It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So the above quote from his letter is nothing? These kids aren't at increased risk? Scientific protocols were followed?
So how can we trust anything the CDC says?
Do you think transparency is important? Do you care if African Americans males are at more risk to autism from an MMR shot?
Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry, and records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Basically, no significant associations were found between the age cutoffs examined and the risk of autism. I note that, even in the “reanalysis” by Brian Hooker, there still isn’t any such correlation for children who are not African American boys
Wakefield claims that African American boys were "neglected" [in Thompson's study]. He also claims that this is vindication for him, but, of course, it is not. Notice how he completely neglects to mention that in every other subgroup [examined in the study], even Hooker couldn’t torture the data to make it confess a relationship between age at MMR vaccination and autism in any other population other than a very small population in the study: African-American males. Whenever that happens as you slice epidemiological data finer and finer, you should be alert for the very distinct possibility that what you're really looking at is a spurious correlation. As I pointed out before, Hooker in reality merely confirmed that Wakefield was wrong about everyone except African-American males, and, given how small this subgroup was in the study, almost certainly didn’t find any evidence supporting Wakefield’s hypothesis (such as it is) for even African-American boys. Yet, Wakefield, as deluded as he is, spins it as "vindication." He even thanks Hooker for getting a "senior scientist at the CDC" to come forward and "confirm" that some of those "ideas we put forward" are true. Holy hell! Even if you spin Thompson’s statements in the most unflattering manner possible towards the CDC and his co-investigators, Thompson said nothing of the sort!
Are you part of the agenda as well? Why act like he never said it happened?
originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SherlockH
And here is the problem with the Internet...
"So the above quote from his letter is nothing? These kids aren't at increased risk? Scientific protocols were followed?"
I never said any of that. I simply pointed out that you and others are using a HEAVILY EDITED phone interview as your source.
"So how can we trust anything the CDC says?"
SO you can't trust the CDC, but you can trust the "Whistle blower". The "whistle blower" tells you to vaccinate, but you don't vaccinate because vaccinations "increase the risk of autism in black males under the age of 36 months", so you don't trust the "whistle blower"? That's pretty impressive circular logic.
"Do you think transparency is important? Do you care if African Americans males are at more risk to autism from an MMR shot?"
Of course transparency is important. The CDC is publicly funded, so every single thing they author should be made public. And yes, the study in 2004 did show a link, however none of the other studies did and the sample group for African American's was so small that they couldn't verify that prior to releasing the paper.
"Are you part of the agenda as well? Why act like he never said it happened?"
Considering I've never been vaccinated and I don't vaccinate my children I would hardly say I am part of the Agenda...And nobody acted like he said it never happened. Again, I just pointed out how quickly so many people jumped on a heavily edited interview as proof of something grand and sinister.