One of the primary subjects for those promoting vaccines as a primary cause of autism is the Hepatitis B vaccine. This vaccine is given at birth and represents a child’s first exposure outside the womb to a vaccine and, in the old days, to thimerosal. David Kirby attempted to link the rise in autism prevalence to the introduction of the HepB vaccine. Others have claimed that the rates of special education placements are 9 times higher amongst children given the HepB vaccine at birth. Here is the abstract for (Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years rel=”nofollow”)
This study investigated the association between vaccination with the Hepatitis B triple series vaccine prior to 2000 and developmental disability in children aged 1– 9 years (n¼1824), proxied by parental report that their child receives early intervention or special education services (EIS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000 data were analyzed and adjusted for survey design by Taylor Linearization using SAS version 9.1 software, with SAS callable SUDAAN version 9.0.1. The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n¼46) as for unvaccinated boys (n¼7), after adjustment for confounders. This study found statistically significant evidence to suggest that boys in United States who were vaccinated with the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine, during the time period in which vaccines were manufactured with thimerosal, were more susceptible to developmental disability than were unvaccinated boys.
The recent study on thimerosal and autism gives us a look at how the Hepatitis B vaccine might (or might not) be linked to autism. Exhibit 16.1 on page 82 of volume 2 of the technical report is a graph of HepB vaccine uptake among autistic children (AD) and non-autistic children (controls)
Here is that exhibit, showing the total number of vaccines (count) and amount of thimerosal (amt) for all vaccines and for HepB alone:
![Price-HepBGraphs1-copy[1]](https://lbrbblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/price-hepbgraphs1-copy1.png)
The top right graph shows the number of HepB vaccines for autistic kids (solid line) and non-autistic kids (dotted line). They are, to all intents and purposes, the same.
Take a look at the birth dose. Not every kid got it. Maybe about 1/2 got the birth dose at birth, and about 2/3 got it within the first few days.
If the birth dose of HepB caused autism to any significant degree, I would expect to see a higher percentage of autistic kids than non-autistic kids getting that shot. It just didn’t happen. Take a closer look at that graph:
![Price-HepBGraphs2[1]](https://lbrbblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/price-hepbgraphs21.png)
The same percentage of got the HepB shots–all 3 of them– as non-autistic kids.
Still wondering about that birth dose? Let’s zoom in on the graph:
![Price-HepBGraphs3[1]](https://lbrbblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/price-hepbgraphs31.png)
Those lines are right on top of each other.
The HepB hypothesis won’t go away. Just like the thimerosal hypothesis or the MMR hypothesis. Just today, Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmsted put out a very long post at the Age of Autism blog pushing the idea. They use the bad and worse studies from Thoughtful House on infant macaques to bolster their arguments.
The funny thing about evidence is, some people never accept it.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Nice analysis. I have thought for a while that if any vaccine in the future gets the MMR scrutiny treatment, it’s probably going to be hep B. It hit right during a notable period of rise in ASD diagnoses, and people associate it only with naughty behaviors.
Regarding the Gallagher 2007 study concerning hep B and special services:
I’ve seen this study creep out once or twice, most notably in JB Handley’s “Unmitigated Disaster” rant. If I understand it correctly, it’s culled from NHANES survey data and thus is parent-reported.
Interestingly, the findings section briefly mentions:
So, if we are to consider this data reliable (which we probably shouldn’t), we must urge girls to be vaccinated fully for hep B because it apparently makes them less disabled.
Funny how this aspect is completely neglected in the conclusions section. I get the sense that the authors just combed NHANES data until they finally found a vaccine with a bad association that was statistically significant (which, statistically speaking, is going to happen by chance once in a while).
we do not know why boys develope AUTISM more than girls, but wait til one of your kids or grand kids get sick, realy sick after a vaccine and develope ASD, then come and write this.
“we do not know why boys develope AUTISM more than girls, but wait til one of your kids or grand kids get sick, realy sick after a vaccine and develope ASD, then come and write this.”
Dear naive “parent” – if you read this blog you’d know that virtually everyone who posts here has an autistic child or is autistic him or herself. That’s why we care when people tell lies about the causes of autism. Hope that helps.
Appeal to pity fallacy.
“The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys (n¼46) as for unvaccinated boys (n¼7), after adjustment for confounders.”
This is one of those “too good to be true” results. If that were true, the # of kids needing special ed would have increased by a factor of 9 when the HepB vaccine was introduced. OK technically x7 because only 74% of kids got it according to that study. Given that this unprecedented epidemic of special needs obviously didn’t happen, we can conclude that this is wrong, even setting aside everything else…
Or in fact, as Orange Lantern points out, we would have had rates in boys going up by 7 and rates in girls slashed by more than half…
I looked on page 81 of volume 2, and wonder why they included in the count of number of vaccines received, types of vaccines that ever contained thimerosal, while they counted each receipt of those types whether they contained thimerosal or not.
@ Billy, We may (I’m just guessing really) see a future study that examines a potential dose-response and autism (i.e. ‘too many too soon’). Just as we did with the same dataset used for the previous VSD study of autism and neurodevelopmental outcomes. In any event, it is no easy task to mine the VSD so perhaps some kind of future study parameters were included.
Your liver helps your body digest food, store energy and remove poisons. Hepatitis is a swelling of the liver that makes it stop working well. It can lead to scarring, called cirrhosis, or to cancer.:
Remember to visit our own internet page
<,http://www.healthmedicinelab.com/incarcerated-hernia/
Helpful information. Lucky me I discovered your website accidentally,
and I’m shocked why this coincidence didn’t took place
earlier! I bookmarked it.
I always used to study paragraph in news papers but now as I
am a user of web therefore from now I am using net for content, thanks
to web.
And so that’s why the US FDA lists “AUTISM” as a possible side effect of the Hep-B vaccine. Got it.
You should look up the vaccine insert and check for your mistake.
“Reported” is not “possible”. As in, “among the side effects reported for this vaccine we include autism” is not the same thing as “among the side effects demonstrated as possible for this vaccine we include autism”. The exact wording on the insert is different as I recall, but this example shows the mistake you are making.
So “got it” is somewhat ironic when you clearly don’t “get it”. Now that you are aware of your mistake, will you stop spreading this particular bit of misinformation? I sincerely doubt it.
You should stop spreading your disinformation:
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.
Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS.
Author information
Abstract
Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.
PMID: 21058170 [PubMed – indexed for ME
So, you can find an abstract and copy and paste. Doesn’t show you understand the study or the huge limitations. That’s not discussion. That doesn’t show anything, except that you will accept whatever shred of evidence supports your belief.
So, what do you think about the fact that the study basically compares older kids to younger kids–i.e. they ignore a cohort effect?
That’s one way to interpret it. The other way to interpret it is to make note of the main effect that the authors of the study REPORTED. More to the point, you keep posting that “REPORTED” does not mean “POSSIBLE”, as if that is somehow profound. Actually, it is utter nonsense. In the logic of science, if something is NEVER SEEN, it is thought to be highly IMPROBABLE. Things or events that are seen are generally considered POSSIBLE. Events that are REPORTED are, in fact POSSIBLE. Now back to other question, I’ve done plenty of case/control and cohort studies. As you know, autism diagnosis rates have been increasing – meaning there will be an age effect. You ascribe it to cohort effect, but that is not the proper context of the study. The authors knew this. I knew this. And you know this. But you say what you say, anyway. And try to shame others for reading the warning from (who? some guy? no. THE FDA) that Hep-B may cause autism. 6 million autistic children are more important than your lame attempts to confuse with semantics. How many autistic children will it take to convince you that things that are reported are possible? Are 6 million not enough?
Now, as we were saying, the FDA does in fact consider autism to be a possible side effect from the Hep-B. And the vaccine court has in fact awarded 83 families funds due to the damage of autism due to vaccines.
By the way, I am 100% PRO-VACCINE. Always have been, always will be. It’s up to the CDC and Pharma to clean up their act in their approach to science, or step aside and let truly independent research scientists without profit motive conduct the research on safety & efficacy. With their fraudulent “science”, cooking the data, omitting results, repeated analyses until the observed associations of high risk of autism due to various vaccines dissappeared, the CDC has abdicated their responsibility as a protector of the public health.
GAME OVER.
It’s not profound. It’s just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of people who misrepresent what the vaccine insert actually says.
The man with integrity in your position would just admit that he made a mistake. Which leads me to the conclusion (a) you don’t have integrity and (b) you knew you were misrepresenting the facts.
I hope you are really active out there with your misinformation campaign. When I started out in this, looking for the answers, I found people like you. And you (as a group) were instrumental in showing me that your arguments are false.
You dodge, you weave, but you don’t address the huge failing with the study (OK, ONE of the huge failings). Yes, I do think the authors knew that they had a cohort effect–as in they were comparing an older cohort from an era with low diagnosis rates to a younger cohort with better awareness and diagnosis rates. Instead of trying to control for this and instead of alerting their readers to the giant flaw in their study, they published junk. It’s politics, not science. It’s PR not science.
Don’t pull the passive aggressive “shame” thing. I don’t think you feel shame in being called out for your misinformation efforts. Again, cheap internet debate tactics only teach the people who read that you have no susbtance.
I’m sorry, I was not intending on being passive aggressive at all. I thought I was being rather uncharactertistically aggressive. But ad hominem attacks are really all you have left. This discussion is not about me. It’s about the insert, and the flaws in your callous attempts to minimize the intent of the FDA. So, like I said, GAME OVER. Hope you had fun. Everyone, please go ahead and interpret the insert as intended by the FDA, regardless of this person’s attempts to overrule the FDA’s warning.
By the way, many don’t know that your doctor has to, by law, give only one sheet on side effects per vaccine. Often there are often as many as 25 additional pages they must review with you if you request them. Ask them to show you the studies that shows no association. Ask them whether they believe that Dr. Thompson’s revelations cause them to doubt the validity of the studies conducted by the CDC showing “no association”. If they cannot answer that question, then suggest to them that they might want to sign this petition requesting immediate Congressional hearings so they can get back to actually knowing whether the adjuvants and preservatives they are being asked to put into their patients’ bodies are in fact safe:
http://www.petition2congress.com/18382/immediate-congressional-hearings-on-cdc-fraudulent-pediatric-vacc/
“By the way, I am 100% PRO-VACCINE”
Frankly I don’t care what label you attach to yourself. I care about the fact that you are willfully spreading misinformation. And you don’t have the courage to admit your mistakes.
Really? What alleged “mistake” was that? Please be specific. And labeling? Well, you have called me an “arse”. Name calling always proves you right. Again, you have nothing other than ad hominem attacks.
Yawn:
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/17/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/
and
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2012/07/1-hepatitis-b-vaccination-of-male-neonates-and-autism-diagnosis-nhis-1997-2002-2010.html
Matt, James Lyons-Weiler made a bit of an arse of himself along the same lines, i.e. doesn’t understand statistical analyses or study design over at RI recently: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/08/05/the-cdc-whistleblower-william-thompson-appears-to-have-gone-full-antivaccine/#comment-412878
He appears to be yet another once-respected scientist who is cosying up to the anti-vaxx ignorati for whatever reason.
I assume you are referring to this
Click to access UCM101580.pdf
Did you not read the actual source before, or did you not understand it? Or did you not care that the facts are different from your claim?
Ah, the hazards of copying and pasting what you read on an anti-vax site.
Try reading the rules behind what gets put in an insert, specifically, Part C from “Guidance for Industry Adverse Reactions: Section of Labeling for Human Prescription Drug and Biological Products — Content and Format”:
“Decisions about whether to include an adverse event from spontaneous reports in labeling are typically based on one or more of the following factors: (1) seriousness of the event, (2) number of reports, or (3) strength of causal relationship to the drug.”
Click to access UCM075057.pdf
In other words, if someone says that there was a severe adverse reaction – no pathological report needed – then the drug company is legally obliged to put it on the label.
This can lead to a scenario like the following: even though a multi-year international study with over 1.4 million children looking into a causal connection between autism and vaccines has turned up no connection, manufacturers are still legally obligated to print it as an adverse reaction on the label.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367
Science mom, claiming that I don’t understand study design or statistical analysis is amusing. That should play extremely well with those who know who I am and what I do. “Once-respected?” Since when does a party of one define and industry’s consensus? “COZYing up”, eh? Again trying those ad hominem attacks. Arse? Science Mom, Matt, every time you try these attacks, you are merely proving the futility of your position.
I used to teach a course in study design – to graduate students – and included a good amount of ethics in the course. And for the last 20 or so years I have analyzed -omic data from cohort studies, case/control, outcomes predictions. I helped set the standard for phase biomarker development studies in cancer, and have designed entire paradigms to conduct data analysis so the analysts don’t end up fooling themselves.
The vaccine safety “science” whistleblower at the CDC – and now another one at Merck re: MMR and autism – are the ones you should argue with, not me. I merely show others what they have said. Kill the messenger, kill the message? There are 6 million people with autism with parents who will never go away who now know that the CDC fudged the data, in spite of the media’s silence on the real story. The CDC went off-protocol and changed in the inclusion criteria, reported some but not all subgroup analyses, excluded individuals to reduce statistical power, peeked at the data first, then changed who was included. Too many people know this to have it go away by name-calling.
See, vaccine safety research is a bit like baby car seat safety research. If millions of people said that the car seats being used were causing permanent brain damage to, say, 2% of the babies whose parents use those seats, well, there would be a recall. There would not be retrospective epidemiological studies, and certainly not conducted by the car seat manufacturer! Now if the National Transportation Board had put a warning out that those seats were dangerous, recommended that they be banned, but the seats continued to be sold, and babies continued to get brain damage, well, there would criminal prosecutions. If a whistleblower came out and said that the manufacturer knew that the car seats caused brain damage, but covered it up by falsifying safety testing results, well, there would be additional charges and fines and lawsuits.
Science is for asking questions, and being ready to throw out old knowledge in light of new data. The revelations of Dr. Thompson especially (which, by the way, are now entered in the US Congressional Record) reveal outright fraud admitted by himself, and alleged by his supervisors. To any objective scientist, that means that we do not know which vaccines are safe, and which are not. For which other studies did they cook the data?
Thank you for sharing my link, by the way, there is a good deal of information there about emails from and to the CDC by analysts pleading that they CDC scientists accept the association results in the name of objective science.
It is amusing because you should know better but have turned your back on scepticism to embrace pseudo-science. What do you do? You no longer have a post anywhere and you’re writing for the likes of Greenmedinfo and Age of Autism. Not very impressive.
Where are those ethics and knowledge in study design now as you are defending Hooker’s execrable “re-analysis” and accepting Thompson’s (completely unsupported) statements as fact and invoking Goodman and Gallagher’s demonstrably false study? And using those to propagate the same tired refuted claim that vaccines cause autism. You are really off the rails.
“See, vaccine safety research is a bit like baby car seat safety research. If millions of people said that the car seats being used were causing permanent brain damage to, say, 2% of the babies whose parents use those seats, well, there would be a recall.”
No, if there were *data* showing that there was a risk. Parents raising an alert would put people into high gear to see what, if any, problem there was.
Ironic that you make such ignorant statements like this when you claim such a strong background, isn’t it?
No one argues with you. We are pointing out your mistakes. Too bad you can’t see that as you could correct them.
“Science mom, claiming that I don’t understand study design or statistical analysis is amusing. ”
It’s an observation based on your comments here. Your resume doesn’t trump your comments here.
No one is attacking you. You can stop trying that as a defense. Pointing out your flawed logic isn’t an “attack”.
No, actually it (my resume) does trump any excluded comment that someone thinks I should have made but did not because it was not my point. Merely because a planetary scientist discussing Mars does not also mention Neptune does not mean they know nothing about Neptune……..
My point is deeper than name-calling… look at the actual modeling out of variation from highly collinear variables gestational age and birthweight – both redundant variables – a component very likely related to ill effects of any neurotoxin – treated as a “Control” variable instead of covariate?? Only leading residuals to be explained?? Their studies do not pass muster, and should really be looked at very, very closely. Thompson’s allegations are very detailed and any honest academic would shudder to think that senior CDC scientists pushed others to desired result on something this important.
We have a phrase for people who interview and say “my resume trumps my actions”. Not hired.
Sorry, not on the market.
Let’s make this more clear then, eh?
Your attempt to use your resume to win an argument is sad. Use facts and logic. Not your claimed reputation.
I am content to conclude that you do not understand why we are even discussing my resume. I did not bring it up. If my resume is challenged, am I not to defend it?
One of your colleagues thought they would point out that I did not know something, merely because I did not bring it up.
Your community cannot handle an objectivist. I’ve been called a creationist, my resume questioned, an anti-vaxxer… sorry, none of these have stuck because they are non-sequitur. I am using logic. I merely chose to be thorough in my responses, and now you find it “Sad” that I think my resume trumps some guy on the internet’s opinion of what I should have said. Think what you may. You make yourself VERY clear, Matt. No doubt about where you are coming from.
“I am content to conclude that you do not understand why we are even discussing my resume. ”
Wow. More silly internet debate tricks. I understand what you are trying to do. Don’t try to put words into my mouth. I’m telling you that you are failing.
“Your community cannot handle an objectivist. I’ve been called a creationist, my resume questioned, an anti-vaxxer”
Show me where I’ve done this? I haven’t. So this is just more chaff. More noise.
You aren’t using logic. I keep pointing that out. I invite and invite you to actually participate in a discussion. But you can’t.
One thing I learned in grad school–a lot of fools get Ph.D.’s. And, yes, I include you in that company. I do this an an experimentalist. I’ve observed, I’ve presented my observations, and you are clearly a fool.
Did I read that you write for the Age of Autism blog? Makes sense. They just don’t care about logical arguments or facts.
How many comments did you make in this thread? And you can’t actually present a cogent argument. You rely upon your resume. You rely upon hearsay about what Thompson said. You refuse to even address the discussion where I clearly demonstrate that the hearsay is wrong. You started by throwing out an abstract with no discussion. Many comments later, you still haven’t actually discussed the facts of that paper and the clear criticisms of that study.
Nice troll. Well done.
I hope you are trolling, because if you aren’t you really don’t understand what you are talking about, but you think you do.
And that is truly sad.
Good day to you. And good bye.
” I merely show others what they have said. ”
Ironic that. My recent articles are all about what he said.
Several have read DeStefano et al. 2004 very closely and I’m left wondering if you have at all. You tried to pull this stunt over at Respectful Insolence and they weren’t “modelled out” at all.
I’m sorry but in what world do mere details qualify for accuracy and fact? Where is evidence Mr. Lyons-Weiler?
Creationist? Try reading again, this time for comprehension: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/08/05/the-cdc-whistleblower-william-thompson-appears-to-have-gone-full-antivaccine/#comment-412928 Of course your resume is questioned as you are the one using it as an appeal to your own authority rather than provide any evidence to support your claims and those of Thompson and Hooker. You talk like an anti-vaxxer so…
” The CDC went off-protocol and changed in the inclusion criteria, reported some but not all subgroup analyses, excluded individuals to reduce statistical power, peeked at the data first, then changed who was included. ”
No, they didn’t. Did you read the protocol? I did. Posted it here. Showed that they didn’t go off protocol. I’ve discussed how they did report on the subgroups. And we know that the birth certificate sample was planned before they saw the race data, from the information Brian Hooker released (and you can also read it in his conversations with Thompson–makes you wonder why he said something different when he released his paper, doesn’t it?)
One of us has gone to the sources to find information. The other–you–is repeating the stories told by Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield.
And you wonder why people question your reasoning.
According to Thompson, They knew about the positive association in African Americans first – and then they decided to remove “valid birth certificate” from the inclusion criteria for that subgroup. The effect was to reduce the sample size, cutting power-to-detect, and then the association was lost. According to Thompson ( and to most objectivist scientists), peeking at the data first, and then changing the criteria for inclusion is cheating.
They did not report the initial finding of the association, but did report negative associations in the other subgroups.
I am restricting my consideration of what I say Thompson said to what I’ve read from the transcripts first-hand. He also discusses at length how, when writing up the results of any positive finding, he would put extra effort into making the sections describing the positive associations lengthy, on purpose, due to his past experience in the culture in which any positive association was actively squelched, only to find that conclusion watered down or deleted entirely. He discusses how a peer reviewer was confused in one study because the data clearly supported a causal link, but the text did not match the reported results.
I encourage a full read of the transcripts, they are bone-chilling.
To me, Hooker and Wakefield are not central to what Thompson has revealed.
“They knew about the positive association in African Americans first – and then they decided to remove “valid birth certificate” from the inclusion criteria for that subgroup. ”
Really (actually I know the answer–it’s no)?
I quoted the book with the pertinent exchange. Thompson declined when asked to say that. But you still want to use him as your sock puppet.
I did read the transcripts. Either you have not or you didn’t understand them. As the above example clearly shows.
So, did you notice where Thompson and Hooker discussed when the race effect was first observed? Hooker noted the date (November). Thompson was surprised that it was that early. He felt it was found later.
Important point–the protocol was written in September. Including the call for a birth certificate sample.
So, the birth certificate sample decision came months before the first race data were analyzed.
“To me, Hooker and Wakefield are not central to what Thompson has revealed.”
That’s very strange because you repeat the story given my Wakefield and NOT the information by Thompson.
“The revelations of Dr. Thompson especially (which, by the way, are now entered in the US Congressional Record) reveal outright fraud admitted by himself, and alleged by his supervisors. To any objective scientist, that means that we do not know which vaccines are safe, and which are not. For which other studies did they cook the data?”
First–“and alleged by his supervisors”. Where did you get that–or did you make it up. Provide the quote that says the supervisors alleged this. I pose this as a request, but that’s just wrong on your part.
Now, where in the statement read into the record is the word “fraud” stated by Thompson? Answer–it isn’t. What phrase are you misrepresenting as “fraud”. Here’s where Brian Hooker tried to get Thompson on tape saying what you seem to think he said
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/09/03/heres-a-statement-by-william-thompson-that-they-wont-be-quoting/
“For which other studies did they cook the data?”
Well, did you read the transcripts of the Hooker/Thompson calls? Thompson says that the other studies he worked on were good. And he worked on some of the big thimerosal studies.
He didn’t say it.
Sadly, I don’t make things up, Matt.
You can read the entirety of the transcripts of Dr. Thompson’s reveals in the book “Vaccine Whistleblower”.
I would be happy to pay for a copy of the book and have it sent to you. Just need your postal address – you can send it to me at jim [at] ipaknowledge.org
You might notice with minimal effort that I’ve been quoting that book for some time now. I got an advance copy and blogged the book the day it came out.
I take it you aren’t even reading my responses in this very discussion. For example
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/16/autism-causation-and-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-no-link/comment-page-1/#comment-215594
In which I ask you if you read the book and then give a quote from the book.
Perhaps you could donate the cost of the book to a legitimate autism organization instead.
Matt, I will honor my offer, and I will be happy to donate the cost of the book to any autism not-for-profit that you think is legit. Just send me the info to my email.
If you read the book, then why, one wonders, did you not report the claims by Thompson of pressure from supervisors – the fact that Thompson saw this kind of pressure applied to others – that it was routine, the peer-reviewer confused due to the mismatch of the text and the reported results in figures and tables, the fact that Thompson tried to make it difficult for them to excise the positive associations when found… I could go on, but I’ll save it for the chapter in my next book in which I celebrate the successes of vaccines and report on Thompson’s reveals. I report the Wakefield incident as well (in case you were going to ask, I don’t want to be found guilty of not mentioning that…)
One wonders if you were only interested in finding bits and pieces of what you thought could be used as exculpatory evidence?
Your resistance to these additional parts of Thompson’s revelations is puzzling at best.
The cost of autism to families is staggering – and to society immense. The scientific community needs to take Thompson seriously, and apply the level of scrutiny to the CDC’s vaccine studies from that time they deserve due to Thompson’s claims, such as
“And if anything, people that have been my immediate supervisors have broken laws.”
and
“So anyways, we did the whole thing; we wrote the manuscript; we initially had pretty strong
wording, like what you’re saying about the association. And then it sat in clearance for a year, and people just hammered away at the paper and watered in down more and more and more. So, you got the manuscript you ended up with, which is the published manuscript – not the published; you ended up with the final, cleared manuscript with just the most, you know, whitewashed discussion ever”
And then on the peer reviewers:
“Three people who had no vested interest in the outcome of it and to say “Why aren’t you
talking about significant results in the paper?”
And all of this to bury a positive finding of an association between thimerosal and TICS.
Anyone who has not read the full transcript, do yourself a favor, read it for yourself, and do not rely on cherry-picked excerpts from Matt, or, for that matter, from me.
Do you have an autistic child?
If not–do not presume to lecture me about the cost. You have no standing to do so. Since you phrase this as an outsider to our communities, I assume you are, indeed, an outsider.
You keep doing silly “trump card” arguments.
“have you read this book”, “here’s an abstract to a study I don’t understand and didn’t read but I think it shows you are wrong” and the like.
You lack substance. A lot of smoke. Perhaps some mirrors. But no substance.
I read the book. I analyzed it. And all you do is pretend like it is some sort of trump card in an internet debate. This is real life to me–not some foolish game like it is for you. I don’t care that I point out what a fool you are making of yourself. I would much rather do something other than waste my time countering the misinformation you spread. But your misinformation causes harm in my community. So counter it I will.
Matt – you can examine your own style of argumentation. You use the same tactics, over and over, with different people. It is disingenuous of you to try to call me out for using what you call “Trump card” tactics, when all I’m doing is providing sufficient evidence, as reported, that (1) The FDA insert should be taken seriously, (2) The CDC vaccine safety “science” on questions of autism & vaccines was anything but, (3) People with profit motives should not be in charge of public health decisions that effect, well, all of us.
The only discussion left I think is the one in which you say “Ok, so there are side effects. But they occur to so few people, the benefit to society vastly outweigh the costs”.
The answer to the “common good” is the following: The use of thimerosal and aluminum and other adjuvant ingredients was a choice made by man, not by nature or any deity – we don’t have to live with risks that lead to harm to thousands or millions.
So I’ll ask you, Matt, do ANY vaccines have any side effects that anyone should be concerned about under any circumstances?
“So I’ll ask you, Matt, do ANY vaccines have any side effects that anyone should be concerned about under any circumstances?”
Why ask when you could find my opinion on this website?
Because you want to paint me as an extremist who doesn’t believe that there are any adverse reactions, that’s the most likely answer. Of course there are side effects and rare adverse reactions. Autism is not an adverse reaction to thimerosal nor is it an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine. I would ask you if you accept that but it’s not fair because (a) you never respond directly to such questions and (b) you’ve used up your time on this blog by wasting everyone else’s time.
“You use the same tactics, over and over, with different people”
Yep. I present them with facts and logical arguments and I expect them to do the same. Which is where you failed.
” (1) The FDA insert should be taken seriously”
I do. You don’t. You misrepresent it. You play the common game of “the insert shows that the vaccine causes autism” when the insert specifically does not make that claim.
” (2) The CDC vaccine safety “science” on questions of autism & vaccines was anything but,”
Funny, you’ve never presented any actual data or facts to back that up. Just a lot of hearsay (misrepresenting what William Thompson actually said, for example) and nonsense arguments (as discussed in (1) above).
“(3) People with profit motives should not be in charge of public health decisions that effect, well, all of us.”
Andrew Wakefield. Profit motive. For 20 years. And a record of aversion to the truth. But you parrot him rather than look for facts.
The choice to prevent disease was a choice made by man. It’s a good decision. Why you suddenly rush to the “made by man” defense is beyond me. And, I suspect, beyond you.
Nature, and a deity if that’s your belief, created diseases which kill and maim. Presenting us with risks that lead to harm to millions or even billions. Your appeal to nature/God fails.
“It is disingenuous of you…”
Looking through your post history here, if Matt were disingenuous, you’d be able to sue him for copyright infringement as you seem to have ownership over it.
You’d have to wonder if James has ever worked in an enterprise of any kind. He doesn’t seem to understand that Thompson’s unparticularised whining about his managers is what some employees do on an hourly basis.
That, in fact, is what emerges: including him volunteering that he had some kind of breakdown. He thinks the CDC is politicised, agenda-driven, full of people who do what’s expected of them rather than stand up for truth, freedom and the American way, cut corners, act unethically, and all the other things that employees often say about their management.
Fair enough. Might be right. But what you are seeing is someone who vented his frustrations over stuff you will find almost anywhere.
And yet: when he’s offered the opportunity to make the allegation that the charlatan Wakefield has disseminated, he baulks. He hears the question, plainly understands it, and declines to make an allegation of dishonesty. Indeed, he made a formal statement through his lawyer to the effect that reasonable people can disagree over the way the data was presented.
Given Matt’s quoting of the passages, plus Thompson’s written statement, plus the fact that Posey cited process not substance, plus the fact that no journalist has scored the front of the Washington Post, NY Times of Atlanta J-C, with revelations of fraud at CDC, I think the whole thing is bullshit. And Hooker and Wakefield know it’s bullshit.
If there was an actual story here, at minimum, FoxNews would be all over it – given their penchant to go after any government agency that even has a whiff of a problem, much less some kind of cover-up (VA, IRS, EPA, etc, etc.).
Of course, the anti-vaxers will continue to claim its all part of the conspiracy…..
I’ve read it and am also reviewing it in parts. You are a credulous fool to believe what amounts to a petty, disgruntled, nasty employee griping and back-stabbing his colleagues and superiors.
I haven’t seen any evidence that he actually read it.
A single damning quote from the book would suffice. One not already online. Funny how he claims that I cherry pick but (a) doesn’t put my quotes in context to show that I cherry pick and (b) relies on cherry picked quotes and misrepresentations made by others for his arguments.
To be fair–he’s not responding because not coming back. He can’t. I’m not even moderating his comments any more.
So he has decided to pollute RI some more.
And he doesn’t want to be considered a troll?
Heh heh… he has already failed basic vocabulary.
Perhaps tomorrow he will be serenaded with the “Trollin’ song” sung with the Rawhide tune.
His pattern is simple. Troll for a while until he can claim that others are being mean and then throw his so-called credentials out and tell everyone he’s wonderful.
A bit sad, really.
For jameslyonsweiler, Comment September 5, 2015. 3:58
You made a big deal about there being no studies that showed “no association” between vaccines and autism. May I suggest:
Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies
Vaccine, Volume 32, Issue 29, Pages 3623-3629
Luke E. Taylor, Amy L. Swerdfeger, Guy D. Eslick.
Call a person an arse and a fool and then throw him off your website? Only the Hepatitis B vaccine given to all newborns in 1997 really receives my attention. We don’t want to go back to the distant past when people had many children and half of them died because there was no vaccine, no antibiotics. This Gallagher study was never repeated the correct way? Why not? Who cares about thimerosal they removed it ages ago. The thing is these children are alive and about 19 or 20 yrs old by now. Did this small percentage of children fall through the cracks. They got their jabs at less than 24 hours old. One thing I do know about thimerosal is that for some people it is caustic and removed from contact lens cleaner and baby nose drops. I read the history and here it is: ” In 1991, some pediatric-care providers were reluctant to accept the ACIP recommendation that all U.S. infants be vaccinated. However, by 1996, comprehensive efforts to educate providers and parents about hepatitis B and the benefit of vaccination had resulted in broad acceptance of the vaccine (15).
In June 1999, concerns were expressed about the risk to young children of mercury exposure from thimerosal, a preservative used in childhood vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccine. As a precaution, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended postponing the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine from birth until age 2–6 months for infants born to HBsAg-negative mothers. These groups also recommended eliminating thimerosal from childhood vaccines as soon as possible. By 2000, the two companies that manufacture hepatitis B vaccine in the United States had eliminated thimerosal as a preservative from these vaccines, and PHS, AAP, and AAFP urged the resumption of hepatitis B vaccination at birth. However, the temporary postponement of hepatitis B vaccine at birth resulted in the failure of some hospitals to immunize high-risk infants appropriately. ” Ever hear of Thomas Midgley? If anyone thinks bad things can’t happen when decisions are made for the general public, here is only one example.
If you are going to quote other sources, you need to make that clear. Well, other than the fact that the language (and the use numbers for footnotes) makes it clear.
“In June 1999, concerns were expressed about the risk to young children of mercury exposure from thimerosal, a preservative used in childhood vaccines, including hepatitis B vaccine.”
Brings me right to here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5125a3.htm
You left out the conclusion “Sustaining high vaccine-coverage rates among infants, children, and adolescents will ensure that future generations are protected from HBV infection and its consequences. However, unless efforts to vaccinate adults at increased risk for HBV infection are greatly expanded, complete elimination of HBV transmission might take another 20 years to achieve.”
I adopted a baby 18 years ago. So beautiful and reached all his milestones or so it seemed. Autism came about so subtly. I felt such guilt. It has very recently come to my attention that his biological mother gave birth to another boy in 2006. (two different fathers) This child also has autism. So, how could it be the HepB shot with thimerosal? It could not. Now I hope all mothers who have more than one child with autism please be studied for some type of commonality. My son is and always has been a joy. I am thankful I never went along with some of the false “cures” that are touted on the internet like chelation and bleach. It always seemed criminal to experiment with your child. There are so many wrongs done to these children and adults with autism. So much squabbling over vaccines when money and services could better be spent on a good life for those who have challenges such as autism.
“Now I hope all mothers who have more than one child with autism please be studied for some type of commonality.”
Here you go: https://sparkforautism.org/
And, one that is a bit more involved: http://depts.washington.edu/uwautism/research/research-projects/gaba-and-behavior-in-autism/
And there are multiple baby sibling studies that have been done and continue to be done to check not only the development of high risk infants, but the mothers and fathers as well.