MovieChat Forums > Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe (2017) Discussion > The myth about the CDC cover up that for...

The myth about the CDC cover up that forms the basis of this movie

posted 8 years ago by sandipb
26 replies | jump to latest

Given the amount of complete dangerous misleading nonsense on this messageboard, I am going to leave this out here for the sane minded folks out there who still can be saved:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

Particularly this:

For a thorough analysis of the flaws and misinformation associated with the current CDC autism "cover-up" conspiracy theory, read http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/08/22/brian-hooker-proves-andrew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

Thanks for that, I really enjoy Orac's blog, he basically covers every topic 😃

[–] SquidNewton 8 years ago

So.
Blogs and Snopes, eh?

David Mikkelson

founded snopes.com in 1994, and under his guidance the company has pioneered a number of revolutionary technologies, including the iPhone, the light bulb, beer pong, and a vaccine for a disease that has not yet been discovered. He is currently seeking political asylum in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Snopes is run by David and Barbara Mikkelson.

Snopes and Blogs.
Now that's research!

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

At least the guy who writes that blog still has his medical licence unlike some people I could think of...
And I just said I enjoyed his blog, not that it is my (sole) source for any research. Found that article about the French CJD trial yet?

[–] SquidNewton 8 years ago

Found that article about the French CJD trial yet?

didn't know I was supposed to be looking for it.

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

Well it sounded to me like you were interested in it since you mentioned that no abstract was available. But it is not about vaccines anyway so maybe not that interesting.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

Good find.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

Brian Hooker is one of the experts cited extensively in the documentary and he does nothing but support Wakefield.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

One should note that his paper on the link between MMR and autism in african-american boys has been retracted.

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

Please substantiate this claim.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128611/

http://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-22

That looks like retraction to me.

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

Only on the surface.

If you look at the actual sites, the article was retracted "by the Editor and Publisher" but NOT by the author.

If you follow the "expression of concern" link, it says that "The Publisher of this article [1] has serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions because of possible undeclared competing interests of the author and peer reviewers." Those "undeclared competing interests" are not listed in detail.

If you use the retraction link just under the "expression of concern" box, you see this reasoning: "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." Again, no details.

In other words, they can give no specifics about anything that is actually wrong with Hooker's article. They can only express some generalized "concern" that is the basis for their crisis of confidence.

Show me an actual analysis of Hooker's article and we'll discuss it. So far, you have nothing.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

Who cares about the author? The journal where he published the article retracted it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

Except for the details - that is, the truth.

The article was retracted by the same level of bureaucrat as those in the CDC whose work Hooker has condemned. The NCBI gets at least half of its funding from private industry.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

And why is the funding of NCBI of importance to the fact that the journal Translational Neurodegeneration published the article and then restracted it?

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

Why did you use the NCBI link? If they reprinted the article then their motivations for its handling are fair game.

The vague, conclusionary language which I pointed out earlier is from the journal itself.

Also, if you trace the ownership of Translational Neurodegeneration, you'll see that it's owned by Springer Science+Business Publishing, a firm involved in pharmaceutical marketing.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

So the journal does not go into details in their explanation..that tells us...nothing, really?
And the ownership is telling us what? It was published there, why would they do that if they don't want it published? Or do you think it was some game they played? I really don't think "they" (whoever they are) would waste time on that.

[–] jesusofjonesboro 8 years ago

So now you're reduced to simply posing questions.

The whole issue about MMR and autism is one of money (as though you didn't know so).

I'm done with this exchange. You're not a very good troll.

jj

"Is there anything I can do to undo what I've done"

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

And you are obviously unable to answer them, no surprise there.
Wakefield sure makes good money with his BS (as do others), so yeah it is about money.

[–] lordelfa 8 years ago

A person who wants to believe something needs little to no evidence to convince them and if they do not, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

Why did you use the NCBI link?

The NCBI is a database of medically relevant abstracts. The NCBI does not publish or retract articles, medical journals do that. The retraction of that article was unrelated to the NCBI.

The NCBI is, by far, the most convenient place to find abstracts of medical articles published in English.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

[–] Vulcans_Rule 8 years ago

Only on the surface.

If you look at the actual sites, the article was retracted "by the Editor and Publisher" but NOT by the author.

If you follow the "expression of concern" link, it says that "The Publisher of this article [1] has serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions because of possible undeclared competing interests of the author and peer reviewers." Those "undeclared competing interests" are not listed in detail.

If you use the retraction link just under the "expression of concern" box, you see this reasoning: "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." Again, no details.

In other words, they can give no specifics about anything that is actually wrong with Hooker's article. They can only express some generalized "concern" that is the basis for their crisis of confidence.

Show me an actual analysis of Hooker's article and we'll discuss it. So far, you have nothing.

I have seen a few retractions, and none of them provided any detail. It's usually something vague, like "methodological concerns".

Since most journals allow authors to recommend reviewers, the potential for collusion or favoritism exists. Also, peer reviewers often miss important details. The journal can retract a paper if flaws missed by the reviewers are brought to the attention of the editorial staff, especially if there is suspected collusion between the authors and reviewers.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

[–] Zwergin 8 years ago

But the Truth-Vaccine-Jedi would never try to cheat the system by trying to get their bestest buddies to review their papers..only scientists who serve a Dark Master would do that....

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ToL22 7 years ago

Some of the parts of this article need to be closely examined. After a quick read, I found one particular statement unsettling.

There's no biologically plausible reason why there would be an effect observed in African-Americans but no other race and, more specifically than that, in African-American males. In the discussion, Hooker does a bunch of handwaving about lower vitamin D levels and the like in African American boys, but there really isn't a biologically plausible mechanism to account for his observation, suggesting that it's probably spurious.

A new study has found a link between vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy and autism. It appears women who had low vitamin D levels were more likely to have children with autistic traits.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/autism-linked-to-vitamin-d-deficiency-during-pregnancy-192403676.html

A lot of studies indicate American blacks have lower levels of vitamin d. If you google vitamin d levels in African Americans you can find more links to studies.

Now, unless we assume black pregnant women have the same vitamin d levels as other pregnant women, then clearly there is a difference. Black pregnant women are probably more likely to have children with autistic traits.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full

Of course these new studies do not suggest the MMR vaccine has any connection to autism. I thought I would just post some relevant material which should shed new light on the differences in the prevalence of autism among different races.

[–] splumer 7 years ago

I love how in the film they say that "Before 1930, autism didn't exist!" never mentioning that the word "autism" in its modern definition, dates to 1938.