CDC Cover-up?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't remember reading that. I do remember reading you ordering people not to post to you anymore.

Thankyou for what seems like an apology.



As I said before I suspected you would find a reason to dismiss them. What % of studies that you cite have been funded by the CDC or pharmaceutical companies? How many of those studies have severe corporate conflict of interests where the people coming up with the results are also selling that same product? There is proof that at least one was lying so if many of those studies were directed by those same people who lied in others then those may be faulty as well.

You asked me to post studies.. I did. Then you just came up with a bs reason to reject them. Those studies have not been retracted and there's no reason to believe that they are inaccurate. You say you were wrong earlier yet you CHALLENGED me to post evidence which came off as combative.. non the less I did despite reservations then you decided they were NA.

Do not demand people post proof if you have no intention of accepting it.

Last edited by riley on 08 Sep 2014, 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It sounds less like a cover up to me than a choice not to release data related to unreliably small group that would be, easy to misunderstand, and likely to distort an already contentious conversation. After all, has been pointed out, it isn't usually African Americans eager to believe in a vaccine connection; it is the groups for which it has been proven there is none. So, it would make sense to release the data for the larger group, while encouraging further study on the smaller group.

Third time... please stop making these personal attacks. (if you use the term BS, it's an attack)

I am not discussing your perceptions of my statements beyond the fact that I spoke in anger. I challenged you to step up and prove me wrong. When I stated that I wanted a simple solution to the upswing in autism cases... I meant it. If you take it as combativeness, that is on you.

I have stated that these studies warrant case control study methodology... Go back and read my posts to AspieUtah.

I will repeat the important bits... this quote is from the conclusion of a study
"Clearly, we cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the link between Al adjuvants and autism based on an ecological study such as the present one and hence the validity of our results remains to be confirmed. A case control study with detailed examination of vaccination records and Al body burden measurements (i.e.m hair, urin, blood) in autistic and a control group of children would be one step towards this goal."

Which has been my point. Ecological studies give indications, but not proof... the entire scientific community states the same. I have espoused a desire, repeatedly, to see a case controlled study that confirms these findings. There is not one study of this type.

I am not doubting the validity of the study... I have stated simply, that the studies face overwhelming opposition to the contrary. When you take the body of work that you are citing, and every study concludes something slightly different - one says it is aluminum, another states it is the methylization of ethyl mercury, another says it is an abnormal measles infection- yet the body of work they stand against states one pretty consistent thing (i.e. vaccines don't cause autism)... then the weight of one side must be considered versus the other...

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, is that for it to be considered scientifically viable, it must be repeatable... and since every study that has been cited on the vaccines linked to autism side has had a different conclusion of causation, they are not repeated.

So... What we need is a case control study... the one thing that has not been done.

I am relying on the accepted scientific research process. If you cannot accept the scientific process - your problem is not with me, but with the scientific process.

I can disagree with your methodology and points and be respectful... I reacted badly to your lack of respect to me and the others that disagreed. I am not apologizing, I am simply stating that I acted against my own ethos in that. Since admitting this, I have been treating you with respect. I ask for the same.

Riley: I am going to take another tack... you get angry with me because I stick by the scientific method...

Why are you so insistent, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that your handful of studies carry more clout than the 1200+ in opposition to it?

You reacted badly for the lack of respect for you? Oh wow. So you weren't taking responsibility for your own actions at all. It SEEMED like an apology but it wasn't. You attacked my intelligence.. yet now you again blame me for doing so. Your bad behaviour is everyone else's fault for MAKING you react... even though you have no problem insulting them from the get go. You are not my victim that is an extremely passive aggressive angle to play.

Man up and own your actions.

..and now you are explaining to me what science is.. what qualifies and what doesn't according to YOUR rules. That alone shows a lack of respect. It is patronizing. You may have judged me otherwise but I do not need to be "taught" scientific method from you. I am quite well versed already.

YOU demanded proof.. you CHALLENGED me.. even going as far to use the word "challenge" as if you were putting me on some ridiculous public joust. That was kind of personal.. and when you did it was painfully obvious you already had a go-to argument to disregard that proof before I even posted it. I don't even think you read them.


You cannot cherry pick science to suit yourself when it doesn't suit you.

That seems to be the CDC's job.

Last edited by riley on 08 Sep 2014, 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The whistleblower basically came out and said the purpose of intentionally omitting those black kids was to hide the higher autism rate. He actually said it was a coverup.

Riley: I have owned my actions. You want me to apologize. I will not do that, as I reacted to the very thing you want apology for. I acted badly, I moved on... I ask you to do the same... you continue.

You asked me why I stand by my guns... I responded with my reasons. You cannot accept my reasons... and get insulting again. You asked, I answered... I was not explaining anything to you except WHY I stand by my guns.

I didn't demand anything... I issued you a challenge in the spirit of good debate... in the spirit of actually getting proof to change my mind... because I am open to the truth...but if we take anecdotal evidence as proof of anything, there is a mystic vortex in arizona that has healing properties, Kreskin was psychic and telekinetic, and reiki works... And that just isn't true.

You asked my reasons, I gave them to you... You don't want to accept them... That's fine, but I have asked you repeatedly to stop the insults. Please do not make me involve a moderator.

You "issued a challenge" for me to provide proof when you had already disregarded scientific studies posted earlier. This was already an established pattern that you would just claim studies were NA even though you then proceeded to challenge me to to post even more. That is just setting traps and is not a honest way to try have an objective scientific debate as you claim as you challenge people to a game which you have already rigged already.

On response to your public challenge I even said that I would post more but suspect you would find a reason to disregard them. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and post some as a sample.. I actually went to the effort of finding reading them, posting links and cutting and pasting the content. I went to all that effort despite my reservations that you were not sincere.

...and now you want to call a moderator.


I would much prefer you go back to your "don't reply to my posts" stance. I actually did as you asked for peace sake.. yet you opted to engage me in this argument and then claim to be my victim.

So it is my decision, based on your baiting and switching and challenging people to waste time doing research we know you're just going to ignore (which is HIGHLY frustrating), I am not going to respond to your posts anymore.

If any moderators are reading I hope this will be satisfactory.

Last edited by riley on 08 Sep 2014, 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I did not claim to be your victim. Now, you are lying. You are putting words in my mouth.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf265794-0-60.html <-- page five, you started your aggressive method of argument, being exceptionally rude and disrespectful

then http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf265794-0-90.html <-- page seven, you started attacking me DIRECTLY... not only disrespectfully, but in a dismissive manner.

I insulted your intelligence, because you had done the same to myself and others.

I admit I did so. I admit that was in violation of my personal ethos, and therefore was wrong. Since I was angered by disrespect, insults, snide remarks and rude comments... I felt that my actions were justified, and an apology would be, essentially, a lie - and I will not do that. I own that my reaction should have been better worded and more polite... to that end I have remorse that I violated my own ethos... but not towards you

Unless the acrimonious "he said/she said" bickering over methodology stops and this thread gets back on topic, I'll lock it as irretrievably derailed.

I just read through a strange news report from Autism Speaks (yeah, I know...). Titled "New meta-analysis confirms: No association between vaccines and autism[,]" the report, dated May 19, 2014, stated that "[a] meta-analysis of ten studies involving more than 1.2 million children reaffirms that vaccines don?t cause autism. If anything, immunization was associated with decreased risk that children would develop autism, a possibility that?s strongest with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine...." No surprise, but it is interesting that the research would limit its findings to just 10 studies and not the hundreds or thousands that get trumpeted routinely.

The report also stated that "one of the three authors added the following epilogue to the report: As an epidemiologist I believe the data that is presented in this meta-analysis. However, as a parent of three children I have some understanding of the fears associated with reactions and effects of vaccines. My first two children have had febrile seizures after routine vaccinations, one of them a serious event. These events did not stop me from vaccinating my third child, however, I did take some proactive measures to reduce the risk of similar adverse effects. I vaccinated my child in the morning so that we were aware if any early adverse reaction during the day and I also gave my child a dose of paracetamol 30 min before the vaccination was given to reduce any fever that might develop after the injection. As a parent I know my children better than anyone and I equate their seizures to the effects of the vaccination by increasing their body temperature. For parents who do notice a significant change in their child's cognitive function and behaviour after a vaccination I encourage you to report these events immediately to your family physician and to the 'Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System'."

Now, that is an odd thing to emphasize for a group that has stated that, while "[i]t remains possible that, in rare cases, immunization may trigger the onset of autism symptoms in a child with an underlying medical or genetic condition[,]" the group "strongly encourage[s] parents to have their children vaccinated for protection against serious disease."

Last point first: I admit that this may be a result of my cynicism when dealing with Autism Speaks... but I believe they are covering their ass... strong encouragement to vaccinate prevents lawsuits at a later date.

the first points: do you have a link to the studies they cited? I am wondering if those ten were chosen for their numbers, or methodology over others...

Haha. Sheez! I didn't include a link. Sorry. It is http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/sci ... and-autism here. And, the study about which they reported is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0X14006367 here.

Why was this post trimmed?

If there was any commentary in it that the mods felt was off topic or continuing the debate that Conrflake stepped in on, they removed it.

I am hesitant to make any statements on this study. All we have is the abstract, and the full study is not available through my memberships and sources.

All my message included were the two previous messages for reference (much like the way I have quoted previous messages in this message). Is that now forbidden, too? Feralucce's previous message of X:33 a.m. was similarly edited. I don't see anything in the forum rules about using the quote feature in replying to previous published sub-topics. I amn't one to willing violate rules that are made public. It concerns me that my messages are being edited for content which isn't defined as violative. Is this what Wrong Planet has come to?