Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 127

Thread: Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

  1. #61
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    http://ingunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/357037-latest-cdc-vaccine-cover-up.html#post5247899
    Ok... why do you think he was 'talking' to him in the first place? And telling him where to find the fraudulent data?

    Regardless, my point is that data was omitted that suggested a link between race/gender, MMR vaccine before 36 mos, and autism. But, it does not specify what that data was. It a statistical thing? Is it a sample size thing? Is it a difference of a standard deviation or .1 of a std. dev.?

    What he "admitted" to could be any number of things. I'd like to know specifically what was omitted and what impact it had on the results. Everything else is rhetoric. (Not that there's anything inherently wrong with rhetoric.)
    The omitted data turned out to be exactly what Dr. Hooker said it was. Children without Georgia birth certificates. The CDC even said as much. The paper that he published was right on target.
    Last edited by steveh_131; 08-28-2014 at 10:43. Reason: Fixed the state

  2. #62
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by steveh_131 View Post
    Ok... why do you think he was 'talking' to him in the first place? And telling him where to find the fraudulent data?

    The omitted data turned out to be exactly what Dr. Hooker said it was. Children without Louisiana birth certificates. The CDC even said as much. The paper that he published was right on target.
    Wait. If that's the "data" then the original paper said that. It wasn't "hidden" at all. (Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Georgia birth certificates, since the study was Atlanta.)

    From the abstract:
    Records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors.
    From the data description:
    We matched 355 (56%) case and 1020 (56%) control children to Georgia state birth certificate records, which allowed us to obtain additional information, such as each child’s birth weight and gestational age and the mother’s parity, age, race, and education.
    I see nothing wrong with standardizing the data to exclude other birth certificates. Those other BCs may not have had the same data, in the same format, so it introduces another variable that you can't control for.

    If that's the smoking gun, I'm underwhelmed.

    I was under the impression that there was some sort of tomfoolery with the control variables or fraudulently stating the results of the analysis.

    As it is, the study is reproducable. Someone could use effectively the same criteria to do the study in Indianapolis. (Which, by the way, I would be very interested in.) Also, something else I just thought of, I didn't see frequency results for kids that were not immunized at all.

    I mean, is the rate of autism 0% for non-MMR-immunized kids? That would be rather compelling.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  3. #63
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    Wait. If that's the "data" then the original paper said that. It wasn't "hidden" at all. (Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Georgia birth certificates, since the study was Atlanta.)
    Yes, it was Georgia. Sorry, my brain is still waking up apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    I see nothing wrong with standardizing the data to exclude other birth certificates. Those other BCs may not have had the same data, in the same format, so it introduces another variable that you can't control for.
    The issue is not that they used this criteria. The issue is that they first ran the study without the criteria, found results that they didn't want to publish, and then went fishing to find what criteria they could use that would filter out those results. This is what Dr. Thompson is confessing to. These are the troubling results that he alluded to in his letter to the CDC director. This is bad science. This is fraud.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    Also, something else I just thought of, I didn't see frequency results for kids that were not immunized at all.


    This study was never intended to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated. This study was about the age of vaccination.

  4. #64
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by steveh_131 View Post
    The issue is not that they used this criteria. The issue is that they first ran the study without the criteria, found results that they didn't want to publish, and then went fishing to find what criteria they could use that would filter out those results. This is what Dr. Thompson is confessing to. These are the troubling results that he alluded to in his letter to the CDC director. This is bad science. This is fraud.
    I won't judge whether it is bad science until I know the difference it made. I can imagine (and I'm not even that creative) why the inclusion of the non-GA BCs might result in an uncontrolled (maybe even uncontrollable) statistical increase.

    Please, if I missed the impact of the exclusion on the results, point it out.

    This study was never intended to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated. This study was about the age of vaccination.
    Indeed. And, apparently the race. (Which, having one of my own pet peeves rise to the top, is almost indefinable. In fact, on the BCs, it is a matter of self-reporting. The actual sample description should be "male, self-reported African Americans." But that's my own issue with racial definitions.)

    But, here's a question, are you familiar with ANY studies that show 0% autism among non-vaccinated kids? Or, if the results are > 0, how much greater?
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  5. #65
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    I won't judge whether it is bad science until I know the difference it made. I can imagine (and I'm not even that creative) why the inclusion of the non-GA BCs might result in an uncontrolled (maybe even uncontrollable) statistical increase.
    It made the sample size too small to draw any conclusions from.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    But, here's a question, are you familiar with ANY studies that show 0% autism among non-vaccinated kids? Or, if the results are > 0, how much greater?
    I don't know of any and I don't expect to see any.

  6. #66
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by steveh_131 View Post
    It made the sample size too small to draw any conclusions from.
    Ah - I'm sorry, I didn't understand. (Sincerely, I think I just now got what you've been trying to say.)

    Your point (and Hooker's probably) is that by including the non-GA BCs, there was an apparent link to maleness/African-Americaness. The original study indicated no such link.

    My counterpoint (other than the observation that this needs further study) is that even by including it, Hooker had to fiddle with the age cutoffs and still had a remarkably low sample size.

    I don't know of any and I don't expect to see any.
    Why not? It seems to me that such a study would be relatively easy and very insightful. There are only 3 possible outcomes for the incidence rate: below the population at large, at the population at large, or above the population at large. Any of those outcomes would contribute to the debate, I think.

    If I were Hooker, that's where I'd put my research.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  7. #67
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    Ah - I'm sorry, I didn't understand. (Sincerely, I think I just now got what you've been trying to say.)


    No worries. Sorry if I was unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    Your point (and Hooker's probably) is that by including the non-GA BCs, there was an apparent link to maleness/African-Americaness. The original study indicated no such link.


    Yes. Using exclusion criteria for scientific reasons is reasonable (although I don't think this particular criteria holds much scientific weight). But doing it for the purpose of concealing these results (tenuous as they may be) is fraudulent.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    My counterpoint (other than the observation that this needs further study) is that even by including it, Hooker had to fiddle with the age cutoffs and still had a remarkably low sample size.
    Agreed. But this organization is so intent on protecting the public's perception of the safety of vaccines, that even these tenuous results had to be hidden from us.

  8. #68
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    Why not? It seems to me that such a study would be relatively easy and very insightful. There are only 3 possible outcomes for the incidence rate: below the population at large, at the population at large, or above the population at large. Any of those outcomes would contribute to the debate, I think.
    Sorry, I believe I was again unclear. I haven't seen any research showing it at 0%. There is some research in this arena showing the autism incidence rates to be similar among vaccinated children vs. unvaccinated children. There is also some research showing a slightly higher incidence among vaccinated children, but it is widely attacked by the mainstream media.

    Especially considering the nature of this cover-up, I don't expect to see much research shedding light on this any time in the near future.

  9. #69
    Grandmaster 88GT's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Would you look at you two? Having a respectful, polite, and civil discussion without one side resorting to insults and name-calling. And they said it wasn't possible on INGO.
    Come to the river.

  10. #70
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    **** up *****

    (KIDDING! Kidding!)
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •