Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

[steveh_131]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/357037-latest-cdc-vaccine-cover-up.html#post5247899

Ok... why do you think he was 'talking' to him in the first place? And telling him where to find the fraudulent data?

Regardless, my point is that data was omitted that suggested a link between race/gender, MMR vaccine before 36 mos, and autism. But, it does not specify what that data was. It a statistical thing? Is it a sample size thing? Is it a difference of a standard deviation or .1 of a std. dev.?

What he "admitted" to could be any number of things. I'd like to know specifically what was omitted and what impact it had on the results. Everything else is rhetoric. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with rhetoric.)

The omitted data turned out to be exactly what Dr. Hooker said it was. Children without Georgia birth certificates. The CDC even said as much. The paper that he published was right on target.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok... why do you think he was 'talking' to him in the first place? And telling him where to find the fraudulent data?

The omitted data turned out to be exactly what Dr. Hooker said it was. Children without Louisiana birth certificates. The CDC even said as much. The paper that he published was right on target.

Wait. If that's the "data" then the original paper said that. It wasn't "hidden" at all. (Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Georgia birth certificates, since the study was Atlanta.)

From the abstract:

Records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors.

From the data description:

We matched 355 (56%) case and 1020 (56%) control children to Georgia state birth certificate records, which allowed us to obtain additional information, such as each child’s birth weight and gestational age and the mother’s parity, age, race, and education.

I see nothing wrong with standardizing the data to exclude other birth certificates. Those other BCs may not have had the same data, in the same format, so it introduces another variable that you can't control for.

If that's the smoking gun, I'm underwhelmed.

I was under the impression that there was some sort of tomfoolery with the control variables or fraudulently stating the results of the analysis.

As it is, the study is reproducable. Someone could use effectively the same criteria to do the study in Indianapolis. (Which, by the way, I would be very interested in.) Also, something else I just thought of, I didn't see frequency results for kids that were not immunized at all.

I mean, is the rate of autism 0% for non-MMR-immunized kids? That would be rather compelling.

 

[steveh_131]

Wait. If that's the "data" then the original paper said that. It wasn't "hidden" at all. (Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Georgia birth certificates, since the study was Atlanta.)

Yes, it was Georgia. Sorry, my brain is still waking up apparently.

I see nothing wrong with standardizing the data to exclude other birth certificates. Those other BCs may not have had the same data, in the same format, so it introduces another variable that you can't control for.

The issue is not that they used this criteria. The issue is that they first ran the study without the criteria, found results that they didn't want to publish, and then went fishing to find what criteria they could use that would filter out those results. This is what Dr. Thompson is confessing to. These are the troubling results that he alluded to in his letter to the CDC director. This is bad science. This is fraud.

Also, something else I just thought of, I didn't see frequency results for kids that were not immunized at all.

This study was never intended to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated. This study was about the age of vaccination.

 

[T.Lex]

The issue is not that they used this criteria. The issue is that they first ran the study without the criteria, found results that they didn't want to publish, and then went fishing to find what criteria they could use that would filter out those results. This is what Dr. Thompson is confessing to. These are the troubling results that he alluded to in his letter to the CDC director. This is bad science. This is fraud.

I won't judge whether it is bad science until I know the difference it made. I can imagine (and I'm not even that creative) why the inclusion of the non-GA BCs might result in an uncontrolled (maybe even uncontrollable) statistical increase.

Please, if I missed the impact of the exclusion on the results, point it out.

This study was never intended to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated. This study was about the age of vaccination.

Indeed. And, apparently the race. (Which, having one of my own pet peeves rise to the top, is almost indefinable. In fact, on the BCs, it is a matter of self-reporting. The actual sample description should be "male, self-reported African Americans." But that's my own issue with racial definitions.)

But, here's a question, are you familiar with ANY studies that show 0% autism among non-vaccinated kids? Or, if the results are > 0, how much greater?

 

[steveh_131]

I won't judge whether it is bad science until I know the difference it made. I can imagine (and I'm not even that creative) why the inclusion of the non-GA BCs might result in an uncontrolled (maybe even uncontrollable) statistical increase.

It made the sample size too small to draw any conclusions from.

But, here's a question, are you familiar with ANY studies that show 0% autism among non-vaccinated kids? Or, if the results are > 0, how much greater?

I don't know of any and I don't expect to see any.

 

[T.Lex]

It made the sample size too small to draw any conclusions from.

Ah - I'm sorry, I didn't understand. (Sincerely, I think I just now got what you've been trying to say.)

Your point (and Hooker's probably) is that by including the non-GA BCs, there was an apparent link to maleness/African-Americaness. The original study indicated no such link.

My counterpoint (other than the observation that this needs further study) is that even by including it, Hooker had to fiddle with the age cutoffs and still had a remarkably low sample size.

I don't know of any and I don't expect to see any.

Why not? It seems to me that such a study would be relatively easy and very insightful. There are only 3 possible outcomes for the incidence rate: below the population at large, at the population at large, or above the population at large. Any of those outcomes would contribute to the debate, I think.

If I were Hooker, that's where I'd put my research.

 

[steveh_131]

Ah - I'm sorry, I didn't understand. (Sincerely, I think I just now got what you've been trying to say.)

No worries. Sorry if I was unclear.

Your point (and Hooker's probably) is that by including the non-GA BCs, there was an apparent link to maleness/African-Americaness. The original study indicated no such link.

Yes. Using exclusion criteria for scientific reasons is reasonable (although I don't think this particular criteria holds much scientific weight). But doing it for the purpose of concealing these results (tenuous as they may be) is fraudulent.

My counterpoint (other than the observation that this needs further study) is that even by including it, Hooker had to fiddle with the age cutoffs and still had a remarkably low sample size.

Agreed. But this organization is so intent on protecting the public's perception of the safety of vaccines, that even these tenuous results had to be hidden from us.

 

[steveh_131]

Why not? It seems to me that such a study would be relatively easy and very insightful. There are only 3 possible outcomes for the incidence rate: below the population at large, at the population at large, or above the population at large. Any of those outcomes would contribute to the debate, I think.

Sorry, I believe I was again unclear. I haven't seen any research showing it at 0%. There is some research in this arena showing the autism incidence rates to be similar among vaccinated children vs. unvaccinated children. There is also some research showing a slightly higher incidence among vaccinated children, but it is widely attacked by the mainstream media.

Especially considering the nature of this cover-up, I don't expect to see much research shedding light on this any time in the near future.

 

[88GT]

Would you look at you two? Having a respectful, polite, and civil discussion without one side resorting to insults and name-calling. And they said it wasn't possible on INGO.

 

[T.Lex]

**** up *****

(KIDDING! Kidding!)

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, he made some good points and was polite about it.

It was refreshing.

 

[HoughMade]

I apologize if this link has been posted. It's just some more information to consider.

Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys? « Science-Based Medicine

 

[steveh_131]

I apologize if this link has been posted. It's just some more information to consider

Thank for the info, but this has already been discussed in depth and shown to be incorrect in nearly every way.

It was written before Dr. Thompson himself made a public statement admitting to everything that this blogger claims never happened.

 

[level.eleven]

I apologize if this link has been posted. It's just some more information to consider.

Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys? « Science-Based Medicine

The problem is, Dr. Gorski is also part of the conspiracy. At the present time, it is unsure just how he fits in, but our secret squirrels are reporting he is thought to be high ranking. He is obviously bought and paid for by big Pharma and is suspected of having close ties to the Kenyan Interloper.

That gives a good rundown of the latest conspiracy theory.

ETA: It also illustrates how folks like Hooker must continue to crank out the conspiracy theories. We went through this same thing in March when he polished up the Simpsonwood conspiracy theory.

 

[level.eleven]

I could not even provide a good a summary....other than the claims made in the OP are flat wrong: LINK

That was a good read on just how much damage, pain, and suffering the anti-vaxx movement brings to fellow human beings. Not only are they making children, babies, and adults sick, sometimes leading to death or permanent disability, they are also a huge hindrance to rational, intelligent parents with autistic children. Evil, an actual manifestation of evil in folks like Hooker and their sock puppet army who spread this trash around the web.

 

[steveh_131]

The problem is, Dr. Gorski is also part of the conspiracy. At the present time, it is unsure just how he fits in, but our secret squirrels are reporting he is thought to be high ranking. He is obviously bought and paid for by big farmer and is suspected of having close ties to the Kenyan Interloper.

Actually, that's only a small part of the problem. As a paid researcher for multiple pharmaceuticals I would hesitate to call him 'unbiased'. So I'll agree with you on that.

But the bigger problem with his blog post is that he, and you, were wrong. There really was data that showed a correlation, however tentative. And the CDC really did actively seek to conceal it.

That gives a good rundown of the latest conspiracy theory.

I hate to break it to you, but this is not a theory any more. It's time to move on to the next stage of grief.

 

[steveh_131]

That was a good read on just how much damage, pain, and suffering the anti-vaxx movement brings to fellow human beings. Not only are they making children, babies, and adults sick, sometimes leading to death or permanent disability, they are also a huge hindrance to rational, intelligent parents with autistic children. Evil, an actual manifestation of evil in folks like Hooker and their sock puppet army who spread this trash around the web.

Cry me a river, level.eleven. This is the sort of emotional, sensational nonsense that you pretend to be above.

Publicizing documented facts about the dangers of vaccines is not evil.

ETA: The upside is that I think you have progressed from Denial to Anger, the second stage of grief.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait a second.

Where do people that are open to whatever a root cause analysis on autism brings forth. I mean, the whole "think of the children" thing cuts both ways. IF there is a link to MMR/any other vaccine, are you going to feel at all guilty for suppressing it? I mean, it seems like that's what you're trying to do - suppress open (and polite) discussion of these issues.

ETA:

And the CDC really did actively seek to conceal it.

In my mind - they didn't conceal it. The original study disclosed the BC issue. The relevance of including the excluded BCs is still in doubt. At least to me.

 

[steveh_131]

In my mind - they didn't conceal it. The original study disclosed the BC issue. The relevance of including the excluded BCs is still in doubt. At least to me.

Except that they originally included them and didn't exclude them until the results didn't match what suited their agenda.

They purposely changed the parameters until that they got the result they wanted.

That's why Dr. Thompson contacted Dr. Hooker. He felt that he and his team actively concealed this data.

 

[steveh_131]

More of Dr. William Thompson's statements (audio):

[video]http://vimeo.com/user5503203/review/106398908/44f9634e1b[/video]