sponsorship. Just like RFK said, even he will never be allowed to write a piece for any news magazine because all the sponsors would pull out. Same with tv. He'd fall into a black hole. Besides... I'm sure he makes far more than a talk show circuit would pay and may be doing other important work he would have to abandon and throw his career away.
Kathy, I don't know the answer to your second question, but as for your first question: "vaccine court" opined that there was no evidence to link vaccines to autism based largely on the 2004 study in question, the one where Dr. Thompson admitted participating in eliminating and destroying data linking the MMR vaccine to autism.
So if Yates Hazlehurst's case was decided based on a fraudulent study, that's going to open Pandora's box.
I do have one question of my own, and maybe Ms. Attkisson can answer:
Why does the CDC have the power to decide whether or not William Thompson can testify, especially on a case where they are accused of corruption?
Ken Reibel says
“vaccine court opined that there was no evidence to link vaccines to autism based largely on the 2004 study in question.."
The 2004 study is only one of many studies that have looked for, and failed to find, a meaningful association between vaccines and autism. Were all of those studies fixed?
Jane Doe says
I am sure he stays there because he is safer there than if he left.
Susan Ford Keller says
What is the CDC's legal standing to block Thompson from testifying?
Kathy is probably Dorit Reiss herself.
Has anyone not seen the Dorit Reiss Phizer photo yet?:
Ken Reibel says
Jim Jam says
So is that white kid in the picture an African American?
Donna Wilson says
How far back will they go? I tried to get some help, as the single Mom, when my son was a 6 month old baby. I was told that he MUST have the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus combo shot) to attend public school later, in the state of Georgia. This was back in 1981, when my baby that is now 36 received this shot. It nearly killed him, 3 hours after the inoculation!!! It's been a long journey, & my son did survive the 106 degree fever at the emergency room, that night! Is there a class action that can include us?
Ed Arranga says
"Most children who receive childhood vaccinations are not injured." Continuously downplaying the extent of vaccine injury minimizes the current epidemic while increasing the likelihood additional children will be injured (parents are mistakenly led to believe the risks are low) . Currently, 54 percent of American children suffer from a vaccine injury http://bit.ly/2l1SLrp. In other words, most children who receive childhood vaccinations are injured.
Concerned Citizen says
From what I heard, employees at the CDC (and probably many gov't agencies) are legally forbidden from discussing certain work-related matters other than if compelled by subpoena.
In Thompson's case, he gave a lengthy deposition to Rep Posey and handed over tens of thousands of documents (not thousands, as is often reported). Posey spoke on the House floor requesting that the Congressional committee responsible, hold hearings and subpoena Thompson. This has not happened yet, and may never happen, because Pharma controls nearly all Congressional members.
That's why RFK is pursuing it in this manner - nowhere but Congress or a court of law could Thompson LEGALLY testify. It has nothing to do with whether he is currently employed or not - he is NEVER allowed to speak about these things at any point in his life, other than under oath.
He could just resign and then go public, but his testimony would be "tainted" because it would be illegal. It would not have the same strong impact as compared to being done legally - critics would use this to delegitamize it. He needs to do it in the right way.
Kayla Wildman says
Researcher and Keller: If I understand correctly, a federal agency does have some power to allow or refuse to allow any of its employees to testify in a court case or to speak "publicly" about agency affairs. This is why vaccine choice activists have been pushing for Congress to investigate the CDC whistleblower's charges of fraud by the CDC, and to subpoena Thompson to testify at a Congressional hearing. A federal agency cannot block one of its employees from testifying at a Congressional hearing if the Congressional committee conducting the hearing has subpoenaed that agency employee.