Vaccines and Autism

[steveh_131]

But it's still not peer reviewed research, is it?

Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology (JPHE) is a peer reviewed open access journal. The journal is published monthly and covers all areas of the subject such as health observatory, biostatistics, occupational health, behavioural medicine etc.

Of course, now that I've shown that it is peer reviewed, that is suddenly meaningless to you. Right?

I carefully reviewed what the Dr. Thompson says. He does not say what you think he says.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/william-w-thompson/

Come on, guys. What did I say about checking dates? Orac posted that drivel before Rep. Posey testified about it before congress.

It is now on the record. Orac and his fellow pharmaceutical shills can't lie about it any more.

I posted the video. Watch it if you want to become informed.

Here is the quote that Rambone posted again:

"...we would conclude that vaccinating children early with the MMR vaccine could lead to autism..."

 

[CountryBoy19]

snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

Snopes is a politically biased source and without reading that I'm quite certain that I would NEVER trust what they say on a topic like this. You're screaming about peer-reviewed, trusted, blah, blah, blah then you provide us with a questionable source to back up your assertions?

This bothers me a bit. To simplify, if you symbolize 'a link will be found' as L, and 'a link will not be found' as notL (this computer lacks the ability to use the appropriate symbol, sorry) then I would think 'a lack of confidence' in L would be asserting notL, and 'confidence' in notL would be asserting notL. Thus it seems you are asserting that notL =/= notL which is specious by inspection

Thankfully the English language isn't simple and words have meanings that are greater than what you simplified them to... but thanks for the entertainment!

 

[JettaKnight]

Snopes is a politically biased source and without reading that I'm quite certain that I would NEVER trust what they say on a topic like this. You're screaming about peer-reviewed, trusted, blah, blah, blah then you provide us with a questionable source to back up your assertions?

That's the second time this week I've read that on INGO. Yet in both cases there's absolutely no proof to the back that assertion up.

 

[steveh_131]

That's the second time this week I've read that on INGO. Yet in both cases there's absolutely no proof to the back that assertion up.

Take a look at this link that was posted earlier: snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

Please, follow along with me and I hope you'll see the obvious propaganda. It's an interesting tactic, and an effective one.

Here is the statement that they claim to 'fact-check': "Fraud at the CDC uncovered, 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public"

This is subtle, but very important. They've taken two separate claims and combined them into one.

1) Fraud at the CDC uncovered
2) 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public

The first point is irrefutable. The CDC committed fraud. They don't even attempt to refute it, and this latest evidence is even more damning.

But #2? They can play lots of games with #2. They can bring up Orac's blog, for the zillionth time, as irrefutable evidence that #2 is false. And you know what? I don't entirely disagree. I'm not totally convinced of #2 myself.

Now that they've 'debunked' #2, they can call the entire claim 'FALSE' in large red letters and everybody buys it, because they didn't actually read anything.

None of this is accidental. This is propaganda. Intentional propaganda to distract from the persistent fact that the CDC, and mainstream science in general, is intent on lying to us about vaccine safety.

 

[rhino]

Jenny McCarthy was good looking . . . at one time.

 

[Alpo]

Take a look at this link that was posted earlier: snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

Please, follow along with me and I hope you'll see the obvious propaganda. It's an interesting tactic, and an effective one.

Here is the statement that they claim to 'fact-check': "Fraud at the CDC uncovered, 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public"

This is subtle, but very important. They've taken two separate claims and combined them into one.

1) Fraud at the CDC uncovered
2) 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public

The first point is irrefutable. The CDC committed fraud. They don't even attempt to refute it, and this latest evidence is even more damning.

But #2? They can play lots of games with #2. They can bring up Orac's blog, for the zillionth time, as irrefutable evidence that #2 is false. And you know what? I don't entirely disagree. I'm not totally convinced of #2 myself.

Now that they've 'debunked' #2, they can call the entire claim 'FALSE' in large red letters and everybody buys it, because they didn't actually read anything.

None of this is accidental. This is propaganda. Intentional propaganda to distract from the persistent fact that the CDC, and mainstream science in general, is intent on lying to us about vaccine safety.

"at the CDC". A team of doctors and scientists trashed some documentation that they should have kept. That is not "the CDC" any more than you being "the United States". Did the destruction occur at the order of senior CDC officials not directly involved in the investigation? I didn't see that anywhere, but perhaps I missed it.

Now, as to whether the data is meaningful, that's another kettle of fish. On its face, it doesn't appear to be sensible that AA male babies have a much high sensitivity to vaccines. Add that to the sampling error likely in including non-certificate children and the muddying of the data with autistic children who were diagnosed and then later given the vaccines....and you have a pretty messy research project. Yes, Thompson should whistle blow on this one, but more because the study was such a mess.

I went back and reread the story provided by OP's link. If the quotes are accurate, your scientist is fanning the flames of her personal agenda. While that does not discredit her, it makes her claims suspect. Yes, I asked if her research paper was peer reviewed. Do we know who the reviewers were?

 

[steveh_131]

"at the CDC". A team of doctors and scientists trashed some documentation that they should have kept. That is not "the CDC" any more than you being "the United States". Did the destruction occur at the order of senior CDC officials not directly involved in the investigation?

Read my thread if you want to see about the higher-ups, such as the head of the CDC, Dr. Julia Gerberding. Dr. Thompson wrote her an interesting letter about some of these things, which was promptly ignored. She then became the President of Merck's vaccine divsion.

Dr. Thompson is a Senior Scientist at the CDC. I'm not sure how much higher you're looking for.

Now, as to whether the data is meaningful, that's another kettle of fish. On its face, it doesn't appear to be sensible that AA male babies have a much high sensitivity to vaccines. Add that to the sampling error likely in including non-certificate children and the muddying of the data with autistic children who were diagnosed and then later given the vaccines....and you have a pretty messy research project. Yes, Thompson should whistle blow on this one, but more because the study was such a mess.

I don't think it's that meaningful. I didn't argue that it's that meaningful. Whether it is meaningful is irrelevant. The point is that these scientists thought it was meaningful, and chose to destroy it. The point is that pressure exists, from above, for scientists to do such things with evidence that vaccines cause damage.

I went back and reread the story provided by OP's link. If the quotes are accurate, your scientist is fanning the flames of her personal agenda.

I acknowledged that myself, like 100 posts ago. It's still interesting and worth reading and considering.

Yes, I asked if her research paper was peer reviewed. Do we know who the reviewers were?

Do you dig this deep into every study and statistic that the medical establishment throws at you implying that vaccines are safe and effective? It's a peer-reviewed journal. You said that was your standard.

 

[JettaKnight]

Take a look at this link that was posted earlier: snopes.com: Fraud at the CDC Uncovered?

Please, follow along with me and I hope you'll see the obvious propaganda. It's an interesting tactic, and an effective one.

Here is the statement that they claim to 'fact-check': "Fraud at the CDC uncovered, 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public"

This is subtle, but very important. They've taken two separate claims and combined them into one.

1) Fraud at the CDC uncovered
2) 340% increased risk of autism hidden from public

The first point is irrefutable. The CDC committed fraud. They don't even attempt to refute it, and this latest evidence is even more damning.

Sure, they refute one claim. Then the problem is with Alpo to misapply to this thread, not on Snopes. I stand by my assertion that Snope is not wrong here and not leftist.

 

[Alpo]

You claim FRAUD.....and then you say it's not meaningful. Thompson was on the team that committed the FRAUD. Whistleblowing in his case is Monday morning courage to make up for his prior cowardice....or perhaps it's just that he's anal.

Rather than goalposts, you ought to have a gif of angels dancing on head of pin.

Real world relevance, me boy.

If on the other hand, you are identifying a human behavior of covering up sins to avoid embarrassment, gosh. How shockingly unusual (not).

 

[Alpo]

Sure, they refute one claim. Then the problem is with Alpo to misapply to this thread, not on Snopes. I stand by my assertion that Snope is not wrong here and not leftist.

Heck, the only thing steve hasn't included is:

 

[steveh_131]

Sure, they refute one claim. Then the problem is with Alpo to misapply to this thread, not on Snopes. I stand by my assertion that Snope is not wrong here and not leftist.

No, they're not wrong. The were technically correct, but still pushing propaganda. The Snopes writers are not stupid. They knew they were obfuscating the issue when they wrote that piece. It was downright dishonest. They knew people would pull up their page, see the FALSE in bright red letters, and not read another word.

You claim FRAUD.....and then you say it's not meaningful. Thompson was on the team that committed the FRAUD. Whistleblowing in his case is Monday morning courage to make up for his prior cowardice....or perhaps it's just that he's anal.

You're missing the point. The point is that the scientific establishment, specifically the CDC, is under pressure to hide any evidence of vaccine damage. Even inconclusive evidence such as this that would have simply called for further analysis. Hide it, destroy it, conceal it. Vaccines are safe and effective. That's the mantra.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, OK. But there isn't any indication that the data destroyed supported a scientific conclusion that black babies have a 340% more likelihood of autism from the MMR vaccine.

And all the prior discussion on Salk and Sabin don't support claims that vaccines are not effective for the majority of cases.

Thimerosol, Merbromin, Mercurochrome. I was bathed in Mercurochrome when I was a kid. So were the 50 or 60 other kids in my extended family. Every cut, bite, etc. And we got chicken pox, mumps, measles, rheumatic fever, and God knows what all. Most of us survived without any obvious ill effects except poorer eyesight and hearing loss. No one had the mumps go down on him. And we didn't have hyperactivity or any of the other things noted in the field today. Of course, none of our parents used drugs other than alcohol, or ate organic foods. Our home grown produce was protected by DDT.

 

[steveh_131]

Yeah, OK. But there isn't any indication that the data destroyed supported a scientific conclusion that black babies have a 340% more likelihood of autism from the MMR vaccine.

I feel like you're intent on missing the point, and I'm running out of ways to explain it.

So maybe I'll just ask a question. Why did the top vaccine researchers at the CDC gather around a huge trash can to throw away evidence, then alter their study criteria to exclude it?

 

[JettaKnight]

No, they're not wrong. The were technically correct, but still pushing propaganda. The Snopes writers are not stupid. They knew they were obfuscating the issue when they wrote that piece. It was downright dishonest. They knew people would pull up their page, see the FALSE in bright red letters, and not read another word.

So because you don't believe it, then it's propaganda and dishonest?


I guess I have to award this to myself:

 

[steveh_131]

So because you don't believe it, then it's propaganda and dishonest?

No, that's not what I said. The article was dishonest for the exact reasons that I already laid out in detail. If you don't care to read or understand them, that's alright with me. But let's maintain some form of intellectual honesty.

For someone who demands peer reviewed research (and then rejects it), your loving devotion to snopes is downright comical.

 

[Alpo]

I feel like you're intent on missing the point, and I'm running out of ways to explain it.

So maybe I'll just ask a question. Why did the top vaccine researchers at the CDC gather around a huge trash can to throw away evidence, then alter their study criteria to exclude it?

No, I don't think I missed your point. You seem to not be able to get beyond it to look at the larger picture.

Yes, data was destroyed. As to whether the information they obtained could be put into a statistically significant conclusion? I doubt it. We edit ourselves all the time.

Data is not necessarily information and information is not necessarily knowledge. Conspiracy advocates see evil behind every bit and byte. I don't. And no one has at yet demonstrated that the data is statistically relevant.

Thompson kept ALL the data. Did he submit a different conclusion? Methinks not. Why? Because it is a red herring.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, data was destroyed. As to whether the information they obtained could be put into a statistically significant conclusion? I doubt it. We edit ourselves all the time.

This wasn't an 'edit'. You should watch the video or read the transcript or something. They started this research with a predetermined conclusion. When they didn't reach that conclusion, they destroyed evidence and altered the parameters until they did reach it. This is what we call 'fraud'.

 

[steveh_131]

You seem to not be able to get beyond it to look at the larger picture.

The larger picture? What is the larger picture, the exact nature of the data that they purposely destroyed or the fact that the CDC is purposely destroying data in order to reach their desired scientific conclusions?

 

[JettaKnight]

For someone who demands peer reviewed research (and then rejects it), your loving devotion to snopes is downright comical.

I'm not the one who's all about peer reviews - that's others here on INGO. I'm the one in favor of common sense.

I don't love Snopes. I just cringe at INGO'ers trying to dismiss things they don't like or agree with by slapping on the label liberal.

 

[Alpo]

You do not have any basis upon which to make that claim steve. Great conspiracy theorist that you are. You've gone for pages claiming you KNOW there is fraud and a coverup.

You have PROVED neither.

The data is available to Thompson. Let him issue a peer-reviewed report off the data.

I'll wager that he cannot make statistically valid claims.



By the way, I like Snopes and Wikipedia. They are not always 100% correct, but they are a resource.

As to whether the Snopes article has merit, I'd say it is a counterpoint to some of the early 2000 information that you're throwing on here.

Posey is the pimple on the dog's behind. He's there. He's an irritant, but most of the time we don't see him and don't need to include him in the conversation.