Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The CDC? OK, well the story is about a Senior, award winning researcher from the CDC who decided to blow the whistle on corruption in the organization he works for, the CDC. So if you are saying that the only source of information about this story itself should be coming from the CDC then which version should we listen to?
Exactly, what is it that these people are so afraid of? The truth? I have heard more logical fallacies and de-railing going on in this thread than any I have read for some time. The trolls are out in force.
There is a whistle blower who says the CDC is covering up information, if it is true, it is something to be very concerned about. If it is not we will soon know.
It would not be the first time a health organization covered up a public health problem. In the 90's PBS exposed the Red Cross for using blood from gay people knowing it contained AIDS virus. It ended up
killing thousands of hemophiliacs.
Exactly, what is it that these people are so afraid of? The truth? I have heard more logical fallacies and de-railing going on in this thread than any I have read for some time. The trolls are out in force.
There is a whistle blower who says the CDC is covering up information, if it is true, it is something to be very concerned about. If it is not we will soon know.
It would not be the first time a health organization covered up a public health problem. In the 90's PBS exposed the Red Cross for using blood from gay people knowing it contained AIDS virus. It ended up
killing thousands of hemophiliacs.
Agreed. It is bizarre. I get that some people have a loyal nature but to be so loyal to the CDC (of all things?) that one cannot even begin to consider that they may have been lied to is just beyond me. Ignoring, deflecting, defending and attacking without substance is not helpful. This particular case has very serious implications. If the allegations are true and the CDC lied about this, what else have they lied about? We are supposed to be able to trust them. I would hope that people could put their loyalties aside for a minute and actually care about finding out the truth behind all of this.
What I suspect will happen is that the whistleblower will be silenced and he will be discredited. His reputation will be ruined and the cover-up will remain in tact. There is too much at stake for the stakeholders for the truth to come out. Sad, but I think that's how this will end.
The guy making the claim used the establishments data and came up with some really ridiculous "findings".
Oh, did you know he works for the anti-vaccination website?
Basically, what you have here is the equivalent of a Tobacco company "scientist".
The guy making the claims was a senior researcher at the CDC. He doesn't work for anti-vaccine websites. He's not even anti-vaccine. He gave some info to a man (who is anti vaccine because he has a daughter who was injured from vaccines) who then presented the previously concealed information as a reanalysis of the original study. His reanalysis was taken down after the allegations from the whistleblower came to light so we can't even see what the reanalysis said so there is no way to know if it was "ridiculous" or not.
The guy making the claims was a senior researcher at the CDC. He doesn't work for anti-vaccine websites. He's not even anti-vaccine. He gave some info to a man (who is anti vaccine because he has a daughter who was injured from vaccines) who then presented the previously concealed information as a reanalysis of the original study. His reanalysis was taken down after the allegations from the whistleblower came to light so we can't even see what the reanalysis said so there is no way to know if it was "ridiculous" or not.
Is CNN still in on the cover up? It mentions everything you just stated.
Doesn't exactly help the OP's legitimacy eh?
Second, the "whistle blower" is being portrayed by the anti-vax crowd as saying the CDC knows vaccines cause autism when in reality he just thinks that they should have used more data and that their study was flawed. That's a huge distinction.
Third, his analysis should be quite easy to find on the internet. Or can he not post it up to his website or whatnot?
Is CNN still in on the cover up? It mentions everything you just stated.
Doesn't exactly help the OP's legitimacy eh?
Second, the "whistle blower" is being portrayed by the anti-vax crowd as saying the CDC knows vaccines cause autism when in reality he just thinks that they should have used more data and that their study was flawed. That's a huge distinction.
Third, his analysis should be quite easy to find on the internet. Or can he not post it up to his website or whatnot?
The original CNN story, which was posted on the CNN site (not by CNN themselves) was taken down. It was later (after the article in the op was published) put back up possibly due to all of the speculation surrounding the initial takedown and possible cover up.
The new CNN story that you shared is in response to the claims that have come out and is clearly an attempt to keep things covered up and calm down the people who are concerned about this.
I've read a lot of news stories and I don't agree with your interpretation of what is being portrayed by the "anti-vax" crowd as a whole. I'm sure some are twisting things but overall,, no, I haven't seen much embellishment. I also read the whistleblower's statement he made through his lawyer which says that that he and his coauthors omitted statistically significant information which suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. He states that he does not believe that the final study protocol was followed.
The reanalysis is no longer available to the public but you say that it is easy to find on the internet so if you can find it, it would be great if you could share it here.
The guy making the claim used the establishments data and came up with some really ridiculous "findings".
Oh, did you know he works for the anti-vaccination website?
Basically, what you have here is the equivalent of a Tobacco company "scientist".
Exactly! Apparently, the results were skewed because they only tested children who had birth certificate or some such nonsense. The researcher has a disabled son was hell-bent on blaming vaccines.
Hooker said he believes the increased risk for African-American boys he found was not identified in the CDC study because the researchers, including Thompson, deliberately limited the number of participants they included in their analysis, which he said altered the results. Hooker said that by excluding children without birth certificates, the CDC study results were skewed.
****
The new study by Hooker has been publicized by groups like Focus Autism, which say vaccines have contributed to the "current autism epidemic and rise of chronic illness in children."Hooker is a scientific adviser for the Focus Autism Foundation. He also has a 16-year-old son with developmental delays who he said is "vaccine injured."
Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, said the design of Hooker's study is questionable, and that his analysis is "not fine-tuned enough to give you meaningful information."
"If you analyze data enough times and enough ways, you're bound to find something that is statistically significant," said Witznitzer, after looking at both studies. "This does not mean that the result is a true positive (vs. a false positive) or meaningful." Autism and vaccine study results questioned - CNN.com
Exactly! Apparently, the results were skewed because they only tested children who had birth certificate or some such nonsense. The researcher has a disabled son was hell-bent on blaming vaccines.
Hooker said he believes the increased risk for African-American boys he found was not identified in the CDC study because the researchers, including Thompson, deliberately limited the number of participants they included in their analysis, which he said altered the results. Hooker said that by excluding children without birth certificates, the CDC study results were skewed.
****
The new study by Hooker has been publicized by groups like Focus Autism, which say vaccines have contributed to the "current autism epidemic and rise of chronic illness in children."Hooker is a scientific adviser for the Focus Autism Foundation. He also has a 16-year-old son with developmental delays who he said is "vaccine injured."
Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, said the design of Hooker's study is questionable, and that his analysis is "not fine-tuned enough to give you meaningful information."
"If you analyze data enough times and enough ways, you're bound to find something that is statistically significant," said Witznitzer, after looking at both studies. "This does not mean that the result is a true positive (vs. a false positive) or meaningful." Autism and vaccine study results questioned - CNN.com
Hooker's study was published on August 8 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Translational Neurodegeneration. The study has since been removed so how can you say that the findings are "ridiculous" if you weren't able to view them yourself?
The original CNN story, which was posted on the CNN site (not by CNN themselves) was taken down. It was later (after the article in the op was published) put back up possibly due to all of the speculation surrounding the initial takedown and possible cover up.
The new CNN story that you shared is in response to the claims that have come out and is clearly an attempt to keep things covered up and calm down the people who are concerned about this.
I've read a lot of news stories and I don't agree with your interpretation of what is being portrayed by the "anti-vax" crowd as a whole. I'm sure some are twisting things but overall,, no, I haven't seen much embellishment. I also read the whistleblower's statement he made through his lawyer which says that that he and his coauthors omitted statistically significant information which suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. He states that he does not believe that the final study protocol was followed.
The reanalysis is no longer available to the public but you say that it is easy to find on the internet so if you can find it, it would be great if you could share it here.
Why would the author of this study not have it up for viewing? I mean, he could post it up just about anywhere for all to read.
I don't think CNN's actions are "clearly and attempt" at a cover-up. I don't see how that case can be logically made. You say "possibly" and then in the next snetence you claim it's clearly a cover-up?
It might have been flagged for fact-check, pulled for a bit, verified and put back up. Don't exactly want to pull a "Dan Rather" and be fooled by a fake story eh?
Hooker's study was published on August 8 in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Translational Neurodegeneration. The study has since been removed so how can you say that the finding are "ridiculous" if you weren't able to view them yourself?
Now why would that be, pray tell?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It mentions everything you just stated.
