LOL - Now its perfumes that cause autism - Page 3
I know you like the Cochrane reports Taximon (or at least you like some of them). I already linked the one on this post which shows no link between MMR and autism:
Court cases are not the same as scientific evidence. And in fact I think several of those rulings relied on results from Wakefields now debunked and discredited 1998 paper which has been retracted by Lancet. Perhaps they should declare a mistrial and try again....
Why, prosciencemum, did you misread the report? Or did you just not bother to read it?
It actually says, "We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results."
That's VASTLY different from saying "these studies show no link." THEY COULD NOT ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A LINK BECAUSE OF THE POOR METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF THE STUDIES.
The researchers, epidemiologists, and attorneys I have talked to all say that studies are set up to show whatever conclusion the funding organization wants, but that they have to be very careful with how they word things so it doesn't come back to bite them later.
Legally, "we see no link" carries a different meaning than,"we could assess no link....because of poor study quality," or "we were unable to assess a link...because of poor study quality." And the epidemiologists have no control over the media (fed by the pharmaceutical dollars, and therefore by Pharma agenda) twisting that into, " this proves that there's no link!"
By the way, thank you for illustrating the "Twist and Spin" so nicely. You've done a beautiful job of illustrating how study conclusions are twisted to "show" something that isn't there at all.
Not that it's a competition, but I'd bet a lot of money I've talked to more scientists than you have. Most of my friends are scientists, as are all of the people I work with. I even married a scientists. Oh and I am one.....
Continue to think they're hiding something if you like. Please stop claiming I'm trying to spin things though. It's getting really old.
Not that it's a competition, but I'd bet a lot of money I've talked to more scientists than you have.
Nice, mature response, there.
Please stop claiming I'm trying to spin things though. It's getting really old.
You are cherry picking the result Taximon. I do wonder if you are doing this deliberately to misinform, or if you're just parroting something from an anti-vax site which has posted it to deliberately misinform.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
What they all agree on is that, if Merck et al do not want anyone to find a link to problems with their products, they set up studies so that a link is not evident.
Vaccine manufacturer: "Ho, hum, I don't want anyone to see that there is a link between vaccines and autism. I'll set up a study, and before we even start, I'll eliminate all subjects who are at known higher risk of autism (family history of autism, autoimmune disorders, seizures, learning disabilities, celiac disease, thyroid disorders, vitamin D deficiency, mitochondrial diosrders, etc)
Then, after the study has started, if children exhibit symptoms of autism, I'll exit them from the study, and say that they didn't complete the study.
Or, I'll put children with obvious symptoms of autism (but no official diagnosis) in my "control" group.
Oh, and I'll make sure my "control" group gets just as high a cumulative dose of thimerosal and aluminum as the "test" group, but we'll focus on something that we already know isn't related...like, umm...I know! Antigens! We'll focus on antigens!"
And looky here! My study shows NO relationship between vaccine antigens and autism!
Pharma-funded medical journal: "No link between vaccines and autism"
Pharma-funded news media: "Another incontrovertible proof that vaccines are COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO AUTISM!!
Anyone who's telling you that this isn't standard procedure is misleading you.
Let's get this straight: Wakefield's paper was a collection of CASE REPORTS. That is all it ever was, all it ever claimed to be. Journalist/Hack Brian Deer (not a scientist in any way) led the attack on Wakefield. Brian Deer has been shown to have significant ties to Rupert Murdoch who has significant ties to OMGosh: Merck!
Anyway, I am 100% sure that NO Vax Court awards have had anything to do with Wakefield's retracted Lancet paper, as all the awards have happened SEVERAL years after the retraction . . .