Claim: CDC covers up research linking MMR vaccine to autism

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
For years, some parents of autistic children and others have made claims that vaccines and autism in their children were somehow linked. The CDC, among others countered that there was no evidence to support such an assertion. The article below references a scientist from the CDC who was recorded by a colleague during a discussion in which they talked about a 2004 study that showed a higher than expected autism rate among certain racial groups who had had the MMR vaccine. His admission (claim) seems to support the parents position. Curious as to how this community sees this. I'm quite disappointed there has been so little media coverage of this admission.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-big-one-cdc-whistleblower-goes-public-now/
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I'll see your manufactured bunk, and raise you one Snopes, one science-based-medicine, and two respectful insolences.

Here is the whsitleblower's statement.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
I'll see your manufactured bunk, and raise you one Snopes, one science-based-medicine, and two respectful insolences.

Here is the whsitleblower's statement.
Very very interesting. Thx. What's kind if weird is that the first third of the Snopes article is seemingly making the case that the whole thing was an internet hoax, then they confirm Thompsons statement made though his lawyer. From there they basically say that there is no clear cut evidence of any correlation between vaccines and children; only in a very small subgroup (Black kids). One important point is this, Pete: the Snopes article confirms, not denies Thompsons statement. AND in his statement he says, "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004..." So whether the correlation is insignificant or not, the Snopes article CONFIRMS that data was manipulated! Of course Snopes leaves that obvious assessment to the reader. In my mind, it is THE salient point! The CDC covered up data. Period. It really doesn't matter if the data was good or bad, it should have been included. When a scientist says, "I regret..." you can be darn sure he feels the same way!
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Very very interesting. Thx. What's kind if weird is that the first third of the Snopes article is seemingly making the case that the whole thing was an internet hoax, then they confirm Thompsons statement made though his lawyer. From there they basically say that there is no clear cut evidence of any correlation between vaccines and children; only in a very small subgroup (Black kids). One important point is this, Pete: the Snopes article confirms, not denies Thompsons statement. AND in his statement he says, "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004..." So whether the correlation is insignificant or not, the Snopes article CONFIRMS that data was manipulated! Of course Snopes leaves that obvious assessment to the reader. In my mind, it is THE salient point! The CDC covered up data. Period. It really doesn't matter if the data was good or bad, it should have been included. When a scientist says, "I regret..." you can be darn sure he feels the same way!
Thomas says
and
THe CDC concurs that continued analysis is always welcome
I won't get into Hooker's huge amount of bunk in his "reanalysis" article since it is off topic, but please feel free to start a thread on it!
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
I think we should (obviously) be very careful when trying to find the truth. Really all we know is that a scientist has stated, on the record, that he regretted not including certain data in a study.
That doesn't mean the data was relevant, however, if the data was entirely irrelevant, it begs the question: What is the source of his "regret"?
I really don't know what to think. You can bet your boots there will be legal action. Maybe at some point we shall discover the veracity of the report and the importance of the data in question.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
What do you know about the existence of legal action that you are willing to lose your footwear over it?
What are the details?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Really all we know is that a scientist has stated, on the record, that he regretted not including certain data in a study
whats a bit odd is he specifically says "My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine" when surely this study cant isolate the MMR vaccine from other vaccines received. 70.5% of the 'autism like' cases in the study were between 12-17 months. and even Hookers 'analysis' doesn't show that big a discrepancy between races in that age range. it's weird.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
(wordy complex stuff follows)
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
(wordy complex stuff follows)
except... Hooker's 'retracted' paper (available here) is so full of bunk itself... but I don't think his bunky retracted paper is on topic. ??
 

NoParty

Senior Member
I disregard anything written by snopes. They've been wrong before not to mention it's a couple of leftist loons.
Who has a better track record than Snopes?

The "leftist" claim is a relatively recent meme, started by people who got angry that Barbara Mikkelson
repeatedly exposed their nonsense. The site is not political, and actually inadvertently pursues far more
"Obama is a secret Muslim" type claims from the right than the left.

Thus, you're obviously free to "disregard" whatever you like...but the reasons you give don't hold water.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I disregard anything written by snopes. They've been wrong before not to mention it's a couple of leftist loons.
if a source given is wrong, it is your job to provide evidence of that. disregarding a specific claim of evidence, based on nothing, is not productive.
 
Top