or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Another One Bites the Dust.....Autism/Vaccine Research
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another One Bites the Dust.....Autism/Vaccine Research

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 

CDC Autism Researcher Indicted for Fraud!!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/22/cdc-autism-researcher-indicted-for-fraud.aspx

 

Tee-hee.

post #2 of 32

Old, old news.

 

I suggest you read into things a bit further than mercola.  Thorssen's indictments have nothing to do with his research.  It has to do with embezzling money.

 

This in no way impugns the research that he was associated with (and that he was not the lead researcher on, either.)

 

 

So, sorry, not a blow to the vaccinations-don't-cause-autism research.

post #3 of 32
Thread Starter 

Quote from article....

 

"When two of the biggest names in vaccine research and support turn out to be guilty of fraud, major deception, lying and making unsubstantiated statements, it really calls into question the validity of their work on the vaccine front … and that's putting it mildly."

 

This was new news to me, so I just thought it might be interesting to others. I didn't mean to upset you so much, WildKingdom.

 

By the way, nobody has ever proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

post #4 of 32
Paul Thorrsen is one of the biggest names in vaccine research? Uh, no. I don't think anyone had ever heard of him until he was indicted.

And no one will EVER prove that vaccines don't cause autism, because you can't prove a negative.

And don't worry, you haven't upset me. Roll my eyes, maybe, but not upset me.
post #5 of 32
Thread Starter 

Can you please tell me some of the biggest names in vaccine research then? I would like to investigate them, to see if they are trustworthy.

post #6 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Paul Thorrsen is one of the biggest names in vaccine research? Uh, no. I don't think anyone had ever heard of him until he was indicted.

And no one will EVER prove that vaccines don't cause autism, because you can't prove a negative.

And don't worry, you haven't upset me. Roll my eyes, maybe, but not upset me.

Is it necessary to be so condescending?  This used to be a respectful forum. We're all adults, can't we keep it respectful?  Do you want to be considered and respected as the voice of the "pro" vax side or do you only feel the need to put everyone down? As my grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

I don't vax but I'm always interested in "the other side's" point of view, and honestly your posts are rarely considered by me because of the foul attitude behind them. I'm asking you to please keep it professional and considerate. namaste.gif


 

 

post #7 of 32

WildKingdom's tone was appropriate for the entire existence of this particular subforum IMHO.

post #8 of 32

BTW -- I assumed this related to the crashing and burning of the Geiers' careers, but I assume that hasn't been mentioned here?

post #9 of 32

Oh, that's right.  I forgot all about the Geiers.

 

Becky- if you want to research some top names in autism-vaccine research, I suggest you read up of the Geiers.

post #10 of 32
Thread Starter 

Thank you for the Geier information. It is wise to learn about both sides of a debate, whether I like it or not!

 

Now WildKingdom, I have to ask. How can you say that no one will ever prove vaccines don't cause autism? Ever? 

Vaccines cause an immune response, meaning, they "do something" to the recipient. Isn't it possible that somehow, a vaccine could effect a person in a negative way (autism and other health disorders)? If vaccines can cause an immune response, why is it so impossible for them to cause other responses as well?  Why can't we research every ingredient in vaccines, not just thimerisol? Why should we stop looking at vaccines altogether?

 

This has inspired me to begin a new thread. Thanks for the idea!

post #11 of 32

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Old, old news.

 

I suggest you read into things a bit further than mercola.  Thorssen's indictments have nothing to do with his research.  It has to do with embezzling money.

 

This in no way impugns the research that he was associated with (and that he was not the lead researcher on, either.)

 

 

So, sorry, not a blow to the vaccinations-don't-cause-autism research.

 

Yeah, embezzling money that was supposed to be used towards research.   He oversaw millions in grant money from the CDC to provide research on the autism/vaccine link, yet he stole money intended for the research.  How does that have nothing to do with his research?   shrug.gif

 

If someone was given $1,000 to research something and they spent a good portion of that money on themselves and not towards the research, isn't the research done considered incomplete?

 

If you ask me, with a guy like Thorsen, his research isn't trusthworthy at all.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 5/23/11 at 12:48pm
post #12 of 32

"If someone was given $1,000 to research something and they spent a good portion of that money on themselves and not towards the research, isn't the research done considered incomplete?"

 

Your premise assumes that the grant money was, to the penny, the exact minimum amount needed to research the particular issues.  Maybe if he had spent all the money he would have just got even better evidence that vaxes don't cause autism.

 

 

post #13 of 32



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Old, old news.

 

I suggest you read into things a bit further than mercola.  Thorssen's indictments have nothing to do with his research.  It has to do with embezzling money.

 

This in no way impugns the research that he was associated with (and that he was not the lead researcher on, either.)

 

 

So, sorry, not a blow to the vaccinations-don't-cause-autism research.


Hmmm. Well, in a court of law he would not make a very good witness. His character would be so suspect that a jury would not likely find his testimony on anything credible. 
 

 

post #14 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

Your premise assumes that the grant money was, to the penny, the exact minimum amount needed to research the particular issues.  Maybe if he had spent all the money he would have just got even better evidence that vaxes don't cause autism.

 

 



That's weak. Are you condoning his actions?

post #15 of 32

Oh yes, I regularly condone embezzlement and theft.

 

My understanding, from those who regularly apply for grants, is that you go for the most money you can get.    Let's say I apply for and win a grant for $100 to show that water has three states (liquid, gas and solid).  The fact that it  costs me a buck fifty to prove that water has three states doesn't mean my research is incomplete, even though I'm left with $98.50 of grant money afterwards.

 

 

 

 

post #16 of 32

Also, the studies themselves should be (if problematic) attackable on their face, completely independent of the embezzlement issue.  For example:

 

If the study has a small sample size (due to not being able to locate/test enough subjects due to money issues), that should be apparent.  If there were numerous other tests that would have been valuable to have performed that were not performed (due to money limitations), that should be apparent, etc., etc.

 

So -- either the studies in question, STANDING ON THEIR OWN, are good studies or not.  If they are good studies, it shouldn't matter if they cost $10 or $100,000,000 in terms of evaluating their value.  If they are bad, they are bad, whether that is due to a lack of funding, poor science or whatever.

 

 

 

post #17 of 32

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

Oh yes, I regularly condone embezzlement and theft.

 

My understanding, from those who regularly apply for grants, is that you go for the most money you can get.    Let's say I apply for and win a grant for $100 to show that water has three states (liquid, gas and solid).  The fact that it  costs me a buck fifty to prove that water has three states doesn't mean my research is incomplete, even though I'm left with $98.50 of grant money afterwards.

 

 

 

 


But to embezzle money that is intended for research on a particular topic (and very important and popular topic I might add) while at the same time continuously discrediting the link between autism and vaccines seems a bit fraudulent to me and not legit at all. I believe all of the "studies and research" with his name on it should be pulled since this incident, but that has yet to happen.  Also, how do you know the research conducted regarding the vaccine and autism link was superb? By the sounds of it, you sound very confident that no link between vax and autism will ever be proven and I wonder how you are so confident of that. How do you know there weren't valuable tests/research that were not performed had there been more money? We don't know that, do we? We also don't know how much money it takes to PROVE there is a link as long as they are using proper techniques for the studies.  I honestly don't feel they will ever disclose a link between vaccines and autism simply because they don't want to discover that link. 


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 5/24/11 at 6:12am
post #18 of 32

Other than a general "feeling" and a dislike for the actual outcome of the studies involved, can you please describe/critique what you view to be errors within the science/methodology of the studies in question?

 

That's what matters.

 

I would further note that this differs from the Wakefield scenario, in which for Wakefield the $ was in finding the vax/autism link.  Here, the grant monies were available and further payday was not dependent on the actual outcome of the studies themselves.

 

 

post #19 of 32

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jane93 View Post

Other than a general "feeling" and a dislike for the actual outcome of the studies involved, can you please describe/critique what you view to be errors within the science/methodology of the studies in question?

 

That's what matters.

 

I would further note that this differs from the Wakefield scenario, in which for Wakefield the $ was in finding the vax/autism link.  Here, the grant monies were available and further payday was not dependent on the actual outcome of the studies themselves.

 

 


I noticed you haven't answered my questions to you above.

 

Anyway, it's not that I "dislike" the outcomes. I don't trust them! There are far too many conflicts of interest when it comes to these studies. 

 

All I can say is that I am not a scientist. I am a concerned parent who asks questions.  I believe people shouldn't get so wrapped up in these studies all of the time and should look around at other's people's stories, because as mentioned, most of the time the individuals doing this studies are linked to where the money is.  Too many parents have noticed their children regress (into autism or other neurological disorders) after vaccines.  I don't believe it is just thimerosal. I believe it is a combination of all of them at one time, making it difficult for the body to dispose of all of the toxins in such a little time. Can you really say it is not an assault to the body? Of course there are other factors involved when it comes to autism, but I certainly think vaccines play a role in it. Again, this is MY personal feeling and it may not be good enough to match your wonderful studies but it is how I feel nonetheless.  I find it all too strange that there are now over 100 vaccines in the pipeline.  If they ever did admit to a link between autism and vaccines or even other neurological disorders, how would they be able to continue to push all of this crap?

post #20 of 32

Answers to your questions:

 

"Also, how do you know the research conducted regarding the vaccine and autism link was superb?"

 

I'm not claiming it was superb.  I am saying it produced the particular results demonstrated in the study, and the proper venue for analyzing the quality of the research is a review of the study results themselves.

 

"By the sounds of it, you sound very confident that no link between vax and autism will ever be proven and I wonder how you are so confident of that. How do you know there weren't valuable tests/research that were not performed had there been more money? We don't know that, do we?"

 

I feel pretty sure that claims about the vax/autism link will, at some point in the future, be thought of the way we think about those (historically) who believed the earth was flat.  A quaint example of ignorance. 

 

We know what tests were performed based on their description in the applicable studies.  Why don't you read the studies in question or look for critiques to determine if there was additional testing that was appropriate that was not performed?  I believe that is the appropriate way forward if you have questions about these particular studies.

 

"I believe people shouldn't get so wrapped up in these studies all of the time and should look around at other's people's stories, because as mentioned, most of the time the individuals doing this studies are linked to where the money is."   

 

If you want to rely on psuedoscience and anecdote that is certainly your right.  So long as you make clear that is what you are relying on, so people can appropriately weigh your opinion.  I would note that (as with the Geiers and Wakefield) there is a lot of money to be made in claiming a vax/autism link and a putative "cure" for autism on the other side as well.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Another One Bites the Dust.....Autism/Vaccine Research