For Ernesto, should he ever return

I just noticed your ignorant comment here. This article was about MMR - as to Thimerosal, the record (as everyone knows here) is complex, and simply spouting propaganda as if you know something special will not do.

Marshalyn thought there might be additional sources of funding for Thorsen's study. I read on the site for Marshalyn that Benedetta supplied:
"She (Marshalyn) is a past member of the Scientific Advisory Board and Scientific Affairs Committee for Autism Speaks".
That would be sad if Autism Speaks donations went to money laundering.

Thanks to who ever linked me us with the picture of Marshalyn’

She was at CDC in the early 80's - the same time ole Cherry was there, and at the same time my kids were sick, sick, sick from their vaccine reactions.

She is so sweet look'in. Flesh does seem to do a good job of hiding the soul.

Jack

Yes, and of course the Cochrane Review of MMR not only stated about the Madsen paper:

“The interpretation of the study by Madsen was made difficult by the unequal length of follow up for younger cohort members as well as the use of the date of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms of autism”.

and

"The follow up of diagnostic records ends one year (31 Dec 1999) after the last day of admission to the cohort. Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, it becomes increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis"
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html

it also supported in a weasel way (and seven years on!)Andrew Wakefield's conclusion that the safety studies had not been adequately done. They sifted 5000 related studies, reviewed 31 and stated:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

So they cynically propose that programme should continue even though there is no reliable evidence for safety. How do you get so many studies which don't really tell you anything? I guess the answer is that you have commissioning techniques like the CDC. It is noteworthy of course that this Cochrane paper did not even look at conflicts, many of which were undisclosed, and with the fundamental flaw that you had gangs of health officials investigating and inevitably absolving themselves (including ultimately Cochrane). The water is then completely muddied in the British media by the son of a government scientist and Oxford professor of public health (relationship undisclosed) denying the obvious conclusion that the programme is unsafe.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html

John

I just wonder, if the genocidal CDC officials bribed Thornsen to cover their own stupidity, ignorance and arrogance (by allowing poisonous vaccines to be injected to infants), or they were bribed themselves by vaccine manufacturers to produce fraudulent data on vaccine safety. It is not surprising that drug companies want to sell defective products for profits, they do it all the time (in fact they often admit that their products can kill or injure), but it is not acceptable, that the public agency, which is supposed to protect the public from toxic pharmaceuticals, conspires with manufacturers of defective products against the society. CDC officials should be severely punished for their deliberate crimes against humanity. They are not any better than Nazi dr. Mengele.

What MMR/Case control study are they talking about? That sounds like "no MMR" but is it no vaccines or no MMR?