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 link to Thompson's statement was posted early on in this thread and the fact that he is very much pro vaccine was noted and even quoted by some in this thread dozens of pages ago. Being pro vaccine doesn't erase his statement that he and his co-authors intentionally omitted statistically significant information that skewed the results. Nor does it erase his statement about wanting the CDC to properly convey known risks of vaccines to the public.
Hooker's character does not change Thompson's statement that statistically significant information was intentionally omitted.
This shouldn't be about choosing sides. We should all care to know what really happened.
Hooker also said in his letter (written on a law firm's letterhead) that people may have honest differences of opinion. He's leaving himself some wiggle room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
If statistically significant information was intentionally omitted from the 2004 study then that calls into question the integrity of the rest of the studies. That is why it is so important to get to the bottom of this and try to figure out what is going on, rather then burying it, or just sticking to one side or the other. I'm interested in the truth.
You wish! This flap is about ONE study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
Since you clearly didn't read the thread, I'll give you the cliff notes on this particular point that we went over pages ago.
This harrangue about birth certificates reminds me of the birther arguments of a few years ago. People who've never seen any BC but their own short form have no idea what is on the long form birth certificate. There is a lot of information on them. I used to joke that it was so public health people could write research articles.
Since you clearly didn't read the thread, I'll give you the cliff notes on this particular point that we went over pages ago.
William Thompson, one of the authors of the 2004 study says otherwise so I think it's safe to say that his word bears more weight then yours.
I've read every post in the thread, thank you.
I'll believe the CDC link over Thompson's version. Hooker's study has been shown to be statistically invalid, which is why it is in the process of being retracted.
Thompson, in the statement on the lawyer's site says, "I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."
The information was not omitted; it was addressed in the analysis of the data.
It is not possible to draw any statistically significant conclusions from a sample of less than five people.
Both Thompson and Hooker would appear to be in dire need of the services of a statistician.
Hooker also said in his letter (written on a law firm's letterhead) that people may have honest differences of opinion. He's leaving himself some wiggle room.
Thompson, not Hooker. His words about the omission are clear.
Quote:
You wish! This flap is about ONE study.
I wish it was only about one study but unfortunately this calls into question the honesty and integrity of all of the studies. If they could omit data in the 2004 in order to change the outcome, who's to say that it has happened in other instances.
Quote:
This harrangue about birth certificates reminds me of the birther arguments of a few years ago. People who've never seen any BC but their own short form have no idea what is on the long form birth certificate. There is a lot of information on them. I used to joke that it was so public health people could write research articles.
Your link is to the long form of a birth certificate. I do know the difference between the state issued short form and the long form. We already went over this and I'm not up for trying to explain it to you again. I'm sorry that you still don't understand why this is an issue.
Thompson, not Hooker. His words about the omission are clear.
I wish it was only about one study but unfortunately this calls into question the honesty and integrity of all of the studies. If they could omit data in the 2004 in order to change the outcome, who's to say that it has happened in other instances.
Your link is to the long form of a birth certificate. I do know the difference between the state issued short form and the long form. We already went over this and I'm not up for trying to explain it to you again. I'm sorry that you still don't understand why this is an issue.
Why does possible omission of statistically significant data in ONE study call into question ALL studies?
I'm not asking YOU to explain the birth certificate issue to ME, I'm trying to explain it to YOU. Your lack of understanding is obvious. I've seen thousands of long form birth certificates as a public health nurse.
Why does possible omission of statistically significant data in ONE study call into question ALL studies?
I'm not asking YOU to explain the birth certificate issue to ME, I'm trying to it to YOU. Your lack of understanding is obvious. I've seen thousands of long form birth certificates as a public health nurse.
Please tell us your credentials to evaluate this research. Education, experience, etc.
Are you kidding? It doesn't take a certain education or experience to understand the issue regarding the birth certificates. It does take a tiny bit of logic. You being a nurse or seeing a lot of the long forms has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue. We all know what a long form is. We all know what a short form is.
Several posters have tried to explain the BC issue to you in this thread but you still don't seem to get it. This lady explains it quite well so please take a few minutes to read her words about the issue with the BC. Or don't. At this point I don't really care if you ever get it. Erased by a Birth Certificate | Gianelloni Family
Are you kidding? It doesn't take a certain education or experience to understand the issue regarding the birth certificates. It does take a tiny bit of logic. You being a nurse or seeing a lot of the long forms has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue. We all know what a long form is. We all know what a short form is.
Several posters have tried to explain the BC issue to you in this thread but you still don't seem to get it. This lady explains it quite well so please take a few minutes to read her words about the issue with the BC. Or don't. At this point I don't really care if you ever get it. Erased by a Birth Certificate | Gianelloni Family
The anti-vax blogger you have linked to appears not to know that there is a difference in the birth certificate info available to researchers and the info on the certificate given to parents. She apparently believes the short form is the standard U.S. form.
The fact is that no one was "erased" in the CDC study, there was no conspiracy to cover up an increased incidence of autism in African American boys due to vaccines, and Hooker is about to have his "study" trashed now that people who know what they are doing have read it and pointed out why it is junk.
Sorry, I think the CDC is more credible than a mommy blogger.
The anti-vax blogger you have linked to appears not to know that there is a difference in the birth certificate info available to researchers and the info on the certificate given to parents. She apparently believes the short form is the standard U.S. form.
The fact is that no one was "erased" in the CDC study, there was no conspiracy to cover up an increased incidence of autism in African American boys due to vaccines, and Hooker is about to have his "study" trashed now that people who know what they are doing have read it and pointed out why it is junk.
Sorry, I think the CDC is more credible than a mommy blogger.
Her point was that the short form is given to parents, not the long form. So when the CDC said that they asked the parents for the birth certificate because they needed info that is only contained on the long form, they were not being truthful. If they wanted the information that was on the long form they could have gotten it from the state vital statistics office because they would know full well that the parents would not be in possession of a birth certificate containing the details they claim they needed from the birth certificate. In reality, they just excluded those who could not produce any type of birth certificate despite the form, the details being irrelevant. These were the participants who were omitted from the study.
Please just think. I'm done trying to explain this.
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.
You really don't get it.