CDC admits to congress their studies are misleading (source)

[Super Glue Mommy]

I got a few PM's asking for this, they missed me sourcing it on the board, so for anyone interested here it is. It should be easy to find in the future by searching this board for "CDC admits to congress"

The Vaccine Safety Datalink referenced is about epidemiological information that CDC uses to form "studies" that "prove" vaccine safety. This Congressional report points out the weaknesses of using the VSD and that it cannot be relied on to accurately base these studies on, to which the CDC has agreed.

http://evidenceofharm.com/VaccineDat...gressFinal.pdf

See pages 5 and 6 specifically, though I suggest reading the whole thing and taking from it what you will

[Mama~Love]

Awesome, thank you!

[Super Glue Mommy]

no problem

[RebeccaWo]

I'm having trouble finding the part where the CDC admits to congress that their studies are misleading. Can someone point me in the right direction?

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by RebeccaWo

I'm having trouble finding the part where the CDC admits to congress that their studies are misleading. Can someone point me in the right direction?

All this report shows is that the CDC acknowledges that using data from the VSD link to conduct an ecological study between thimerosol and ASD would not be valuable and could be misleading (look at page 8)...they are not admitting that other types of studies (cohort and case-controlled studies) are not useful., just ecological studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_study

[RebeccaWo]

Marnica, that's exactly what I gathered, as well. I think Super Glue Mommy misunderstood the ecological part, but I wanted to be sure I hadn't missed something else.

[Super Glue Mommy]

there is some info on pages 5 and 6 as well.

[Marnica]

However It is a fact that MOST (not all) of the studies that experts point to to dispell a link between vaccines and thirmerosol are epidemiological studies. these types of studies can be manipulated easily. (at least that is my understanding explained to me by a reseacher) Ecological studies are epidemiological. So then in a way aren't they admitting that many of the studies to date could be "misleading" ??

[Jadzia]

David Kirby's article about this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_108462.html

[RebeccaWo]

Originally Posted by Marnica

However It is a fact that MOST (not all) of the studies that experts point to to dispell a link between vaccines and thirmerosol are epidemiological studies. these types of studies can be manipulated easily. (at least that is my understanding explained to me by a reseacher) Ecological studies are epidemiological. So then in a way aren't they admitting that many of the studies to date could be "misleading" ??

I thought epidemiology was the study of diseases in humans and animals, thus any AD/ASD-vaccine study would be epidemiological? The types of studies in question would be ecological (group) or individual level, with ecological being the "easily manipulated". Do I have this right?

Also, a counter-point to the David Kirby article: http://epiwonk.com/?p=79

But to get back to this thread topic, I still can't find where the CDC admits to congress that their studies are misleading...

[Super Glue Mommy]

I only got to skin the article (limited time here) but that is definitely something I want to read more fully next time I'm on. Thank you for posting the link Jadzia

[Super Glue Mommy]

bottom of page 5 and page 6. READ.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by RebeccaWo

But to get back to this thread topic, I still can't find where the CDC admits to congress that their studies are misleading...

It is an image file so I couldn't copy and paste but the CDC only says they concur - you have to read what they are concurring with to see the admission. For example the findings of weakness on pg 5 state that the studies have little value for ecological studies...and then the CDC concurs.

[RebeccaWo]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

bottom of page 5 and page 6. READ.

I've read! And read and then read some more! :

NIEHS Finding: Weaknesses
The panel identified several areas of weakness that when taken together reduce the usefulness of the VSD Project for conducting an ecologic study design to address the potential association between exposure to thimerosal and the risk of AD/ASD.

CDC Response
CDC concurs with this conclusion and does not plan to use VSD for ecological studies.

So, the CDC has concurred that the usefulness of the VSD Project for conducting ecologic (group-level studies, not individual-level) studies is reduced. How is this the same as saying their studies are misleading?

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by RebeccaWo

I thought epidemiology was the study of diseases in humans and animals, thus any AD/ASD-vaccine study would be epidemiological? The types of studies in question would be ecological (group) or individual level, with ecological being the "easily manipulated". Do I have this right?

Epidemiological studies look at associations between two events (aka vaccination with thermisol and ASD). Ecological is the same thing limited to a particular population. The problem with either is they are statistical studies that can neither prove nor disprove cause they only show the relative strength of the association (the "causal relationship"). Hence, when looking at thermisol in vaccines a true double-blind, controlled scientific study has never been done.

My reading of the document shows me that the CDC is admitting this. All their studies have been epidemiological analysis and not scientific studies. Thus the should not be saying "we have proven that..."

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by RebeccaWo

I've read! And read and then read some more! :

So, the CDC has concurred that the usefulness of the VSD Project for conducting ecologic (group-level studies, not individual-level) studies is reduced. How is this the same as saying their studies are misleading?

Because they use this admittedly "weak" study to paint the blanket statement that "thermisol in vaccines has been exonerated from causing ASD" This is the first time they have said on record that there was ANY MINUTE wiggle room in their assertion.

[eireann]

what baffles me is that people are so focused on thimerosal. guys, have you read the OTHER ingredients in these shots?? let just start with the undeniable neurotoxin aluminum...

sheesh.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by eireann

what baffles me is that people are so focused on thimerosal. guys, have you read the OTHER ingredients in these shots?? let just start with the undeniable neurotoxin aluminum...

sheesh.

So true. Everyone assumes I'm afraid of autism....sigh

[RebeccaWo]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

Because they use this admittedly "weak" study to paint the blanket statement that "thermisol in vaccines has been exonerated from causing ASD" This is the first time they have said on record that there was ANY MINUTE wiggle room in their assertion.

Paige, thank you so much for answering my questions. I just don't see where they're admitting any of their studies are "weak" or "misleading". The CDC concurred and Julie Gerberding has stated, "any continued use of the VSD for continued ecological studies of vaccines and autism ‘would be uninformative and completely misleading.'" But, the CDC has never used the VSD for an ecological study.

Thimerosal, vaccines, AD/ASD... I'm just trying to figure out how the CDC admitted to congress that their studies are misleading.

[buttercupmama]

I think it's something that isn't all there in the pdf. They talk a lot about how they've proven x. y, and z. But the expert panel gives them a list of reasons why the foundation of their studies is too weak to base anything more than a casual relationship to. They agree to that. So, in essence, they agree to basing their safety proof on nearly useless data.