First, he penned with Blaxill a piece that having read it first, had me all but laughing hysterically and wetting myself simultaneously when I scrolled down to the next entry. Entitled Scandal Looms Over Key Scientist In Danish Mercury Autism Study, it details the potential conflicts that might exist because a researcher held employment at two universities. Blaxill and Olmsted are up in arms because a scientist worked for a second university (against the first university's regulations); because of this, the study that dismisses thimerosal/autism concerns is out, at least according to Blaxill and Olmsted. Why, then, surely this is where they both admit that Wakefield is toast, right? Hah, you know them too well, don't you, to fall for that trick?
Then, flying solo, Olmsted pens this piece of work on why Wakefield is a hero: "What, exactly, did Dr. Andrew Wakefield do wrong?" Oh, cry me a river, will you? You gotta love this piece of nonsense:
And now we’ve sunk to the seventh circle of journalism hell – based on this slapdash and slipshod reporting, the media says the entire debate over vaccines and autism has been settled. Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Right, blogpost above, you've decided that Thorsen is toast, but here, because Wakefield is YOUR guy, it's all bad reporting. In fact, Olmsted writes (and all our heads should implode here upon reading this tortuous line of reasoning):
So, again, what exactly did Wakefield do wrong? We fail to see a problem here. The paper as published meets every test of transparency we can imagine – including the comment that the self-referrals by the parents raised the risk of a chance pattern. To reel in horror 12 years later over a non-randomized, cherry-picked, biased report that might have been due to chance – well, it makes you want to puke.
Note, he was writing solo here, so who's this magesterial we?
See, AoA: epic fail on all accounts. You cannot roast someone for working two jobs against the guidelines of one of the employers and decide that's a reason to reject a study on the very same day you contort yourself into believing Wakefield did nothing wrong and the case series you've used for years as proof it's vaccines says nothing of the sort. You could have at least had two different people pen the pieces. Olmsted must have had a massive headache as he wrote the two pieces. Or, perhaps he was laughing maniacally, sort of ala The Shining?