Is this credible? CDC Whistleblower

[malaise]

[Octafish]

1. Very important story: CDC slanted the science.

The study showed a connection between autism and African Americans who received vaccination.

For some reason, that was taken out of the report.

ETA what CNN is reporting:

Journal questions validity of autism and vaccine study

By Debra Goldschmidt, CNN
updated 10:38 AM EDT, Thu August 28, 2014

(CNN) -- The debate over a link between autism and vaccines continues.

A study published earlier this month concluded African-American boys are more at risk for autism if they're given the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine before the age of 2. The study author says researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knew about the link in 2004 -- and covered it up.

SNIP...

In an online statement, the scientific journal said the paper had been removed "because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions."

CNN first became aware of the study when an iReport was posted about its publication and the controversy surrounding it. iReport is CNN's user-generated news community.

Brian Hooker, author of the study and a biochemical engineer, found African-American boys who were given the MMR vaccine before age 24 months were more likely to be diagnosed with autism. To reach this conclusion, Hooker said he analyzed the same set of data that was the basis for a 2004 study done by researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/

Human life is a very complicated thing. Censoring scientific research doesn't help our understanding.

[malaise]

3. Hubby told me he saw this being discussed on CNN

Giving CNN's recent history I had to ask if this is credible.

If this is true it is frightening - more exploitation of young black males...this time by a government agency in sync with big pharma.

Shocked I tell yah - NOT!

[Octafish]

6. Does the name Cornelius Rhoads resonate?

The distinguished scientific researcher in essence was an American NAZI:

In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads (sometimes spelled: "Rhode&quot began the Puerto Rican Cancer Experiment, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations. Rhode infected Puerto Ricans -- human beings -- with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients ...

SOURCE: http://www.thetalkingdrum.com/experiments.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

THE PUERTO RICAN CANCER EXPERIMENT

In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a North American pathologist at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations in San Juan, carried out a murderous "experiment" in which 13 Puerto Ricans died after being purposely infected with cancer. In a letter to another doctor, leaked to the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, Rhoads wrote: "the Porto Ricans are beyond doubt the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men ever inhabiting this sphere. It makes you sick to inhabit the same island with them.… What the island needs is not public health work, but a tidal wave or something to totally exterminate the population. It might then be liveable. I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off eight and transplanting cancer into several more. The latter has not resulted in any fatalities so far.... The matter of consideration for the patients' welfare plays no role here - in fact, all physicians take delight in the abuse and torture of the unfortunate subjects".

When the case was brought to the press by Don Pedro Albizu Campos (the Nationalist Party President), the North American Governor of Puerto Rico had a prosecutor investigate the charge. Rhoads never denied writing the letter, but despite evidence proving that 13 patients had died, eight of whom were treated by Rhoads, the prosecutor exonerated Rhoads, calling him merely "a mentally ill person or a man with few scruples."

However, this "mentally ill person" went on to direct the establishment of US Army chemical warfare laboratories in Maryland, Utah, and the Panama Canal Zone, for which he was awarded the Legion of Merit in 1945. That same year, Rhoads was appointed to the staff of the US Atomic Energy Commission. The Commission was at that time carrying out radiation experiments on unwitting prisoners, hospital patients and soldiers.

Meanwhile, a 1950 Puerto Rican Nationalist insurrection led to the arrest of hundreds of activists, including Don Pedro Albizu. The prisoners later charged they were experimented on with drugs. According to Nationalist Party leaders, Rhoads was finally getting his revenge for Albizu's earlier murder charge. Albizu was denounced by US and local colonial officials as a lunatic, but doctors eventually supported his charges. His health steadily deteriorated, and he died shortly after his release from prison in 1965. Subsequent documents have supported both his original murder charges and his allegations of radiation poisoning.

SOURCE:

https://web.archive.org/web/20030814035646/http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/biochem.htm

Sorry about the link. The original is gone. Waybac Machine still maintains the text.

[malaise]

7. Yes - I have always tried to keep up with the scientific experiments

imposed on people of African descent, indigenous people and poor white people.

The 1% of this world and their lackeys are made of of seriously sick fucks.

[Union Scribe]

2. Well, here's the guy behind that YouTube channel

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/09/10358155-super-pac-supporting-ron-paul-is-operated-by-a-911-truther

If that helps you decide whether to deem their "news" coverage credible. Also FWIW the video on their main channel page is a documentary about how tea party groups were targeted by the IRS.

Edit: I'd stick with the CNN link Octafish gave.

[malaise]

5. Hence my worry

That said CNN is carrying the report

[Archae]

4. At his blog, "Orac" using actual science, shows what a nutter Brian Hooker is.

Here's the URL:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/03/brian-hooker-criticizes-a-vaccine-safety-study-hilarity-ensues/

This is just the latest wild accusation, (heck, it's even "backed up" by Andrew Wakefield,) from the "Autism is caused by vaccines" crowd.

[NuclearDem]

8. No, it's not.

More vaccine/autism quackery.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. FYI, Dr. Frank DeStefano's 2013 related paper is much more nuanced.

According to sourced comment by AOA poster:

‘The possibility that immunologic stimulation from vaccines during the first 1-2 years of life could be related to the development of ASD is not well supported by the known neurobiology of ASD, which tends to be genetically determined with origins in prenatal development, although possible effects in early infancy cannot be ruled out completely. It can be argued that ASD with regression, in which children usually lose developmental skills during the second year of life, could be related to exposures in infancy, including vaccines; however, we found no association between exposure to antigens from vaccines during infancy and the development of ASD with regression.’

'Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism' http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/fulltext
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/abstract

[proverbialwisdom]

9. Really?

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

NEWS

August 27, 2014 Press Release, “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - AUGUST 27,2014

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

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.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his beliefthat CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days. I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.

Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, www.morganverkamp.com.

MORE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016100237
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014881909
#CDCwhistleblower

[proverbialwisdom]

10. Dr. Frank DeStefano's interview on allegations.

http://sharylattkisson.com/cdc-responds-to-allegation-it-omitted-vaccine-autism-study-link-576

CDC Responds to Allegation it Omitted Vaccine-Autism Study Link
by sattkisson on August 28, 2014

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responding to a charge from one of its own senior scientists that it omitted key data in a 2004 study that would have revealed a link between autism and a commonly-required childhood vaccine, MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella).

The allegation was made by CDC epidemiologist William Thompson in a statement this week issued through his attorney. It states: “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.”

It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a sitting CDC senior scientist to blow the whistle on alleged scientific misconduct involving a study article that he co-authored. In this instance, the impact of the charge is magnified by more than a decade of allegations from autism advocates who say the federal government and pharmaceutical interests have worked to downplay or hide associations between vaccines and autism.

A spokesman for the journal Pediatrics today said the publication stands by the study despite the news. “There’s a standard process that journals follow when an article is questioned,” said the spokesman. “Those discussions took place between the editors of Pediatrics and the authors of this study, and the editors concluded the research was appropriately conducted.” Pediatrics is published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which accepts vaccine industry funding.

The Director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office, Dr. Frank DeStefano, is a co-author of the now-questioned study which has been widely-cited to dispel an MMR-autism link. DeStefano is frequently quoted as an expert who debunks vaccine-autism ties.

“I stand by the research and the conclusions in our 2004 paper, and I’ll reiterate that the evidence, thus far, the weight of the evidence, is against a causal association between vaccines and autism,” DeStefano told me in a telephone interview this week.

<>

The CDC’s DeStefano acknowledges that he and his study co-authors changed their study analysis plan midstream, which resulted in reducing the statistical vaccine-autism link among black boys. But he says they did so for good scientific reason.

“(Vaccine) exposure around (three years of age) is just not biologically plausible to have a causal association with autism,” DeStefano says. “I mean autism would’ve already started by then…it probably starts in the womb. So I think from a biological argument, it’s implausible this was a causal association.”

<>

This week, in response to a query, the CDC stated that it is not currently investigating the relation between vaccines and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). “Further, CDC does not have any planned research addressing vaccines and autism,” said a CDC spokesman.

“CDC believes that this topic has been thoroughly studied and no causal links have been found. Current CDC ASD related research focuses on determining how many people have ASD and understanding risk factors and causes for ASD.”–CDC spokesman

More.

[proverbialwisdom]

11. The CNN article mentioned a recently published RAND CORP study trumpeted throughout MSM.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/06/26/peds.2014-1079.abstract

Review Article
Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review

Margaret A. Maglione, MPPa, Lopamudra Das, MPHa, Laura Raaen, MPHa, Alexandria Smith, MPHa, Ramya Chari, PhDa, Sydne Newberry, PhDa, Roberta Shanman, MLSa, Tanja Perry, BHMa, Matthew Bidwell Goetz, MDb, and Courtney Gidengil, MD, MPHa,c

Author Affiliations

aRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California;
bVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and
cBoston Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

Accepted May 7, 2014
Published online July 1, 2014
(doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-1079)

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9799.html

RESEARCH BRIEF
August 8, 2014

U.S. Vaccines Deemed Extremely Safe, with Serious Side Effects Rare Among Children

by Margaret A. Maglione, Lopamudra Das, Laura Raaen, Alexandria Smith, Ramya Chari, Sydne Newberry, Roberta M. Shanman, Tanja Perry, Matthew Bidwell Goetz, Courtney A. Gidengil

The vaccines administered to U.S. children are very safe, and serious side effects are extremely rare, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics. The findings should help to debunk the myth that vaccines cause autism and other disorders — a claim that has led parents to avoid or delay vaccinations and has triggered a resurgence of diseases, such as measles and pertussis, that U.S. health officials had long considered to be under control.

As part of a project funded by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, RAND researchers systematically reviewed scientific studies on routine vaccines recommended for children ages six and younger in the United States and the studies' findings on side effects among patients. The review concluded that, while some vaccines are associated with serious adverse events, vaccines are very safe overall, these side effects are extremely rare, and the tiny risk of side effects must be weighed against the great protection and benefits that these vaccines provide to both individuals and the public at large.

Specifically, the review found:

* strong evidence confirming that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is not associated with autism in children.

<>

http://www.rand.org/topics/vaccination.html

[proverbialwisdom]

13. Read it and weep: "No public transparency or diversity."

http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/August-2014/DHHS-Funded-RAND-Corp--Study--An-Inside-Job.aspx

(On): The DHHS-Funded RAND Corp. Vaccine Safety Review
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:19:06 PM

The U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services (DHHS) enlisted the help of a controversial corporate-funded think tank, RAND Corporation, to conduct a “systematic review of the literature” on the safety of federally recommended vaccines. Authors of the DHHS-funded RAND review concluded that “the evidence showed that vaccines are very safe” and serious vaccine reactions are “extremely rare.” The review, which was requested and funded by the National Program Office (NVPO) in the Office of the Secretary for Health through the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was published July 1, 2014 in Pediatrics, a journal published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RAND/DHHS Vaccine “Safety” Report: Ignoring Evidence Gaps

An executive summary of the 750-page report prepared by RAND for AHRQ states that the report “will be used by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) to identify the gaps in evidence.” The “evidence” used to write the report extended beyond peer- reviewed studies published in the medical literature and included data sources such as “Scientific Information Packets requested from vaccine manufacturers.”

No Public Transparency or Diversity: Unlike reviews of vaccine safety science funded by DHHS and conducted by Institute of Medicine (IOM) committees, whose members are drawn from a diversified pool of experts and include public workshops to ensure transparency, RAND and DHHS did not hold public workshops. Instead, they confined their vaccine safety review to information controlled by industry and government.

In the DHHS-funded and RAND conducted vaccine safety review, 9 out of 10 study authors were employed by RAND, which has served primarily as a Department of Defense contractor since the corporation was founded in 1948. Among RAND’s many corporate and government funders are GlaxoSmithKline, a major vaccine manufacturer, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which partners with international vaccine corporations and is one of the leading funders and promoters of global mass vaccination programs.

National Media Campaign Fails to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

During the July 1, 2014 holiday week, DHHS and RAND spearheaded a national media campaign to promote the study’s “sweeping” conclusion that federally recommended vaccines are “very safe.” What the public did not know is that the vaccine safety review was significantly influenced by federal government officials with a big stake in finding no significant vaccine safety science gaps.

* Of the seven members of the Technical Expert Panel assisting with design of the federally funded study, two are high ranking DHHS officials responsible for ensuring vaccine safety; two are employed by health care maintenance corporations that partner with DHHS to provide electronic patient medical records for DHHS to conduct vaccine safety studies; and one is an academic vaccine researcher with significant DHHS funding ties;

* Of the four peer reviewers asked to review the federally funded study, two are DHHS employees (one is a high ranking CDC official responsible for ensuring vaccine safety) and one is a Department of Veteran Affairs employee;

* A conflict of interest disclaimer for technical experts and peer reviewers of the report stated that those individuals “must disclose any financial conflicts of interest greater than $10,000 and any other relevant business or professional conflicts of interest. Because of their unique clinical or content expertise, individuals with potential nonfinancial conflicts of interest may be retained.”

<>