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

a reply to: GetHyped I'm lying ? i is to blame to 800% fallacy 2000 -2007 Vietnam 5000% South Korea 3800% investmentwatchblog.com...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: thebtheb

Of course there is.

What's your point? That aluminum doesn't accumulate unless it's injected? That's not true.

No, my point is that injected aluminum will necessarily bypass ALL the body's usual digestive filters, which are many, and this makes it necessarily a lot more dangerous.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: mangust69

1) because of standardised testing and increased awareness of autism.

2) because north Korea are totally a legitimate source.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.

Oh please with trotting out that standardized testing and awareness of autism. That is hardly a verifiable fact of any sort. We knew what autism was in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s. The diagnosis of proportionally more children now with compared to then cannot be linked to standardized testing. The notion that that has anything to do with it looks like a desperate attempt to explain it away - as if rise in autism has not happened, and it's always been the same. It just isn't true.

a reply to: thebtheb

The incidence of all autistic spectrum disorders, and of autism, continued to rise after MMR vaccine was discontinued. The incidence of autism was higher in children born after 1992 who were not vaccinated with MMR than in children born before 1992 who were vaccinated. The incidence of autism associated with regression was the same during the use of MMR and after it was discontinued.

www.medicine.ox.ac.uk...

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: MRuss
This recent push to force all types of mystery solutions into our bodies on the pretense that it is best for us and the entire community is fairly recent. We didn't get all those shots when I was a child and we turned out darn well considering the only antibacterials we had back then was soap and water, and it was well water and spring water.

I don't know when or where you were a child, but childhood mortality in the US has been declining for at least the last century. So no matter how well your generation turned out, later generations have turned out even better (Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999). The ones that come after us will be even better yet.

Of course we only had one common antibiotic at that time. If we got an infection our own bodies couldn't handle. Penicillin worked just fine, and few people were allergic to it back then.

Even assuming penicillin worked against every bacteria out there, it does not work for viruses (or prions or, I assume, fungi). So no, penicillin was not the panacea you think it was.

I don't think this generation is better. This generation of children have the most cases of allegies, autoimmune diseases, mental problems, prescription drugs. So they don't get what are at this point some diseases that will most likely not kill them. The trade-off seems to be a lifetime of chronic illness.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thebtheb

The incidence of all autistic spectrum disorders, and of autism, continued to rise after MMR vaccine was discontinued. The incidence of autism was higher in children born after 1992 who were not vaccinated with MMR than in children born before 1992 who were vaccinated. The incidence of autism associated with regression was the same during the use of MMR and after it was discontinued.

www.medicine.ox.ac.uk...

Big deal. Children are vaccinated with a hell of a lot more than MMR. They still get literally 6 to 8 times the vaccines they got just 30 years ago. They only single out MMR because it's three vaccines in one. When they do a study over a 10 or 20 year period of children who do not get vaccinated at all compared to those that do, maybe we'd have something. But they haven't and won't. The CDC's answer to this: "It would be unethical to conduct such a study which would deny a certain group vaccinations." Meanwhile huge groups of people who already don't vaccinate by choice have been petitioning them for 20 years saying, "use us." The answer from the CDC, silence.

a reply to: thebtheb
But the criteria for diagnosis in the autism spectrum have remained the same for the past 30 years. Got it.

BTW, this thread is about the MMR vaccine and the supposed "trashing" of data.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thebtheb
But the criteria for diagnosis in the autism spectrum have remained the same for the past 30 years. Got it.

BTW, this thread is about the MMR vaccine and the supposed "trashing" of data.

True, but the CDC is an American association, and the study singled out black male children, not Japanese ones.

a reply to: thebtheb

True, but the CDC is an American association, and the study singled out black male children, not Japanese ones.

Not sure what your point is or why you claim the study "singled out" black male children. It didn't.


Did Thompson say that MMR causes autism in any group? No. Does he say that the report was inaccurate? No. He says that he and the other authors did not publish one subset of data.

He also fully supports vaccination.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

www.morganverkamp.com... -a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

Access to the information on the birth certificates allowed researchers to assess more complete information on race as well as other important characteristics, including possible risk factors for autism such as the child’s birth weight, mother’s age, and education. This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates.

www.cdc.gov...

The group which had birth certificates showed no statistical correlation between MMR vaccination and autism. The full study group showed no statistical correlation between MMR vaccination and autism. It was explicitly stated that the subgroups in the study did not include those without birth certificates because there was no way to determine the presence (or absence) of other pertinent factors. There was no "singling out", nor was there any coverup.
iom.edu...

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: MRuss
This recent push to force all types of mystery solutions into our bodies on the pretense that it is best for us and the entire community is fairly recent. We didn't get all those shots when I was a child and we turned out darn well considering the only antibacterials we had back then was soap and water, and it was well water and spring water.

I don't know when or where you were a child, but childhood mortality in the US has been declining for at least the last century. So no matter how well your generation turned out, later generations have turned out even better (Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999). The ones that come after us will be even better yet.

Of course we only had one common antibiotic at that time. If we got an infection our own bodies couldn't handle. Penicillin worked just fine, and few people were allergic to it back then.

Even assuming penicillin worked against every bacteria out there, it does not work for viruses (or prions or, I assume, fungi). So no, penicillin was not the panacea you think it was.

I don't think this generation is better. This generation of children have the most cases of allegies, autoimmune diseases, mental problems, prescription drugs. So they don't get what are at this point some diseases that will most likely not kill them. The trade-off seems to be a lifetime of chronic illness.

Got it. Better to have a kid die, or get stuck in an iron lung, than a kid that has to take a Claritin once in a while. Also, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

originally posted by: thebtheb

No, my point is that injected aluminum will necessarily bypass ALL the body's usual digestive filters, which are many, and this makes it necessarily a lot more dangerous.

No, it doesn't.... and how do you go to the digestive system from an injection???
Vaccines are intramuscular..... and they also contain very little aluminum which is excreted in a small amount of time.

Read my post.

You know I feel bad for that big boobed blonde girl.

I think her name is jenny.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Don't.
She's selling mortgages now.

a reply to: mangust69

If you bothered to read the original sources you would have seen they explicit mention that the increase in diagnoses is due to the standardisation of testing and increased awareness. Absolutely no mention of vaccines whatsoever.

a reply to: thebtheb

Another person who hasn't bothered to read the original sources. Why am I not surprised?

For those that keep on saying that Vaccines do not cause Autism here is legal proof that is does.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read:

n Friday, February 22, HHS conceded that this child's complex partial seizure disorder was also caused by her vaccines. Now we the taxpayers will award this family compensation to finance her seizure medication. Surely ALL decent people can agree that is a good thing.

By the way, it''s worth noting that her seizures did not begin until six years after the date of vaccination, yet the government acknowledges they were, indeed, linked to the immunizations of July, 2000, - DK

a reply to: Realtruth

A blog post 7-1/2 years old.

February 22, HHS conceded that this child's complex partial seizure disorder was also caused by her vaccines.

False. Along with the other claims made by your source. Geez. Did you or the blogger actually read the decision?

DVIC has concluded that CHILD's complex partial seizure disorder, with an onset of almost six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, is not related to a vaccine-injury.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


The decision says

aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.

The vaccine did not cause autism. It aggravated a pre-existing condition. A condition which is known to be related to autism.

We know that sometimes children with mitochondrial diseases seem to be developing as they should, but around toddler or preschool age, they regress. The disease was there all the time, but something happens that "sets it off". This could be something like malnutrition, an illness such as flu, a high fever, dehydration, or it could be something else.

www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: Phage


Did you read the decision?

In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

So what if there was an underlying mitochondrial disorder?

If this child didn't have the vaccine there is a high probability that they would not be autistic, hence the decision to give her the compensation.


The vaccine cause Autism period.

You seem to pick and choose what you wanted to see and understand.

They did state the seizures were not cause by the vaccine, but not other issues per above decisions.

a reply to: Realtruth

Did you read the decision?

Yes. I did. I even quoted that very portion of it.

So what if there was an underlying mitochondrial disorder, if this child didn't have the vaccine there is a high probability that they would not be autistic,

Why do you say that? Do you have some reason to think that the mitochondrial disorder she carried did not predispose her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism? Do you have some reason to think that she would have grown up without that happening? As pointed out, a fever can aggravate the condition. What if she got sick with a fever if she didn't have the vaccine? Is there a high probability she would have been fine?

Did the vaccine aggravate her existing condition? According to statutory (legal) criteria yes. That is why the award was made. Does that mean the vaccine caused autism? No.

originally posted by: Phage

Did the vaccine aggravate her existing condition? According to statutory (legal) criteria yes. That is why the award was made. Does that mean the vaccine caused autism? No.

Statutory laws have nothing to do with this it's a Federal case, and Federal procedures.

The Department of Health and Human Services rendered the decision per RESPONDENT'S RULE 4(c) REPORT to the final Federal Court decision, so the experts themselves rendered the decision.
www.uscfc.uscourts.gov...

I don't understand how you can keep denying the final decision that the vaccine didn't cause the autism.

If there are children that are at high risk for underlying issues, or even remotely possible to set off full blown autism due to vaccines, then they need to have a screening process to avoid causing it.