CDC Cover-up?

Post Reply New Topic

It has not been verified yet.

I stand corrected. Nonetheless, it clearly states the story in question has not been verified.



It may be the starting point, but further research and reporting is done before concluding it merits an investigation. Just because some are correct doesn't mean all are reliable.



It says "citation needed"

Yeah... here is an explanation of why this whole thing is BUNK

LINK

Here's another good explanation. The reanalysis actually shows no correlation between vaccines and autism for non-black kids. Bad news for Jenny McCarthy.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did ... ican-boys/

here's a link you can show to people who think iCNN is reliable.http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1165323

Just because someone's a whistleblower hardly means he's telling a truth. Especially when someone tries to make a connection between vaccinations and autism, I have to take the source with a grain of salt.

NEXTNEWSNETWORK.COM: "CDC Responds: Admits Omitting Vaccine Data" (August 26, 2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THGbJnpywyw

Anyone can say anything, and someone will give them the time of day to flap their gums. I don't care if this guy had worked for the CDC and had had inside knowledge; that doesn't mean he's automatically telling the truth.

Then how should anyone be determined to be truthful ... ever?

I find the CDC's statement to be pretty believable. If a baby is born without a birth certificate, then what on earth is going on with that family? The answer is, We don't know, but I'd be willing to guess that babies not given birth certificates are more likely to have health problems than babies that have birth certificates. To be honest, I'm surprised to hear that so many babies did not have birth certificates.

I think they were justified dropping participants who did not have the crucial birth data, which didn't include just race, but also birth weight and other factors. Without birth certificates, those factors could not be controlled for.

With data and critical thinking...

someone tells you A (SINGULAR) study suddenly contradicts all knowledge of the condition... it's probably bunk.

But here's some data for you...
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... nd-autism/

To quote the Apostle Paul, you "test the spirits." Or more plainly, you check out the veracity of the statement by finding out facts about the larger story. For instance, if someone says that vaccines lead to autism, it's a pretty good bet that story's probably bull, as we know the anti-vaccine crusade is based on fraud.

Yes, with data and critical thinking. Thompson has climbed the ranks of seniority for many years at the CDC where he knows well the necessity or accurate data and critical thinking. Do you know any reason, therefore, why, after such a career, he would suddenly admit that one (just one) of his studies was faked at the instruction of his superiors? Venture a guess? His statement about the intentional removal of certain data that, among other things would have skewed the evidence that had originally showed a 340-percent increase of autism among black boys who were administered the MMR vaccine before they were six years of age, isn't a singular study. It is a leak, an admission similar to the Watergate testimony of John Dean or that of former NSA worker Edward Snowden.

By the way, ScienceBlogs.com is no more institutionally valid than any vanity publisher where writers self-publish. In fact, it makes this fact very clear in its disclaimer http://www.scienceblogs.com/about which admits that "[t]he content contained in these blogs is exclusively attributable to outside contributors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of ScienceBlogs LLC." While its content is informative in interesting, it isn't peer reviewed and, therefore, lacks verifiability.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/c ... blower.asp

Blowing things out of proportion? Taking expert comments out of context to further an ideological view?

This is starting to sound an awful lot like "Climategate" to me.

Okay. I will throw some fact out there.

Autism can be diagnosed at birth.

The physiological markers are there, including the different nerve trunk paths that an be verified with HDFT imaging.

The excess of neurons that has been discovered in Autistic Spectrum Individuals are present at birth.

The supposed culprit in vaccines was themiserol. The study sample that they have pulled from crosses the date at which themiserol was removed from the MMR vaccine. Also... in that area, 4 different formulations of MMR vaccine were used.

Lastly... The MMR vaccine, according to this data/guy seems to only have increased the chances of autism of black males in one state...

So... given these facts... Let's ask ourselves something...

What is more likely:

That the MMR vaccine increases incidents of autism, but ONLY in one gender, of one race, in one state?

OR...

That the individuals are in an urban environment and fall under the poverty line and have not had access to mental health care, and as such, the diagnosis rate was really low. However, as marked in 2010, the rates of diagnosis in Georgia are rising significantly.

Yet, the rate of non-medical vaccination exemptions in the state is rising rapidly...

And... Let's look at this... I am the child of hippies... I wasn't vaccinated... I have an autistic spectrum disorder. I have undergone HDFT scans that show the same structures in the brain that are the hallmark of that. I would bet hard cash that I have the increased white matter in my brain that is another hallmark of it.

Vaccines don't cause autism... if they did, I would be autism free... I did get vaccinated... later in life, by my own choice, but not til long after a diagnosis. Futher... Autism was "discovered" before Vaccines were invented...

While the scienceblogs.com is not a verifiable source, if you pursue the thought line, research it and look at the statements made and actually read the study... you will find that he's right.

You also can't forget that this whistleblower may not have been blowing a whistle on anything. As the Snopes article states, it appears the expert may have been quoted out of context in order to support the anti-vaxxers' points.