Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Discuss autism diets and biomedical treatments of autism.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

happymom
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby happymom » Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:44 pm

a
Last edited by happymom on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:36 am, edited 4 times in total.

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Josie » Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:56 pm

Thanks for that great reply.

I would like to know what you mean by "mitochondrial support" and why you feel this is important.

happymom
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby happymom » Tue Oct 28, 2014 4:56 pm

a
Last edited by happymom on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Josie
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:35 am

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Josie » Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:20 pm

Thanks

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Winnie » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:32 pm

happymom wrote:The controversy about vaccines has been around a long time and there is a lot of information and facts from both sides that is easy to find on the internet.
Really. I had no idea.


happymom wrote:I realized quite early in my training that anyone can find a credible article written by well educated people to support his/her position about anything. Posting or reading research from just one side of any argument while then resorting to making personal attacks about those who disagree with your opinion is not helpful in any way.
I absolutely agree.


happymom wrote:You absolutely have the right to disagree with any opinion, but to summarily dismiss the education and research of those scientists (who have years of training, experience and schooling) shows a lack of education.
Well I guess that’s it – my lack of education.

If I had more education I would summarily accept the education and research of “those scientists” at the MAPS conference, and summarily accept (and repeat) their opinion as truth.


happymom wrote:We obviously disagree about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I can live with that and agree to disagree. Can you? I don't find your ability to search and post papers supporting your position to be very helpful.
I don’t find your claim to have unidentified studies that you can’t find to be very helpful or that this claim lends any credibility to your opinion. You had the same trouble on an earlier hbot thread.


happymom wrote: Any minimally educated person with a few computer skills can do that. I place more weight on the opinions of medically trained who specialize in autism treatment than I do on any internet poster.
So do I.


happymom wrote:As for your personal attack on Russell Blaylock, I think it was uncalled for and petty. But then he does share his learned opinion publically, so I know he is used to it. What you seem to want to forget or ignore is that he has spent years in training, practice, and research, so his opinions do carry some validity and weight.
I didn’t write the article on Blaylock’s kooky conspiracy notions, I just linked it. But I can also link you to individuals whose credentials, training, practice, experience, and research in medical areas and autism – since these are your criteria -- FAR exceed Blaylock’s – including Pediatric Neurology and autism. Like Max Wiznitzer, for instance. You can read his 43-page Curriculum Vitae here, by clicking "download profile:"
http://www.uhhospitals.org/find-a-docto ... r-max-1490

Applying your logic, I think I’ll stick with Max.


happymom wrote:But perhaps you can't follow along with a scientific discussion based on human anatomy and physiology.
Well, nuts. So now I’m uneducated AND slow.


happymom wrote:You should know that it takes years of research and lots of money in order to have a study "publish-ready". And then it has to be approved, which is no small hurdle if your research goes against what is considered to be "conventional wisdom" or the political party line.
Umm, “you should know” that IRB approval is necessary before the “years of research” even begin. Not that I’m trying to rain on your self-aggrandizing wall of text about how learned you are or anything. IRB stands for Institutional Review Board – you can google it.


happymom wrote:It's wonderful that you don't think your child was vaccine damaged. That's one less differential diagnosis you need to consider and treat for, which frees you up to explore other options.
“Vaccine damaged” is not a “differential diagnosis.” Not a diagnosis to “treat for” with a specified protocol. Hey even slow uneducated folks like me know that. ;)


happymom wrote:Parents know what they saw and experienced, and for you to try to discredit them is really very unthoughtful and uncaring.
Actually there is research on the accuracy of retrospective parental reports, even in the realm of autism, as well as evidence presented in court proceedings (Autism Omnibus hearings, for instance) demonstrating recall bias. I recall that recall bias was covered earlier in this thread. I’m sure you already know that, being all learned in the ways of research and all.

There are plenty of examples on this forum alone of parents who changed their stories to align with their current treatment and/or causation beliefs. There are also examples of parents who claimed to have “recovered” their child that were phony, and a very memorable one of an individual here and elsewhere on the internet who claimed to be very educated, claimed to have recovered her child, passed out treatment advice and consulted for FREE, and then launched a “practice” along with a book and other products. She was caught in the web of her lies and eventually exposed as a fraud.

I think parents deserve the truth – so I will continue to point it out where I see it. In a treatment atmosphere driven by anonymous testimonials on the internet, the accuracy and completeness of those testimonials is essential.


happymom wrote:Now for my son. I have no idea what your definition of recovery is (if you even have one), but here is mine:
Since the anecdotal parental claims of “recovery” are so varied, via personal definitions of “recovery,” as to render them essentially meaningless, I consider the CARD definition to be a good operational definition -- previously posted here.


happymom wrote:The word "autism" is not part of any conversations, nor does it enter our minds any more.
lol, that seems rather unlikely considering your business venture focusing on autism, and not exactly reassuring to those you are treating and charging.


happymom wrote:I have spent countless hours and a lot of money getting trained. And I am currently consulting for FREE. It will probably be years before I earn back what I have spent. But I spent the time and put in the effort to try to figure out what was going on with my son and how I could help him.
Aww! You are just such an amazing person! Probably the first parent ever to spend countless hours and $$ on training and the first parent ever to put in time and effort to figure out how to help their child.


happymom wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure what your issue is with trained medical professionals who use their education, training, and experience to try to help families and children affected with autism. Why is that such an objectionable thing?
Honestly, I don’t have a problem with trained medical professionals helping families -- or with promising treatments that may help children. What I usually have a problem with are the claims surrounding some of these treatments, along with the lack of support for these claims and lack of evidence concerning efficacy and safety.


happymom wrote:I am very happy to agree to disagree with you, Winnie.
Likewise. :)
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

happymom
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby happymom » Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:17 am

a
Last edited by happymom on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Winnie » Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:27 pm

happymom wrote:You seem to put your self out there as someone who "knows" better that anyone, regardless of their credentials. However, when you were pulling sections of my post, you did stop at the point where I asked what your credentials are.
I don’t have any need to wave around degrees and training, since I link the information (or research) in question whenever possible. I wouldn’t expect anyone to just believe that I know something based on some self-aggrandizing claims concerning my education. And besides, unlike you, I’m not selling anything or setting up shop to profit from autism, so I have no obligation to share my education and credentials.

happymom wrote:I guess perhaps you are unaware of how the higher education system works.
Oh do tell! With another huge wall of text!


happymom wrote:One of the key things that is taught in college and grad school is the ability to critically analyze data
That must be difficult when you can’t remember what data you are supposed to critically analyze.


happymom wrote:Perhaps it would be better if medical students and residents skipped all of their lectures and just studied what they thought was important.
Yeah, med school is just dumb. And research is boring.


happymom wrote:You even rely on the teachings of others when you are quoting and referring to your beloved articles. Unless you were personally there helping perform the study, then you are accepting the author's opinions and repeating them as truth.
^I quoted that because it’s funny in a backhanded kind of way. We know that in hier edukashun one is taught to “critically analyze” study design – including the limitations of a study, right?


happymom wrote:I am sorry you still find the MAPS group to be an unacceptable source of information. That is certainly your right.
No need to apologize, though I do find some of the presenters at MAPS to be unacceptable based on their claims. Like Megson, currently featured on another thread. We can “critically analyze” this point further if you wish.


happymom wrote:Now for my inability to link to the articles that you find so very helpful. I do not actually care much for journal articles.
Yes, that's obvious at this point.


happymom wrote:I do not have a huge filing room full of articles at my fingertips that I can post to satisfy your demands.
I don't think you need one. Professional journals are available electronically these days – have been for quite some time. At the very least, the abstracts of most journal articles are indexed on PubMed.


happymom wrote:One of the more hilarious (yet mind numbingly boring) parts of hospital training is watching the residents go at each other in a game I call "journal wars". It's often done in front of an attending they are trying to impress. They simply cite article after article at each other to try to prove some point.
Perhaps you were having trouble following -- since those residents are far more educated than you? They are physicians, and you are an assistant (2-year program). You previously said dismissing the education and training of the learned shows a lack of education -- so you aren’t dismissing their education and credential, are you?

Seriously Hap, you are beginning to sound like a physician wannabe who didn't have the cred for med school, and now resentful that you require the supervision of a physician to practice.


happymom wrote:So spending time finding journal articles for you to review is not really of any interest to me. You seem to love doing that. Perhaps you can do your own search for your own research if it's that important to you.
I do -- often.


happymom wrote: I think my clinical experience and training carries as much weight as your beloved articles.
On which point -- or which research article?

Hey I’m pretty clear on your opinion of yourself. And that you don’t bother with research. I’m just not sure how medical science (or autism treatment) will advance without research and depend on the size of your ego instead.

Highly educated and clinically competent people don't need to try so hard to convince people that they are.


happymom wrote:I don't actually care if parent's have a recall bias. It's one of the variable used to give "weight" to the credibility of a research study.
Actually, recall bias is a potential limitation in research design. It has the potential to detract from the validity, not give “weight” to the credibility. Did you really go to grad school?


happymom wrote:I think parents deserve the truth also, but maybe not the "truth according to Winnie".
That’s why I try to provide links to evidence/support of my points when possible. It’s more efficient than writing a 10-page self-aggrandizing article about myself trying to convince people that I know something.

If I have posted something inaccurate, by all means point it out. I try to be accurate and support my points.


happymom wrote:Sorry you have a problem with the way internet forums work. This is a place where parents come for information and to discuss things with each other.
And also a handy place to look for customers.


happymom wrote:Again, my pleasure to disagree with you, Winnie. I suspect that as I post more, we shall have a chance to dance again.

lol! I’m not sure this site has the necessary bandwidth to support future chapters of Look at Me! I am so Awesome and Learned! by Hap P. Mom.
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Jupiter
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Jupiter » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:17 pm

happymom wrote:Winnie,
I have no idea what level of education you have. What I said was that the way you dismiss any information you disagree with shows a lack of education. You seem to put yourself out there as someone who "knows" better that anyone, regardless of their credentials. However, when you were pulling sections of my post, you did stop at the point where I asked what your credentials are. And you never answered the question. It's a valid question to ask someone who voices their opinion so strongly and who never hesitates to dismiss the opinion of any dissenter.

I guess perhaps you are unaware of how the higher education system works. One of the key things that is taught in college and grad school is the ability to critically analyze data and to be open-minded to the opinions of others, whether you agree with them or not. All of what we learn is taught to us by somebody else. That is true from birth, and is still true in medical school. We are asked to believe what is written in our books, and to take that knowledge and apply it when we treat patients. Perhaps it would be better if medical students and residents skipped all of their lectures and just studied what they thought was important. You even rely on the teachings of others when you are quoting and referring to your beloved articles. Unless you were personally there helping perform the study, then you are accepting the author's opinions and repeating them as truth.

I am sorry you still find the MAPS group to be an unacceptable source of information. That is certainly your right. But I received 18 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits for attending the conference and listening to and learning what the speakers had to say. For those of you who may be unaware, medical practitioners are required to get a certain number of hours of continuing medical education a year. We go to conferences to hear updates in our field of study (or any field we want). In order to classify as a Category 1 seminar, the content and speakers must be reviewed and approved by a board at the AMA. Here's what my certificate says: "This CME activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and Policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the Joint Sponsorship of the Institute for Medical Studies (IMS) and Physician Hospitals of America. The Institute for Medical Studies is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians." So while you, Winnie, may find the speakers to be not up to your standards, they were up to the standards of the ACCME. I suppose you know better than that group, too. Perhaps I shouldn't post about what I heard (or repeat any of the information, even if it is relevant to some postings) because you know more than the trained professions who teach about autism.

Now for my inability to link to the articles that you find so very helpful. I do not actually care much for journal articles. I read them, assimilate their information into my framework of knowledge, then pitch them. I do not have a huge filing room full of articles at my fingertips that I can post to satisfy your demands. I had to spend hours at the medical library in the stacks gathering information when I was writing my required papers for school. I found it very boring. I enjoyed seeing and helping patients much more. One of the more hilarious (yet mind numbingly boring) parts of hospital training is watching the residents go at each other in a game I call "journal wars". It's often done in front of an attending they are trying to impress. They simply cite article after article at each other to try to prove some point. The winner is the one with the best memory. But I never saw the journal wars affect the treatment of a patient. And the doctors who excelled at memorizing articles were often the ones whose bedside manner left a lot to be desired. They tended to the be the MD's who gravitated towards the field of research or practiced at an academic setting rather than going into private practice.

So spending time finding journal articles for you to review is not really of any interest to me. You seem to love doing that. Perhaps you can do your own search for your own research if it's that important to you. I think my clinical experience and training and multiple opinions of clinically practicing autism-care providers carries as much weight as your beloved articles when it comes to clinical practice. There are many times when I have heard a physician utter "I know what the article says, but that's not what I've found in my practice". Not all medicine practices are guided by the findings in your articles. Medical professionals are taught to think for themselves. So while information in a study carries some weight, what a clinician actually experiences will have much more weight on their style of practice.

I am glad you have found a doctor whose experience and credentials are up to your standards and whose style of practice makes you comfortable. That is what everyone deserves. Perhaps you can tell us what he is like in person. Is he helpful or condescending when he treats you? Does he listen to you, or just tell you his opinion and give you a list of things to do? What did he offer you that was helpful? What was not helpful? That kind of personal information would probably be very helpful to any reader who may wish to consider getting an appointment at his office.

I am not sure if you can follow a basic discussion about anatomy and physiology, yet you seen to think that you have a better understanding of neurology than a neurologist and your opinion of his practice guidelines and clinical advice is more credible. I have no idea if you are uneducated because you won't answer that question. And I certainly have no idea if you are slow.

I do know plenty about the IRB, even without having to google it. My DH is, among other things, in charge of research and drug studies at his hospital. I know very well how much money the drug companies are spending to conduct their research and how long the process takes. It is not easy, cheap, or quick. One of the current studies has been in preparation stage for months now and no patients have even been enrolled yet. It will take months of patient treatment and follow-up before any data is collected. And then the data has to be sorted through and evaluated by a statistician. Then the data can be used by a credentialed individual to write a paper. Then it has to be peer reviewed and evaluated. It's a long and expensive process.

Now, I don't think your google search of "differential diagnosis" provided you with completely accurate information. You are somewhat correct in stating that "vaccine damage" is not a diagnosis: it is not a billable insurance diagnosis code, nor one I can write on a hospital admission form. Differential diagnosis is a term used to describe the thought process behind the evaluation of a history and physical. It is used in clinical practice when we are going through what are described as "teaching cases". The presenter reads the information gathered during his history and physical. Then he writes "DDx" on the board and asks "ok, so what is our differential diagnosis?" The attendees are expected to use their knowledge and experience to supply potential diagnosis based on the information given. For example, a patient who presents with fever, chills, a cough, and is found to have crackles in their lungs on PE has a differential diagnosis that includes pneumonia, TB, legionella, and many other potential diagnoses based on their history. Labs and treatment regimes are then based on what is considered to be the most likely differential diagnosis. In medical lingo, we say "what diagnosis am I treating for?" So while "vaccine damage" is not a billable insurance code, it is should definitely be included in the differential diagnosis of any patient who presents with neurological symptoms who history states "parents state they noticed changes shortly after vaccine given". The billable diagnosis is probably something like "neurological deficits consistent with heavy metal poisoning". Once my differential includes the suspicion of possible vaccine damage, I then make an assessment in which I write something like "neurological damage possibly consistent with heavy metal toxicity and possibly associated with a parent-given history of vaccine administration." I then formulate a plan to search for answers to my assessment, in this case specific lab requests. Sorry if I confused you by skipping a few steps when I posted and using medical "lingo". Perhaps a "slow, uneducated folk like" yourself (your words, not mine) should spend a few days learning the thought process behind the evaluation and diagnosis of a patient works before offering an opinion that is somehow supposed to subtly discredit someone who's been through the training process.

I don't actually care if parents have a recall bias. It's one of the variable used to give "weight" to the credibility of a research study and many research studies have to use a history form to collect data. Do you have a better method to collect data from parents? I'm sure if a parent thought a vaccine was going to possibly cause their child harm they wouldn't allow it in the first place. Just because some details are not crystal clear in a parent's mind, that doesn't mean they didn't watch their child get ill after a vaccine. Some of the other things we use to give "weight" to a paper include who ran the study, how many patients were included, who funded the study, and a consideration as to whether the study actually answered the question it set out to answer.

I'm sorry you don't find the information given by parents on an autism forum to be credible enough for your standards. That some people on the internet may lie is such shocking information. I think parents deserve the truth also, but maybe not the "truth according to Winnie". Perhaps let them make up their own minds. It's too bad that there was another poster that was a fraud. Unfortunately, that's human nature. Maybe you should use your talents for investigation and go work for the Federal Government or practice law. Then you could really do something to make sure the "truth" is told. I'm pretty sure anyone reading internet postings is smart enough to do some research of their own before deciding what is best for them and their families. In an atmosphere of anonymous internet postings, there will always be those people who present themselves to be something they are not. You could certainly be one of them. But you don't trust information learned at medical seminars either, so what source do you trust other than your precious articles?

I'm happy you have a definition of recovery. I'm sorry you doubt parents' claims of recovery if they do not meet you standard. I think it's wonderful that there are things out there that parents have used and noticed improvements. Perhaps if we all stopped using the word "recovery" and stuck with "well managed or improving disease state" you would take less offense to claims of improvement (as long as they were obtained through a "Winnie-acceptable method", of course).

I owe you an apology about my post. You are correct, I misspoke. To be technically accurate, what I should have said was that we very rarely use the word "autism and DS" in any part of a conversation, nor does the thought of "autism and DS" enter our minds any more. I'm sorry if my omission of the words "and DS" caused you any confusion and made it difficult for you or anyone else to follow the point I was trying to make.

I do spend a fair amount of time thinking about autism in a medical sense. So I hope that those people I try to help in my "business venture" and whom I am NOT charging can forgive my unintended error in writing and be reassured that I am focused on them and their issues.

Thank you for the compliment: it was unexpected. My DH agrees with you, yes, I am a pretty amazing person. However, I never claimed to be the first parent ever to spend countless hours and $$ on training to help my child. There are several posters here who seem incredibly knowledgeable and willingly share what they have learned. It would be my honor to take each and every one of them out to dinner and discuss autism treatments with them. I would also be honored to have any of them work alongside me.

Sorry you have a problem with the way internet forums work. This is a place where parents come for information and to discuss things with each other. It is not a sanctioned research facility. All information shared is for "informational and entertainment purposes only" (is that the disclaimer?). Readers are free to do with it what they want. I was unaware that you had elected yourself to be the autismweb FBI agent. Do you get paid for that position? Perhaps you should start your own forum, charge people to join, and use the money to run background checks on all the posters. Then you might feel more comfortable with the content of the posts. And you could make sure that all postings are based on your "scientifically proven research".

Again, my pleasure to disagree with you, Winnie. I suspect that if I post more, we shall have a chance to dance again.
Happymom


TL; DR

:lol: :lol: :lol:

happymom
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby happymom » Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:16 pm

a
Last edited by happymom on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby Winnie » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:21 am

Oh I certainly don't claim to be any sort of research expert -- I just think it's good to support one's point when making a statement of fact and claiming that research supports it. For someone who is not at all about research when called on it, you were all about touting your medical research prowess and boasting about research you've done just six weeks ago: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32662&p=218331#p218331

happymom wrote:Now, I think our exchange has gone well past the point of being useful to a biomedical forum. So while I'm sure you will feel it necessary to pick apart my post, I really think our discussion should end. I won't have time to post again anytime in the near future because the workers have finished in my house and I now have a huge amount of work waiting for me. My DH would like to extend his thanks to you for keeping me busy these last few days while I was unable to do my usual chores and for keeping me out of the mall.
umm, I thought you worked? You have been blathering on and on about practicing and seeing patients and your clinical experience.

Oh never mind -- please don't explain. Your Chapter Three was redundant enough -- I don't want to provoke Chapter Four: All About Wonderful Me -- Again!!!.

And you think research is "mind-numbingly boring?"


Image
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 8:25 pm

makingitpossible wrote:This is hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-USEUgJxQU


Yes it is, but this isn't...

http://sfbayview.com/2014/10/cynthia-mc ... -ferguson/

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:49 pm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _31209.cfm

Gov’t Failed to Warn about Fluoride’s Disproportionate Harm to Black Community

Fluoride Action Network, October 15, 2014
Straight to the Source

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health Issues page.

New York - Government health authorities knew over 50 years ago that black Americans suffered greater harm from fluoridation, yet failed to warn the black community about their disproportionate risk, according to documents obtained by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, experimentally added fluoride chemicals into the water supply anticipating that children's tooth decay would decline without causing fluoride's unwanted toxic effects - dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth).

Prior to Grand Rapids, government fluorosis studies focused exclusively on white children. But little publicized results from Grand Rapids showed that black children were more susceptible to fluorosis than whites.

A January 10, 1962 internal memorandum, from a U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) official, F.J. Maier, revealed that "negroes in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis than others."

Based on this, Maier asked, "In a community with a larger number of negroes (say in Dekalb County, Georgia) would this tend to change our optimum fluoride levels?"

continues at the link

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

makingitpossible
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby makingitpossible » Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:50 am

I went to the doctor last week for routine labs. Without my knowledge they took hep b titers. They also said I needed flu and adult Dtap vaccine. They called me 3 times to tell me my hep b showed I had been vaccinated but needed a booster. So for a 30 some healthy woman they really pushed 3 vaccines on me. Never in my adult life had I seen this. I've never even really been offered them before. They are fighting hard. When the nurse called me about the titer she had gave me times when I could come in for a vaccine like a relentless sales person. This is some scary Sh,t.

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:24 pm

makingitpossible wrote:I went to the doctor last week for routine labs. Without my knowledge they took hep b titers. They also said I needed flu and adult Dtap vaccine. They called me 3 times to tell me my hep b showed I had been vaccinated but needed a booster. So for a 30 some healthy woman they really pushed 3 vaccines on me. Never in my adult life had I seen this. I've never even really been offered them before. They are fighting hard. When the nurse called me about the titer she had gave me times when I could come in for a vaccine like a relentless sales person. This is some scary Sh,t.


Yes it is. And now we have people like Terry Bradshaw ( I suppose "Nutri-System" isn't paying him well enough?) shilling for the Shingles vaccine in a tv ad. Also there is a new adult pneumonia vaccine ad for Phizer I saw recently. I wonder why they need to advertise so much if toxic vaccines are not profitable as some people deceptively argue? They're definitely getting desperate branching out to poison adults now too instead of just infants.

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

kulkulkan
Posts: 2075
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby kulkulkan » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:30 pm

Just a commentary published in some Indian medical ethics journal - more about thimerosol than the recent MMR controversy.

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/in ... /2132/4598

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:14 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... onnection/

Did the Government Cover Up an Autism/Vaccine Connection?

by Hunter Lewis 5 Sep 2014

For years, parents of autistic children have claimed a link between their children’s condition and vaccines. One vaccine in particular has been mentioned: the MMR (Mumps, Measles, and Rubella), which has a record of side effects, some severe.

The Center for Disease Control of the United States has consistently denied any MMR/autism connection. In congressional testimony and elsewhere, it has consistently cited a 2004 study of its own published in Pediatrics.

Now one of the authors of that study, William W. Thompson, a senior scientist employed by the CDC, has admitted that critical data from the study was suppressed. That data suggested a link between the MMR and autism when the vaccination is done at the recommended age, especially among infant African-American males. This is what Dr Thompson himself says in his statement: "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."

One scientist, Dr. Brian Hooker, sought the complete study data for a decade and finally got it with the help of Congress. He reported that the raw data suggested a 340% increase in autism among African-American males vaccinated at the recommended age. Others have already challenged this number, and it is still unclear exactly what the newly revealed data will show.

What is clear and indisputable, however, is that a respected CDC researcher has alleged that the agency intentionally withheld important data from a critical study and then cited that study in testimony to Congress. Based on Dr. Thompson’s story, it could be that African-American newborns were subsequently exposed to unnecessary risk.

Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker over the phone: “It’s the lowest part of my career, that I went along with that paper.” Thompson revealed that he did not know Dr. Hooker was recording the conversation but did not deny making the statement.

continues at link

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:29 pm

Yes, I can imagine her "surprise and disgust." A normal reaction when unbiased people hear all the facts.


When You Know You Are Being Lied To… My Initial Thoughts on the CDC Whistleblower News

by Beth Clay
bethclay.com

While mainstream media have ignored the flurry the past two weeks after the Focus Autism Press Release, the Peer Reviewed Research paper by Brian Hooker, PhD, and the Autism Media Video, several online media outlets and social media have been ablaze with the news of a CDC employee reaching out to Dr. Hooker and coming clean about what I consider a well-orchestrated cover up of information about increased risks associated with vaccines. Specifically the timing of certain vaccines, the use of thimerosal in vaccines, and what is known about risks of brain injury from vaccines in general. Those who led this activity showed significant malfeasance and disregard for the health and well-being of children. They have violated the public trust and have dragged this entire controversy out for 15 years rather than address with integrity and openness the issue and move forward with solutions that improve the safety of vaccines and respect the individual person’s unique medical condition and rights to personal medical choice.

Staff Lead on Congressional Investigation on Vaccine Injuries

I am not part of this conversation because I have a child that was vaccine injured and became autistic. None of my children are on the spectrum. I became involved because of my work, and I say involved because I want to be part of the solution. I was the staff lead on the original House Oversight Committee’s investigation looking into concerns about vaccine injuries. The year was 1999.

Two of our Subcommittees had been looking at different topics. Chairman Shays had taken on the reports of anthrax vaccine injures in the military and Chairman Mica had taken on a review of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and as part of that looked a bit into the Hepatitis B vaccine. I well remember meeting Mrs. Betty Fluke from Indiana who testified before the subcommittee about her experience both in the VICP and in getting access to the only treatments that might offer her relief. She had prior to the vaccine been a vibrant healthy woman – wife and mother- who when I met her wore leg braces and walked with crutches. When we talk about the VICP, we typically think and talk about babies being injured, however; like more than half of the individuals who file claims in the VICP program, she was an injured adult.

Chairman Dan Burton elevated the issues up to the full committee and expanded the investigation. We initially were not looking at autism. In all of our work on the Committee, we were looking for the truth. When it came to vaccines, we were accused of being ‘anti-vaccine’, which was an absurd claim. We – both Chairman Burton and myself in truth were and are ‘pro vaccine-safety’.

We worked from the knowledge that vaccines hold a unique place in medicine in this country. They are the only drugs that are mandated by a government (states) as a condition of participation in schools, day cares, and some jobs (health care, school personnel, first responder, etc.) based on recommendations of the federal government (CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Government Financial Ties to Makers of Vaccines

Because the government is abridging the freedom of Americans with these vaccine mandates, I anticipated that because it was a group of drugs that almost every American would receive, that the bar on approval – the safety requirements for approval – would be elevated.

Imagine my surprise and disgust to find just the opposite...

- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/former ... KDmEX.dpuf

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dgdavis64 » Thu Jan 01, 2015 12:58 am

#cdcwhistleblower New Years twitter party ... over 1 billion retweets!

:D

Happy New Year!

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

dabaxter
Posts: 4052
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:50 pm

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby dabaxter » Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:01 am

Of course they lied! Follow the money! Is it possible people are getting money to troll this site and post rebuttals against anyone that suggests that vaccine injury or heavy metal poisoning may be involved?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-indepen ... defenders/

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-indep ... -defenders

How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?


For years some parents and scientists have raised concerns about vaccine safety, including a possible link to autism and ADD. Many independent experts have sided with government officials and other scientists who say there's no possible connection. But how "independent" are they? CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson shares here's what she found.


They're some of the most trusted voices in the defense of vaccine safety: the American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two, and pediatrician Dr. Paul Offit.

But CBS News has found these three have something more in common - strong financial ties to the industry whose products they promote and defend.

The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters. The totals are kept secret, but public documents reveal bits and pieces.

A $342,000 payment from Wyeth, maker of the pneumococcal vaccine - which makes $2 billion a year in sales.

A $433,000 contribution from Merck, the same year the academy endorsed Merck's HPV vaccine - which made $1.5 billion a year in sales.


Another top donor: Sanofi Aventis, maker of 17 vaccines and a new five-in-one combo shot just added to the childhood vaccine schedule last month.

Every Child By Two, a group that promotes early immunization for all children, admits the group takes money from the vaccine industry, too - but wouldn't tell us how much.

A spokesman told CBS News: "There are simply no conflicts to be unearthed." But guess who's listed as the group's treasurers? Officials from Wyeth and a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.

Then there's Paul Offit, perhaps the most widely-quoted defender of vaccine safety.

He's gone so far as to say babies can tolerate "10,000 vaccines at once."

This is how Offit described himself in a previous interview: "I'm the chief of infectious disease at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of pediatrics at Penn's medical school," he said.

Offit was not willing to be interviewed on this subject but like others in this CBS News investigation, he has strong industry ties. In fact, he's a vaccine industry insider.

Offit holds in a $1.5 million dollar research chair at Children's Hospital, funded by Merck. He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rotateq, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations.

And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.
Read more about this story at Couric & Co. Blog
There's nothing illegal about the financial relationships, but to critics, they pose a serious risk for conflicts of interest. As one member of Congress put it, money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of those who hold themselves out to be "independent."

The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child By Two and Dr. Offit would not agree to interviews, but all told us they're up front about the money they receive, and it doesn't sway their opinions.

Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age 6.

Ideally, it makes for a healthier society. But critics worry that industry ties could impact the advice given to the public about all those vaccines.
Copyright 2008 CBS. All rights reserved.
$5 off iherb.com. Use:REW815/$5 off pureformulas.com Use:RJNXCX

makingitpossible
Posts: 1260
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:25 am

Re: Whistleblower Says CDC Knew in 2003 of Higher Autism..

Postby makingitpossible » Sat Jan 03, 2015 9:26 am

If anybody is interested in learning more about vaccines you should join the Vaccination Re-education Facebook page. They have administrators that monitor the trolls but they do allow open discussion. They have pages of files that contain hundreds of studies on the dangers of vaccines and the ineffectiveness. I knew a lot about vaccines before I joined but now I am amazed on all the information out there on their ineffectiveness and dangers.
For example, now that they are admitting the rotavirus vaccine is ineffective in 3rd world countries they are blaming of all things breastmilk and telling mothers not to breastfed around the time of vaccination!
If you think about how they test vaccines for effectivenss they do it by testing antibodies. However they have never proven an antibody response is the same as immunity. In fact this has been disproven. Think about this scenario. You have a one night stand and contract HIV. After so many weeks or months your body starts producing antibodies to the disease. Does that mean you are protected? Well not for many people. Just something to think about. Just because the vaccine forces an antibody production doesn't mean anything more. Our immune systems are much more complex than this and if you look into the science vaccines are INEFFECTIVE and DANGEROUS!


Return to “Diet and Biomedical Treatments for Autism”