Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Ocean1]

A re-look at the CDC study data - minus the fraud.

http://web.archive.org/web/201408261...-9158-3-16.pdf

Do you want the scientific rebuttal?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...larity-ensues/

Or the dude's historic record?

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/20...ory-in-vaxxed/

Or just the plain old lunatic alert?

http://americanloons.blogspot.co.nz/...q=brian+hooker

"Diagnosis: Strictly an Infowars-style conspiracy theorist, nothing else, and we believe most minimally reasonable people realize that. While he has managed to create some noise, it seems to be mostly the old, merry band of insane conspiracy theorists who buy his shit."

Dunno if you're old, or merry, but you do buy a lot of shit.

[Katman]

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip...cfm?fr=201.323

[husaberg]

http://web.archive.org/web/201408261...-9158-3-16.pdf

Well thats yet another epic katman fail

Based on Wakefield a well known fraud.

Then also based on a couple of studies by the same people (Geier) where they also made up data.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/why...causes-autism/

http://epiwonk.com/?p=55
http://epiwonk.com/?p=57
http://epiwonk.com/?p=59

This is just not done. It’s not valid. It’s not ethical. Adding imaginary cases into a data set borders on scientiific fraud. I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around some sort of rationale for the authors “imputing” extra cases and to me it’s just fudging the data. What they’ve done bears some relationship to a procedure called “direct age standardization,” but age standardardization might be useful in a situation where invesigators were comparing birth cohorts — not where the birth cohorts are the units of analysis (more on this “units of analysis” concept later). I don’t think this is downright scientific fraud for two reasons. First, they carried out this procedure of “imputing” imaginary cases for the control disorders, as well as autism and five other neurodevelopmental disorders. (I’ll explain this in more detai in upcoming posts.) Second, they come right and admit that they cooked the data by adding imaginary cases — it’s not as if they’re trying to hide anything.

The “ecological” study design is strange, weird, and downright bizarre. It’s true that the authors could not link the separate data files, but this “ecological” design was not necessary. Instead of using a total “population at risk” of 278,624 children, the authors should have used person-time (e.g., person-months) in the denominator to calculate true rates. This is the standard approach in epidemiological studies in which there is “right censored” data, i.e. in this case, children who might eventually be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition, but who had not been followed up long enough.
Despite appearances, from a statistical point of view this is not an analysis of 278,624 children. The “ecological” analysis actually comes down to a regression analysis of a sample size of SEVEN (7) units — the seven birth cohorts. Picture a scatter plot of 7 points were the X axis is Hg dose, the Y axis is the prevalence of a given disorder, and the 7 points are where the mean Hg dose for each birth cohort intersects the prevalence for that birth cohort. Aside from the fact that a regression analysis based on an N of 7 is unstable and not robust at all, it has been known in the social sciences since 1950 and in epidemiology since about 1973 that in general, regression estimates from ecological analyses tend to be hugely magnified compared to individual-level analyses. (By individual-level analysis I simply mean the type of study where individual exposure data and individual level outcome data is used in the analysis for every study participant.)

[TheDemonLord]

How can that possibly be considered fraud when it's clearly disclosed in the study?

Like if you were suing a company and then published a 'scientific' paper (written by yourself) to use as evidence in said trial....

Sounds like some form of Deception, sounds like someone doing something with a Vested interest in a specific outcome...

And aren't you always quick to point out when 'Big Pharma' does something for a Profit?

[bogan]

Like if you were suing a company and then published a 'scientific' paper (written by yourself) to use as evidence in said trial....

Sounds like some form of Deception, sounds like someone doing something with a Vested interest in a specific outcome...

And aren't you always quick to point out when 'Big Pharma' does something for a Profit?

That's just conflict of interest, not necessarily fraud.

Of course, such a biased an unscientific interpretation of the data as 'Dr.' Hooker makes, does go a long way towards the fraudlyness...

[TheDemonLord]

That's just conflict of interest, not necessarily fraud.

Of course, such a biased an unscientific interpretation of the data as 'Dr.' Hooker makes, does go a long way towards the fraudlyness...

If there wasn't a court case, where a win would likely result in a significant pay day - I'd agree.

But you know - potato potato

[riffer]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...303.x/abstract

TL/DR - Mercury poisoning should be diagnosed only with validated methods. There is no evidence to support the association between mercury poisoning and autism.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.918/full

TL/DR - methylmercury damages the brain more than thimerosal does ... mercury clears from the infant body faster than from the adult body

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.721/full

TL/DR - passage of methyl mercury across the blood/brain barrier is helped by an active transport mechanism, whereas passage of ethyl mercury is hindered by its larger size and faster decomposition

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...nt_3/1023.long

TL/DR - There is no evidence of an association between autism and postnatal exposure to any neurotoxicant. The US Institute of Medicine has reviewed this issue and concluded that, although it is biologically plausible, there is presently insufficient evidence to support or refute the hypothesis that ethyl mercury in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder prevalence are associated

[TheDemonLord]

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip...cfm?fr=201.323

Do you remember when I said it was the same names, publishing the same BS papers:

Funny - the 12 cited articles only have 5 unique teams - most of the cited papers are by the Authors of the original paper.

All the papers were published in journals with extremely low IF and by the looks of it, aren't doing their due dilligence (see below) - thus can be described as a Predatory Paper.



Well, if you say "Look at all these scientific papers! It's a topic that is hotly debated amongst scientists", but when we look at those papers - its the work of the same groups of people, a reasonable person would realise that it is just an empty bucket rattling as loud as it can.

Also - interesting that you listen to them as credible experts in their field, suggesting that they are "specialist in that field"... Let's see how Credible they are:

Oh Dear...

Oh Dear Oh Dear

Chemically Castrating kids, just because they have Autism - and it's you who call us Nazis? Josef Mengele would be so proud...



There's only one person being Willfully ignorant - and it's the person that props up the insane, fraudulent theory, that is a demonstrable threat to the lives, wellbeing and safety of chlidren, a theory that was created and perpetuated by Conmen who have been struck from the various Medical Registries. Conmen whose sole purpose was to invent a condition in order to profit from it - with the biggest twist of Irony being that you believe them, whilst accusing 'Big Pharma' of doing the same and using it as a reason to spout your deadly moronic crap.

And there you are again, referencing the 'papers' by the reprehensible fucktards the Geiers....

[Katman]

Do you remember when I said it was the same names, publishing the same BS papers:



And there you are again, referencing the 'papers' by the reprehensible fucktards the Geiers....

I don't know where the link's taking you but it takes me to a page from the Code of Federal Regulations of the FDA.

[Katman]

The US Institute of Medicine has reviewed this issue and concluded that, although it is biologically plausible, there is presently insufficient evidence to support or refute the hypothesis that ethyl mercury in vaccines and autism spectrum disorder prevalence are associated

Did you actually read this bit?

'Cos the sentence that directly follows it sure makes it sound like further research is needed.

The report called for additional public health and biomedical research to explicate further this possible association.

[husaberg]

Do you remember when I said it was the same names, publishing the same BS papers:



And there you are again, referencing the 'papers' by the reprehensible fucktards the Geiers....

Don't forget he again referenced wakefeild as proof (that hes an gullible idiot)

[Katman]

Don't forget he again referenced wakefeild as proof (that hes an gullible idiot)

Seriously, what the fuck are you two on about?

[husaberg]

Seriously, what the fuck are you two on about?

You clearly don't read the shit you post, I seriously don't blame you, ii is clearly, utter crap

http://web.archive.org/web/201408261...-9158-3-16.pdf

The studies you link referenced are Wakefeild and two by the Geiers.
Hint they are all based on fraudulent data.

[Katman]

You clearly don't read the shit you post, I seriously don't blame you, ii is clearly, utter crap

Is that attachment what you see when you go into that link I've posted?

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scrip...cfm?fr=201.323

[husaberg]

Is that attachment what you see when you go into that link I've posted?

With the link you originally posted thats what everyone seen, except you clearly.