It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: Whistle blower at CDC recants study "disproving" vaccine autism link.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

A lot of the research is done by independent academics. If you wish to paint ALL researchers with the same brush (in cahoots with "the man") then that's a wholly unreasonable position as you are effectively dismissing all science on the basis of conspiratorial conjecture.




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

The pharma industry is worth over $1 TRILLION a year. Vaccine profits make up just under 2% of their revenue. They literally have to be persuaded to make vaccines because it's considered a public service and they'd much rather be devoting their resources to their far more profitable ventures (alternative medicine, being a big money maker among other things).

www.skepticalraptor.com...

Not only that, but Aermicans usually have a very US-centric outlook on medicine (seeing as they pay an arm and a leg just to enter the emergency room). How do you reconcile the NHS and their bargaining power, driving prices down for British citizens? How does that fit into the "pharma is too big to fail/too powerful/money money money" narrative?

edit on 25-8-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Obviously you don't understand lawsuits.

You have to be injured for there to be a lawsuit.

Kid doesn't have autism despite being vaccinated? No money for you.

That's how it works.

Not everyone would get a chunk of that pie, the only people who would be able to sue are the people with children who have autism.

Believe me there have been successful lawsuits by many parents blaming doctors for their children developing autism. It happens.

You can't sue without injury.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Actually, the vaccine courts don't require actual evidence that a vaccine caused autism to award money. It's a "better be safe than sorry" approach to insulate pharma companies from being bogged down in lawsuits (and thus stop producing vaccines in response) and to get people settled and out of the system without bogging down the courts with lengthy lawsuits. Frankly, I think it's counterproductive as the anti-vaccine lot routinely try and use the vaccine courts as "evidence" that vaccines cause autism, even though these court rulings say no such thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Americans might have such a view, but cannot do much about it if the government makes vaccination of ALL US children mandatory...and it does in many cases, with only very narrow reasons for exceptions...viewing medical services as Americans do, with one eye on the purse strings counts for naught if they don't have a reasonable choice...doesn't it?

US kids are increasingly being refused education places if unvaccinated, parents are pilloried and harassed for refusing vaccines for their kids, and sometimes kids are taken into the system because parents exercise considered choice and refuse to vaccinate them.

And if the fact that the CDC responsible for producing a report which green lights MMR and other vaccines for mass distribution across the country (and of course much of the world following suit), is not just tainted, or shoddy, but clearly fraudulent with crucial data being withheld and actively buried?

Massive penalties would ensue, not just crippling financial penalties either.

The actual figure of pharma profits are not quite $1 Trillion, more closer to $712 Billion in fact...but that profit would be swallowed up faster than a snowball in hell if everyone who thought they or their families might have been damaged by a vaccine if this data became widespread public knowledge.

That $712 Billion would not be nearly enough to cover the disaster and fall out that would follow, it would be a drop in the ocean of the torrents of claims flooding in...corporations would fail, governments would fail, CDC would fail and would never be trusted again...and that would only be the beginning.

Of course they buried they data...to admit the link after so long, would have been catastrophic and still could be...but i doubt it will be allowed to happen.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I understand that, but the kid would at least have to be autistic for the lawsuit to even get to court.

Can't sue for might have gotten injured.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Yeah, you have to be autistic, but no causal link need be demonstrated, simply that the vaccine preceded the autism diagnosis within a given period of time.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Vaccines make up less than 2% of profits. Two percent. Your narrative does not fit the facts on the ground, I'm afraid to say.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MysterX

Vaccines make up less than 2% of profits. Two percent. Your narrative does not fit the facts on the ground, I'm afraid to say.


You think $30 Billion is 2% of $712 Billion?

It isn't. It is closer to 5%, but still.

Do you think that 5% of profit is going to be the only profit that would be lost in such a widespread class action scenario?

The claims would run into trillions...trillions plural...the 5% vaccine profits or the 100% of total pharma profit or even the 2% you insist on mentioning in connection to vaccines are equally irrelevant..they wouldn't be nearly enough to cover worldwide claims.

And as i have said more than once, the financial cost, staggeringly massive as it would be, are not the only consideration.

The penalties would run much deeper than money, for all concerned in hiding this data.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: MysterX

Obviously you don't understand lawsuits.

You have to be injured for there to be a lawsuit.

Kid doesn't have autism despite being vaccinated? No money for you.

That's how it works.

Not everyone would get a chunk of that pie, the only people who would be able to sue are the people with children who have autism.

Believe me there have been successful lawsuits by many parents blaming doctors for their children developing autism. It happens.

You can't sue without injury.


S'okay mate...no apology for being wrong required...just in case you felt you slated me unfairly of course.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I don't care at all if there are studies showing the connection or studies showing that there isn't a connection. I wouldn't believe either. Of course, they will not release information that vaccines are one of the biggest causes. And of course, studies showing that they are not the cause would be the ones in the best interest of Big Pharma.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I am by no means a details person. So I'll leave you wanting details to search this for yourself. However I saw a documentary that people are losing their jobs over trying to do studies on the links beiween autism and vaccinations.

This is due to big pharma being large financial contributors to the University where the study could be performed. The higher ups deem the study to be a conflict of interest. Which would ethically call into question the results of said study so then there is no study.

While I think any child negatively effected by an immunization is one too many, the medical idea of herd immunity requires those injuries to be effective. So the child suffers for the greater good of the rest of the population. You should also look into the different brands of specific immunizations and the link to the cheaper ones ingredients being a major factor in adverse reactions. All for the bottom line.

Its not only children that are forced into unwanted immunizations. There was recently a pregnant nurse that faced losing her job due to her personal physician and her making the personal choice that she shouldn't have the flu shot while she was pregnant. The hospital over ruled and, demanded she get it or she was fired. I don't recall the end of that.

I have also had the issue of being allergic to an ingredient in one shot on the list the school I was attending required. After numerous letters from my Dr. Explaining the issue I was still receiving letters and phones calls telling me I "forgot" one. Finally I told the woman that called that the school must be trying to kill me. After those dramatics they finally read the drs notes and put a note on my file.

The people that just blindly follow rules without thinking are the cause of this dilemma.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX


Just to give some perspective, IMS, the top pharmaceutical market analysis firm, estimates the 2010 revenues for pharmaceuticals to be over US$955 billion, and will exceed US$1 trillion dollars by 2013. Big Pharma also shows revenues of around US$300 billion in medical devices in 2012, and close to US$320 billion in 2013. So the total revenues that Big Pharma will derive just from pharmaceuticals and devices will be around US$1.32 trillion.


www.skepticalraptor.com...


The claims would run into trillions...trillions plural...the 5% vaccine profits or the 100% of total pharma profit or even the 2% you insist on mentioning in connection to vaccines are equally irrelevant..they wouldn't be nearly enough to cover worldwide claims.


Which is exactly why the vaccine courts were setup so that pharma companies can continue manufacturing vaccines without being tied up with frivolous legal battles. Given the choice, they couldn't give a damn about making vaccines. They'd much rather make over the counter medicines and the beloved "alternative" medicines (which aren't regulated, btw) as these are FAR more profitable.

As they say in the article, 1 to 2% is akin to a rounding error, not the golden cash cow you make it out to be. The facts don't support your narrative.
edit on 25-8-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

There's been lots of studies on vaccines and autism. Some of the crappier ones even claim to show a link (but these studies don't withstand the scrutiny of the wider scientific community because of the glaring methodological flaws). Again, as with other posters, the facts don't support your narrative.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

There's no apology, because there's nothing for me to apologise about.

The previous autism lawsuits, had nothing to do with vaccines, but the method used in delivery.

But the point still is that those parents that sued had autistic children.

And we still have maternity wards.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   
By the way the Danish study changed the data half way through and the guy running it stole $Millions of CDC funds, it's not a good study at all and when the data is looked it sensibly it actually shows that vaccines do cause Autism.


originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: GreenMtnBoys

Why on earth would you need to blind a study on vaccines/autism link? Autism isn't exactly a placebo effect. Anyway, denying ignorance and all that, here's a study where they compared the autism and vaccine rates of an entire country:

www.nejm.org...


METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998. The cohort was selected on the basis of data from the Danish Civil Registration System, which assigns a unique identification number to every live-born infant and new resident in Denmark. MMR-vaccination status was obtained from the Danish National Board of Health. Information on the children's autism status was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register, which contains information on all diagnoses received by patients in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics in Denmark. We obtained information on potential confounders from the Danish Medical Birth Registry, the National Hospital Registry, and Statistics Denmark.
Full Text of Methods...
RESULTS
Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.
Full Text of Results...
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism.




posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The studies claiming to show no link between vaccines and Autism are either sponsored by Big Pharma and/or have authors with huge conflicts of interest.

Here's a recent study which concludes that vaccines do cause Autism and that the CDC is covering up the evidence

www.hindawi.com...

Keep in mind that we've just had this confirmed from a CDC whistleblower who has confessed to covering up the vaccine/Autism data.

Now it's time for people to turn Wakefield into a hero and give him the respect he deserves, however where Merck are involved it's more likely we'll see the chap assassinated.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
So every peer reviewed science paper done fails to find a link but you will believe an anonymous unverified whistleblower?
Its not smearing of Wakefield it is statement of fact.


edit on 29-8-2014 by hiddencode because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

Just wondering for my own knowledge, what was the method given that caused the lawsuits to be paid out? and do you know what years these particular methods were used? My little brother has a slight form of autism he was born in 1990



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: hiddencode

Source for them "changing the data half way through"?



posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: IBossJekler

From what I recall, it was back in the 90s, and it had to do with oxygen deprivation during birth.

www.mishkindlaw.com...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join