Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: Take Me To Your Protocol
By Dan Olmsted
I am not a chi square guy. I'm an English major. I am in no position to evaluate the techniques used to calibrate the autism rate in black males, or anybody else, before or after the MMR shot.
But I can read. And when I read William Thompson's statement about the CDC's study on this topic, I was struck by the way it was constructed: “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. Decisions were made regarding what findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”
It takes a while to parse this paragraph, which sounds kind of bland and bureaucratic. The passive voice – decisions were made, reminiscent of the classic "mistakes were made" – doesn't help. And the data weren't merely collected before the decisions were made; the data were analyzed. One result really stood out, Thompson is telling us, and not in a way that suited their institutional purposes. They changed the protocol and the "statistically significant information" was no more. They wiped it out.
I bet there are reporters who read right over that. He's talking about scientific fraud on the most important health issue affecting America's children, at the agency charged with protecting them, not a gentleman's disagreement over decisions on how to apply chi square. The media coverage, such as it is, has wandered aimlessly along side issues, but the point here seems pretty basic: There was a protocol directing them how to do the study. William Thompson says he and his CDC colleagues didn’t follow it. And he thinks that's a big problem. Big.
So what was the protocol and how was it not followed? Brian Hooker, who re-analyzed the data, talked about it in a video interview with Gary Franchi:
"I have the CDC's original protocol. The CDC's final agreed-upon protocol came out for this particular study on September 5, 2001, and in that particular protocol they said they would consider race among the entire population. They called race a co-variant, and that’s just a term that’s used in statistics for a secondary variable, but they said that race would be used within the entire population.
"So what they’ve done is they’ve deviated from their own protocol, and, according to the whistleblower, the reason why they deviated from that agreed-upon protocol [by adding in a requirement for Georgia birth certificates] was they saw this astronomical risk in African-Americans, and when they saw that astronomical risk, they looked for any way they could bury that risk, and they reduced the sample size down to what’s called the birth certificate cohort, and that caused the association to no longer be statistically significant."
None of this, you’ll notice, has anything to do with Brian Hooker or Andy Wakefield or "anti-vaxxers" and their relentless and cunning war against humanity. Time Magazine’s question – “Did the CDC cover up the data, as Hooker claims?” – is ridiculous and shows just the kind of misreading of the story, and Thompson's own admissions, that I'm talking about. It should be, did the CDC cover up the data, as CDC Senior Scientist William Thompson, who co-authored the study, claims in a stunning break with his colleagues? In his taped comments, Thompson was much more passionate and personal, something the few news outlets who have covered it, like CNN, should have noted. Believe me, in other circumstances they wouldn't care less whether a public official who said something like this knew he was being taped.
But for now let's just take Thompson at his carefully calibrated word -- his own statement. That's quite enough.
Frank DeStefano, the study’s lead author, has defended the published paper’s approach in an interview with Sharyl Attkisson. Sharyl writes: “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.’” It was probably just caught earlier as those kids took part in government programs. He even said, "autism, as you probably are aware, is a condition that really probably has its start while the child is still in the womb."
OK.
We are really probably not aware that autism has its start while the child is still in the womb. Here's a scientist doing a study on whether the timing of the MMR shot can be connected to autism; who works for an agency that says vaccines don't cause autism; who believes autism starts in the womb, and who finds a way to change the one result that suggests otherwise, because he simply doesn't believe it, contrary to his study's own protocol.
Andy Wakefield told me:
"It is unacceptable and entirely fraudulent to: 1. develop an agreed upon analysis plan, [a protocol] 2. analyze the data according to that plan and find an effect that strongly supports the age of exposure phenomenon, and then 3. alter the analysis plan after the fact at all and particularly when the specific intention is to remove the vaccine effect. DeStefano's contention that they were justified in doing so (and leaving black boys at potentially high risk) because they believed that an age of exposure effect is 'not biologically plausible' and that autism starts in the womb, is laughable. The refusal of Pediatrics, thus far, to retract the paper makes the editorial board accessories to the fraud."
Yes, fraud. Lyn Redwood provided me with this:
"The Office of Research Integrity defines Scientific misconduct as the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research and Falsification as the manipulation of research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
"A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of results is not present. However, in such cases the intent may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail to support the ideological goals of the researcher."
All of this sounds familiar if you know the CDC's Verstraeten study, which is the thimerosal version of this MMR study. As Lyn told me:
"This is not the first time they changed their study protocol after seeing associations between vaccines and autism. They did the exact same thing with the thimerosal VSD study in 1999 when they added additional exclusion criteria that all children in the study must have received two polio vaccines, which took away their control group of unvax children. Only difference is that still didn't take away all the adverse neurological associations so they had to do even more data manipulations! Too bad Thompson wasn't working with Verstraeten and DeStefano back then."
I can’t help thinking of Protocol 007, the pet name Merck vaccine scientists gave to their massive effort to hide the failure of the mumps portion of -- wait for it -- the MMR, a fraud since exposed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit. These guys were a bunch of rubes compared to the CDC operation. They were stupid enough to pass around an internal one-page memo – basically, their protocol -- saying the goal was to show the vaccine was 95 percent effective, no matter what. By the time they were done they were using rabbit blood and weakened virus and manual cross-outs of data sheets and dumping big plastic leaf bags of evidence the day before the FDA arrived. And they were juvenile enough to name what they were doing after a secret agent with a license to kill.
One line from Thompson’s statement being quoted by vaccine injury deniers is this: “Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information.” The English major in me notices that the “reasonable scientists” sentence is five paragraphs away from the "protocol was not followed" sentence. I don’t think he’s talking about that at all. It's just boilerplate along with the sanctity of vaccines as holy oil and cooperating with Congress and being given a nice award by the nice people from whom he still draws a nice paycheck just a few years off from a nice federal pension (but don’t mess with me, I’ve got a famous whistleblower law firm from Ohio and a Congressman from Florida who really doesn't like you, Coleen Boyle).
I'd love to see this protocol (it might be a good thing to release now), and I'd love to see reporters pick up on the powerful evidence already presented -- by Bill Thompson -- about what really happened here.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.
I agree that this should really be published in some major venues, though I personally can't recommend any. I think we've been watching the corporate media hold it's breath, waiting for an official script possibly? Pull the ireport down or not? Float an approach trying to make this about Dr. Hooker and a publication pulled from sight. How does that work? Is it best to act like nothing happened or draw attention trying to explain how there is nothing here to see?
I'm still praying for Dr. Thompson's and others' safety and aid. It would be a relief to see those involved in a more public and open forum regarding all of this, not that I want to put more pressure on anyone under pressure.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | August 31, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Corporate media's anti-investigative-journalism movement outed itself ever more shamelessly this week.
Posted by: nhokkanen | August 31, 2014 at 07:32 PM
Annie and Linda,
I've been doing the Andy Cutler protocol with alpha lipoic acid for two years to get the vaccine mercury out of my brain. The information on the protocol says that the chelator grabs the mercury in the brain and escorts it out, putting it into the urine and feces (FDA certified to do so, for whatever that's worth). The book Our Daily Meds (and others) goes into a lot of detail about the dangers of many pharmaceutical drugs being excreted out into the sewage system, so it's a problem that goes way beyond mercury. We use a PUR carbon filtering system for our water for consumption. Another sauve qui peut situation, I'm afraid.
Posted by: cia parker | August 31, 2014 at 12:46 PM
And along those lines, colicky babies are said to be more likely to be "gifted."
Posted by: @Handthatrocks | August 31, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Hi Jeff,
Yes, wonderful, isn't it? Dorit said an hour ago:
"There isn't any evidence data was, in fact, changed."
So, the fact that two of authors, including the lead author have admitted that it was changed isn't good enough for Dorit. Evidence is only what Dorrit says it is.
Posted by: John Stone | August 31, 2014 at 11:06 AM
Newsday has picked up the story. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/were-you-lied-to-about-vaccines-and-autism-1.9189436
Of course, Doris R. is already posting negative comments about it.
Posted by: Jeff Stone | August 31, 2014 at 10:55 AM
In 2013 DeStefano did express at least some doubt about his opinion of ASD and womb, by using the word REGRESSED in de very last sentences. Those words should have been in the title, the conclusion and press realease april 2013 of that specific paper in my opinion. Also confessing that 'we found no association because we were trying very hard not finding it by excluding an unvaxed control group':
‘The possibility that immunologic stimulation from vaccines during the first 1-2 years of life could be related to the development of ASD is not well supported by the known neurobiology of ASD, which tends to be genetically determined with origins in prenatal development, although possible effects in early infancy cannot be ruled out completely. It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression.’
'Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism' http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/fulltext
Posted by: Cisca Buis | August 31, 2014 at 09:41 AM
TIME: "more unsubstantiated fuel from the anti-vaccination movement"
What anti-vaccination movement? Did TIME reporter Alice Park 'phone them? Has she got their number? Who is the CEO? Where is the headquarters?
There are lots of people concerned about vaccine safety [although that seems to include no one at the CDC or on ACIP or at the American Academy of Pediatrics or at the FDA or most of Congress and the Senate].
And then there is Obamadon'tcare. What is he telling his family and friends to do? Get MMR? Will his grandchildren get MMR?
Will anyone be asking him?
Posted by: ChildHealthSafety | August 31, 2014 at 08:24 AM
"… There are several pathways and variables that result in immunoexcitoxicity which eventually leads to autism. Heavy metals, adjuvants, viral particles, measles, excess glutamates, cell wall deficient mycoplasmas all contribute to neurological dysfunction and ALL CAN BE VECTORED IN THROUGH VACCINES! Happenstance? …."
*************************
Definitely not happenstance.
Especially when you consider that Homefirst Medical Services has over 35,000 never vaccinated children, who have avoided autism completely .
Posted by: Barry | August 31, 2014 at 07:43 AM
Marcia, the 340% number has been refuted scientifically. They seem to be satisfied with stating that the rate for autism in african american boys was 3x higher and the rate for autism in caucasian boys was 2x higher - among those who received the MMR prior to 36 months of age in this study.
Posted by: A Mom | August 31, 2014 at 06:10 AM
The bottom line is that vaccinated kids get autism, and completely unvaccinated kids do not get autism.
Trying to limit that fact this to just one vaccine, or to any one vaccine ingredient, is absolute bullshit.
Posted by: Barry | August 30, 2014 at 08:50 PM
What chills me personally is the theory that gifted children are more susceptible to brain injury due to their being a correlation between intellectual giftedness and increase in glutamate receptors. As far as I can tell, that is the one commonality in the subset of children lost to autism, the one thing that cuts across socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, gender divides and the one commonality that is so bone chilling. If you research the brilliant neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock or watch his lectures on YouTube, he explains autism, neurodegenerative disease like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, schizophrenia and even anxiety, depression and OCD as the result of immunoexcitotoxicity
There are several pathways and variables that result in immunoexcitoxicity which eventually leads to autism. Heavy metals, adjuvants, viral particles, measles, excess glutamates, cell wall deficient mycoplasmas all contribute to neurological dysfunction and ALL CAN BE VECTORED IN THROUGH VACCINES! Happenstance? You decide. While you are at it, reaearch Dr. Shyh Lo and his patent on mycoplasmas and his commentaries on these mycoplasmas causing many autoimmune diseases. Could these mycoplasmas, engineered for the purpose of biowarfare, have inadvertently gotten into the vaccines as contaminants? Could it explain why many swear to the existence of "hot lots" of vaccines causing clusters of autism? It is my understanding that because mycoplasmas lack a cell wall, they can be undetectable. To what degree are the vaccines tested for contaminants? How sensitive are the tests?
Now we have proof that black children are more vulnerable to the MMR. Is it possible that we might eventually find out that other vaccines are particulary and uniquely toxic to specific races, ethnicities? The one commonality I believe, based on anecdotal accounts and empirical observation, is that our children are inherently gifted, lending credence to the glutamate receptor/excitotoxicity theory, at least to me. The brilliant neurosurgeon Blaylock's theory would explain why the thimerosal causes autism faction, the MMR causes autism faction, the my-child-was-born-with-autism faction, the kids with Gulf war veteran parents develop autism, the lyme-disease-causes-autism faction, etc have all been only partially right.
Posted by: Hanthatrocksthecradle | August 30, 2014 at 07:31 PM
Sorry "Time" still wanting paid..my mistake money still in my pocket.
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2014 at 06:46 PM
Also, I think it is good to use the 340% verbiage rather than the "3 times more likely." For folks like me who are not friends with numbers, math, etc...the 340% communicates the enormity of the findings the CDC buried by diluting their data sample. Thx.
Posted by: Marcia | August 30, 2014 at 06:38 PM
Another...
TIME
Journal Retracts Paper that Questioned CDC Study
Aug 29
http://time.com/3222008/paper-questioning-cdc-autism-study-retracted/
MMR RIP
P.S. being a tight Scots I didn't want to pay for it yesterday, today, its freeee..
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2014 at 06:33 PM
The cause of autism awaits discovery of the brain injury that prevents normal language development. Many different etiologic factors clearly can produce the same injury in the brain. Prenatal rubella infection or exposure to valproic acid are causes of autism that develop in the womb.
In 2011 abnormalities of the brainstem auditory pathway were found in 9 (postmortem) brains from people afflicted with autism. The same researchers then found the same abnormalities in the brains of laboratory rats exposed to valproic acid during gestation (in PubMed lookup: Kulesza Lukose). I don't understand why these reports have not been widely discussed by autism experts? I pointed them out in several comments I submitted to the IACC.
Language development begins during the first one to three years of life. At the same time the language areas of the cerebral cortex are developing. Any disruption of the auditory pathway during the early postnatal years should be investigated as a possible cause of autism.
Oxygen insufficiency at birth causes damage to nuclei of the auditory pathway. More published reports of difficult birth can be found than for any other etiologic factor for autism.
Nuclei in the auditory pathway are susceptible to many other factors proposed as etiologies of autism. Lead poisoning has been identified in children with autism. Lead disrupts aerobic metabolism in nuclei of the auditory pathway (In PubMed lookup Bertoni Sprenkle colliculus). Mercury poisoning produced auditory system damage in Minamata Disease (In PubMed lookup: Oyanagi colliculus, Google: niigata minamata).
That autism develops in the womb is speculation, and not supported by irrefutable evidence. Less evidence exists for brain damage in the womb than for postnatal injuries likely to cause autism. Teratogenic or genetic causes of autism in the womb are also associated with characteristic facial features, and visible (via MRI) abnormalities of the brain.
Posted by: Eileen Nicole Simon | August 30, 2014 at 06:33 PM
I'm never sure if everyone realizes that the birth certificate requirement was required ONLY for African Americans. It seems like this is lost a lot and perhaps could be emphasized a bit more. We all get so close to the subject it is easy to forget that some do not know these details. Impressive and helpful article. I will be forwarding it to many. Thanks!
Posted by: Marcia | August 30, 2014 at 06:31 PM
Great article Dan. Somehow, this article needs to be widely distributed beyond AOA. Perhaps the way for this issue to get the attention it requires will come from the lawsuits. Although parents cannot sue big Pharma for vaccines, I think they probably can sue the CDC (US Govt) and the authors individually. I sure hope the lawsuits begin to mount up soon. Perhaps the lawyers will save the day!!!
Posted by: Michael B Schachter MD, CNS | August 30, 2014 at 05:58 PM
Unless Dr. Thompson decides to put his career and life on the line and take a real stand, there is not much that can be done. He says there was fraud and the CDC says there wasn't, and that's that. Remember, the CDC decided in 2004 to NOT investigate subgroups for susceptibility, so even when confronted by 7% of the population (African American males - not what I was expecting to be a subgroup, actually) potentially susceptible, they will not do anything.
Now if Oprah were to take a stand things might get interesting, but she probably only cares about her fortune. I wonder why Holly Robinson or Toni Braxton have not been interviewed.
Frankly, I am still surprised that there was any statistical result of vaccines causing autism in the population. These studies were designed specifically to NOT find anything, since it is well established that susceptibility is not equally shared among individuals. There are well-known subgroups of the population (family history of allergies or autoimmune disease, very high education and different "wiring" of the brain) that are normally avoided by just taking an even cross-section, so most of the CDC studies should find nothing. The fact that such a major percentage of the population could actually be susceptible should raise major warning flags to the CDC, if they were not so corrupt, and is probably why they stopped all research into subgroups and basically just gave everyone the finger.
DiStefano's response was utter bullshit. So he says he did cook the data but it doesn't matter because autism isn't caused by vaccines... because the very study he cooked and other like it say so and some other studies imply that SOME kids get autism in utero. Absurd logic, but I'm sure he could care less.
Posted by: Doodle | August 30, 2014 at 05:44 PM
Keep up the work everyone now's the time...
Annie your right on everything,another benchmark is how many MP``s kids are in the forces where vaccines are mandate also less than 1%.
News is getting out CNN below...
Fraud at the CDC uncovered, 340% risk of autism hidden from public
586,636
VIEWS
1,294
COMMENTS
182K
SHARES
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164794
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2014 at 05:21 PM
Another excellent analysis by Beth Clay:
http://bethclay.com/when-you-know-you-are-being-lied-to/
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 30, 2014 at 05:16 PM
To Annie Donnelly,
Saw a brand new documentary Thursday night, "Cowspiracy." It exposes how the vast majority of "environmental" groups ignore the #1 cause of environmental damage, i.e. animal agriculture. Why? Because they receive much of their funding from...you guessed it...those who profit from animal agriculture. Thus, they focus on many other causes of environmental damage, but not the one that outdoes the others many times over. Sound familiar?
So, it is not surprising that "environmental" groups avoid the whole mercury issue. My guess is that if we were able to examine their books, we might just find that Big Pharma, medical trade industry groups, and dental trade industry groups are major donors.
I highly recommend "Cowspiracy." A real eye-opener. Go to www.cowspiracy.com to see if it's playing near you, and/or to pre-order a copy for when it is released on Nov. 6th.
Wealth over health in every single arena.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 30, 2014 at 04:57 PM
Good point, Annie,
They claim that the mercury (which if spilled would require a haz-mat team to clean up) injected into people is excreted. Then what happens to it?
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2014 at 04:16 PM
I am starting to wonder if they let stuff out now and then just to protect their friends and family knowing they will be able to read between the lines.
Also I have a burning question due to the mercury in fish . If they are mining mercury to get it for teeth and for vaccines then people excrete it isn't that making the mercury issue worse and worse. Shouldn't the environmentalists care at least due to that?
Posted by: Annie Donnelly | August 30, 2014 at 03:51 PM
I think the pertussis vaccine has been the major cause of the tremendous increase in asthma and asthma-related deaths in the last few decades, just as the Hib vaccine has been the major cause of peanut allergies and peanut allergy-related deaths.
Posted by: cia parker | August 30, 2014 at 02:36 PM
Personal economics for those engaged in the professional-level lies. The economics for society is going to be the biggest disaster the world has ever seen! Lawrence? Lil?Still waiting for your take on this.
Posted by: cia parker | August 30, 2014 at 02:34 PM
Question to Dan or anyone:
How is this cooking of the data and violating the study protocol any different than what Dr. Edwin Trevathan did when he told Dr. Thompson to exclude the highly significant thimerosal-tic data from the 2009 study? Seems very similar to me: i.e. take data on tics...then realize that tics in kids are HUGELY related to the thimerosal in the vaccines they were given...then backtrack and say that the "right" people weren't taking the data, so therefore exclude it so the ugly, sordid truth won't be revealed to the public.
Can we loop this in with the next summary/analysis, as I feel it's on the exact same level of fraud and illegal behavior as what went on with the MMR study (not to mention many other CDC-sponsored meetings, studies, and investigations!).
Thanks in advance for any insights offered.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 30, 2014 at 02:32 PM
San Diago Examiner
Autism caused by MMR Vaccine: CDC cover up exposed by CDC Whistle-blower
http://www.examiner.com/article/autism-caused-by-mmr-vaccine-cdc-cover-up-exposed-by-cdc-whistleblower
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2014 at 02:29 PM
It would be naïve to expect anything less than a "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" line of defense from the CDC.
You know how those gangstas roll.
Plutocratic control of the media notwithstanding (courtesy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) - only one child spared autism is still one child spared autism - I don't care if we have to resort to using word of mouth alone.
Besides, greater movements in history have gained impetus just through word of mouth alone.
We all must do what we can in spreading the word.
Posted by: Handthatrocksthecradle | August 30, 2014 at 02:17 PM
Excellent analysis of the situation, Dan.
Would it be possible to try to submit this to some major national papers as an Op-Ed, just to see what happens?? I, of course, won't hold my breath...but maybe by some miracle...
Sharing this fabulous article now, with or without the help of our immoral mainstream media!
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 30, 2014 at 01:58 PM
That should have been, one simple answer: ECONOMICS!
Posted by: Jen | August 30, 2014 at 01:23 PM
Theres one simple answer to this: economics. We can't afford to keep losing so many kids.
Posted by: Jen | August 30, 2014 at 01:14 PM
From a few years back... medical fraud princess Dr. Nancy, talks about Dr. Wakefield and the MMR vaccine...
The Today show, January 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mDLIug6f0
UK medical / MMR vaccine genius Brian Deer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX2Rq1jM0mU
Posted by: cmo | August 30, 2014 at 01:04 PM
One thing this last week illustrates for me is that the "Big Lie" has become an impermeable reality. It simply doesn't get any plainer than what Thompson said:
“. . . my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information. Decisions were made regarding what findings to report after the data were collected."
This stark, unequivocal truth collided against the Big Lie, activating its smoke machine, and soon our cultural air was filled with the venomous and the bizarre, from Daily Kos to the Seattle Times and CNN.
For those living the lie, the fact that DeStefano admits what Thompson said is true does not matter. Only support for the Big Lie matters:
‘[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.’”
Frank knew what to say, and news editors across the nation waited for the official Lie before covering the story.
You have to wonder, if a plain English statement from a CDC whistle blower can't penetrate the Big Lie, what can?
Nothing.
As long as we live in a plutocracy, as long as government and media are subservient to the monied interests, nothing can.
Posted by: David Taylor | August 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Better yet, if federal funds were used to conduct studies, and this data was found to have been manipulated to adversely affect a particular race, namely African-Americans, isn't this a violation of Title VI or IX (I forget which) and subject to legal action based on civil rights violations? Can it meet criteria as a hate crime?
Isn't the job of the FBI to investigate hate crimes? If these vaccines adversely affected black children around the world, what recourse do citizens from other countries have? Can they sue as well? What about the UN's ICC? Would they have jurisdiction?
I have so many legal questions.
BTW, I am aware that one of the authors of this study in question appears to be African-American.
Posted by: Handthatrocksthecradle | August 30, 2014 at 12:26 PM
All I can say is I have waited 30+ years for something like this. And that we cannot allow them to get away with this.
PS Thank you, Dan.
Posted by: Sandy Gottstein | August 30, 2014 at 11:50 AM
In graduate school the oversight committee for statistics of our papers would never have allowed what they did. One could not get a result and THEN change the data to fit a result. Basically what they have done is made the data fit a pre-determined outcome they wanted of their hypothesis. That is NOT science.
It is also NOT science to prevent others from accessing your raw data (think VSD). In order for it to be "good" science, it must be testable and repeatable.
Posted by: Dook's Dad | August 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM
The thing is, when the next ADDM autism report comes out as to autism prevalence, if the number is again higher there will have to be some level of panic if it keeps going up (along with the mandates like flu shots!).
The other interesting stat to keep an eye on is vaccine compliance itself. The trust will be eroding more than ever due to the CDC's spammy response.
Posted by: Truth seeker 2 | August 30, 2014 at 10:58 AM
John,
You said “De Stefano admits he altered the data to cover the very association the study was set up to detect, and then they gave another reason for doing so.”
Yes, he did admit it. And then his reported “biological plausibility” argument for altering the data is based on a hypothesis that all autism starts in the womb.
“’[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.’”See http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-responds-to-allegation-it-omitted-vaccine-autism-study-link-576 .
So not only did he admit that he omitted from the study a significant association between MMR from birth to 36 months in African American babies, but then he admits that he covered it up basing it on a "tobacco science" hypothesis (lung cancer can't come from smoking if it starts in the womb). This is truly “tobacco science” at its worst.
See http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/06/post-1.html and http://radyananda.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/2008-rfk-jr-speech-on-cdc-cover-up-of-vaccine-autism-link-video-and-transcript/ .
Posted by: Jim Thompson | August 30, 2014 at 10:39 AM
Your reporter status and your English major served you well here. While I have J's birth certificate here from 1997 with no boxes to fill in for mother's education, infant's gestation time, birth weight, ethnic background--the birth certificate claim is a joke. I also highly doubt the birth certificate changed from 1994 to 1997(the study claiming 1994 was the last year used for birth information).The jig is up CDC
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | August 30, 2014 at 10:26 AM
There is a clear pattern of playing with the data until you get the results that protect the program. Then a press release is issued declaring that vaccines are safe and Paul Offit calls a press conference.
Digging into DeStephano's statement, it is clear that he had a bias against EVER finding an association between MMR and autism.
Posted by: Louis Conte | August 30, 2014 at 10:17 AM
Jim
DeStefano admits he altered the data to cover the very association the the study was set up to detect, and then they gave another reason for doing so. The evidence is that this has been done many times with CDC performed or coordinated studies related to vaccines and autism: the difference is only in this case that two of the authors in their own and different ways have now admitted it. But the evidence is blatantly there that already this has been done many times over. Nor did it matter how many times these associations turned up and had to be covered over it did not stop them insisting that the evidence was against a relation.
Posted by: John Stone | August 30, 2014 at 09:53 AM
Dr. Frank Destefano, CDC Director of Immunization Safety, reportedly told Sharyl Attkisson in a phone interview “I’ll reiterate that the evidence, thus far, the weight of the evidence, is against a causal association between vaccines and autism.”
See http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-responds-to-allegation-it-omitted-vaccine-autism-study-link-576 .
His use of the “weight of evidence” term is nonsense here. It is nonsense to ignore associations of risk when they have not been shown to be incorrect. See http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/02/cdc-more-evidence-of-a-mercury-over-up.html .
Dr. Frank Destafano is an industrial scientist. He has declared that Thimerosal preserved vaccine (with mercury at 50,000 parts per billion) injections into children and pregnant women are safe.
And we now have evidence that he participated in a crooked study in 2004 . Also he coauthored another similar study in 2013 that did not find an association. Who would believe any of his co-authored studies now? See http://www.jpeds.com/content/JPEDSDeStefano .
There is a cover-up here. This is what Dr. William Thompson is talking about to Dr. Brian Hooker. See http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/ .
Posted by: Jim Thompson | August 30, 2014 at 09:37 AM
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)- a statistical procedure for testing mean differences among three or more groups by comparing variability between groups to variability within groups.
covariate - a variable that is statistically controlled (held constant) in ANCOVA, typically an extraneous influence on the dependent variable or a preintervention measure of the dependent variable.
dependent variable - the variable hypothesized to depend on or be caused by another variable (the independent variable); the outcome variable of interest.
FYI
Posted by: Caroline McIlhenney | August 30, 2014 at 09:35 AM
parameter - a characteristic of a population (e.g., the mean age of all Japanese citizens)
parametric statistical tests - a class of inferential statistical tests that involve (a) assumptions about the distributions of the variables, (b)the estimation of a parameter, and (c)the use of interval or ratio measures.
nonparametric statistical tests - a class of inferential statistical tests that do not involve rigorous assumptions about the distribution of critical variables; most often used with nominal or ordinal data
nominal measurement - the lowest level of measurement involving the assignment of characteristics into categories (e.g., males, category 1; females, category 2.
chi-squared test - a nonparametric test of statistical significance used to assess whether a relationship exists between 2 nominal level variables. Symbolized as X squared.
from my Essentials of Nursing Research by Polit and Beck, published by Lippincott in 2006 (I'm not a bibliography gal.)
But I can read: Kennedy mentions Thompson on pages 78 and 80.
Posted by: Caroline McIlhenney | August 30, 2014 at 09:24 AM
To put it another way, was the purpose of the study to find something out or was it to deceive, i.e. pretending to look at the issue of product safety in order to dupe people?
Posted by: John Stone | August 30, 2014 at 08:10 AM
It looks like changing protocols in mid-stream may be a big red flag for all sorts of fraud and misconduct.
So, throw this on the to-do list: a law stating that all CDC and NIH and other publicly funded research must finalize their protocols prior to the beginning of the study and that it may not be changed or veered from and that all protocols and raw data are open access. (Does this already exist?) The individuals running the study should not be allowed to publish conclusions. Any conclusions should be provided by randomly assigned analysts drawn from a pool of volunteers and "drafted" scientists using ALL the data.
Wasn't this also the strategy Poul Thorson used: changed the source of the autism diagnostic institutions midstream to include autism-focused centers which had emerged on the medical scene after the start of the study, as opposed to emergency/hospital diagnosis sources, making it appear as if
autism diagnosis went up after the removal of mercury from the vaccines, instead of down like they really did.
Any scientific fraud using public money should mean a trial by public jury, and the jury should also make recommendations as to the fate of the study in question.
This is all really really aweful. Bad people should not be allowed to continue working for the public.
Posted by: Jenny | August 30, 2014 at 07:35 AM
Between 1978 and 1991, In a period of 13 years there was a 337% increase in asthma mortality among blacks african americans in the U.S, yet nobody seems to give a damn about it. This was not caused by vaccines, it was caused by fluoride intoxication among black youths impairing immunity and causing asthma from infant formula consumption with fluoridated water.
Posted by: Ron Eheman | August 30, 2014 at 07:26 AM
The crime doesn't get any more worse than injuring kids. Pharma et-al can name it what they want. The most precious things on the planet killed and maimed by the ones the parents rightly showed trust in.
I've cut the rest of my tirade concerning hell and rotting and how hell isn't hot enough for "The Pharma".
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2014 at 07:01 AM