Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
In 2004, CDC researchers published an important paper that studied the difference in autism rates between children who received the MMR vaccination before 36 months and those who were vaccinated after 36 months.

The paper concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in autism rates between these two groups. This research has been often cited in support of the safety of early-intervention MMR vaccinations.

More recently, Dr. Brian Hooker filed a FOIA request to gain access to the original data of this study. He used this data to perform his own study, published here in a peer-reviewed journal called Translational Neurodegeneration in August of 2014. The results of his study were quite different than those released by CDC researchers, indicating that there was a very significant increase in autism rates in African American boys who were vaccinated early in their childhood.

According to Dr. Hooker's study, two factors contributing to the vastly different findings:
1. The original study included children who were too young to have been reliably diagnosed with autism.
2. The original study excluded children who did not have a Georgia birth certificate, substantially shrinking the sample size.

An anonymous CDC employee recently came forward and confessed to Dr. Hooker that he and the other authors had purposefully manipulated the data in order to reach the conclusion that vaccines had no link to autism. You can hear his confessions in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOtDVilkUc&list=UUfIZ2PofuUgEM79W3fOc6Mg?wmode=opaque

As more information became public, this CDC employee was reported to be Dr. William Thompson, one of the original authors of the CDC report. He has reportedly been removed from CDC property by security.

Information about the original study and the analysis of its results is readily available and I find it to be rather significant. The original study was, at the very least, poorly done and should be jettisoned as significant research and carefully re-examined.

Information about this whistleblower is limited and sketchy at this point, and should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, it is reported that he has provided documentation (including a copy of the original report and its initial results) to back his claims and I hope that these documents are soon available to the public for further analysis.

For information about past CDC cover-ups: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...sion/333909-vaccines-thimerasol-cover-up.html

Read this if you think you already know everything about this topic: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...362-legacy-dr-andrew-wakefield-myth-fact.html
 

MisterChester

Master
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
May 25, 2013
3,383
48
The Compound
Let's all say it together now... Correlation does not mean causation!

we can't rule it out 100%, but vaccines almost certainly are not related to autism. Just because you hear galloping doesn't mean a zebra is coming.
 

JTScribe

Chicago Typewriter
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Dec 24, 2012
3,223
113
Bartholomew County
"There is no known single cause for autism spectrum disorder, but it is generally accepted that it is caused by abnormalities in brain structure or function. Brain scans show differences in the shape and structure of the brain in children with autism compared to in neurotypical children. Researchers are investigating a number of theories, including the links among heredity, genetics and medical problems."

"Genetic Vulnerability

Autism tends to occur more frequently than expected among individuals who have certain medical conditions, including fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, congenital rubella syndrome and untreated phenylketonuria (PKU). Some harmful substances ingested during pregnancy also have been associated with an increased risk of autism."


Pretty much the smoking causes cancer routine all over again, but wait the 60 year old non-smoker with lung cancer ruins the study... Andrew Wakefield was a hack



source: Causes - Autism Society

My cousin's adopted son fits this description.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
Let's all say it together now... Correlation does not mean causation!

we can't rule it out 100%, but vaccines almost certainly are not related to autism. Just because you hear galloping doesn't mean a zebra is coming.

Correlation shows us where to focus the next research efforts. Once we find a correlation, we can start looking for evidence supporting a causal relationship.

If we ignore every correlation, especially those that are not politically expedient, then we never find the truth. This is true in every endeavor of medical research.
 

GTM

Marksman
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2010
356
18
Bloomington +/- 20 miles
Correlation shows us where to focus the next research efforts. Once we find a correlation, we can start looking for evidence supporting a causal relationship.

If we ignore every correlation, especially those that are not politically expedient, then we never find the truth. This is true in every endeavor of medical research.

Countries with the least bacon have the most terrorists. Correlation or causation?

Even a very strong correlation doesn't imply causation.
 

T.Lex

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Mar 30, 2011
25,852
113
The result related to African American males is interesting. I may have missed the actual size of that subset, but the apparent conclusion that the correlation is stronger for that subset suggests there is some other dramatic factor working - likely some genetic issue. Like sickle cell anemia affects a disproportionate number of the African American populace, those results may foreshadow the genetic link to autism.

Either that or the MMR vaccine is racist.

Personally, I've always doubted any connection between autism and the vaccines. But, I'm also willing to consider every study of the subject. Clearly, more research is necessary.
 

ghuns

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Nov 22, 2011
8,048
113
In another 20 years, every Murrican child will have Autism, life threatening nut allergies, diabetes, high blood pressure and paralyzing fear of the sun.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
GTM said:
Countries with the least bacon have the most terrorists. Correlation or causation?

Even a very strong correlation doesn't imply causation.

MWAGinHotel said:
Everyone one of those pregnant mothers drank dihydrogen Monoxide and breathed air.... OMG Air and DHMO cause autism

Are you guys serious?

This is how medical research works. You look for statistically significant correlations while controlling as many variables as possible. The entire point of this study by the CDC was to look for correlations, or the lack thereof.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
MWAGinHotel[COLOR=#4B5238 said:
It statistically signifacant that everyone who has autism or gave birth to an autistic child drank water and breathed air.... Everyone of them.... Thats 100% correlation. Everyone of them has seen a bird or a squirrel, is related in some distant way to someone who lived in 1642, Every one of them at some point in their life has pooped their pants.... Some like bacon, some hate bacon.



So much fail.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
Again, the conspiracy theory quacks provide the scientific community with a good laugh. It even comes with the conspiracy quacks turning on each other!

Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism ? Respectful Insolence

An analysis of the...uhh..scenario.

1. The specific results of Wakefield's research have been validated over and over again by independent researchers. You clearly have no idea what the results of his research actually showed. See my previous thread links for further information.

2. This blogger apparently misunderstands the nature of the research. The initial CDC study wasn't a simple 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated' comparison. It studied the significance of the age of vaccination. This should have been apparent, considering that its title began with the word "Age".

3. Neither you, nor this particular blogger, qualify as the 'scientific community'. You're a typical psuedo-skeptic and your worship of the state-sponsored psuedo-science is noted.
 

T.Lex

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Mar 30, 2011
25,852
113
I realize the above post was not directed at me, but I would proudly accept the label of "skeptic." The blogger link provided a data point that, if true, guts (for me) the re-analysis in the OP:
Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. ... he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group.

That is WAY too small of a sample size to get any meaningful results for that subset.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
T.Lex, I am quite confused by this blogger. This is his complaint:

The nail in the coffin for the Hooker paper is that autism is usually diagnosed by the time a child is three years old. There was no increased risk at 18 months, higher but not by a whole lot at 24, and then the three-fold increase at 36 months. Gee, was it the MMR vaccine, mister? No, the effect is being modified by age. It’s as if I asked you if your shoe size was bigger at 36 months because you drank milk vs because you were 36 months. It’s age. It’s the way that autism is diagnosed. You’re going to have more children diagnosed as autistic at 36 months than you will at 18 months or at 24 months.

And I believe he is talking about this paragraph in Dr. Hooker's study:

In the present study, frequencies of cases were determined for first MMR ages of less than versus greater than 18 months, 24 months and 36 months in each separate analysis. When accounting for cases in the cohort that excluded low birth weight (<2500 g) African American children, it was necessary to report results at 31 months rather than 36 months in order to avoid reporting data from age categories or "cells" that possessed less than 5 individuals.

I don't believe that this blogger is correct. The study is clearly talking about the age at which the MMR was administered, while this blogger seems to think that it is comparing the age of the child being studied.

As for your comments about sample size, do you know what the actual sample size of african american males was? While your point about sample size is valid and important, we would need to know the sample size that they had to work with before I could comment further.

And finally, please don't confuse my terminology of 'skeptic' vs. 'psuedo-skeptic'. A healthy skepticism about things is certainly a good practice. Blindly rejecting every idea that runs contrary to the agenda of the 'scientific establishment' is not.
 

level.eleven

Shooter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
May 12, 2009
4,673
48
I realize the above post was not directed at me, but I would proudly accept the label of "skeptic." The blogger link provided a data point that, if true, guts (for me) the re-analysis in the OP:


That is WAY too small of a sample size to get any meaningful results for that subset.

You mean the exact mistake Wakefield is famous for? That would never happen in the quack conspiracy community. :rolleyes:

Some more analysis of this latest laugher.

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield plays video director while African-American Babies die, or something | The Poxes Blog
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
level.eleven said:
You mean the exact mistake Wakefield is famous for? That would never happen in the quack conspiracy community. :rolleyes:

Wakefield acknowledged the small sample size of his data in the study and in his comments about the study. He simply called for further research. You clearly have zero knowledge about this situation. Again, feel free to educate yourself: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...362-legacy-dr-andrew-wakefield-myth-fact.html

level.eleven said:

Do you even read the stuff you post? This isn't 'more' analysis, it's the same blogger that your first blogger was quoting in his own blog.
 

T.Lex

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Mar 30, 2011
25,852
113
Well, the fact that the re-analysis doesn't specify sample sizes, I am (wait for it) skeptical. :) I don't read scientific literature daily or even weekly. But over the years, I've read MANY scientific studies. It strikes me as the rare example that doesn't include sample sizes, at least in footnotes or endnotes.

But, I believe the blogger is correct. My interpretation of the study's note is:
- (I think this one is clear) he broke it down into the 18mo, 24mo, 36mo categories
- (This one not completely clear, but I believe) both studies (the original and the reanalysis) excluded low birth weight babies to control for that criterion (I believe other studies have already found a correlation there)
- (This is where it gets funky) the re-analysis had to shift the categorization down to 31mos from 36mos otherwise there would be fewer than 5 African American, male, (non-low-birthweight) cohort children.

So, he re-tabulated the results to get a defensible (in his eyes) number of data points - that is, more than 5. I have to believe, even fudging the dates, the comparison-sample size was very small.

I guess there are really 2 issues - he isn't really comparing the "new" results to the original ones, if he is changing the dates; and he's changing the dates to get a defensible sample size.

For the record, let me say I'm skeptical of the CDC's conclusions, too, but that's more out of habit. Analytically, I think there is less wrong with the original analysis than the re-analysis.
 

steveh_131

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mar 3, 2009
10,046
83
Porter County
T.Lex said:
- (I think this one is clear) he broke it down into the 18mo, 24mo, 36mo categories

Yes, except the blogger seems to mistakenly think that these numbers represent the ages of the children. They don't. The numbers represent the cut-off age for the age at which they received their first MMR vaccination.

(This is where it gets funky) the re-analysis had to shift the categorization down to 31mos from 36mos otherwise there would be fewer than 5 African American, male, (non-low-birthweight) cohort children.

It was fewer than 5 per cell, not fewer than 5 total.

But I'll agree that a larger sample size would be helpful and that this should be a call for further research, as the study itself says if you read the conclusion.
 

T.Lex

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Mar 30, 2011
25,852
113
Yes, except the blogger seems to mistakenly think that these numbers represent the ages of the children. They don't. The numbers represent the cut-off age for the age at which they received their first MMR vaccination.
I may misunderstand, but I think all the authors recognize that as the age brackets of when the children received the vaccines.

It was fewer than 5 per cell, not fewer than 5 total.
I believe they mean "cell" as in "group of children that fit the criteria." So, a cell of "36mo or older, African American, males" would have had less than 5 members. So, they shifted the cutoff to 31mo to reach the >5 level.

But I'll agree that a larger sample size would be helpful and that this should be a call for further research, as the study itself says if you read the conclusion.
I did. ;)

If you read the original CDC paper, you will see that they identify areas where more study may be necessary. For example:
In the present study, we were not able to evaluate the potential association between thimerosal exposure and autism.

Other than in the area of climate change, I think you would be hard pressed to find scientists that would discourage further study of an issue. At least, I would be (again) skeptical of any scientist that said we already know enough.
 
Top Bottom