Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    UPDATE:

    Representative Bill Posey (R) has apparently been investigating this incident with the help of Dr. William Thompson over the course of the past year, and has finally brought his findings to Congress. This morning he spoke in front of the house, and the video and transcript are both available.

    I will be interested to see the documents that Dr. Thompson provided to Mr. Posey, if they ever become public. It is becoming more clear that there is a determination within the medical community to bury any evidence of potential vaccine damage, no matter how small.


    Transcript:

    1:02:29, MR. POSEY:

    THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TODAY ON MATTERS OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY. TO BEGIN WITH, I AM ABSOLUTELY, RESOLUTEY PRO-VACCINE. Advancements in medical immunization have saved countless lives and greatly benefitted public health.

    That being said, it's troubling to me that in a recent Senate hearing on childhood vaccinations, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over three billion dollars through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations. Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children's health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth. For these reasons I bring the following matter to the House floor:

    In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between mumps, measles, rubella vaccines and autism. In a statement released in August 2014, Dr. Thompson stated, "I regret that my co-authors and I omitted," OMITTED, "statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal of Pediatrics." [end quote]

    Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excerpts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into the record. Now quoting Dr. Thompson:

    "My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000-06 were to lead or co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP MMR Autism Cases controlled study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumers advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000 regarding the execution of the Verstraeten study. One of the important goals that was determined up front in the spring of '01 before any of these studies started was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to start of the analyses so that consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features.

    "We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in '03. At the September 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of Table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth-certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge. All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September '02 not to report any race effects for the paper. Some time soon after the meeting we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study. The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard-copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office, and I retained all associated computer files.
    "I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper."
    [end of quote of the doctor]

    Mr. Speaker, I believe it's our duty to insure that the documents Dr. Thompson provided are not ignored. Therefore, I will provide them to members of Congress and the House committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower's documents, as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back.

    Video source:
    [video]http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud[/video]
     
    Last edited:

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    UPDATE:

    Representative Bill Posey (R) has apparently been investigating this incident with the help of Dr. William Thompson over the course of the past year, and has finally brought his findings to Congress. This morning he spoke in front of the house, and the video and transcript are both available.

    I will be interested to see the documents that Dr. Thompson provided to Mr. Posey, if they ever become public. It is becoming more clear that there is a determination within the medical community to bury any evidence of potential vaccine damage, no matter how small.

    :wow: This has been all over the news! CNN, FOX, New York Times! All the big radio hosts too!

    Lol, just kidding. The silence from the corporate media has been deafening. Not a single mention of this.

    Instead, the networks are bombarding us with stories of a dead lion, transvestites, and other important stories. Radio blurbs from ABC News have informed me 2 days in a row about a case of "dog flu" in a PetSmart store.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    I noticed an interesting statement made by Dr. Thompson in his testimony.

    One of the important goals that was determined up front in the spring of ’01 before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so that consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that presented our own goals and biases. We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal studypublished in Pediatrics in ’03. At the September 5[SUP]th[/SUP] meeting, we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample.

    Dr. Thompson was referring to this scandal that I reported to you in early 2014: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...sion/333909-vaccines-thimerasol-cover-up.html

    After all the lies and coverups, the CDC was fully aware that people were becoming suspicious of their motivations and their integrity. This sparked the very research that Thompson is now blowing the whistle on.

    Was the goal to find the truth? No, the goal was to vindicate vaccines. Period. And when the research failed to do so, they started altering it and destroying evidence until it did.

    This is not an isolated incident. The CDC has demonstrated that it is not committed to telling parents the truth. It is committed to pushing vaccines.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    This is the hubbub about top CDC vaccine researchers gathering around a large trash can to dispose of evidence that vaccines might cause damage.

    We already debated Hooker's paper, read the thread.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    If a team has a goal to statistically verify a population for attributes, it takes a sample.
    If the sample is too small, no valid statistical conclusion can be made.
    If the attributes were improperly identified or there is confusion in the analysis, there is sampling and/or non-sampling error.

    There are many ways to make mistakes in a study. The results become garbage.

    Since Thompson kept all the results, he should be able to formulate a definitive, statistically valid conclusion from that data.

    Or can't he? If he can't, maybe the data is truly garbage.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    Since Thompson kept all the results, he should be able to formulate a definitive, statistically valid conclusion from that data.

    Or can't he? If he can't, maybe the data is truly garbage.

    He did. He worked with Dr. Hooker to publish what he believed to be a more honest conclusion in a peer-reviewed (Your gold standard, remember?) journal.

    Read the thread if you want to become informed, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    Partial facts can be the same as lies steve. The study was WITHDRAWN from the peer-reviewed journal, correct?

    The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    Yes, the journal peer reviewed it, approved it, published it, then retracted it when political pressure mounted

    Nevertheless, the raw data is there. Analyze it if you want.
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    Yes, the journal peer reviewed it, approved it, published it, then retracted it when political pressure mounted

    Nevertheless, the raw data is there. Analyze it if you want.


    That's now how the peer-review process works. If you didn't know that, it's OK. But just know that the subsequent review is based on data and analysis of conclusions, not pressure from the evil hand of conspirators. Falsifiability, remember? That's science.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    Alpo said:
    That's now how the peer-review process works. If you didn't know that, it's OK. But just know that the subsequent review is based on data and analysis of conclusions, not pressure from the evil hand of conspirators. Falsifiability, remember? That's science.

    Do you have a source for this new double-peer-review approach where it's reviewed, published, conclusions are found to be annoying, so it's 'reviewed' again and retracted?
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    Alpo, I think I'm going to have to agree with Steveh at least partly on this one. Whether the discarded data was significant or not is obfuscation. Scientists in general, and especially scientists working for an agency dedicated to furthering public health and well being, should not be discarding inconvenient data and ammending research after the exclusion. They could easily have included the data and refuted it if they thought it somehow was suspect and engendering an inaccurate result. Employees of these agencies should take especial caution to avoid ANY appearance of impropriety or bias.

    That is a big part of what I am saying.

    Additionally, doesn't it demonstrate an overall desire to discard data that is inconvenient to vaccine interests? Isn't that troubling on a larger scale, considering that the CDC is supposed to be an impartial source of truth for the American people?
     

    Alpo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Sep 23, 2014
    13,877
    113
    Indy Metro Area
    Do you have a source for this new double-peer-review approach where it's reviewed, published, conclusions are found to be annoying, so it's 'reviewed' again and retracted?

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/28/science/retractions-scientific-studies.html?_r=0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

    These are just two of the many many articles available.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal

    One I am more familiar with because it was an industry that I was associated with.
     

    steveh_131

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    10,046
    83
    Porter County
    I am aware that retractions occur.

    I reject that this one was based on anything other than political pressure from the scientific establishment.

    The entire peer review process is so corrupt and subjective, it's a joke that anyone even takes it seriously.
     
    Top Bottom