Time to Retract Thompson's Study? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 201Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 85 Old 09-03-2014, 07:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Time to Retract Thompson's Study?

I was getting buried in the old thread, so I hope a spin-off is OK.

William W. Thompson of the CDC confessed the following: http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-...ne-and-autism/

Quote:
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
In light of his confession, I have some questions. I am hoping to hear some answers from our regular, (and not-so-regular) pro-vaxxers. Anyone can jump in, though. These are questions that nobody, neither here nor in the blogosphere, seems to be addressing.

1. In light of Thompson's confession, should the editorial board of the journal, Pediatrics, retract this study?

2. In the interests of science, should the study be conducted again, rewritten, and republished with the missing data included?

3. If so, what kind of oversight and accountabilty should be part of this process to ensure an ethical research process this time?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 85 Old 09-03-2014, 07:59 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
A question I have:

I've seen assumptions that the study indicated that the children who were not African American were at no increased risk for autism, but since the numbers are now questionable, how can that assumption be made?
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 07:14 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
I would like to see it retracted - or at least a commission of sorts looking into it. Is that happenning? Noooooo…… I have seen virtually no response from the CDC or mainstream media. Bury, bury, bury.

What I would really like to see is follow -up studies on timing of MMR and incidence of autism in different subgroups. Sadly, though, I probably wouldn't trust them anyways. It is kind of sucky not being able to trust medial and scientific advisers to be honourable and transparent.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 09-04-2014 at 09:05 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#4 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 07:56 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
At this point I wouldn't trust the CDC to report the incidence of acne accurately.
Deborah is online now  
#5 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 09:09 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
I am hoping to hear some answers from our regular, (and not-so-regular) pro-vaxxers. Anyone can jump in, though. These are questions that nobody, neither here nor in the blogosphere, seems to be addressing.

1. In light of Thompson's confession, should the editorial board of the journal, Pediatrics, retract this study?

2. In the interests of science, should the study be conducted again, rewritten, and republished with the missing data included?

3. If so, what kind of oversight and accountabilty should be part of this process to ensure an ethical research process this time?
I don't like holding my breath - makes one so blue..... so............

I would add a 4th - How much longer will the pundits push this???

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#6 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
A question I have:

I've seen assumptions that the study indicated that the children who were not African American were at no increased risk for autism, but since the numbers are now questionable, how can that assumption be made?
I'm wondering if that's just spin to cover up the fact that ALL the vaccinated children were at increased risk for autism....
Taximom5 is offline  
#7 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
I'm wondering if that's just spin to cover up the fact that ALL the vaccinated children were at increased risk for autism....
It probably is spin.

But it is being waved around as a certainty by certain bloggers.
Deborah is online now  
#8 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 11:38 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
I'm wondering if that's just spin to cover up the fact that ALL the vaccinated children were at increased risk for autism....
I think it is. Just watch those #hearthiswell videos and hear how many of those caucasian parents specifically mention MMR.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#9 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 02:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I would like to see it retracted - or at least a commission of sorts looking into it. Is that happenning? Noooooo……
Isn't this issue pretty basic? If someone admits to producing fraudulant data, you withdraw the data and re-examine the data. At least if you're pro-science . . . (Cough, cough, hack!)

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#10 of 85 Old 09-04-2014, 08:27 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Turquesa, do I detect a bit of sarcasm? I'm shocked...
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 85 Old 09-05-2014, 09:40 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Didn't it take Hooker years of formally requesting the data before it was finally released (FOIA) ? Why do people say it's been available since 2004? Or am I getting this mixed up with something else?

Turquesa, you're right about that. My impression is that they are not interested in looking into this any further, and are trying to preserve the vaccine program however they can. That does not seem like science to me, but more like dogma preservation. Our understanding of science is always changing and evolving, and we should be striving for improvement. Instead, we have this mess.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#12 of 85 Old 10-02-2014, 06:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Really? No pro-vaccine takers? If somebody admitted that they withheld data from a study that would have provided the opposite conclusions, wouldn't a retraction be in order? The silence on this is absolutely deafening!

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#13 of 85 Old 10-03-2014, 01:59 PM
 
tm0sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Kinda OT, but I am absolutely SHOCKED there hasn't been at least a little more of a main stream reaction to this mess. Where are the Black community leaders? What does President Obama have to say about it?! If this became a race issue there would be absolutely no containing it.
tm0sweet is offline  
#14 of 85 Old 10-03-2014, 02:45 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Yes, one of my earliest posts on this subject was "Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Reverend Wright? - (who did condemn vaccines as being the cause of AIDS in one of his sermons.)

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."

Last edited by applejuice; 10-03-2014 at 02:46 PM.
applejuice is offline  
#15 of 85 Old 10-03-2014, 03:00 PM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 196
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Yes, one of my earliest posts on this subject was "Where are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Reverend Wright? - (who did condemn vaccines as being the cause of AIDS in one of his sermons.)
Those guys watch CNN... they dont know.

Weeding through the propaganda post Smith Mundt Act.
EMRguy is offline  
#16 of 85 Old 10-03-2014, 03:11 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,400
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
One of the very first posts on the internet about the whistleblower case was on the CNN website, but it was taken down shortly after. I do believe it is mentioned on one of the threads on these forums.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
applejuice is offline  
#17 of 85 Old 10-03-2014, 05:57 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Don't expect anything out of Obama, Jesse, or Al. Remember Obama's promise to label GMOs? Lies. We have more GMOs than ever before, and not a peep from him about the labeling campaign.

Al and Jesse are just there to parade as leaders. Don't believe them either. They were bought off long ago. If they were sincere, they would be having a fit over this MMR issue, pressing for a deeper investigation.
For the record, I don't trust the white leaders either. They're all a bunch of crooked crooks, not worthy of my trust.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#18 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 09:10 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
AAP has already made a statement about this. Not going to happen. They, too, stand by the study and its results.

"The journal takes allegations of the use of fraudulent data seriously. The journal investigated the allegations in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines and has decided that a retraction is not warranted."


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#19 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 09:50 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Surprise surprise.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#20 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 10:09 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Surprise surprise.

Multiple experts and statisticians, the CDC, and the AAP have all looked at the data and have not found any evidence to back up Hooker's "reanalysis" or claims.

So nope, I'm not surprised that they aren't retracting the study either. There is no need to do so.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#21 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 10:17 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,221
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Multiple experts and statisticians, the CDC, and the AAP have all looked at the data and have not found any evidence to back up Hooker's "reanalysis" or claims.

So nope, I'm not surprised that they aren't retracting the study either. There is no need to do so.
They need to be concentration on what Thompson said, not Hookers re-analysis.

So…let's recap a bit. The CDC stands accused, by one of its own, of wrong-doing. It has looked at the issue (according to you) and exonerated itself of wrong doing.

When a organsiation is accused of wrong doing it is good form to have an impartial 3rd party sort things out…not just take the word of the accused or accuser for it. Fail all round.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#22 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 10:33 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
They need to be concentration on what Thompson said, not Hookers re-analysis.

So…let's recap a bit. The CDC stands accused, by one of its own, of wrong-doing. It has looked at the issue (according to you) and exonerated itself of wrong doing.

When a organsiation is accused of wrong doing it is good form to have an impartial 3rd party sort things out…not just take the word of the accused or accuser for it. Fail all round.
CDC statement to ABC says, in part :

"As this topic was so sensitive and complex, the CDC study published in Pediatrics in February 2004 underwent clearance at CDC, the usual process of internal review for scientific accuracy that all CDC papers undergo. In addition, before submission to the journal, the manuscript was reviewed by five experts outside of CDC and an independent CDC statistician (see acknowledgements section of the paper for specific names). Finally, all reputable journals undergo peer-review of all submitted papers before final publication."

Remember, Hooker said Thompson led him to this data for his reanalysis. Except that data doesn't show what Hooker (and presumably/allegedly Thompson) said or thinks it does.

Again, the data has been reviewed and analyzed by many experts not affiliated with the CDC in any way. There is no cover up.

Hooker had to literally change the study design to get it to show what he wanted it to.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#23 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 10:53 AM
 
MyFillingQuiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Northern Idaho
Posts: 833
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
So the CDC AND the AAP stand by a faulty/fraudulent study that continues to give support/funding to drug manufacturers to vaccinate children early, often and then again and again despite results of said study?

Peer review? By whom? Fellows? Other drug manufacturers that have a stake in the generic version of vaccinations that are permitted after a patent expires? I've been involved in peer review work before. Unfortunately peer often equals "co-benefactor".

I can't say I expected any different reaction.

Blessed Christian Wife and Homeschooling Mother to 8: 17 (our 1st homeschool graduate!), 12, 11, 9, 5, 4, 2 and with blessing #9 and #10 due to arrive April 2015




Last edited by MyFillingQuiver; 10-17-2014 at 11:01 AM. Reason: spelling
MyFillingQuiver is offline  
#24 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 10:55 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,609
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
Let's see who is in charge of ABC medical reporting.

Dr Richard Besser is ABC News' Chief Health and Medical Editor.

Quote:
Dr. Besser came to ABC News in 2009 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), where he served as Acting Director for the CDC from January to June 2009, during which time he led the CDC's response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic. He also served as director of the Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response. In that role, he was responsible for all of the CDC's public health emergency preparedness and emergency response activities.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#25 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 11:24 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,032
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
images.jpg

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#26 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 02:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Well, shoot. I was trying to insert that famous NVIC image of three government agencies--plus two little boys next to a broken lamp--simultaneously declaring: "We have investigated ourselves and found no evidence of wrong-doing."

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is online now  
#27 of 85 Old 10-17-2014, 05:23 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Quote:
Peer reviewers are selected by the editors based on their expertise in the topic of the manuscript; generally at least 2 reviews are required before a decision is rendered. Authors may suggest appropriate reviewers and may also suggest reviewers who should not review the manuscript.
my bold

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...idelines-1.pdf

Quote:
Peer reviewers are asked to assess each manuscript for originality; for interest to scientists, practitioners and policy makers; for quality of the analysis; and for quality of the presentation, and are asked to assess the priority of the paper for publication.
Most of that seems to be aesthetics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the peer reviewers are not looking at the raw data just the study as presented.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#28 of 85 Old 10-20-2014, 10:41 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
People can cry conspiracy all they want, but numbers are numbers.

If someone wants to prove the CDC, AAP, professional statisticians, and doctors wrong then go for it. The data has been and is still there for people to use and analyze.

The only attempt thus far has been an epic failure.

Let's just say I won't hold my breath.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is online now  
#29 of 85 Old 10-20-2014, 05:50 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
People can cry conspiracy all they want, but numbers are numbers.

If someone wants to prove the CDC, AAP, professional statisticians, and doctors wrong then go for it. The data has been and is still there for people to use and analyze.

The only attempt thus far has been an epic failure.

Let's just say I won't hold my breath.
These 2 recent articles deserve their own threads, but they address teacozy's POV so perfectly, I'll post them here.

http://business.financialpost.com/20...ical-research/
"How could so many for so long ignore the evidence that was so obvious and so easy to verify? An answer lies in the willful blindness of the vested interests that dominate the medical field."

The answer:
Money aside, personal egos and professional reputations were at stake. And cementing these powerful incentives together to form a near-impenetrable groupthink were government agencies that amplified the conventional wisdom and increasingly influenced what research should and shouldn’t be done, what papers should and shouldn’t be published, what drugs should and shouldn’t be licensed. In this medical-industrial-governmental complex, there was and is little appetite for out-of-the-box thinkers who challenge the status quo; there was and is an insatiable need to squelch dissent."


http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...one-share&_r=0
"Statisticians amalgamate many studies through a technique called meta-analysis. The first step of the process, deciding which data to include, colors the findings. On occasion, the design of a meta-analysis stacks the deck for or against a treatment. "
Taximom5 is offline  
#30 of 85 Old 10-20-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,563
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
I have noticed that studies that are critical of vaccines get the fine-tooth-comb treatment, while studies that are supportive of vaccines are swallowed hook-line and sinker.

Consider the feeble response to the Fombonne study, at best a very sloppy study and at worst, outright fraud.

Oh well.
Deborah is online now  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off