CDC Cover-up?

Post Reply New Topic

Feralucce,

Good find with the sources. They'll probably just harangue you, though, for the fact that you included studies Thorsen was part of and just ignore everything else, including the fact that most studies you listed didn't include him at all and came from several different countries, showing the same repeatable conclusion over and over again: a link between MMR vaccine and autism is unlikely.

This shows that those who believe in a link between MMR vaccine and autism have a major uphill battle to fight in the scientific and medical communities, which is why they don't even bother. They know they don't stand a chance to undo all those studies. Instead, they try to dupe the unsuspecting public, leading to a reemergence of measles and other potentially deadly and disfiguring diseases because of increased public fear of vaccination.

Thank you. Honestly, I just cut and pasted from my resource archives for Care and Feeding... I have well over a thousand different studies that I have read cover to cover on the subject.

Yep that DELUGE walls of text just gave me sensory overload I'm not sifting through it.

Thus far all you have done is defend an organization that has been complicit in fraud yet carry on about Wakefield.
In regard to brain damage causing autism.. sorry but it does happen and can be a factor. It is not "separate from" if it creates symptoms of autism then it IS autism.. and as I said before ASD is just a set of symptoms. If someone's ASD is found to be caused by brain damage it is still autism they are not suddenly disqualified from having that label.

NOT! All vaccines are made nor tested the same! Therefore just because some reports have had no findings with a few products does not mean their all going to be safe.

Just for the record, when it comes to scientific papers, the authors are almost exclesively listed in order of their contributions. In studies where the final paper has many authors, the last one or two "authors" are generally just people who did much editing, co-ordinated the logistics of the lab, or did fact checking. I have been listed as an "author" on dozens of papers that I will never put on my resume because my sole contribution was either related to grammar and syntax or verifying extensive amounts of data and calculations were correctly transferred to the final draft. For one paper where the amount of data to be reviewed was particularly massive, I was actually listed 3rd out of 6 with the last being an English grad student with a specialty in technical and scientific writing.

There is also a difference between the person "leading" a study (which often refers to the name of the person on the grant application and handles the financial aspects of a study) and the people actually doing the research. Most news outlets (and "news outlets," for that matter), do not realize this and can incorrectly give the impression (or outright falsely state) that a person who mainly ordered scientific equipment, recruited researchers, and what essentially boils down to handling time cards is a lead investigator.

So just remember that the further from first the author is listed, the less input they had. Sometimes the first two names are switched (often to help recognize promising up and coming grad students or promising newcomers), but that is rarely the case.

Yep. That is the diagnostic status quo unless and until a genetic ASD test is available.

As for other non-ASD disorders and diseases being caused by drugs (legal and otherwise) and their interactions, the literature is abundant and quite emphatic about the risks:

WorstPills.org: ?Drug-induced diseases? (2014)
https://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cfm?op_id=5

CDC.gov: ?Developmental disabilities and the environment? (2012)
http://ephtracking.cdc.gov/showDevelopm ... Env.action

TheArc.org: ?Causes and prevention of intellectual disabilities? (2011)
http://www.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=2453

NIH.gov: ?Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring disorders? (2005)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64178

BMJ.com ?Prescribed drugs and neurological complications? (2004)
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/suppl_3/iii2.full

BMJ.com: ?Recreational drugs and their neurological consequences? (2004)
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/suppl_3/iii9.full

Why then is there such resistence to the idea that certain other drugs and the interactions might cause ASD or ASD symptoms, as well? As you wrote elsewhere, it is because Thorsen said so in a tainted study.

Thanks for your contributions to this topic.

1. Those studies do not pertain to autism (full disclosure: for most I only read the abstracts to make this determination).

2.Of course drug induced brain damage causes neurologic issues. That provides exactly zero evidence that drugs and/or brain damage causes (or can cause) autism. Your argument is about as valid as trying to say that TBI can cause ALS or Huntington's disease.

3. The resistance to the idea that drugs cause autism is based on a MULTITUDE of scientific and peer reviewed studies, and not just one study. The idea that it does is not based on anything other than false information and information taken out of context.

4. Diagnostic tests now do exist for ASD are based on neurologic imaging and not (nor are they likely to ever be) genetic.

Exactly as I described (and you concurred by quotation). I misled nobody.


Again, as I described and you concurred by quotation, my citations show that certain drugs are famously known for their causing diseases and disorders. My inclusion of the citations was to show generally the risks that certain drugs are known to exhibit and ask the question "why" other drugs are exempt from such risks and professional scrutiny.

Though late in coming, investigative journalist Ben Swann http://www.benswann.com/ben-swann-bio published his wrap-up about the CDC reporting http://www.benswann.com/cdc-whistleblow ... and-autism today.

Riley: Simply put. If you use any form of "too long, didn't read", then you have effectively removed yourself from the debate or any consideration in the debate.

I will reduce this to an argument you can comprehend. You are wrong. Your statements are incorrect. What you say runs counter to the information provided by psychiatric professionals and scientists. Your opinion, and that is what it is, does not have the backing of the medical community. Period. End of story.

I wish you well, but your inability and unwillingness to educate yourself on our condition, insistence that incorrect statements are fact, and ad hominem attacks have rendered you nothing more than background noise.

I have a question about this statement. If, as has been shown recently, these nerological earmarks are present at birth, and as such in utero... How can it NOT be genetic?

Imaging is the proof of diagnosis, not proof of cause. There has been some speculation (and it is only that currently) that malnutrition may be a contributing factor, among some other and even less plausible. I think it most likely is primarily genetic, but there is some current research being done to investigate other possible factors (which I am almost certain are only going to strengthen a genetic cause).

This is true... HOWEVER, no one has stated that there are not side effects. This is common knowledge.

The original study that has been discredited, the scientist that conducted it admitted it was fraudulent, ect, ad nauseum... Was about the MMR vaccine and stated that it was caused by Thimerosal - a mercury based preservative compound. Thimerosal has been absent from vaccines since 1999.

BUT, your statement is inaccurate in that there is only ONE MMR vaccine approved for use in the united states, AND that the studies did not include all of them.

The studies have been wide reaching and have been of children that have been vaccinated on the CDC suggested schedules... which means that the vaccines for Hep A and B; Rotavirus; Diptheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae type b; pneumococal polysacharide; inactivated poliovirus; influenza; MMR; Varicella; HPV2 and 4; and Meningococcal have been examined thoroughly...

Further, for the record... Of most of these vaccines only one formulation has been approved... two have two versions (HPV is divided into HPV 2 for females and HPV 4 for both genders) and the influenza vaccine which, by the nature of the virus strain necessitates a different vaccine every year.

True... I am working on writing a piece right now... I have a personal theory that the advanced interconnectivity that seems to be the cause of autism (different nerve trunks and "excessive" synapses) are the result of epigenetics forcing a change in the brains of our offspring to adjust for the sudden deluge of information that has become the norm for our species.

You posted an influx of links, A WALL OF TEXT in order to dominate then you passively aggressively switch to the other foot and say I've removed myself from a debate because I am not willing to wade through them and spend several hours sifting through over a dozen CDC sponsored studies on your say so.. and given there is now evidence that CDC studies are not all above board their validity is under question which means your links aren't really credible.

As for my "comprehension".. your continued snide digs about my intelligence are ad-hominem attacks. When you do that you remove yourself from rational objective debate.

I did not read past your name. I am done discussing with you.