30 Years of Secret Official Transcripts Show UK Government Experts Cover Up Vaccine Hazards

[MissCee]

Link: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/government-experts-cover-up-vaccine-hazards/

Link to Transcripts: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf

[Rrrrrachel]

I feel like we already went through this once.

[MissCee]

Ah . .sorry if you did! Although I signed up for this site in 2011, I only started posting in it recently so I wasn't aware that this information had already been shared :-)

[Jennyanydots]

Thanks for posting this! If its been shared before, I must've missed it. Better to err on the side of too much info here, I think

[prosciencemum]

It's not really direct transcripts - it's an opinion piece by Tomeljvic in which she quotes excerpts from transcripts which she has picked out to make her point.

I'm really curious if she genuinely believes this stuff, and/or what her agenda is.

[Marnica]

Perhaps it has been posted before and we have "been through this before" but I could make that argument for practically everything discussed here. How many times has the vaccination/autism link been hashed out for instance?  My point to MissCee - no need to apologize for posting information some people may not be familiar with. If a person feels  - been there done that already -  in regards to a topic - they certainly don't have to make any comment at all and let the rest of us have at it. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

It's not really direct transcripts - it's an opinion piece by Tomeljvic in which she quotes excerpts from transcripts which she has picked out to make her point.

I'm really curious if she genuinely believes this stuff, and/or what her agenda is.

 right because people routinely write and speak about unpopular, non-mainstream views of extremely controversial subjects when they do not believe in them.  You know in the paper in the link there is an email address. Why don't you email her and ask her what her agenda is. 

Personally I plan on (when I have more time) to click on the links to the actual transcripts and read them for myself. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I wasn't criticizing posting the link, just saying I thought it had been discussed before. No need to be touchy.

Tomljenovic does data and quote mining and that's about it. I'd like to see her do some actual research.

[MissCee]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I wasn't criticizing posting the link, just saying I thought it had been discussed before. No need to be touchy.

Tomljenovic does data and quote mining and that's about it. I'd like to see her do some actual research.

What about the study she was involved in with regards to the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine?

http://www.straight.com/life/ubc-researchers-advocate-hpv-vaccine-scrutiny

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23009980/2072344030/name/vacc+hpv+2013+British+Columbia.pdf

Or the studies she was involved with with regards to aluminum toxicity?

http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/223

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013411002212

“The correlation between Al [aluminum] and ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorders] may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.”

http://news.yahoo.com/aluminum-adjuvant-vaccines-causes-risk-children-according-journal-080422429.html

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by MissCee 

What about the study she was involved in with regards to the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine?

Or the studies she was involved with with regards to aluminum toxicity?

The first is a systemic review of other studies looking at the safety and effectiveness of HPV. That's not a problem in itself, but can lead to bias being introduced if not done properly, and it's not the same as designing a proper sample to answer a question.

The second uses data on autism trends from the USA and other countries and compares it to "estimates of the aluminium" content of pre-school vaccines. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

 right because people routinely write and speak about unpopular, non-mainstream views of extremely controversial subjects when they do not believe in them.  You know in the paper in the link there is an email address. Why don't you email her and ask her what her agenda is. 

Personally I plan on (when I have more time) to click on the links to the actual transcripts and read them for myself. 

I know - that's why I'm curious of her motivations. Because she states in many places she not anti-vax and she lets the data speak, but then the data always results in confirming anti-vaccination beliefs. I'm not saying all vaccines are safe and effective to the levels the pharmaceutical companies would like to claim. But I cannot believe they're all junk either  - and that's what makes it seem suspicious to me. If she ever publishes anything which finds a null result of a link between vaccines and one of these many illness which are claimed by some to have a link to them, then maybe I'll stop being quite so suspicious.... 

I suspect she gets a lot of emails - some not very nice. I see some of the nastiness on other locations which go into this debate (from both sides). So I doubt she'd answer my question honestly via email. But I could dig a bit and see if I can find interviews with her anywhere. Thanks for the suggestion though - I had not noticed she published her email address. Very brave of her. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Misscee those weren't studies in the sense that I mean. She took existing data and ran multiple statistical tests on it.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I know - that's why I'm curious of her motivations. Because she states in many places she not anti-vax and she lets the data speak, but then the data always results in confirming anti-vaccination beliefs. I'm not saying all vaccines are safe and effective to the levels the pharmaceutical companies would like to claim. But I cannot believe they're all junk either  - and that's what makes it seem suspicious to me. If she ever publishes anything which finds a null result of a link between vaccines and one of these many illness which are claimed by some to have a link to them, then maybe I'll stop being quite so suspicious.... 

I suspect she gets a lot of emails - some not very nice. I see some of the nastiness on other locations which go into this debate (from both sides). So I doubt she'd answer my question honestly via email. But I could dig a bit and see if I can find interviews with her anywhere. Thanks for the suggestion though - I had not noticed she published her email address. Very brave of her. 

Unless you are planning on being nasty in your email to her, I can't imagine that she wouldn't try and answer you. 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I wasn't criticizing posting the link, just saying I thought it had been discussed before. No need to be touchy.

Tomljenovic does data and quote mining and that's about it. I'd like to see her do some actual research.

Actually I wasn't being touchy. I just don't understand why you would post something stating that the subject had been brought up before without offering up anything else - no link to previous discussions, nothing to add to the conversation/debate. it just seemed dismissive to me. If it wasn't intended to be well - I guess that's the side effect of trying to interpret another person's intent/tone via the written word. 

[Rrrrrachel]

How about so the op coul look it up if they wanted? I just can't imagine why you would call me out when it doesn't contribute or add to the conversation except to be touchy. But maybe I'm misinterpreting your tone.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

How about so the op coul look it up if they wanted? I just can't imagine why you would call me out when it doesn't contribute or add to the conversation except to be touchy. But maybe I'm misinterpreting your tone.

I  guess you are  

[prettysymmetry]

thanks for your post! new to mothering b/c i have a new baby!