Originally Posted by kathymuggle
I am not overly interested in what pro-vax bloggers have to say on the matter (or non-vax bloggers for that matter). If the documents are 1000 pages long, it would be easy to find stuff that could substantiate any side you want. Confirmation bias.
I am more interested in hearing from Thompsons and the CDC on the matter.
The documents are in the first link and are available for anyone to look at. It's a matter of being able to read dates and do basic math like subtraction along with reading direct statements from Thompson, no "trusting" necessary. (I guess unless you mean whether to trust Posey and his office...) It is interesting that there has not been a peep about this from any non-vax sites or blogs who have been begging for years for these documents, however. Very interesting. Guess it's not quite the smoking gun they were hoping for?
Some important dates. The first evidence of any analyzing of data being done is not until October/November 2001. One of the key claims made by Hooker and Wakefield is that the analysis plan was changed after they had started analyzing data to hide the results they didn't like, so in other words, AFTER October/November 2001. Wakefield and Hooker said “Thompson’s conversations with Hooker confirmed that it was only after the CDC study coauthors observed results indicating a statistical association between MMR timing and autism among African-Americans boys, that they introduced the Georgia birth certificate criterion as a requirement for participation in the study. This had the effect of reducing the sample size by 41% and eliminating the statistical significance of the finding, which Hooker calls a direct deviation from the agreed upon final study protocol – a serious violation.’” However, the final analysis plan was dated September 5, 2001 - over a month before any data was analyzed. Here is the link
to the final analysis clearly dated in September. You'll note that even months before they started analyzing data they had planned on using birth certificate data.
Even more convincing from the new data dump provided by Posey is the first draft of the analysis plan which is dated April 3, 2001 (over 6 months before they analyzed any data) which also shows they planned on using birth certificate data from the beginning. Another point, as Matt Carey noted "But even more, notice how there’s an annotation “I would include race as a covariate, not as an exposure variable.” That’s critical–they decided against using race as an exposure variable from the start. Before they did a race analysis."
Here is a screen shot: (Again, all these documents are available to anyone via the dropbox link I provided in the OP. No blind trusting of pro-vaccine bloggers is necessary)
Here is the link to the document the screen shot was taken from, dated April 3rd, 2001. (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jxtr06s5d...00001.PDF?dl=0
Lastly, I've already shown how the claim that data was destroyed in garbage cans was wrong, cherry picked and important information deliberately omitted (like that all the data is backed up on computer servers and remains there today).
There is more but those touch on some of the more important points. I'll hopefully have time to add more later.