CBC Marketplace’s Constructed Narrative Falls Even Further Apart

Yesterday, I penned an article with screen shots of the CBC’s Youtube video coverage of the VIP after party of the VIE event in Washington last year.

The video shown shows words in a manner in which it would seem to imply that I said “Now we have a quid pro quo” to the reporter during a cutaway where the person who is speaking about “quid pro quo” is not on camera.

I have made it clear that I never said “Now we have a quid pro quo”. The recording clearly is “SO THERE IS NO quid pro quo.” Their video editing, including their caption placement, clearly manipulate viewers leading to the impression that the reporter and I came to some arrangement. Never happened.

Their written version of the event online now represents it as if the reporter said it.

“So, what I would rather do is, I do a science day the day before,” he said. “I’d run an event where you … charge admission as per my website.”

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you,” said our journalist. “Now we’ve gotta quid pro quo.” 

“That’s right,” he said, later detailing through an assistant that for a group of 400 people, he would want about $20 US per person, netting around $10,000 Cdn.

No, I never said “That’s right”.

I can tell you that our fact-checking team, and many, many others hear ME saying “So there IS NO quid pro quo”, which is in keeping with my message about “What I’d RATHER DO” (is educate the public than be paid to travel to lobby). And while the Science days are educational, I can also tell you that we do a LOT of “marketing” at IPAK; it’s called promotion, it’s key to the success of any not-for-profit, but unlike other not-for-profits, we specifically limit the amount of revenue that we program to promotion. We don’t have to spend 90% of our revenues on promotion. Because we offer sincere, objective Science, which the public was chanting for on the Washington mall. Bring the unedited conversation forward, CBC.

Should Have Said “Donations”

I’ve explained in the first article that IPAK events do not require anyone to commit to a specific amount, that the numbers cited are suggested donations, and that we ask people in who can only donate less for any amount they can donate. We also invite people in who choose to not donate in without any transaction. I also explained that the reporter made up the number “400” so as to inflate the sum of whatever amount we quoted. We provided him with an estimate, which should have been between $15 and $20 for a suggested donation. And it’s clear that we put funds at IPAK to good use.

We all make mistakes. We at IPAK should not discuss “costs” of our donations, and we usually do not, but instead, we should discuss suggested donations. My assistant was corrected and apologized for not knowing, but I never spelled out for her the difference. She has not been involved in the planning or running of IPAK events. The program is active now; interested parties can contact us at info@ipaknowledge.org.

IPAK Events Are Not All About Autism

“Vaccines cause autism in some people” is what I said at the VIE event. A bold statement, a bit like holding a lightning rod on top of a mountain in a lightening storm to utter such words in public.

Except CBC was already informed before their yellow journalism piece came out, by me, with links to videos, that Dr. Julie Gerberding of the CDC and the late, great Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the NIH said as much, on the air, in US television news many years ago (see links to videos in my scoop of CBC News here). And it’s no secret – I have published my understanding of specific mechanisms by which vaccines might cause autism in some people in writing. A good investigative reported would have known that, and they would have not treated like it’s some shocking secret. Their recording of me is from arguably the most public place in the world – my speech at theNational Mall.

What may be news is that I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated by anyone to change my position, given what I’ve seen in the mechanism literature. Under any circumstances. Press hit pieces, personal threats, all mean nothing to the reality of the piss-poor nature of the CDC’s attempts to hide the link between vaccines and autism and the risk that some child somewhere may become permanently mentally disabled by a vaccine. #NotOneMore.

If you listen to the reporter voicing their constructed narrative, you will in fact hear her state that I say at IPAK Events that “Vaccines Cause… Autism”. She uses information she got from a VIE event (NOT an IPAK event), and, further, she leaves the incorrect impression that vaccines and autism are the only thing we discuss at IPAK events. We are planning an event on “Autoimmunity in Autism” in June 2020, filled with all sorts of science, reviews of science, new science, more science on autism and autoimmunity in autism than the Marketplace journalistic team could probably handle. Nevertheless, they are hereby invited. With or without hidden cameras. Open interviews would be decent.

One good thing is that I think I can now answer my question in my first post about CBC. No, CBC did not run an objective piece. They invited comments from their targets, and they ignored all of the comments they received. No, CBC is not a legitimate news source for health-related matters. Their journalistic integrity in my view is virtually non-existant. And that’s sad. Because I grew up watching CBC. And Beachcombers. And Superdave Obsborn on Bizarre. I used to love CBC News. It was refreshingly independent of US influences. It was Canadian. Seems now it’s mostly corporation-owned.

‘So There is No Quid Pro Quo’, or ‘So We Have a Quid Pro Quo’?

So, CBC, which is it? The video leaves the attribution ambiguous. I claim that I said “So it’s not a quid pro quo”. Your written article claims your reported said “So we have a quid pro quo”. Bring the full recording foward, CBC, unedited. Everything everyone at the event told you. Not cherry-picked and manipulated expressions taken out of context.

People can listen for themselves. The cutaway at exactly that time, and the existence of two edits of the video, as I discovered and described in yesterday’s post, is troubling. Their apparent sleight of hand plays well into their false narrative. But, for the record, “There is NO QUID PRO QUO”.

Regardless of such low-ball tactics, we have a team reviewing the video and the written article for false statements made by their reporter, and we will be setting the record straight on a future episode of Unbreaking Science. It should be eye-opening, perhaps even to the investigative reporters who did not do much investigative anything.

Perhaps CBC should look into CDC’s Walter Orenstein’s role in determining the outcome of the IOM’s look into vaccines and autism. And how Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow committee member when they first met in January 2001 that CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe” and “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure”, and how the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, even predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between vaccines and autism. The committee was instructed that the outcome was what “Walt wants” — referencing Dr. Walter Orenstein, then director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC, who also played a role in putting Dr. William Thompson on leave for daring to inform Dr. Julie Gerberding of the link between on-time MMR vaccines and autism in African American boys.

Or maybe CBC should look into how Coleen Boyle changed the study design of at least one study after her team found an association between on-time MMR vaccine and delayed MMR.

At the very least CBC should investigate Poul Thorsen, on OIG’s Most Wanted List, a fugitive from justice, accused of stealing over $1Million US (and CDN) dollars that was supposed to go into autism research, who is still on projects funded by the US NIH, still publishing on papers appearing in NCBI’s Pubmed? Start with James Grunvig’s book “Master Manipulator“. He’s done all the legwork for you, CBC.

Or perhaps they might look into and report how Dr. Julie Gerberding left CDC after overseeing those fiascos for a cushy job at Merck and received millions in Merck stock. NOW you’ve got a quid pro quo to talk about!

Maybe you should interview Congressman Bill Posey, who entered into the Congressional Record how Dr. William Thompson shared with him files he was instructed to destroy on how the MMR vaccine might lead to ASD if given too early. Here, I’ll do the hard part for you.


Then investigate the experience of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Del Bigtree when they met a smiling and cooperative Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins with Whitehouse staff whose smiling faces turned to stone the minute the whitehouse staff members left the meeting. Then investigate by former CDC Director Thomas Frieden testified to a Congressional Committee that we (in the US) would not have an outbreak of Ebola unless there are mutations in the virus (in 2014/2015) and “there are none” – and whether that is related to the CDC’s PCR-based airport screening test for Ebola, based on the 1995 Zaire strain.

These are much more relevant to investigative reporting than a hypothetical event with 400 fictitious people your reporters made up.

CBC Marketplace, you are cynical, deceitful and blind. You missed the story of the last 50 years. You are misleading the Canadian public to accept a woefully dangerous import fromt the US – CDC-style vaccine risk and injury denialism – and Canadians will suffer as a result. You can redeem yourself by digging into the CDC cover-up and the crimes committed in the name of manipulating public opinion. Bring on Brian Hooker. Del Bigtree. Dr. Wakefield. I won’t appear on your show until you apologize for manipulating my words. The best you can get from me is a free copy of my book, “Cures vs. Profits: A Translational Success Story”, which contains the Chapter I wrote during which I chronicled my discovery of the facts that I wish were untrue, and in which I track down the details of the CDC fiasco and three other vaccine controversies.

CBC leadership, watch the documentaries Vaxxed and Vaxxed II. Invite Polly Tommey on, who even now spends 10-12 hours a day interviewing parents of vaccine injured children. You’re on the wrong side of history. We are building a new culture of decency, and respect, and the vaccine industry lobbyists’ heads are spinning, just as they should be. No amount of money for any politician and no new vaccine factory is worth the chronic illness, impaired autoimmune systems, and impaired neurodevelopmental disorders in your local town, city, province, or nation. As formulated, current vaccines are unsafe.

For now, here I address CBC’s misquote and/or misattribution, depending on which version of the CBC’s report you care to pick.


  1. Send this to CBC:
    Levi Quackenboss has created a condensed version of the “WHO IS LYING TO YOU?” broadcast from the Highwire Youtube channel that focuses specifically on the comments made by the WHO scientist at the December 2019 World Health Organization Vaccine Safety Summit for Lawmakers : It’s on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xey8zlyQo&t=. Here is the breakdown:
    This 56-minute video is condensed from Highwire for easy sharing with your state Representatives, Senators, and US Congressmen and women. Markers are below for skipping ahead.

    2:00 Dr. Heidi Larson, PhD, Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project says the biggest factor in vaccine hesitancy is vaccine safety.

    4:26 Dr. Larson says that doctors and nurses are “very wobbly” and “starting to question the safety of vaccines,” and it’s a “huge problem.”

    6:20 Dr. Larson admits doctors don’t have confidence in vaccine safety to stand up mothers asking questions. Doctors only got a “half day of vaccine instruction in medical school.”

    8:06 Dr. Larson admits that the WHO’s issue with social media is not vaccine “misinformation,” but that the information “seeds doubt.”

    10:24 Dr. Larson admits that global health replaced natural immunity with dependence on vaccine-induced immunity on the “assumption that populations would cooperate.” People got the 6 vaccines in the 1960s-1980s, but now it’s a problem. But since they got the world dependent on vaccines, global health has no choice but to continue pushing vaccines.

    13:10 Dr. Larson says there is a lot of safety science needed, they can’t keep repurposing old science that isn’t relevant to the new problem that vaccines are causing.

    16:04 Dr. Marion Gruber, FDA admits that vaccines NEED to have safety monitoring specifically tailored to the one vaccine under consideration. Risk management plans WILL need to take into account all of the safety evidence they have. These safety measures do not exist.

    19:40 Dr. Martin Howell Friede, WHO cautions vaccine makers from using adjuvants because they cause adverse events. If makers must use an adjuvant, they should use an old one with a “history” (that allows the vaccine maker to say the adverse event wasn’t the adjuvant.) The new adjuvants will be accused of causing adverse events, but there will be no new vaccines without adjuvants. His solution is to build confidence, not make them safer.

    25:15 Professor Stephen Evans says “It seems that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens they’re added to; they multiply the reactogenicity, so it’s not unexpected they multiply the adverse reactions. Is my thinking is correct?”

    27:22 Dr. Friede, says the “major health concerns they see are the long term effects of vaccines,” not the sore knot on your arm. Adjuvants act differently with every antigen, and impurities. We need larger studies and we need to measure the appropriate things.

    31:28 Dr. Friede, admits that it’s necessary that we figure out how adjuvants work so they can start to asses how plausible it is that adjuvants are causing the major health concerns.

    31:38 Dr. David Kaslow, Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access admits that they do their studies on very small groups of people. Says that “one of the things they need to invest in” are better biomarkers and mechanistic understanding of how adjuvants work so they can understand the adverse events.

    32:25 Dr. Gruber states that one issue that complicates the safety evaluation is the length of follow-up because the longer you study the group, the more “coincidental” adverse events pop up. Giving adjuvants to the elderly may do nothing, but be reactive in younger people.

    38:13 Dr. Kaslow, “Coming down the pike relatively quickly is a new target population for us in vaccines: maternal immunization. We don’t have a strong pharmaco-epidemiologic baseline in that target population to say ‘is this an expected adverse event due to pregnancy, or is this the vaccine?’ We need an investment in that study so we don’t derail our pregnancy vaccines as they go into low-resource settings.”

    40:07 CDC ACIP meeting vaccinating pregnant women is “off-label.”

    41:24 The FDA admitted they have no studies about vaccines and pregnancy.

    41:55 Nigerian doctor asks if there are any safety studies on injecting multiple vaccines, from multiple makers, with multiple adjuvants, into a child at once.

    44:12 ACIP meeting, the CDC admits they have no data on injecting multiple adjuvants at once, but they recommend it anyway, in different limbs.

    45:22 Dr. Robert Chen admits no, they don’t have data on injecting multiple adjuvants at this time, they need to link databases together to “start to answer these types of questions.”

    50:01 Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist with the WHO, says in a commercial that vaccine safety tracking is robust, and examining the data lets them promptly address problems. They are “thoroughly monitored.”

    52:40 Dr. Swaminathan admits, “We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries. We can’t give answers about the deaths. We need to put mechanisms in place to monitor what’s going on. With many drugs, we only learn about adverse events after they are introduced to the populations.”

  2. And in the end, it doesn’t matter what you said previously. Life isn’t a court of law. People continually try to accuse me of saying something I didn’t say. I side step by simply saying, ‘I change my mind’, and then repeat what I said.

  3. SEVENTH EDITION STANLEY A. PLOTKIN, MD Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics University of Pennsylvania; Emeritus Professor, Wistar Institute Former Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases The Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Former Medical and Scientific Director Pasteur Merieux Connaught (now Sanofi Pasteur) Marnes-la-Coquette, France WALTER A. ORENSTEIN, MD, DSc (HON) Professor of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Global Health Emory University Associate Director, Emory Vaccines Center Atlanta, Georgia; Former Deputy Director for Immunization Programs Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington; Former Director, National Immunization Program Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia

    The Vaccine Industry —Start here
    Vaccine Development
    Role of Partners
    Funding Sources for Vaccine Research and Development
    Pricing of Vaccines

    The vaccine industry is composed of companies that are engaged in any of the following activities: research (including that performed in industry and biotech), development, manufacture, or sales, marketing, and distribution of vaccines. They receive their revenue chiefly from sales of vaccine products or expectations thereof.
    We estimate that total infectious disease vaccine sales in 2013 were more than $25 billion worldwide and expected to grow to about $35 billion by 2020.

    Company Year-End Earnings ($ Billion) Market Share (%)
    GlaxoSmithKline 5.3 19.7
    Merck & Co. b 6.2 23.4
    Novartis 1.5 5.7
    Pfizer 4.5 16.8
    Sanofi † 5.8 21.9
    Others 3.4 12.6
    Total 26.7 Billion 100 % market share

    Vaccine Development :

    Vaccine development is difficult, complex, highly risky, and costly, and includes clinical development, process development, and assay development.
    *The risk is high because most vaccine candidates fail in preclinical or early clinical development and less than 1 in 15 vaccine candidates entering Phase II achieves licensure.
    *The high failure rate is the result of a variety of reasons:
    1. Not fully understanding the biology of protection.
    2. Lack of good animal models to predict vaccine behavior in humans.
    3. Unpredictability of human immune system reactions to antigens as it relates to immunogenicity or safety.
    4. The unpredictability of the impact of combining multiple components in a vaccine. Vaccine development requires strong project management systems and controls and requisite skill sets among scientists and engineers.
    A key strategic document that guides the stakeholders in vaccine development is the “target product profile” (TPP). The TPP summarizes the desired characteristics and features of the product under development, the key attributes of the product that provide competitive advantage, and, finally, a topline roadmap of nonclinical and clinical studies required to evaluate the products efficacy and safety in the target population.

    Seriously people need to see this book— I don’t care if they say vaccines are good— not if the doctors, nurses don’t know:
    ~Unpredictability of human immune system reactions to antigens as it relates to immunogenicity or safety.
    ~The unpredictability of the impact of combining multiple components in a vaccine.
    They’re not conducting enough studies, sorry not sorry but it’s not a one size fits all.
    I’m not going to volunteer to poison myself for the pharmaceutical companies market share or year end earnings.
    I’m not poisoning myself so doctors and nurses get paid their bonus’s because of the amount of vaccines administered.
    It’s in the book (Plotkins vaccines)
    Contradicting a lot of things but you know they keep saying it won’t harm anyone.

    1. We estimate that total infectious disease vaccine sales in 2013 were more than $25 billion worldwide and expected to grow to about $35 billion by 2020.

      Make that $60 Billion:
      Global vaccine market revenues from 2014 to 2020 (in billion U.S. dollars)*

      Global vaccine market revenues 2014-2020
      Published by Matej Mikulic, Aug 9, 2019
      The global vaccine market is showing some escalating growth and it is expected that it will reach total revenues of nearly 60 billion U.S. dollars by 2020. That would be almost double the size the market had back in 2014. Driver of the growth is the increase of various infectious diseases like influenza, swine flu, hepatitis, tuberculosis, diphtheria, Ebola, and meningococcal and pneumococcal diseases. Leading manufacturers of vaccines are big pharma companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co., and Pfizer.

Leave a Reply