Whistleblower exposes MMR Autism link

[mgw100]

All sensible stuff.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, my point is really about trust. Even with absolute integrity, science is limited by paradigms and their inherent limits on knowledge. Once we apply doubts upon motives, it's virtually impossible to substantiate expert opinion.

 

There's been lots of links to various websites on this thread, if we're honest do any of us really have the first clue on their veracity? I would call it an academic debate, except it isn't. Apologies to any actual subject matter experts.

[Strontium]

All sensible stuff.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, my point is really about trust. Even with absolute integrity, science is limited by paradigms and their inherent limits on knowledge. Once we apply doubts upon motives, it's virtually impossible to substantiate expert opinion.

 

There's been lots of links to various websites on this thread, if we're honest do any of us really have the first clue on their veracity? I would call it an academic debate, except it isn't. Apologies to any actual subject matter experts.

 

Your problem is you are treating peer-reviewed studies in respected science journals with the same level of skepticism as kook websites operated by tinfoil hat-wearing shut-ins.

 

If you insist on remaining agnostic about vaccine safety, then just consider the mathematics: hundreds of millions of lives have been saved, and continue to be saved, by vaccines.

[Strontium]

Jesus Christ, not this old chestnut.

 

 

 

This is another reason to despise conspiracy nuts. Fluoride is a pretty vile chemical, whose health benefits are dubious, and whose negative effects are well known. And there are eminently superb reasons for opposing distribution of medicine in the fucking water supply, of all things.

 

Unfortunately the lunatics have jumped on this bandwagon, bringing crackpot theories about mind control and the like, and tainting it by their very presence.

[mgw100]

I'm not actually mate. If anything I'm agreeing with you, thought not being explicit. In the absence of trust for anything, my personal view is to default towards those sources that are at least in some way accountable to me. My view is that the absence of trust is universal and it is therefore relatively simple it is to invoke scepticism regardless of the quality of source that does so. There is an eager audience available.

[mgw100]

At the same time, agnosticism is a reasonable definition. Doubt presides over certainty in most things for me

[aikido]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/27/anti_vax_cdc_conspiracy_theory_sweeping_the_social_media.html

 

No, There Still Is No Connection Between Vaccines and Autism

 

 

here's a conspiracy theory going around that the CDC covered up a link between autism and vaccines. From what I can tell, this conspiracy theory is on the same level as the one that NASA faked the Moon landings. And you know how I feel about that.

Perhaps you’ve heard about this CDC theory; it’s burning up on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. The gist of it is that a “whistleblower” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has revealed some hanky-panky done by researchers there to cover up a link between vaccines and autism found in a certain group of babies, and a new analysis supposedly shows this connection.  

It’d be a compelling story, if it were true. However, it appears very strongly to be false. Since I am not an expert in the specifics, I direct you to two posts: "Did a high ranking whistleblower really reveal that the CDC covered up proof that vaccines cause autism in African-American boys?" by Dr. David Gorski at Science Based Medicine, and “Andrew Wakefield Tortures History” at Harpocrates Speaks. These, together with links therein, show to my satisfaction why this conspiracy claim is more heat than light. As the first post by Gorski shows, the "new analysis" fails for multiple reasons, including using small numbers for statistics (a big no-no), applying statistics incorrectly, and not even employing an actual statistician for the analysis. There are other very serious problems as well, all of which are laid bare in those posts.

I'll note that the conspiracy theory is endorsed by Andrew Wakefield—called a fraud by the BMJ, guilty of scientific misconduct, and father of the modern anti-vaccine movement. That right there is enough for me to be extremely suspicious of it. Coupled with the evidence outlined above? Done.

Me, putting my immune system where my mouth is.

Photo by Phil Plait

To be clear: Although it’s been tested over and again, no causal connection has ever been found between vaccines and autism … and it’s not just the CDC and other U.S. facilities that have worked on this; it's been an international effort.

Stuff like this used to make me really angry, but now it makes me sad. Diseases like measles, pertussis, chicken pox, and polio are dangerous, and they’re making a comeback, in no small part due to misinformation spread by anti-vaxxers. 

I know that many of the people making these claims are honest; they're speaking from their heart out of concern for their children. As a parent and a human being, I’m concerned about this as well. And that’s precisely why I write about the realities of vaccines: They are extremely effective, and their risk is incredibly small compared with their benefits. Conspiracy theories like this new one have the potential to do a lot of damage. Ironically, by avoiding vaccinations, the people it’s likely to hurt are the very ones their parents are trying to protect.

 

[Stu Monty]

Dog, I asked you a question, you'll hurt my feelings ignoring me like that.

 

So how does a whole industry not publishing trials fit into the idea of profit not corrupting science? 

[Jose Jones]

Dog, I asked you a question, you'll hurt my feelings ignoring me like that.

 

So how does a whole industry not publishing trials fit into the idea of profit not corrupting science? 

 

I don't think you know too much about clinical trials and the pharmaceutical industry.

Also it seems you don't know too much about science either.  Bit of a shame Monty.

[Stu Monty]

I don't think you know too much about clinical trials and the pharmaceutical industry.

Also it seems you don't know too much about science either.  Bit of a shame Monty.

 

Would you like to actually refute my point instead of just trying to patronise me and generally being an irritating cunt?

 

I can then send your response on to the very bright scientists that seem to be of the same opinion of me, and are campaigning on the issue.

[Arl arse]

This is another reason to despise conspiracy nuts. Fluoride is a pretty vile chemical, whose health benefits are dubious, and whose negative effects are well known. And there are eminently superb reasons for opposing distribution of medicine in the fucking water supply, of all things.

 

Unfortunately the lunatics have jumped on this bandwagon, bringing crackpot theories about mind control and the like, and tainting it by their very presence.

Jesus Christ, not this old chestnut.

 

 

Harvard study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/?report=Classic showing direct link to Fluoride and reduced IQ in children.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/

[Strontium]

Dog, I asked you a question, you'll hurt my feelings ignoring me like that.

 

So how does a whole industry not publishing trials fit into the idea of profit not corrupting science? 

 

To which trials are you referring?

[Jose Jones]

Would you like to actually refute my point instead of just trying to patronise me and generally being an irritating cunt?

 

I can then send your response on to the very bright scientists that seem to be of the same opinion of me, and are campaigning on the issue.

 

Sure.  Your claim was that the whole of the pharmaceutical industry doesn't publish clinical trial results, and hence this is proof of money corrupting science.

This initial claim is massively bogus, which renders your sweeping money corrupts everything point rather tainted by association.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of clinical trials undertaken every year from first in man studies, phase 2 and phase 3.

Clinical trials are done by universities, research institutes, hospitals, not-for-profit charities as well as biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. 

 

Whilst it is certainly true that a few pharmaceutical companies have engaged in shady practices, including hiding adverse events found during clinical trials (e.g. Merck and Vioxx) your claim that the whole industry is at it rather easily points me to you not knowing anything about the vast number of clinical trials conducted by health researchers in the public and private arenas, and thus grandstanding wildly to try to make a point.

 

Out of all the new medicines in development 95% fail because of safety and efficacy reasons before even making it into the health care arena.  Medicines are then monitored with massive post registration safety monitoring procedures, which leads to the odd medicine being withdrawn from human use.

 

So the whilst some companies (or scientists) may have been corrupted by the pursuit of profit, they are pretty much always found out by other scientists doing science.  The scientific method involved in the development of new medicines is pretty robust really.

[Red Phoenix]

For anyone interested in fluoride, you should maybe look into the effects on the pineal gland :

 

 

As a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans. In fact, the calcified parts of the pineal gland (hydroxyapatite crystals) contain the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body (up to 21,000 ppm F), higher than either bone or teeth.  (Luke 1997; 2001). Although the soft tissue of the pineal does not accumulate fluoride to the same extent as the calcified part, it does contain higher levels of fluoride than found than in other types of soft tissue in the body — with concentrations (~300 ppm F) that are known in other contexts to inhibit enzymes.  While the impacts of these fluoride concentrations in the pineal are not yet fully understood, studies have found that calcified deposits in the pineal are associated with decreased numbers of functioning pinealocytes and reduced melatonin production (Kunz et al., 1999) as well as impairments in the sleep-wake cycle. (Mahlberg 2009).

 

 

Source : http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/

 

Plenty of papers here as well : http://www.slweb.org/ftrcbibliography.html

 

They can just fuck off with fluoride already.

[Stu Monty]

To which trials are you referring?

 

Clinical trials of drugs, in general.

 

Sure.  Your claim was that the whole of the pharmaceutical industry doesn't publish clinical trial results, and hence this is proof of money corrupting science.

This initial claim is massively bogus, which renders your sweeping money corrupts everything point rather tainted by association.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of clinical trials undertaken every year from first in man studies, phase 2 and phase 3.

Clinical trials are done by universities, research institutes, hospitals, not-for-profit charities as well as biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. 

 

Whilst it is certainly true that a few pharmaceutical companies have engaged in shady practices, including hiding adverse events found during clinical trials (e.g. Merck and Vioxx) your claim that the whole industry is at it rather easily points me to you not knowing anything about the vast number of clinical trials conducted by health researchers in the public and private arenas, and thus grandstanding wildly to try to make a point.

 

Out of all the new medicines in development 95% fail because of safety and efficacy reasons before even making it into the health care arena.  Medicines are then monitored with massive post registration safety monitoring procedures, which leads to the odd medicine being withdrawn from human use.

 

So the whilst some companies (or scientists) may have been corrupted by the pursuit of profit, they are pretty much always found out by other scientists doing science.  The scientific method involved in the development of new medicines is pretty robust really.

 

Oh. You might want to tell the House of Commons Public Accounts committee then.  They seem to feel that: 

 

"...important information about clinical trials is routinely and legally 

withheld from doctors and researchers by manufacturers. This longstanding regulatory 

and cultural failure impacts on all of medicine, and undermines the ability of clinicians, 

researchers and patients to make informed decisions about which treatment is best.

There are also concerns about the information made available to the National Institute for Health 

and Care Excellence (NICE) which assesses a medicine’s clinical and cost–effectiveness for 

use in the NHS".

 

But as you say. Probably pretty ill-informed when compared to you.

 

That there, is profit corrupting science.

 

Even if it were only 5% of drugs it applied to, the statement that profit corrupts science would still be true.

[Red Phoenix]

Just found this :

 

 

 

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.

 

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/

[Rico1304]

There's an interesting podcast that touches on scientists, business and funding.

 

My Life Scientific, Nicky Clayton. He talks about his work on sequencing the human genome and attempts to patent it.

[Red Phoenix]

Hooker's study has now been removed from the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal as well : http://www.translationalneurodegeneration.com/content/3/1/16/abstract

 

It's here though : http://www.rescuepost.com/files/measles-mumps-rubella-vaccination-timing-and-autism-among-young-african-american-boys_-a-reanalysis-of-cdc-data---2047-9158-3-16.pdf

 

Found it via here : http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/08/journal-translational-neurodegeneration-removes-mmr-article.html

[Red Phoenix]

Also, have a look at some of the figures here, they're insane : http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/features/birthdefects-dd-keyfindings.html

[Arl arse]

Just found this :

 

 

 

 

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/

Thanks RP, missed this one.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

Clinical trials of drugs, in general.

 

 

Oh. You might want to tell the House of Commons Public Accounts committee then.  They seem to feel that: 

 

"...important information about clinical trials is routinely and legally 

withheld from doctors and researchers by manufacturers. This longstanding regulatory 

and cultural failure impacts on all of medicine, and undermines the ability of clinicians, 

researchers and patients to make informed decisions about which treatment is best.

There are also concerns about the information made available to the National Institute for Health 

and Care Excellence (NICE) which assesses a medicine’s clinical and cost–effectiveness for 

use in the NHS".

 

But as you say. Probably pretty ill-informed when compared to you.

 

That there, is profit corrupting science.

 

Even if it were only 5% of drugs it applied to, the statement that profit corrupts science would still be true.

 

OK, since the Dog ain't biting, I'll see if I can speak for him.

 

When you say "profit corrupts science", if I understand correctly, you're talking about the work of the people and  organisations who are involved in scientific industries.

 

From what I've seen, when the Dog talks about science he's talking about scientific method.

 

If you're both talking about different concepts, you're unlikely to reach a consensus.

[Stu Monty]

OK, since the Dog ain't biting, I'll see if I can speak for him.

 

When you say "profit corrupts science", if I understand correctly, you're talking about the work of the people and  organisations who are involved in scientific industries.

 

From what I've seen, when the Dog talks about science he's talking about scientific method.

 

If you're both talking about different concepts, you're unlikely to reach a consensus.

 

His comments don't indicate that at all. 

[Jose Jones]

 

Clinical trials of drugs, in general.

 

 

Oh. You might want to tell the House of Commons Public Accounts committee then.  They seem to feel that: 

 

"...important information about clinical trials is routinely and legally 

withheld from doctors and researchers by manufacturers. This longstanding regulatory 

and cultural failure impacts on all of medicine, and undermines the ability of clinicians, 

researchers and patients to make informed decisions about which treatment is best.

There are also concerns about the information made available to the National Institute for Health 

and Care Excellence (NICE) which assesses a medicine’s clinical and cost–effectiveness for 

use in the NHS".

 

But as you say. Probably pretty ill-informed when compared to you.

 

That there, is profit corrupting science.

 

Even if it were only 5% of drugs it applied to, the statement that profit corrupts science would still be true.

 

 

Nowhere in that does it say that clinical trials aren't being published - ergo your initial claim is false.

 

It also does not say that the "information about clinical trials" is withheld due to profit reasons.

 

If the MHRA want more information on the safety or efficacy of a proposed new drug they will require that pharmaceutical companies undertake further clinical trials to get the data they require.  This happens quite regularly - it is much harder now to get any new medicine registered than it ever has been in the past.

 

Also you will note that your snippet mentions that researchers and doctors continue to study the medicines once they have been registered - using science - so the process of science is not corrupted it continues on with scientists assessing the impact of the medicines.

[skend04]

[Stu Monty]

Nowhere in that does it say that clinical trials aren't being published - ergo your initial claim is false.

 

It also does not say that the "information about clinical trials" is withheld due to profit reasons.

 

If the MHRA want more information on the safety or efficacy of a proposed new drug they will require that pharmaceutical companies undertake further clinical trials to get the data they require.  This happens quite regularly - it is much harder now to get any new medicine registered than it ever has been in the past.

 

Also you will note that your snippet mentions that researchers and doctors continue to study the medicines once they have been registered - using science - so the process of science is not corrupted it continues on with scientists assessing the impact of the medicines.

 

Okay, you seem to not be willing to accept that companies often withhold trial information on products on the market because it would damage their profit to do so. 

 

So we're done here.

[Jose Jones]

Okay, you seem to not be willing to accept that companies often withhold trial information on products on the market because it would damage their profit to do so. 

 

So we're done here.

 

I agree in some cases it has happened - particularly since the rampant financialisation of the corporate world in the 80s - and there are obviously examples of short term stupidity by execs in the pharmaceutical industry to support this.

 

However that wasn't your claim - those were:

 

a) All clinical trials aren't published - which is patently false

 

and

 

b) That was a proof of science being corrupted by profit. 

I was arguing along AoTs line's that it was some scientists rather than the method of science itself and offered the fact that scientific testing of medicines once they are on the market continues so that science is carrying on.  Again, not anything you have disagreed with.