Sharyl Attkisson: CDC Responds to Allegation it Omitted Vaccine-Autism Study Link
We have excerpted this from Sharyl Attkisson's site - a daily must-read.
By Sharyl Attkisson
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responding to a charge from one of its own senior scientists that it omitted key data in a 2004 study that would have revealed a link between autism and a commonly-required childhood vaccine, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella).
The allegation was made by CDC epidemiologist William Thompson in a statement this week issued through his attorney. It states: “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a sitting CDC senior scientist to blow the whistle on alleged scientific misconduct involving a study article that he co-authored. In this instance, the impact of the charge is magnified by more than a decade of allegations from autism advocates who say the federal government and pharmaceutical interests have worked to downplay or hide associations between vaccines and autism.
A spokesman for the journal Pediatrics today said the publication stands by the study despite the news. “There’s a standard process that journals follow when an article is questioned,” said the spokesman. “Those discussions took place between the editors of Pediatrics and the authors of this study, and the editors concluded the research was appropriately conducted.” Pediatrics is published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which accepts vaccine industry funding.
Read the full article at Ms Attkisson's site.
John Stone, yes and thank you
Posted by: barbaraj | September 07, 2014 at 02:04 AM
barbaraj
I have updated the link - hope it works now.
John S
Posted by: John Stone | September 06, 2014 at 03:03 PM
what happened to the article?
Posted by: barbaraj | September 06, 2014 at 02:49 PM
POWER OF AUTHORITY!
The study is STILL FINE even though the conclusion should be theexact REVERSE!
Other papers are lifted from their journals simply because one author in 13 didnt admit he had received money for another study!
Here we have proven SELECTION of data to prevent showing HARM and a FALSE conclusion of NO HARM and that is acceptable after some UNKNOWN person or PERSONS adjudged that selection of data is ACCEPTABLE to completely reverse a conclusion which might EMBARRASS the government, the vaccine industry and the regulators.
So we must ACCEPT that all other research that shows safety of our vaccines is judged to the same degree of SADISM?
Just put in the DATA to show vaccine safety and it will not be QUESTIONED: EVER!
How did they CLEAR the paper so quickly?
Who looked at the data and decided to keep the paper as ACCEPTABLE?
Are we to be made LEMMINGS so that when we DIE, get cancer, autism and a myriad other maladies the RIGgers (regulation, industry, government) of vaccine safety can be found looking in the opposite direction?
Posted by: John Fryer | August 30, 2014 at 04:49 AM
Biological plausibility is dependent on the outcome of the research, not vice versa. Otherwise, why bother?
Posted by: Linda1 | August 29, 2014 at 09:46 PM
From the article: "The CDC’s DeStefano acknowledges that he and his study co-authors changed their study analysis plan midstream, which resulted in reducing the statistical vaccine-autism link among black boys. But he says they did so for good scientific reason.
'[Vaccine] exposure around [three years of age] is just not biologically plausible to have a causal association with autism,' DeStefano says. 'I mean autism would’ve already started by then…it probably starts in the womb. So I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association.'”
Any time they get a result they don't like they march out "biological implausibility." Biological plausibility is one element of the Bradford Hill criteria. But Bradford Hill himself thought that it should be de-emphasized saying, "It will be helpful if the causation we suspect is biologically plausible. But this is a feature I am convinced we cannot demand. What is biologically plausible depends upon the biological knowledge of the day."
Aren't they forever telling us that they don't know what causes autism?
And I've been looking around in epidemiology texts for the rule that says "if you get a result you don't like, you can just pretend it didn't happen." Maybe DeStefano invented this one himself. Let's name it after him.
Posted by: Carol | August 29, 2014 at 08:50 PM
To David M Burd,
Thank you for passing along information to others! That is what we must all do :)
Here is a MLK Jr. quote to keep us inspired:
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
And speaking truth about the dangers, inefficacies, and long-term consequences of both vaccines and our nation's corrupt and dangerous vaccine program matters!
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 29, 2014 at 06:48 PM
The specious, somewhat ghoulish tone of it reminds me of an old "Twilight Zone" episode in which the aliens from outer space presented the earthlings with a book titled "To Serve Man". At the end of the episode, we find out it turns out to be a cookbook, not a guidebook for altruism as the aliens had first led the humans to believe.
The tone is also disturbing to me as if individual rights should be unquestionably and categorically expected to be sacrificed for the collective good. Is that what they are implying?
Sounds like chilling IOM/CDC speak to me
What's next?
(Robotic voice and official "Public Health" sirens blaring in background) Comply...comply....vaccinate....Resistance is futile.......vaccinate.....the masses must vaccinate.......must vaccinate..........resistance is futile...............
First we discovered proof of vax damage in AA children, next it will be subset y, then subset x, and finally it will be the subset your progeny belong to.
Let us be firm in our convictions. Always.
Posted by: Handthatrocksthecradle | August 29, 2014 at 04:42 PM
Laura Hayes, you succinctly relate the myriad ramifications of vaccine carnage including mothers unable to pass on genuine health - thank you!
I shall copy/paste your comment far and wide - particularly to the gullible school administrators and policy makers who gulp down the propagada they've been fed, whence they mandate all the toxic vaccines to enter school.
Posted by: david m burd | August 29, 2014 at 04:27 PM
It appears all government sponsored research into a vaccine / autism connection ended in 2004.
From the IOM report “Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism” Executive summary:
“While the committee strongly supports targeted research that focuses on better understanding the disease of autism, from a public health perspective the committee does not consider a significant investment in studies of the theoretical vaccine-autism connection to be useful at this time. The nature of the debate about vaccine safety now includes the theory by some that genetic susceptibility makes vaccinations risky for some people, which calls into question the appropriateness of a public health, or universal, vaccination strategy. However, the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative. Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.
The committee encourages that research on autism focus more broadly on the disorders’ causes of and treatments for it. Thus, (bold in the document) “the committee recommends a public health response that fully supports an array of vaccine safety activities. In addition the committee recommends that available funding for autism research be channeled to the most promising areas.”
The committee emphasizes that confidence in the safety of vaccines is essential to an effective immunization program—one that provides maximum protection against vaccine-preventable diseases with the safest vaccines possible. Questions about vaccine safety must be addressed responsibly by public health officials, health professionals, and vaccine manufacturers. Although the hypotheses related to vaccines and autism will remain highly salient to some individuals, (parents, physicians, and researchers), this concern must be balanced against the broader benefit of the current vaccine program for all children.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10997&page=11
So the CDC cooks up a couple of studies that keep the vaccine / autism connection “theoretical” and "speculative", with no association, which allows the IOM to declare it a dead-end and direct research to everything else.
More plainly stated- "The universal vaccination policy is too important to be jeopardized by investigating the safety of vaccines".
The MMR's "normal" febrile seizure rate is 1/3500, 1/2500 when administered with a Varicella as per ACIP recommendation, and 1/1250 if the MMRV "Pro-Quad" 4 in 1 is used. There is obviously some synergistic increase in reactivity when they are combined. http://www.scribd.com/doc/120430481/CDC-MMRV-Vaccine-Data-Safety-Link-Slides
Posted by: Vaccine Information | August 29, 2014 at 01:03 PM
Thank you, Sharyl Attkissson, for your continued honest reporting...what a breath of fresh air!
What needs to be done is not rocket science:
VACCINE MANDATES NEED TO BE BANNED.
That is what our mantra needs to be. We, as in the American people, cannot continue to allow the forced vaccination of anyone since each and every vaccine carries risks, including many grave risks that are not rare as they love to state, risks including death. And it's not only the commonly-known risks about which we should be concerned, it is the destroying of a woman's ability to later pass on proper immunity to her baby during gestation and later via breast-feeding. It's the known and still unknown impacts upon fertility. It's the known and unknown consequences of not having these childhood diseases during childhood, and losing out on the protective effects that may have against other diseases later in life, including the diseases against which one was vaccinated. The ripple effects are infinite and not advantageous to our health.
Vaccine mandates simply cannot be allowed to continue. The system is broken in too many ways to list. If people want to choose to poison themselves and their loved ones via vaccination, and begin the process of decimating their immune, nervous, and cognitive systems, then so be it. They can then live with the consequences of ignoring the warnings being screamed by thousands upon thousands of parents and others who have experienced vaccine injury firsthand, of not challenging the status quo, of not doing their own research, and of not observing the current state of the vaccinated around them. But it can no longer be tolerated to have these dangerous, ineffective, deadly products be required for daycare, school, jobs, or the military. This madness must stop.
I challenge every person reading this to think about what they can do this very day to end vaccine mandates.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 29, 2014 at 12:15 PM
“CDC believes that this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal links have been found. Current CDC ASD related research focuses on determining how many people have ASD and understanding risk factors and causes for ASD.”–CDC spokesman"
Except for Dr. Thompson, senior CDC scientist. Does the "spokesman" speak for them all or just the liars?
Posted by: Linda1 | August 29, 2014 at 11:53 AM
It is now quite clear that the CDC wouldn't acknowledge an association between autism and vaccine injury even if it landed on their desks in their own data.
Because that is exactly what happened here.
CDC should be out of the vaccine research game. They simply can't be trusted to be objective.
Can any of the "science" that they've done be trusted?
Posted by: Louis Conte | August 29, 2014 at 10:58 AM
This part is unbelievable! "This week, in response to a query, the CDC stated that it is not currently investigating the relation between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). “Further, CDC does not have any planned research addressing vaccines and autism,” said a CDC spokesman.
“CDC believes that this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal links have been found. Current CDC ASD related research focuses on determining how many people have ASD and understanding risk factors and causes for ASD.”–CDC spokesman"
They admit they left out data that the MMR increases risk of autism in a certain group, but they "feel this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal link found"?! Seriously?! We need oversight hearings immediately, and anything to do with vaccine safety needs to be removed from the CDC. They just can not be trusted with the health of our children.
Posted by: Anne J. | August 29, 2014 at 09:40 AM
Gee...
the next thing you know they will be trying to find the "lost Dr. Verstraten data sets"
that they used for the "Thimerosal causes Autism" studies / for which the CDC held a secret and illegal vaccine industry meeting in June of 2000, in Simpsonwood, GA.
As we all know, sadly the CDC cannot locate ANY of this information and Dr. Verstraten is too busy with the vaccine industry in Europe to come back and help locate it...
Posted by: cmo | August 29, 2014 at 08:48 AM
It is stunning to witness .. first hand .. the vaccine cartel's highly-coordinated response to the frightening allegations raised by the CDC's own Dr. Thompson on a study that he "co-authored".
First we have a "spokesman for the Journal of Pediatrics" stating the publication "stands by the study" claiming "there's a standard process that journals follow when an article is questioned" .. and .. "those discussions took place between the editors of Pediatrics and the authors of this study" .. wherein the editors concluded the study was appropriately conducted".
When did those "discussions" occur? When the study was first published in Pediatrics .. or .. in the days since the allegations of the whistle-blower were made? Did the editors discuss this study with the whistle-blower himself .. being that he was one of the "authors" they based their conclusion the study was "appropriately conducted"?
Second .. we have serious concerns raised by former National Institute of Health Director Dr. Bernardine Healy .. in 2008 .. who accused public health officials of intentionally avoiding research "whether subsets of children are "susceptible" to vaccine side effects because they are afraid that the answer will scare the public".
This is precisely what the whistle-blower now accuses the CDC of doing .. 6 years AFTER Dr. Healy first warned them to not to do .. conduct research that possibly "identified" a subset of children .. in this case .. African American children .. who demonstrated a significantly higher risk for autism following MMR at an early age. Indeed, when they did identify this subset .. they apparently manipulated the data to deny the subset of African American children are at a higher risk of autism.
Third .. the Director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office, Dr. Frank DeStefano .. when questioned regarding the whistle-blower's allegations .. stated: "Vaccine exposure around (three years of age) is just not biologically plausible to have a causal association with autism .. autism would've already started by then .. it probably starts in the womb .. so I think from a biological argument, it's implausible this was a causal association".
Dr. Healy predicted six years ago the CDC would immediately dismiss any causal association with autism in a small subset of children .. and .. lo and behold .. that is exactly what Dr. DeStafano has done. His response is peppered with imprise language that a scientist ought not be relying upon .. such as .. "biologically plausible" .. "would have already started by then" .. "probably starts in the womb" .. "implausible causal association".
Everything the man said ignores Dr Healy's scientific hypothsis .. and .. what their own research identified .. that a subset of African American children can "plausibly exist".
It is sick and getting sicker as the years go by.
Posted by: BoB Moffitt | August 29, 2014 at 07:44 AM