Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Firstly I would like to say that many of the anti vax sites that rubinstein quotes are highly questionable, with an agenda.

But with that said, he has also provided some very valid arguments which have been harmed by many of the sites he quotes.

With regards to type 1 diabetes...

Nobody knows for sure why these insulin-producing cells have been destroyed, but the most likely cause is the body having an abnormal reaction to the cells. This may be triggered by a virus or other infection.

Source - Diabetes.org.uk
That fact could imply that infections from vaccination could be a possibility.

As for Coca Cola causing type 1 diabetes, WRONG!!
I think you are confusing type 2 with type 1.

You discredit his sources and then link to skepticalraptor. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Yet another site with a blatant bias, only in the opposite direction.

What i find truly disturbing is the way you paint rubinstein as mentally defective. Associating him with schizophrenics, that is disgusting, as if schizophrenics are incapable of critical thought and subhuman. And you call yourself medically informed.

To rubinstein I say this.. on a site like this, you have to be very careful where you link to as sources. Avoid any "unofficial" sources where possible, they can easily be shot down by people with an agenda and the well informed.
Being shot down by either seriously damages your argument no matter how valid.
We both know that big pharma is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world, the medicine industry is one of the most profitable along with arms, oil and banking. Their side of this argument is very well funded and because of this simple fact and the extreme political bias due to the pharma industries cash being put in politicians back pockets means you have to work very hard to use data that is accepted as "trusted". This isnt easy, to say the least, but I think if you use the utmost judgement and cross referencing in your studies you will be much harder to shoot down.
The data is out there that proves government collusion with big pharma and plenty of "scandals" that are admitted and proven. Try to steer clear of suggestive data, but if you have to use suggestive data, then state clearly that it is just suggestive. Just some advice from someone that has been shot down in the past for using biased data from questionable sources, and learning from that experience.

Im getting a bit sick and tired of some of the posters tactics of derogatory personal attacks on posters that dont agree with them.
People that dont like being called shills should not call others "anti vaxxers" as if they have a conspired agenda.
They should also not bring into question another posters "mental state", its totally disrespectful and brings their own argument into disrepute. And its certainly not a tactic that would be employed by an "educated" medical professional, as they would know better.
Playing high and mighty and all knowing just makes you look like an arrogant arse, no matter who you are. I should know, Ive been guilty plenty of times in my life.

I just thought this needed to be said.

I'm not sure whether to believe that vaccines which are supposed to stop us from becoming ill are actually causing more problems than they eradicate. I for one, have never had any problems from vaccinations and neither has anyone in my family, but I guess that doesn't mean it isn't happening, right?

Are they keeping this information secret?

I know it has been some debate for years and years, but if they have evidence to prove what is going on, surely it is their duty to share that evidence with us so that we have that informed choice to make? After all it is the future generations that would suffer.

w0j22
I'm not sure whether to believe that vaccines which are supposed to stop us from becoming ill are actually causing more problems than they eradicate. I for one, have never had any problems from vaccinations and neither has anyone in my family, but I guess that doesn't mean it isn't happening, right?

Are they keeping this information secret?

I know it has been some debate for years and years, but if they have evidence to prove what is going on, surely it is their duty to share that evidence with us so that we have that informed choice to make? After all it is the future generations that would suffer.

The argument for me is that the pharma industry is based on making money...nothing else.
So with that small fact understood, it is in their commercial interest to cause autoimmune problems and long term illnesses that may not manifest themselves immediately.
A cumulative effect of the vaccinations could range from anything such as anaphylactic shock(immediate allergenic type response) to sterilisation(wont be noticed till a person tries to have children), drugs have been linked to heart disease which isnt noticable until much later in life.

The medical industry is not in the game of cures, it is in the game of symptom suppression. It is in the game of selling drugs, whether the medics(who are mostly in it for the right reasons, but not always) know this or not.
With this knowledge and with the knowledge of the history of eugenics and "planned parenthood" and "family planning" I find their motives for vaccination highly questionable. If that makes me anti vax then damn, Im anti vax. There I said it.

The people that are in this for short term profits and self advancement dont care about our children or our childrens children. If they did then we wouldnt be raping the earth of all the things that sustain our existence. And we certainly wouldnt STILL be selling the proven harmful vaccines to the third world. (EDIT: They also wouldnt be indebting our nations to external interests that our children will have to pay for).

I cannot understand that in the face of irrefutable proof of corruption of the pharma industry, that some people will defend them like they are guilty of nothing. That is truly baffling.

EDIT: Keeping secrets doesnt seem to be that hard for them, they did it for the McMartin preschool case, they did it after the Franklin scandal, hell they did it after 911 and sandy hook. They have been hiding paedophile like Savile for decades, for anyone to think these things cannot be kept secret, the evidence to the contrary is abundant. Even the kennedy assasination is still an ongoing conspiracy "theory". Even though multiple medical examiners who examined the body said he was shot from the front(as well as from behind), some also stated his body had been surgically altered, but hey they still claim it was just Lee Harvey Oswald, who was denied a fair trial and due process.

The irony being that, as the majority of people following this thread will have worked out, Anitgod and Pardon are both the same poster, he didn't cover his tracks well enough. Being educated about vaccines is not a sign of schizophrenia, but it might well appear to be from the perspective of someone who has a guillible and naive world view.

Antigod
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Pardon...

I've had an argument of this nature with someone with a schizophrenia diagnosis who was also into this conspiracy theory stuff.

You do make good points OneManArmy, just to clarify I only linked to Whale on that particular topic because they had it well sourced themselves, so anyone who wanted to learn more could early look up the sources. However, when there are people (probably paid) who are looking for any excuse to shoot you down and smear you, it isn't a good idea to give them even half a chance. You are right!

OneManArmy
Firstly I would like to say that many of the anti vax sites that rubinstein quotes are highly questionable, with an agenda.

But with that said, he has also provided some very valid arguments which have been harmed by many of the sites he quotes.

With regards to type 1 diabetes...

Nobody knows for sure why these insulin-producing cells have been destroyed, but the most likely cause is the body having an abnormal reaction to the cells. This may be triggered by a virus or other infection.

Source - Diabetes.org.uk
That fact could imply that infections from vaccination could be a possibility.

As for Coca Cola causing type 1 diabetes, WRONG!!
I think you are confusing type 2 with type 1.

You discredit his sources and then link to skepticalraptor. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Yet another site with a blatant bias, only in the opposite direction.

What i find truly disturbing is the way you paint rubinstein as mentally defective. Associating him with schizophrenics, that is disgusting, as if schizophrenics are incapable of critical thought and subhuman. And you call yourself medically informed.

To rubinstein I say this.. on a site like this, you have to be very careful where you link to as sources. Avoid any "unofficial" sources where possible, they can easily be shot down by people with an agenda and the well informed.
Being shot down by either seriously damages your argument no matter how valid.
We both know that big pharma is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world, the medicine industry is one of the most profitable along with arms, oil and banking. Their side of this argument is very well funded and because of this simple fact and the extreme political bias due to the pharma industries cash being put in politicians back pockets means you have to work very hard to use data that is accepted as "trusted". This isnt easy, to say the least, but I think if you use the utmost judgement and cross referencing in your studies you will be much harder to shoot down.
The data is out there that proves government collusion with big pharma and plenty of "scandals" that are admitted and proven. Try to steer clear of suggestive data, but if you have to use suggestive data, then state clearly that it is just suggestive. Just some advice from someone that has been shot down in the past for using biased data from questionable sources, and learning from that experience.

Im getting a bit sick and tired of some of the posters tactics of derogatory personal attacks on posters that dont agree with them.
People that dont like being called shills should not call others "anti vaxxers" as if they have a conspired agenda.
They should also not bring into question another posters "mental state", its totally disrespectful and brings their own argument into disrepute. And its certainly not a tactic that would be employed by an "educated" medical professional, as they would know better.
Playing high and mighty and all knowing just makes you look like an arrogant arse, no matter who you are. I should know, Ive been guilty plenty of times in my life.

I just thought this needed to be said.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmThu, 05 Dec 2013 14:55:53 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Rubinstein
The irony being that, as the majority of people following this thread will have worked out, Anitgod and Pardon are both the same poster, he didn't cover his tracks well enough. Being educated about vaccines is not a sign of schizophrenia, but it might well appear to be from the perspective of someone who has a guillible and naive world view.

Antigod
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Pardon...

I've had an argument of this nature with someone with a schizophrenia diagnosis who was also into this conspiracy theory stuff.

Name calling is usually caused by an emotional response, usually anger. I have done this myself.
It can also be due to lack of any better argument. It is also the first tactic in discrediting people that accuse others of paedophilia. When you cannot discredit a persons argument, the next best thing is to discredit the person.
Be careful not to fall into that trap, we are all human and we all succumb to our emotions and make mistakes.
Try to be vigilant, it makes your own argument much more compelling and much harder to resist.

Rubinstein
However, when there are people (probably paid) who are looking for any excuse to shoot you down and smear you, it isn't a good idea to give them even half a chance. You are right!

Exactly!!!

Dont make it easy for them.

OneManArmy
Firstly I would like to say that many of the anti vax sites that rubinstein quotes are highly questionable, with an agenda.

But with that said, he has also provided some very valid arguments which have been harmed by many of the sites he quotes.

With regards to type 1 diabetes...

Nobody knows for sure why these insulin-producing cells have been destroyed, but the most likely cause is the body having an abnormal reaction to the cells. This may be triggered by a virus or other infection.

Source - Diabetes.org.uk
That fact could imply that infections from vaccination could be a possibility.

As for Coca Cola causing type 1 diabetes, WRONG!!
I think you are confusing type 2 with type 1.

You discredit his sources and then link to skepticalraptor. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Yet another site with a blatant bias, only in the opposite direction.

What i find truly disturbing is the way you paint rubinstein as mentally defective. Associating him with schizophrenics, that is disgusting, as if schizophrenics are incapable of critical thought and subhuman. And you call yourself medically informed.

To rubinstein I say this.. on a site like this, you have to be very careful where you link to as sources. Avoid any "unofficial" sources where possible, they can easily be shot down by people with an agenda and the well informed.
Being shot down by either seriously damages your argument no matter how valid.
We both know that big pharma is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world, the medicine industry is one of the most profitable along with arms, oil and banking. Their side of this argument is very well funded and because of this simple fact and the extreme political bias due to the pharma industries cash being put in politicians back pockets means you have to work very hard to use data that is accepted as "trusted". This isnt easy, to say the least, but I think if you use the utmost judgement and cross referencing in your studies you will be much harder to shoot down.
The data is out there that proves government collusion with big pharma and plenty of "scandals" that are admitted and proven. Try to steer clear of suggestive data, but if you have to use suggestive data, then state clearly that it is just suggestive. Just some advice from someone that has been shot down in the past for using biased data from questionable sources, and learning from that experience.

Im getting a bit sick and tired of some of the posters tactics of derogatory personal attacks on posters that dont agree with them.
People that dont like being called shills should not call others "anti vaxxers" as if they have a conspired agenda.
They should also not bring into question another posters "mental state", its totally disrespectful and brings their own argument into disrepute. And its certainly not a tactic that would be employed by an "educated" medical professional, as they would know better.
Playing high and mighty and all knowing just makes you look like an arrogant arse, no matter who you are. I should know, Ive been guilty plenty of times in my life.

I just thought this needed to be said.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmThu, 05 Dec 2013 14:55:53 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Since vaccines don't actually cause infections your suggestion that this could be a factor in diabetes is moot.

To repeat myself (yet again) I used Coca Cola to highlight how spurious using correlation as causation is, not that Coke caused ANY form of diabetes, full stop.
I explained this in a subsequent post.
You must have missed it.

I used skepticalraptor as this had an explanation of the study.
I linked the published study in a subsequent post.
You must have missed it.
Here it is again.
www.febrilnotropeni.net...

No doubt though this is a huge conspiracy and the facts are wrong and the government etc etc etc.

Now I hope you are talking about another poster when you go on about "painting people as mentally defective". Read my posts, that's something I've not suggested.
I did say (and still believe) that he has multiple usernames though.
Also for the personal attacks, none have been more direct than the ones from Rubinstein.
Again, re-read the posts. It's all there.
In fact I think I've been quite reserved in my replies to him/her.

Whilst I may have been a bit hasty calling you anti-vax, from the evidence in this thread I have certainly been vindicated.

As you go on about big pharma and funding etc, remember, the guy who snowballed all of this anti-vax nonsense was paid over £400,000 to do so.
Rubinstein linked to another study which was faked and fudged specifically to promote the authors own "safe" vaccine site.
Anti-vax promoters aren't that short of cash.
www.harpocratesspeaks.com...

Then you've got the money coming in from the law firms.
www.vaccineinjurylawproject.com...
They'll even fill out the report for you (naturally, for a fee of course. They've been caught doing that before as well).
No doubt you'll view these lawyers as some sort of altruistic band of crusaders in the fight against the man but the reality can't be more the opposite.
Parasitic shylocks after their pound of flesh.

As for me and Antigod being the same person, Rubinstein has used the old turn-around-the-argument earlier in the thread and it didn't work then and guess what, it's not working now.

Not once have I disagreed with the fact that pharma can be corrupt. In fact I've agreed with it more than once.
What I can't agree with is bad science and whether that comes from pharma or the likes of Rebecca Carley (whose mental state I certainly can comment upon, as she's been certified) or Whale.to I will disagree with it. And that's what I've done in this thread.

However, like I've said I'm not arguing specifically with you two as you both seem to be caught up in a belief system which completely disregards the scientific aspects of, well, anything so any debate using science will be by default, futile.
Similar to you both trying to convince me with conjecture and testimony.
And especially, Rubinstein, fake science.

Pardon?

However, like I've said I'm not arguing specifically with you two as you both seem to be caught up in a belief system which completely disregards the scientific aspects of, well, anything so any debate using science will be by default, futile.
Similar to you both trying to convince me with conjecture and testimony.
And especially, Rubinstein, fake science.

My belief system is one of truth, integrity, justice and honour. Its a belief system Im happy to follow.

As for me trying to convince you with conjecture and testimony, thats just a blatant lie.
I have only provided facts from official sources and my interpretation of the data, and background as to why I hold my position. In an attempt to show my honesty. But that seems to be lost on some people.
You have repeatedly resorted to name calling and derogatory remarks and blatant lies, like calling my argument lacking in facts.
Im studying various so called conspiracy "theories", Im looking at the big picture, and its not a pretty picture at all, its quite disgusting and very depressing the scale and depravity of the corruption that pervades our "civilised" society.
Its disgusting that true(later proven) conspiracies are so easily covered up.
Ive seen how true conspiracies have been covered up and its amazing how the tactics are usually the same.
Maybe this makes me a little biased, Id be first to admit it. In the face of the facts, its very hard not to be.

EDIT: I would never call a lawyer altruistic or caring. NEVER. Everyone who has something to sell has an agenda. The depths they will go to push that agenda can be as bad on all sides of all arguments. I WILL NEVER DENY THAT, rather I would enthusiastically expose it.

EDIT2: I would also like to ask.... If deliberately injecting a live or otherwise virus into a child isnt infection, then what the hell is it?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

However, like I've said I'm not arguing specifically with you two as you both seem to be caught up in a belief system which completely disregards the scientific aspects of, well, anything so any debate using science will be by default, futile.
Similar to you both trying to convince me with conjecture and testimony.
And especially, Rubinstein, fake science.

My belief system is one of truth, integrity, justice and honour. Its a belief system Im happy to follow.

As for me trying to convince you with conjecture and testimony, thats just a blatant lie.
I have only provided facts from official sources and my interpretation of the data, and background as to why I hold my position. In an attempt to show my honesty. But that seems to be lost on some people.
You have repeatedly resorted to name calling and derogatory remarks and blatant lies, like calling my argument lacking in facts.
Im studying various so called conspiracy "theories", Im looking at the big picture, and its not a pretty picture at all, its quite disgusting and very depressing the scale and depravity of the corruption that pervades our "civilised" society.
Its disgusting that true(later proven) conspiracies are so easily covered up.
Ive seen how true conspiracies have been covered up and its amazing how the tactics are usually the same.
Maybe this makes me a little biased, Id be first to admit it. In the face of the facts, its very hard not to be.

EDIT: I would never call a lawyer altruistic or caring. NEVER. Everyone who has something to sell has an agenda. The depths they will go to push that agenda can be as bad on all sides of all arguments. I WILL NEVER DENY THAT, rather I would enthusiastically expose it.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmThu, 05 Dec 2013 17:12:46 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Well, all being said, it's a belief system, so it's based upon belief however you wish to paint it.
One man's meat etc (pun intended).

The "you" I was using was plural. You have most of the time personally used decent evidence which I like to think I've explained why your interpretation is misunderstood. The other part of the "you" blatantly hasn't.
As for the name calling, well I think we've all been guilty of that haven't we, either directly or by insinuation.
I'm still worried about your lack of disgreement of the anti side though if you're as impartial as you believe.

The reason I got "into" vaccinations was just before my daughter was born and my wife said she was worried about vaccinating her after she heard they could be problematic. Given the person I am I looked into this and was very worried at what I was reading. However, the more I drilled down, the less factual information I found to confirm the fears and nearly 15 years later I've seen absolutely nothing whatsoever to confirm them even the slightest.
Absolutely everything I've read just confirms just how safe and beneficial they are.
I'm severely allergic to NSAIDs to the point of analphylaxis (I ended up in resus last time I mistakenly had one. I doubt if I would make it that far if I had one again), aspirin, ibuprofen, voltarol etc so I'm ridiculously cautious around any medication whatsoever. This ridiculous caution is amplified where my children are involved. If I thought for one second that they could come to any harm whatsoever they wouldn't have them.

There are conspiracies out there, I know that from personal experience.
There are also pretty huge businesses built from countering fabricated conspiracies, the anti-vax one being one of the most profitable. And these are businesses which money is the only factor involved, there are no other benefits to anyone else at all, only harm.

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

However, like I've said I'm not arguing specifically with you two as you both seem to be caught up in a belief system which completely disregards the scientific aspects of, well, anything so any debate using science will be by default, futile.
Similar to you both trying to convince me with conjecture and testimony.
And especially, Rubinstein, fake science.

My belief system is one of truth, integrity, justice and honour. Its a belief system Im happy to follow.

As for me trying to convince you with conjecture and testimony, thats just a blatant lie.
I have only provided facts from official sources and my interpretation of the data, and background as to why I hold my position. In an attempt to show my honesty. But that seems to be lost on some people.
You have repeatedly resorted to name calling and derogatory remarks and blatant lies, like calling my argument lacking in facts.
Im studying various so called conspiracy "theories", Im looking at the big picture, and its not a pretty picture at all, its quite disgusting and very depressing the scale and depravity of the corruption that pervades our "civilised" society.
Its disgusting that true(later proven) conspiracies are so easily covered up.
Ive seen how true conspiracies have been covered up and its amazing how the tactics are usually the same.
Maybe this makes me a little biased, Id be first to admit it. In the face of the facts, its very hard not to be.

EDIT: I would never call a lawyer altruistic or caring. NEVER. Everyone who has something to sell has an agenda. The depths they will go to push that agenda can be as bad on all sides of all arguments. I WILL NEVER DENY THAT, rather I would enthusiastically expose it.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmThu, 05 Dec 2013 17:12:46 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Well, all being said, it's a belief system, so it's based upon belief however you wish to paint it.
One man's meat etc (pun intended).

The "you" I was using was plural. You have most of the time personally used decent evidence which I like to think I've explained why your interpretation is misunderstood. The other part of the "you" blatantly hasn't.
As for the name calling, well I think we've all been guilty of that haven't we, either directly or by insinuation.
I'm still worried about your lack of disgreement of the anti side though if you're as impartial as you believe.

The reason I got "into" vaccinations was just before my daughter was born and my wife said she was worried about vaccinating her after she heard they could be problematic. Given the person I am I looked into this and was very worried at what I was reading. However, the more I drilled down, the less factual information I found to confirm the fears and nearly 15 years later I've seen absolutely nothing whatsoever to confirm them even the slightest.
Absolutely everything I've read just confirms just how safe and beneficial they are.
I'm severely allergic to NSAIDs to the point of analphylaxis (I ended up in resus last time I mistakenly had one. I doubt if I would make it that far if I had one again), aspirin, ibuprofen, voltarol etc so I'm ridiculously cautious around any medication whatsoever. This ridiculous caution is amplified where my children are involved. If I thought for one second that they could come to any harm whatsoever they wouldn't have them.

There are conspiracies out there, I know that from personal experience.
There are also pretty huge businesses built from countering fabricated conspiracies, the anti-vax one being one of the most profitable. And these are businesses which money is the only factor involved, there are no other benefits to anyone else at all, only harm.

There is not a single thing that I disagree with in that post.

As for my not attacking the false science, it is something I will hold my hand up to, I have been too eager to defend my own argument, than the argument of others. I hoped to address that in my post earlier with the advice to rubinstein.
Yes indeed, there are big business built on the back of conspiracy "theories", just like the big businesses built on the back of conspiracy facts. Like I previously stated, people that are selling something have to be looked at with suspicion, which is why I dont trust homeopathic sites or the standard "anti vax" sites or Alex Jones and David Icke for that matter.

The Pharma cover-up exposed by Congressman Dave Weldon, MD

Congressman Dave Weldon, MD, to Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, regarding a fraudulent CDC-sponsored study purporting to show no link between mercury-laced vaccines and autism

Dave Weldon, M.D.
15th District, Florida
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

October 31, 2003

Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30333

Dear Dr. Gerberding:

I am writing to follow up on our conversation about the article (Verstraeten et. al.,) that will be published in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics. I have reviewed the article and have serious reservations about the four-year evolution and conclusions of this study.

Much of what I observed transpired prior to your appointment a year ago as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very concerned about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program (NIP) in the development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal attention.

I am a strong supporter of childhood vaccinations and know that they have saved us from considerable death and suffering. A key part of our vaccination program is to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that these vaccines, which are mandatory, are as safe as possible. We must fully disclose adverse events. Anything less than this undermines public confidence.

I have read the upcoming Pediatrics study and several earlier versions of this study dating back to February 2000. I have read various e-mails from Dr. Verstraeten and coauthors. I have reviewed the transcripts of a discussion at Simpsonwood, GA between the author, various CDC employees, and vaccine industry representatives. I found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and independent review by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University settings who may have conflicts).

A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of mercury in childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data to make the associations in the earliest study disappear. While most childhood vaccines now only have trace amounts of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs), it is critical that we know with certainty if children were injured in the 1990s.

Furthermore, the lead author of the article, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, worked for the CDC until he left over two years ago to work in Belgium for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer facing liability over TCVs. In violation of their own standards of conduct, Pediatrics failed to disclose that Dr. Verstraeten is employed by GSK and incorrectly identifies him as an employee of the CDC. This revelation undermines this study further.

The first version of the study, produced in February 2000, found a significant association between exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism and neurological developmental delays (NDDs). When comparing children exposed to 62.5 ug of mercury by 3 months of age to those exposed to less than 37.5 ug, the study found a relative risk for autism of 2.48 for those with a higher exposure level. (While not significant in the 95% confidence interval for autism, this meets the legal standard of proof exceeding 2.0.) For NDDs the study found a relative risk of 1.59 and a definite upward trend as exposure levels increased.

A June 2000 version of the study applied various data manipulations to reduce the autism association to 1.69 and the authors went outside of the VSD database to secure data from a Massachusetts HMO (Harvard Pilgrim, HP) in order to counter the association found between TCVs and speech delay. At the time that HP's data was brought in, HP was in receivership by the state of Mass., its computer records had been in shambles for years, it had multiple computer systems that could not communicate with one another (Journal of Law, Ethics and Medicine Sept. 22, 2000), and it used a health care coding system totally different from the one used across the VSD. There are questions relating to a significant underreporting of Autism in Mass. The HP dataset is only about 15% of the HMO dataset used in the February 2000 study. There may also be significant problems with the statistical power of the HP dataset.

In June of 2000 a meeting was held in Simpsonwood, GA, involving the authors of the study, representatives of the CDC, and the vaccine industry. I have reviewed a transcript of this meeting that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Comments from Simpsonwood, NJ meeting include: (summary form, not direct quotes):

* We found a statistically significant relationship between exposures and outcomes. There is certainly an under ascertainment of adverse outcomes because some children are just simply not old enough to be diagnosed, the current incidence rates are much lower than we would expect to see (Verstraeten);

* We could exclude the lowest exposure children from our database. Also suggested was removing the children that got the highest exposure levels since they represented an unusually high percentage of the outcomes. (Rhodes)

* The significant association with language delay is quite large. (Verstraeten);

* This information should be kept confidential and considered embargoed;

* We can push and pull this data anyway we want to get the results we want;

* We can alter the exclusion criteria any way we want, give reasonable justifications for doing so, and get any result we want;

* There was really no need to do this study. We could have predicted the outcomes;

* I will not give TCVs to my grandson until I find out what is going on here.

Another version of the study - after further manipulation - finds no association between TCVs and autism, and no consistency across HMOs between TCVs and NDDs and speech delay.

The final version of the study concludes that "No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes," and that the lack of consistency argues against an association. In reviewing the study there are data points where children with higher exposures to the neuortoxin mercury had fewer developmental disorders. This demonstrates to me how excessive manipulation of data can lead to absurd results. Such a conclusion is not unexpected from an author with a serious, though undisclosed, conflict of interest.

This study increases speculation of an association between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. I cannot say it was the author's intent to eliminate the earlier findings of an association. Nonetheless, the elimination of this association is exactly what happened and the manner in which this was achieved raises speculation. The dialogue at the Simpsonwood meeting clearly indicates how easily the authors could manipulate the data and have reasonable sounding justifications for many of their decisions."

Letter continued...

"The only way these issues are going to be resolved - and I have only mentioned a few of them - is by making this particular dataset and the entire VSD database open for independent analysis. One such independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, has already been approved by the CDC and the various IRBs to access this dataset. They have requested the CDC allow them to access this dataset and your staff indicated to my office that they would make this particular dataset available after the Pediatrics study is published.

Earlier this month the CDC had prepared three similar datasets for this researcher to review to allow him to reanalyze CDC study datasets. However when they accessed the datasets - which the researchers paid the CDC to assemble - the datasets were found to have no usable data in them. I request that you personally intervene with those in the CDC who are assembling this dataset to ensure that they provide the complete dataset, in a usable format, to these researchers within two weeks. The treatment that these well-published researchers have received from the CDC thus far has been abysmal and embarrassing. I would also be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten, an outside researcher for more than two years now, was required to go through the same process as Dr. Geier in order to continue accessing the VSD.

You have not been a part of creating this current situation, but you do have an opportunity to help resolve this issue and ensure that confidence and trustworthiness in the CDC and our national vaccination program is fully restored. I would ask that you work with me to ensure that a full, fair, and independent review is made of the VSD database to fully examine this matter. I would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to move this process forward.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this urgent matter of great importance to our nation's most precious resource, our children.

Sincerely,
Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress

Even if a person was to believe in the theory of vaccination, they should not be trusting products from companies like this

Rubinstein
Letter continued...


Sincerely,
Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress

Several things pop out here.
There are no official citations in the letter to verify anything written.
He's a congressman, not a scientist.
As a congressman he goes where the money and/or pressure is from.
He cites "Dr" Mark Geier who I mentioned earlier is now no longer a doctor after his dubious "cures" for autism (he gives them Lupron, a chemical castrating drug).
There have been numerous other studies outside of the CDC's authority showing no autism/thimerosal link.

Rubinstein
Even if a person was to believe in the theory of vaccination, they should not be trusting products from companies like this

It wasn't vaccines that were tainted with HIV.
It was Factor VIII, a clotting agent for haemophiliacs.
I'm surprised at you quoting from the MSM but I'm not surprised at you being wrong again though, you're really good at that.
But since you did, here's the real version.
www.cbsnews.com...

Factor VIII has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines.

People are in jail for what happened, would you seriously trust Bayer ever again after they knowingly sold HIV contaminated products? I can confirm that it wasn't a vaccine as I've read the original documents, but if they're willing to do it with one product then they'll do it with any product.

Pardon?

Rubinstein
Even if a person was to believe in the theory of vaccination, they should not be trusting products from companies like this

It wasn't vaccines that were tainted with HIV.
It was Factor VIII, a clotting agent for haemophiliacs.
I'm surprised at you quoting from the MSM but I'm not surprised at you being wrong again though, you're really good at that.
But since you did, here's the real version.
www.cbsnews.com...

Factor VIII has nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines.

The official Simsponwood Transcript (PDF)

www.safeminds.org...

It's clear from this that there's a cover up, the evidence is all there.

Pardon?

Rubinstein
Letter continued...


Sincerely,
Dave Weldon, M.D.
Member of Congress

Several things pop out here.
There are no official citations in the letter to verify anything written.
He's a congressman, not a scientist.
As a congressman he goes where the money and/or pressure is from.
He cites "Dr" Mark Geier who I mentioned earlier is now no longer a doctor after his dubious "cures" for autism (he gives them Lupron, a chemical castrating drug).
There have been numerous other studies outside of the CDC's authority showing no autism/thimerosal link.

Rubinstein
People are in jail for what happened, would you seriously trust Bayer ever again after they knowingly sold HIV contaminated products? I can confirm that it wasn't a vaccine as I've read the original documents, but if they're willing to do it with one product then they'll do it with any product.

Phew! Thank you for confirming it wasn't a vaccine. I was panicking for a minute.
I feel so relieved now.
Pity you didn't do that when you posted the video though eh?

As far as I can tell, Bayer only make animal vaccines for the UK market and since the people are in jail who allowed this to happen, again, I feel quite relieved.

Rubinstein
The official Simsponwood Transcript (PDF)

www.safeminds.org...

It's clear from this that there's a cover up, the evidence is all there.

No cover-up as surprise, surprise, yet more lies.

That transcript was part of an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr (who as you will know is a fierce anti-vaxxer and an autism/vax believer) and published in Rolling Stone and Salon.
Not long after it was published, Salon noticed it had gross factual errors and edited the article to reflect this.
They retracted it soon after.
www.salon.com...