No Vast Conspiracy
Studies by the World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control, among other agencies have shown no link. No one goes into the study of world health to try to damage children. Pediatricians are not out to create autistic children, nor are they duped of drug companies. They are scientists and have been to medical school—just like the people who work for Big Pharm.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
With all of the money that has gone into genetic research why don't they put the matter to rest by studying vaccinated vs. unvaccinated? Who decides what studies should be done? Why would they fund a study that could prove them wrong? Until they do an honest study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, what you have is 'cigarrette science'.
Look up the "California Oregon Study of Unvaccinated Children" and the "Amish Study by Olmsted.
http://www.rense.com/general78/unvac.htm
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html
It is mainly the CDC, WHO and NIH decide which studies get done and which get buried.
“Look up the "California Oregon Study of Unvaccinated Children" and the "Amish Study by Olmsted.”
The California – Oregon study is of dubious scientific merit, and has not been reproduced.
The Amish are to genetically similar to be used as a useful subset of the larger population… and since the cause of autism has never been demonstrated to be non-genetic it cannot be ruled out that the disorder does not have a lower then average presence in the Amish gene pool.
That also ignores the fact that there are autistic children within the Amish community.
“It is mainly the CDC, WHO and NIH decide which studies get done and which get buried.”
The CDC and others have no control over what is published in JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, PubMed, or any of the other respectable journals out there.
There are numerous studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. This study: http://tinyurl.com/5eox6d for example compared records of children who had been vaccinated and those that hadn't. The risk for autism was no greater.
As to who decides what studies should be done, that is at the whim of interested scientists.
The comparison with cigarette science is invalid in this case. It was actually mainstream science who were pushing for the industry to accept the link between smoking and cancer, just as it is mainstream science pushing for parents to accept there is no link between vaccines and autism. Interestingly, Bernadine Healy, recently held up by David Kirby and various others as a friend to the vaccine/autism idea, once used to be part of a group funded by Philip Morris to advocate that smoking didn't lead to cancer.
Just a bunch of crap about H1N1 on the PubMed Site.
Were you hoping we would just take your word for it?
The address takes me to a PUBMED address with no pat the the article.
This article is MMR vaccinated VS unvaccinated on PubMed, though I don't know it this is the one you were looking for.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12523209&log $=activity
I hope someday a prevention or cure is found for autism but doubt it will be found soon as most of the research money is going to studies related to vaccines and they seem to come up with no link. What else could be studied that might help?
The California-Oregon Study, the Olmstead Amish study, the Fudenburg Alzheimer's/Flu Vaccine study all show a marked increase in neurological trouble associated with vaccines .
The CA-OR study looks ok but if Vaccines cause autism ; then where did the unvaccinated boys get autism? and why is it not higher in the vaccinated girls? The Olmstead is not a scientific study just a bunch of ancedotes. The last study has nothing to do with autism.
I hope someday a prevention or cure is found for autism but doubt it will be found soon as most of the research money is going to studies related to vaccines and they seem to come up with no link. What else could be studied that might help?
Unfortunately, Dr. Orenstein had it destroyed.
When I clicked on the link, it led me to the main page of pub med. I am not sure where to go from there.
Mr. Leitch,
Your reply says you have no side. I am aways curious about people who spend time on this issue if they don't have an affected child or are not a scinetist working on the subject. Do you fall in either of these categories. I tried to find the study that you referred to but your link just brought me to a generic pub med site. Do you have the authors name, country, the date of the study.
You statement the "whim of interisted scientists" determine what studies are done, makes me doubt this site's labeling you an expert. I don't think most scientists are independently wealthy and research takes money. Most science is paid for by the government or big business.
As far as cigartte science goes, there were plenty of studies paid for by the tobacco industy that rufutted harm from cigarettes. I don't know who Bernadine Healy is, but what she did or did not do in her past does not in any way relate to David Kirby's credibility.
My reply says I am on the 'no' side. Not than I am on no side. Just as yours says you are on the 'yes' side. Do you understand?
Simply clicking my name reveals my profile where it will tell you that I am parent to a severely autistic 8 year old. Not that that would make any difference to the accuracy of my answers.
The link is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12199617?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2 .PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
The question about who decides what science is done was just that - not who finances what science is done. Scientists choose to study in a particular area because it interests them. Financing is irrelevant. Science stands or falls on its own merits regardless of who finances it.
Your point regarding cigarette science is illogical and not in keeping with your original comment. The point I was making was that it was mainstream science who were saying smoking caused cancer and it is mainstream science who are now saying there is no link between autism and vaccines. I'm afraid David's attempts to prop up his beliefs with support from Healy do indeed relate (badly) to his credibility.
That's a summary, written by God knows who, funded by who the hell knows. If the drug industry funded it, and the research of the scientists doing it, they may have felt pressure to see no evil.
Abigail Schenkel asked the head of her university medical department whether a drug company researcher could keep her/his integrity. He said,
"No."
Financing is very relevant. Do you think Lilly wanted anyone to know all of the 30 original patients it tested thimerosal on were dead three months later? Because they invented it, they had an interest in selling it. So they left that fact out of the study data.
But mercury can take years to kill and all the subjects were terminal meningitis patients. No way to follow up on the long-term neurological or immunological damage in terminal patients, is there?
Those Lilly scientists didn't just decide one day to do a hopelessly flawed study on a whim. They were ordered to justify more uses for thimerosal with a bogus study that was a joke even by 1930's standards.
I appologize, I am new to this site and did not read your write up before I replied to you. I am sincerely sorry that you have a child that has been stricken with this, as do I.
On the other hand, I have to say it surprises me that someone with a 'BSc in Design and Computing;' is considered an 'expert'. I did see where you have had your opinions publisched in many places,but other than that I don't think your backround qualifies you as anymore of an expert than any of the other parents that are on this site.
The following link is to an article about 'cigarette science' at the end of it are various links to books and information that refer to that era and what the togacco industry got away with. I think it is ommon knowlege and not someithing that is considered controversial now. http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw464.htm
Sciece that is not funded is not done. Therefore it does not matter that a scientist wants to do a study about something -- that scientist must find someone to pay for it.
I was able to get an abstract of the study you claim was a study of vaccinsated vs. unvacinnated. The whole report was not available to me but the abstract description did not describe what I am calling for. I would like to see a study of the health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. Age and birth wieght matched probably good to have each pair of vaccinated vs unvacinated children be from the same area of the county and the same ethnicity and background. In short, cut out as many variables as possible. Now that would tell us something.
re: 'Expert' status. I agree with your caveats, but the parents that run the NAA and SafeMinds are 'Experts' so why not parents who took the opposite position?
I am not taking issue with who funds or doesn't fund a study. The questioner asked who decided - that was the question I answered. If we want to discuss funded science, then a good example of independently funded science is 'Vaccines and Autism: Evidence Does Not Support a Causal Association' authored by DeStefano of RTI International, an independent non-profit research group ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17928818 ) or No evidence for MMR-ASD link by Baird et al ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18447194 ). Gillian Baird works for Guy's Hospital in London.
I apologise for the previous link, it was incorrect. I meant to link to this study: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477
I am however, ambiguous as to what exactly a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study could tell us. The amount of environmental variables that would need to be eliminated is huge. I don't see how it could be done.
Is that the one where they dumped outpatients into the study population to make it appear that autism rates had remained level? Funded by a vaccine manufacturer, Serum Statens Institut?
No conflict of interest or flawed study design there!
Dr. Frank DeStefano was one of the more rabid advocates of the fraud and cover up, you can see his name and participation in the Simpsonwood transcript.
I don't know about the others. Industry hacks or quacks?
This says that there is no link to the MMR vaccine. I am still looking for the study that compares the number of cases of autism among those who refuse all vaccinations vs the rest of the population.
I would agree if the Expert status of those organisations is based on their having strong opinions that they often share, they should not be called experts in this matter.
As to the study you referenced, this is obviously not the stucy of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated that I am calling for Based on their abstracts no children were included in the study. All data was obtainved from various data bases. All the information was from Denmark. 82 percent of the 'cohorts' in the study had received their MMR shots. They adjusted for what they called "cofounders" berfore they could say there was no connection. Remember the scientific report that was the subject of the secret Simpsonwood meeting, they also had to adjust for "confounders" by throwing out any child with low birth weight or a "mental condition" before they could reduce the one in 6 children affected by vaccination to a number that was rather murky.
I am calling for a study of US kids. Real children matched in every way possible and no one would be removed from the data after the fact.
What could it tell us? What they already know, I suspect.
I would disagree. I would say that if they have a position to argue and are knowledgeable, there is no reason why they should not be considered 'experts'.
I understand that this is not the sort of study you wanted to see but that does not make it any less valid. It *is* a study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. I am not sure why you feel the phrase 'cofounders' is fraught with wrongdoing. You yourself suggested a study that adjusted for ethnicity etc. These are also cofounders. I'd like to hear a logical critique of why the study I linked to is invalid.
The Simpsonwood meeting was not secret. Neither did it reach the conclusions you seem to wish it to, here is a good overview of the paper and its lack of secrecy: http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/06/simpsonwood_thi_1.html
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on who is an 'expert'.
This is not a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. It does not claim to be. It is one thing to come up with a set of criterea before you have reached your conclusion and to exlude and include data or people based on that criterea. It is quite another thing to do a study and then decide that the conclusions that you reach, based on your original plan, must be tweaked to include or exclude data or people. That smacks of not liking what you find out.
This study even if it were a fair study done fairly is a study of data collected about children in Denmark. Do they have the same vaccine schedule as the children in this country? Do they take the same shots manufactured by the same labs that we do? This study is worthless as far as answering any question regarding the safety of the vaccines that we are giving our children.
I could give you a a link so that you can learn more about Simpsonwood, but I think if you google it or look up the article that appeared in Salon.com in October of 2005, or for that matteyou, if you read the minutes of the meeting that became available thru the freedom of information act you can educate yourself.
We shall have to agree to disagree about the nature of this study also. To me, it is quite clear when the authors state:
".... After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, **as compared with the unvaccinated group....**"
that they are in fact comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. I'm not sure what the relevance of your points about the schedule are. This study was solely looking at the MMR. I used it as an example in answer to your assertion 'Until they do an honest study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated...'. I believe this *is* an honest study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
The results were not tweaked, they were expanded upon. This is similar to the claim that the original Verstraten paper was tweaked when it was not. It was adjusted for confounders. That makes the results more accurate - especially when dealing with large populations. This blog post ( http://epiwonk.com/?p=57 ) written by a retired professor of epidemiology, shows the importance of adjusting for confounders.
I have read the entire Simpsonwood transcript. Kennedy made so many mistakes in his Salon.com piece that they had to publish a page of corrections and retractions. For example, he claimed the meeting was shrouded in secrecy. It was not. It was only held there because there had been a Super Comp Computer Conference at the same time and that the Simpsonwood centre was the only place available in Atlanta at such short notice.He claimed the attendees were under strict instructions to never talk about the meeting, make no photocopies of documents etc. In fact (and I quote from the document):
...."consider it embargoed and protected until it is made public on June 21 and 22 at the ACIP. There is a plan to do that." Page 256.
Some of the corrections are shown at the end of Kennedy's piece: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7395411/deadly_immunity /
When the reprt says "after" adjustment it found the relative risk the same, doesn't that make you wonder what they found "before" the adjustment. THese were not childdren they were looking at they were looking at data in data bases. Now, the CDC has said that our database may not be reliable. Others have said that bad vaccine outcomes are frequently not reported. I never reported that my daughter had a severe reaction after her 1 year vacciantion, even though she did. It never entered my mind that it could be connected. Now you think that a data base in Denmark should be used to determine the vaccine safety for our children?
The schedule is very important. At what age were the MMR shots given? The body weight and health of the child could be critical. As far as the Versation paper goes when you get a result that one is six vaccinated children have a speech problem, ADD, ADHD, or autism and then you don't like that and you decide to toss out of the mix many underweight children and you call that science, your standard for science is as low as your standard for an expert. We need answers for our children.
I also read the transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting, it sent a chill up my spine. I wish you well with your daughter and you may have the last word.
Would you want him making decisions regarding your child's health?
As for there being "No Vast Conspiracy," read the transcript of the Simpsonwood Vaccine Safety Data Study in June 2000.There, your heroic doctors blithely discussed ways of hiding and destroying evidence of neurological damage from vaccines. They also discussed how to defend lawsuits when this information became public and how they did not want THEIR OWN relatives injected with these vaccines.
YOUR children are another matter.
“Would you want him making decisions regarding your child's health ?”
No, but unless you can show a greater link his actions have nothing to do with the larger medical community.
“As for there being "No Vast Conspiracy," read the transcript of the Simpsonwood Vaccine Safety Data Study in June 2000.There, your heroic doctors blithely discussed ways of hiding and destroying evidence of neurological damage from vaccines . They also discussed how to defend lawsuits when this information became public and how they did not want THEIR OWN relatives injected with these vaccines.”
Can you cite the specific passages from Simpsonwood that support that claim? I’d recommend something other the Mr. Kennedy’s report… it is full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and deliberate obfuscation.
“YOUR children are another matter.”
Yes they are… which is why wide spread vaccination is so vital!
heidi1439 thinks that the low incidence of reporting in VAERS is evidence of "a conspiracy". She is only telling (or only knows part of the story. VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As has been widely noted, VAERS has a very significant data reliability issues.
As J. Schwartz noted at VaccineEthics.org, in a blog post dated March 2 2006: "adverse events can be reported to VAERS by anyone and are not verified for accuracy. This paper in Pediatrics (subscription required) -- Goodman, M.J., and Nordin, J. "Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting Source: A Possible Source of Bias in Longitudinal Studies." Feb. 2006; 117: 387-390 -- finds that most thimerosal-related reports to VAERS were directly related to pending litigation. The authors specifically warn researchers attempting to use VAERS data for studies such as the one above about the serious questions regarding its reliability."
I apologize for not leaving a direct link -- this site does not support URLS
the cdc and the aap have only one priority-to protect herd immunity-ever heard of vaers? the fda has even admitted only ten percent of adverse reactions from vaccines are reported-even though doctors are legally required to do so-no conspiracy here? hardly