or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen - Page 2

post #21 of 45
It says he was principal investigator o the program, not a particular study. I wonder if in that context it's his position title as his head of whatever institute it was.

Either way, he was six men deep not he depth chart for this particular study, and as someone already pointed out his thievery was not contingent on the results of the study. It's too bad it will be used to cast doubt on the study, though. If I was the other investigators I would be pissed.
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It says he was principal investigator o the program, not a particular study. I wonder if in that context it's his position title as his head of whatever institute it was.

Either way, he was six men deep not he depth chart for this particular study, and as someone already pointed out his thievery was not contingent on the results of the study. It's too bad it will be used to cast doubt on the study, though. If I was the other investigators I would be pissed.

If a perceived anti-vax researcher gets caught with their hand in the till, I hope you are equalling understanding and not cast doubt on the validity of their study as a result.

 

#What'sGoodForTheGoose

 

Don't you think it odd that after Thorson had been indicted, he continued to be on the CDC's payroll, both directly and indirectly?

post #23 of 45
Yeah, I like to think I would give equal treatment.
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Initially I only saw the Bolen report link.

I gathered that. It's good to read all the links.

post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

This kind of information is never printed in the mainstream media so your bashing the Bolen Report is typical MO. This is why I have typed out three times a least now Reuters (mainstream media)  has said he was the PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR. The Danish story from Moderne Tide (of which I gave you the English language link above) certainly implied he was of major part of the study. No one has changed the headlines to discredit the study. Poul Thorsen did that himself by stealing.

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with Modern Tide so have no idea how reliable it is.  Not to mention, I don't read the original language, and while Google translate is a wonderful thing, it worlds with multiple meaning or different connotations depending on context often trip it up and change the meaning quite badly.  

 

Also note from the Reuters article that Thorsen moved to Denmark to take this position in 2002.  To quote from the link I posted above:

 

 

 

Quote:

The NEJM article lists its funding sources as:

Supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation; the National Vaccine Program Office and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the National Alliance for Autism Research.

This article was, however, published in November 2002. Given that it takes months, sometimes even a year or more, for a manuscript to go from submission to publication, this work had almost certainly been completed and was in the publication pipeline before Thorsen took over as principal investigator of the CDC grant. The pediatrics paper, which was published after Thorsen went back to Denmark, lists its funding thusly:

The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were involved in the study design.

That’s right. The Pediatrics thimerosal study was not even funded by the CDC! Even if it were, given that large epidemiological studies take years to carry out, it probably was in the last leg of its analysis when Thorsen showed up anyway. Even worse for the “guilt by association” crowd, all of the fraudulent charges to the grant are alleged to have occurred between 2004 and 2008, as described above–well after the Danish studies were published.

 

 

Go take a quick google look through anti-vaccine sites limiting results to before his fraud was revealed.  They are usually just referred to as Danish studies with no human name attached, but when one is, it's always the "Madsen study" because she was actually the lead author.  Like here on age of autism where it is referred to as "the Madsen Denmark study."  The infamous fourteen studies page doesn't even bother mentioning any of the other authors besides Madsen.  Then you get to 2010 or so when it was known that he'd stolen money and suddenly Madsen is dropped and it's Thorsen's study, Thorsen's study, Thorsen's study. 

 

The problem with Wakefield was with his bad science.  The problem with Thorsen is that he is a crook.  Now, his obvious lack of integrity certainly could extend into other areas, which is why anything he touched should be checked and checked again.  But just toss out millions of dollars worth of research effort involving countless hours of other people's toil because one person who came in at the end (for these particular papers) turned out to be a bad apple?  Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  

post #26 of 45
In both cases the rest of the odd of research is important, too. Wakefield diverged from the rest of the research and his results haven't been reproducible. The Danish study has been consistent with the rest of the body of theoretical and experimental research.
post #27 of 45

I think it is theoretically possible to get the science right and still be guilty of fraud.  I could pickpocket you while correctly telling you 2+2=4.

 

Alternately, someone who is guilty of economic fraud might also be guilty of scientific fraud.  This is a man who is charged with theft and forging signatures.  He is hardly a stand-up character.  

 

 

I am left with the feeling of wanting to throw up my hands.  He is guilty of fraud - does that mean the study should also be thrown out?  Does it at least make it circumspect (I think it does).

 

It is disheartening that there is so much controversy and mess in vaccines. 

post #28 of 45
Thread Starter 

It' funny how everyone can remember 'that guy who lied' (wakefield), but this won't make the spotlight like Wakefield did, nor will it be in the news years later like wakefield is, nor will thorsen be ostracized for what he did...it just quietly goes away.  

post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

It' funny how everyone can remember 'that guy who lied' (wakefield), but this won't make the spotlight like Wakefield did, nor will it be in the news years later like wakefield is, nor will thorsen be ostracized for what he did...it just quietly goes away.  

 

I'm pretty sure if he's found guilty of fraud with research monies he won't be doing any more research and he'll be pretty well ostracised. 

post #30 of 45
What thorsen did and what Wakefield did we're very different and difficult to compare, but in many ways what Wakefield did was much worse. He did unethical research involving children and falsified results. All while acting like sort of a jerk about how he was right and everyone else was wrong.

It's also in proportion to the coverage the original study got. Wakefield was THE guy on THE study linking autism to mmr. It got a LOT of press when it came out and a lot of press when it was discredited. Thorsen was a minor researcher on one of many studies finding no link between autism and various components of vaccines.
post #31 of 45
dbl post
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

It' funny how everyone can remember 'that guy who lied' (wakefield), but this won't make the spotlight like Wakefield did, nor will it be in the news years later like wakefield is, nor will thorsen be ostracized for what he did...it just quietly goes away.  

You are very correct.  Mainstream media is pro-vax, and a story that casts vaxxing or the CDC in a bad light is going to be buried.  

 

_____________

 

OH, and the indictments lists Thorson as a principal researcher.  People can come on and say  "well, his name was sixth on the list" and "everyone is listed as principal researcher in studies" but that seems to be downplaying the whole thing to me.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/6/12 at 6:25am
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

It' funny how everyone can remember 'that guy who lied' (wakefield), but this won't make the spotlight like Wakefield did, nor will it be in the news years later like wakefield is, nor will thorsen be ostracized for what he did...it just quietly goes away.  

You are very correct.  The media is pro-vax, any story that casts vaxxing or the CDC in a bad light is going to be buried

Exactly, the mainstream media largely without exception is totally pro-vaccine biased. They are merely repeaters of the official line, very little real investigation is ever done by mainstream media outlets. They are bought and paid for by big pharma (I used to be in PR for a major pharmaceutical company) and the pharma lobbyists have the politicians all but sewn up. The FDC and CDC is a revolving door. So the end result is the general public is never going to get the real story. If any journalist tries you can be sure the story will be killed. Too many interests need to be protected.

post #34 of 45

I don't see how this story casts any light at all on either vaxxing or the CDC.

 

Mirzam - Of course the mainstream media is going to be biased towards mainstream science, especially when we're talking science that's accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.  You sound just like my friends who don't believe in global warming.  They can't give equal weight to every fringe theory in existence. 

post #35 of 45
Thread Starter 

it will certainly not be played up like wakefield was, and still is in mainstream media articles regarding vaccines

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I'm pretty sure if he's found guilty of fraud with research monies he won't be doing any more research and he'll be pretty well ostracised. 

post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

it will certainly not be played up like wakefield was, and still is in mainstream media articles regarding vaccines

Apples and oranges.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I'm pretty sure if he's found guilty of fraud with research monies he won't be doing any more research and he'll be pretty well ostracised. 

 

Well the man will be in prison, won't he, and hardly in a position to conduct research studies for the CDC, so yes, he will effectively be ostracized. 

post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see how this story casts any light at all on either vaxxing or the CDC.

 

Mirzam - Of course the mainstream media is going to be biased towards mainstream science, especially when we're talking science that's accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists.  You sound just like my friends who don't believe in global warming.  They can't give equal weight to every fringe theory in existence. 

You mean "climate change", it is no longer generally referred to as "global warming".

 

Questioning vaccines is not fringe theory, it is a legitimate subject for investigation given the huge increase in vaccines administered to children and this:

 

post #39 of 45

People generally believe in the germ theory of medicine, too.  Since when are our beliefs or statements restricted by what's generally believed or said?

post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

People generally believe in the germ theory of medicine, too.  Since when are our beliefs or statements restricted by what's generally believed or said?

What has that got to do with it? I am talking about examining the effects of a radically increased childhood vaccination schedule on the health of the population. Why is this not a legitimate subject for scientists to research and for the mainstream media to cover in an unbiased fashion?


Edited by Mirzam - 11/8/12 at 10:22am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen