CDC Scientist Admits Data of Vaccines and Autism Was Trashed - HUGE

a reply to: NewzNose

Vaccines MAY BE safe. That is a truer statement.

Vaccines MAY BE safe. For "some" people. That is even a truer statement.

a reply to: Shiloh7

nobody can do follow-up research on any scientific findings that are silenced and destroyed. he admits he set back autism research by 10 years by destroying the data.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Agreed!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Realtruth

What is your first sentence? Let's look at it again:

Proof that Vaccines do indeed cause autism-like issues, and that ATS members are being validated on their past threads, comments, and concerns regarding government cover-ups, and corruption regarding some vaccines.

I've emphasized the portion of your comment that you seem to be desperately trying to avoid.

Notice that you did not say "some Vaccines do indeed cause autism-like issues" nor did you say "a few" or "the MMR Vaccine" ...

Nothing in this information that is routinely dredged up from mid-2014 regarding a study from 2002-2004 is "new."

The report on the CBS affiliate in Atlanta (your vid) was generated from a recent protest outside the CDC. I know, I heard the protesters from my front yard as I left for work. It was a bit interesting for a day's news cycle, and a young reporter making a name for himself took advantage of it.

The information however, is from 2014 regarding a study in 2002-4.

I wonder, how is it you distrust thousands of doctors and medical professionals and accuse them basically of lying and shilling for the CDC and big Pharma, and yet this one doctor is telling the absolute truth? I'll let you contemplate the logic of that position.

I posted information from August of this year in which these claims are clearly disputed with evidence.

Participating in your thread pointing to the facts that disprove your vastly exaggerated initial assertion is hardly derailing anything

Most doctors don't know specifics. They're run through a gauntlet at school, and they're trained to follow a specific procedure. Years ago good doctors would only use antibiotics as an absolute last resort, today doctors are prescribing them like candy, so much so they're worried it could create an epidemic.

Vaccines should be a last resort. There's no reason to pump an undeveloped immune system with a bunch of crap it can't handle. But business is good. Hell, you go to a doctor's office and look on the wall, you'll see a wolf grandma, and the poster saying: "Protect you and your family, get the whooping cough vaccination today!"

My child hasn't smiled since he got his shots, and frankly I'm pretty #ing pissed off about it. Now he has a fever, he's pale, and he's #ing clammy, and when we took him in he was a totally fine baby. We felt pressured to inject # into my child that most doctors don't even have the ingredients to, and the kid will suffer in all social functions if we don't shoot him up, because the vast majority of idiot Americans blindly follow Fear Money and Big Business, under the guise of "It's good for you."

Oh, another round of "vaccines are from the DEVIL!"?

Polio was the devil.

Don't believe everything the internet tells you. Those people are not the wardens of knowledge. Everyone here has his/her own agenda.

Mine would be to deny ignorance about science.

a reply to: Realtruth

If "Some" vaccines are detrimental to young, old, or people with underlying physical issues then this needs to be out in the open.

That's my concern. Most people can probably handle most vaccines under most conditions... but there are exceptions, and concerns for every vaccine and every one in some circumstances. Dr. Thompson's work indicated that the MMR vax caused increased rates of autism if given before age 3 years, especially for African American boys, but all races/boys to one extent or another, and probably at least some girls. Other concerns are with vaccine cocktails containing multiple vaccines in one shot and/or doctor's visit. And so on.

And, of course, a HUGE concern is that we cannot know what we cannot know... for example, how many other clinical studies and/or reviews have trashed data that didn't support their preferred conclusions? The vaccine manufacturers pretty much have a captive consumer base thanks to mandatory vaccine laws, and are protected from risk by a vaccine court that assumes liability... and forces anyone harmed by vaccines to fight the government -- and our tax-paid government lawyers -- for recognition and appropriate compensation.

Lying, cheating, and hiding scientific data is nothing more than pseudo-science not fit for anyone.

Well said. This isn't real science. One-size-fits-all seldom fits all, or even most. There are too many variables. Real science knows that. Real science understands that conclusions can only be drawn when the same exact results are obtained under the same exact conditions. People and their conditions are not exactly the same. But it all comes down to money. If they can cover and hide the true cost of vaccine-related injuries, and keep their liabilities below their profits, they don't care how many people -- even children and babies! -- are injured... or killed.

Thanks for posting and keeping folks aware. I wish I could stick around and give you some backup from the usual forced-vaxxers that pounce on these threads (and the OP -- you! -- of course), but I've got a lot on my plate today. You're doing great though. Keep fighting the good fight!

a reply to: Flesh699

I am truly sorry your child isn't doing well. I hope he improves daily from this point.

I can sympathize with your concerns, but I was addressing a specific issue in my comment, i.e. the facts of the matter of the OP.

a reply to: Realtruth
This is an old story, and was handily debunked last year. Thompson's conclusion, suggesting a higher risk for autism among African American males, was wrong. Brian Hooker reanalyzed the data using Thompson's method and got a paper published, but it was so bad they had to retract it:

The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.

The hypothesis has been tested, and it has failed. He did not discover a causal relationship between vaccination and autism.

Edit: Given the personalities involved and their propensity to misquote, I have softened some of the language I used with respect to Dr. Thompson. Most of what we think we know about his opinions comes from the anti-vaxer establishment, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

a reply to: Flesh699

We felt pressured to inject # into my child that most doctors don't even have the ingredients to, and the kid will suffer in all social functions if we don't shoot him up, because the vast majority of idiot Americans blindly follow Fear Money and Big Business, under the guise of "It's good for you."

I am sorry your little one is ill. I am glad you shared your story, not for us here on ATS, the ATS Pro Force-Vaxers and the Anti-Vaxers have already made up their minds. Your post may help those lurking. I lurked for 3 years on ATS before I was motivated to join. To be honest, I think I learned more from ATS when I was lurking.

It is our own personal experiences that shapes us and impacts what we accept as truth, and all I have to offer is my individual truth. My truth does not invalidate the truth of another, and I don't ever want to force my truth on anyone. All I request is that no one tries to force their truth on me.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Oh, another round of "vaccines are from the DEVIL!"?

Polio was the devil.

Don't believe everything the internet tells you. Those people are not the wardens of knowledge. Everyone here has his/her own agenda.

Mine would be to deny ignorance about science.

Vaccines aren't the devil. But no one can deny that aluminum is a neurotoxin -- science agrees with that. It isn't as if babies and children have aluminum serum testing before getting aluminum with the MMR vaccine, and aluminum serum tests aren't reliable anyway because it is stored in bone and tissue. Aluminum has also been shown to cross the placenta and enter breastmilk in animals.

Aluminum in toxic levels can be a devil, too. While the amount in the MMR is considered safe -- what is safe when a child already has a significant level of aluminum?

This quote from Thompson is troubling...grain of salt or not:

"I shoulder that the CDC has put the research ten years behind. Because the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated."

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But no one can deny that aluminum is a neurotoxin -- science agrees with that.

At what dose?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But no one can deny that aluminum is a neurotoxin -- science agrees with that.

At what dose?

I think that's a pretty big unknown when you don't know how much aluminum someone has stored in their bone and tissue to begin with.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That didn't answer my question. "Science agrees with that". Ok, what does science say about the dose? Formaldehyde is toxic at high doses but absolutely critical to cell function in the human body and produced as part of the metabolic process. Saying something is a neurotoxin without mentioning dose is misleading at best.

a reply to: GetHyped

Exactly. Even too much water will kill you.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That didn't answer my question. "Science agrees with that". Ok, what does science say about the dose? Formaldehyde is toxic at high doses but absolutely critical to cell function in the human body and produced as part of the metabolic process. Saying something is a neurotoxin without mentioning dose is misleading at best.

There is plenty of research out there if you want to take a look at it. I don't want to point you to anything specific, because I am sure you would be more comfortable doing your own research. But you will find that it is a neurotoxin.

My comment did answer your question -- actually the first one did:

The aluminum levels in the MMR vaccine is considered safe. But if a child already has a significant amount of aluminum stores, then it could be that no level of aluminum is safe.

I'm not sure what you are asking me exactly. Does everyone have the same amount of aluminum in their body to begin with when they are vaccinated? No.

Are you saying that aluminum toxicity is not proven science? Because doctors do treat it. Science does agree.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then by all means point me to the research that states at what dose it is a neurotoxin. Simply repeating the claim without mentioning dose means either you are unaware that the dosage makes the poison or that you are actively trying to deceive me by leaving out this key piece of information.

"The dose makes the poison" (Latin: ''sola dosis facit venenum'') is an adage intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It is credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not a poison." This is often condensed to: "The dose makes the poison" or in Latin "Sola dosis facit venenum". It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (i.e., dose).[2]

The principle relies on the finding that all chemicals—even water and oxygen—can be toxic if too much is eaten, drunk, or absorbed. "The toxicity of any particular chemical depends on many factors, including the extent to which it enters an individual’s body."[3] This finding provides also the basis for public health standards, which specify maximum acceptable concentrations of various contaminants in food, public drinking water, and the environment.[3]

However, there is no linear relationship and also more to chemical toxicity than the acute effects caused by short-term exposure. Relatively low doses of contaminants in water, food, and environment can already have significant chronic effects if there is a long-term exposure.[3] Many pollutants, drugs and natural substances adhere to this principle by causing different effects at different levels, which can as a result lead to health standards that are either too strong or too weak.[4]

Generally the effects of different doses can be very different at different levels (not only bigger and smaller impacts depending on dose). Very low doses of some compounds can even induce stronger toxic responses than much higher doses as well as just different impacts.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not sure what you are asking me exactly

I'm asking you: At what dose is aluminium a neurotoxin?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GetHyped

Exactly. Even too much water will kill you.

Wait, are you guys saying that if someone already has a dangerous amount of Formaldehyde or water in their system, it's safe to give them more?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I have no idea how you have concluded that. I am saying: The dosage makes the poison.

So I ask again: At what dose is aluminium a neurotoxin?

a reply to: GetHyped

This is what the FDA says is safe:

"The FDA study found that the maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines. Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg."

I am saying that for kids who are exposed to significant levels of aluminum elsewhere -- perhaps those aren't safe levels.

As I understand it, aluminum toxicity is generally suspected when overt symptoms present. I can't imagine that happens at the same exact level in every person.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Where are we seeing a problem of people with dangerous levels of these substances being given the marginal amount to kill them? Don't invent nonsensical hypothetical situations around what I said.