New Posts  All Forums:
 

Poul Thorsen

post #1 of 35
12/5/12 at 9:33am
Thread Starter 

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/poul-thorsen-called-industry-scumbag-scientist-and-mercury-shill.html

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Since 2002 there were twenty one  autism studies published by P.Thorsen--four of which were published since the April 13, 2011 federal indictment of this humongous scum bag.  Apparently some journals could care less about the indictment and continue to publish papers by this corrupt industry scientist.  Another one came out just last month. 

So like the corrupt industry scientists of the past who all concluded that tobacco was safe, there seem to be industry scientists today who conclude that mercury, which is proven to kill brain cells, is safe to inject into children and pregnant women in the form of Thimerosal vaccine preservative. 

 

 

 

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #2 of 35
12/5/12 at 12:56pm

And in other news, Andrew Wakefield had his medical license revoked.

post #3 of 35
12/5/12 at 1:01pm
not worth it…..
post #4 of 35
12/5/12 at 1:03pm
I must've missed all the threads started about Wakefield in the last few months.
post #5 of 35
12/5/12 at 1:05pm

Let's not hijack the thread, ok?  The OP is about Poul Thorsen.

post #6 of 35
12/5/12 at 2:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Is this just going to come up every couple of weeks now?

Probably, because the CDC has a problem on their hands with Dr Thorsen and his 21 autism studies. From one of the comments:

 

 

 

Quote:
There is no way anyone can put their hand on a Bible and allow any study Thorsen has ever been involved in to be cited with any credibility - oh - except for Dr. Colleen Boyle and the CDC of course.
post #7 of 35
12/5/12 at 2:22pm
I'm intesrested to know if there's anything scientifically wrong with his work. Yes he appears to be a scumbag, but you don't have to be an angel to do correct science.....
post #8 of 35
12/5/12 at 4:35pm
I don't see how him being one author, among many and not even the lead author, destroys the credibility of the studies. Especially since his crime has nothing to do with scientific validity.
post #9 of 35
12/5/12 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't see how him being one author, among many and not even the lead author, destroys the credibility of the studies. Especially since his crime has nothing to do with scientific validity.
It doesn't.
post #10 of 35
12/5/12 at 8:49pm
His crime involves stealing $$$ from his funder, the CDC. Who funded his 'science'. Please tell me how that would not effect scientific validity. So now not only does funding not bias your work (it does) but a relationship of embezzlement with your funder does not prevent great science from being done! Watch out ladies, history is being made!
post #11 of 35
12/6/12 at 4:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

His crime involves stealing $$$ from his funder, the CDC. Who funded his 'science'. Please tell me how that would not effect scientific validity. So now not only does funding not bias your work (it does) but a relationship of embezzlement with your funder does not prevent great science from being done! Watch out ladies, history is being made!

I still don't understand. He embezzled money from a study he was one of several authors on. He wasn't even the lead author. I don't see how this taints the study. He would've stolen the same money regardless of how the study turned out. It's not like he was taking money from personal injury attorneys who are vested in a particular outcome.
post #12 of 35
12/6/12 at 4:56am
Many of those papers appear to have nothing to do with vaccines or autism (from the titles, anyway). I also wouldn't be terrible concerned about the published dates since it takes FOREVER to get articles through the review and approval process and then actually published. I also don't think you have to be a saint to do good science.

That said, if a client gave me $1million to do a research study for them, they'd expect to see a $1million product. If I put half that money in my pocket and made up fake bills to cover it, I'd also have to make fake progress reports, fake interim deliverables, etc. and also make the real work seem like it's worth twice what it was really worth. That would definitely make for some questionable results. Or maybe he worked his post-docs into the ground and pocketed the savings, so the work is still good? I dunno, I can definitely see why some folks have concern.
post #13 of 35
12/6/12 at 5:01am

I think that's a good point mosaic, but I doubt the percentage of the total funding he stole was that high.  I have a feeling these are multi million dollar studies.  I'm less worried if someone skims 5% than if they skim 50%, but i hadn't really thought about it that way before.

post #14 of 35
12/6/12 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

  I'm less worried if someone skims 5% than if they skim 50%, but i hadn't really thought about it that way before.

banghead.gif

 

 

he stole a million dollars!   This is not chump change, and I would not be thrilled if he even stole $1000.

 

You want to argue his scuzziness does not affect the science (although it might - he certainly is not a trustworthy figure)  fine, but don't negate the amount of money he stole.  

 

It reminds me of when people try to say big pharm does not make much money off vaccines biglaugh.gif

 

__________________

 

in general: 

 

I probably should not be giving the pro-vax side tips, but here is one anyways (I am feeling generous)

-do not say Big pharm does not make money off vaccines

-do not try to excuse Thorsens behaviour by saying it was not much money.

 

It looks really entitled (how rich is the pro-vax side that it dismisses millions or even billions of dollars?) and even worse, like they consider fraud acceptable.


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/6/12 at 7:07am
post #15 of 35
12/6/12 at 6:44am
I'm not negating the amount he stole. My comment was specifically in context of what mosaic said about it influencing his science. Don't frustrate yourself by generalizing it beyond that.
post #16 of 35
12/6/12 at 6:45am
And I promise you I'm not rich. Even by a very generous definition.
post #17 of 35
12/6/12 at 7:55am
You know, you can trust your child's health to Thoreson science & use Thimerisol some of us just choose not to. The entire non-vax case does not rest on Wakefield. For many years I disregarded him & the potential MMR issues entirely.

If you don't believe me, read: Pox, An
American History. Issues with Vax Safety date back 100 years, *at least*. The media wants us to believe any concerns started & end with Wakefield. I just know it is bias that Wakefield is a household name & Thorsen is not.
post #18 of 35
12/6/12 at 8:13am
Thimerosal isn't really relevant to the debate on childhood vaccination anymore, anyway.
post #19 of 35
12/6/12 at 8:14am
Wakefields fame BEFORE he was discredited was far more than thorsens. His behavior was also far more wide reaching and egregious than thorsens.
post #20 of 35
12/6/12 at 8:39am

I just had time to read the article.  I think first that the reasons that journals continue to publish Thorson's work are threefold: 1.) he is not the sole author on the articles; 2.) the peer review is a blind process so his name doesn't go out to the reviewers they vet the methods, conclusions and writing style along with the ethics of the scientific inquiry background checks of the authors are not part of it and cannot as the authors identity is generally withheld from the reviewers; 3.) his crime is about financial theft not scientific misconduct so there is no reason not to publish the work.

 

I also believe that the authors of the post in question for this discussion/debate's main problem is not with his theft of grant money and continued publication record, but with the conclusions of his scientific inquiries.  If it were the former, they would be looking to find every person who has been convicted of theft who continues to publish not just continuing to attack one person.  I do not believe that if Thorson and colleagues had found a connection between vaccines and autism that the authors who wrote this article would be upset that he published it.

 

I wish that the authors if they object to Thorson's findings would add to science rather than write blog posts calling him a humugus scumbag which really doesn't help anything or provide any new information.  Tear apart his methods, show why what he found was wrong.  Find a connection that can be replicated and meets scientific standards and publish a rebuttal.  But just saying one author on these was convicted of fraud so we have to throw away all the research that was done makes no sense whatsoever for two reasons 1.) it means that the government is out more money than what was stolen so now we compounded the taxpayer loss.  They also paid for the research through a grant, if it now can't be published that means that they got nothing from the investment! 2.) it won't keep the information from coming out anyway.  Since this study followed scientific protocol it can be replicated.  So we say Thorson's work can't be published.  All that means is his co-authors will redo the study and come to the same conclusions and publish it.  That is just time wasting.  Time that could be spent continuing to advance the scientific literature and help individuals with autism.

 

I believe that all avenues in autism research should be undertaken.  But trying to stop research isn't the answer.  Is it vaccines?  Let's continue the research (and not be biased by trying to halt some of it from being published) Is it other environmental  concerns (like cellphones or Wi-Fi)? Let's do research on it. Is it genetic?  Let's continue that research too because it can't be just one of these things.

You may also like:

Sitting or Squatting: What's Really Best in the Bathroom?
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby