Tennessee Medical Office Stops Vaccines Because ‘They Cause Autism’

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The study which found higher autism rates was flawed and they corrected it. The problem was that they included a group of black children in a special school for autistic kids where they had to be vaccinated before they could attend. They had autism BEFORE they got their vaccines so the vaccines could not have caused the autism. Once that group was removed, they found no other correlations.

How do you know that? Did you read the study? If so, please show the study. The CDC statement I see seems to confirm the correlation between vaccines and autism:

The findings revealed that vaccination between 24 and 36 months was slightly more common among children with autism, and that association was strongest among children 3-5 years of age. The authors reported this finding was most likely a result of immunization requirements for preschool special education program attendance in children with autism.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...ediatrics.html

Is this the study to which you refer? If you have something, then I will like to see it. If looks as if a person wanting to see this data/study must make some kind of special request. They are calling it "restricted access." I have never heard of such a thing. Here is that information:

The Developmental Disabilities Branch (DDB) will only make this data set available under restricted conditions.

To request access to the data, interested researchers must complete a scientific proposal and send it to CDC at NCBDDDdata@cdc.gov. The proposal should clearly state which data sets are being requested, how the researcher plans to analyze them, and which hypothesis(es) are being tested. The proposal should be no longer than eight typed, single-spaced pages, including appendices and cover page, in Times New Roman 12 pt font. The proposal should include the following:

Background - This section should describe the background and reasons for requesting the data set(s) of interest.
Introduction - This section should describe the proposed research, in detail, including a clear statement of the hypothesis(es) being tested and an explanation of its significance to the overall analysis. In addition, this section should also describe how the researchers intend to maintain confidentiality of the data.
Methods - This section should clearly list, with relevant citations, the analytical methods proposed for data analysis.
Data Sets Requested - This section should clearly list the data set(s) requested and the length of time each data set is needed.
Appendices

This appendix should state the qualifications and experience of the Principal Investigator(s).
This appendix should contain certification that funding is in place to conduct the research as proposed. This documentation could consist of a signed letter from the PI's institution stating this fact.
Once CDC has received the subject proposal, it will be evaluated to determine its scientific merit. CDC will notify the researchers by email within 3 weeks of receipt of the proposal.

So, is this the study to which you refer? If so, did you specially request the information and do your own analysis? I doubt it because you are not a doctor. Didn't you say you have an economics degree for U of Colorado, Boulder?

And why all the secrecy about a study? I have never heard of such a thing. You have to compose a complicated proposal to access a study? Really?

[euphemia]

If people still want vaccines for their children, they can go right down to the Williamson County Health Department and have them done. Probably for free.

[Zippyjuan]

How do you know that? Did you read the study? If so, please show the study. The CDC statement I see seems to confirm the correlation between vaccines and autism:





Is this the study to which you refer? If you have something, then I will like to see it. If looks as if a person wanting to see this data/study must make some kind of special request. They are calling it "restricted access." I have never heard of such a thing. Here is that information:






So, is this the study to which you refer? If so, did you specially request the information and do your own analysis? I doubt it because you are not a doctor. Didn't you say you have an economics degree for U of Colorado, Boulder?

And why all the secrecy about a study? I have never heard of such a thing. You have to compose a complicated proposal to access a study? Really?

Don't have a link at this moment but the information comes from one of the study's authors. The study was retracted and the information corrected. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128611/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/now-ret...ry?id=25248179

On Aug. 27, Translational Neurodegeneration –- a peer-reviewed journal -– pulled Hooker’s study from its online publication and left the following note in its place:

“This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation.”

The journal declined to comment further pending its own investigation. Hooker said he was told the journal removed his study “temporarily” because his ties to Focus Autism presented a conflict of interest.

More than a month later, on Oct. 3, the journal issued an official retraction:

“The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.”

The journal did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the retraction.

Still Viral

But the now-pulled study is still making the rounds online, thanks in part to two highly produced YouTube videos that compare the alleged cover-up to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the Holocaust. The videos, which have received a combined 124,000 views, are narrated by Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 study linking vaccines and autism was retracted and declared “an elaborate fraud” in 2011 by the British Medical Journal. Wakefield lost his medical license in the ordeal but continues to be a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine community.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

[From the article you quoted]: "Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis,..."

Post publication peer review? Really? What exactly is that? The people who did the original peer review were found to be sleeping on the job? Incompetent? Teenagers were impersonating the original peer review members? Grizzly Bears broke into the lab?

"Hooker said he was told the journal removed his study “temporarily” because his ties to Focus Autism presented a conflict of interest."

Why is it a conflict of interest for Hooker to fund his own study, but it's not a conflict when the vaccine companies fund their own studies?

[Zippyjuan]

Conflict of interest is probably his testimony in many anti- vaccine lawsuits.

Competing interests
Dr. Hooker has been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation

But the biggest problem was that inaccurate data was used to try to support his conclusion.

The only group he could find any correlation between a group of people who were vaccinated and had autism was with a group of black boys who were vaccinated AFTER they already were diagnosed as autistic. If you are trying to show cause and effect, this group should not be included in any data. Unless you were trying to show that autism caused vaccination.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Conflict of interest is probably his testimony in many anti- vaccine lawsuits.

Wouldn't that also apply to the testimony of vaccine makers, distributors, etc. involved in those lawsuits?

But the biggest problem was that inaccurate data was used to try to support his conclusion.

Your article said that the data came from the CDC.

...a group of black boys who were vaccinated AFTER they already were diagnosed as autistic.

I didn't see that in the study.

[Zippyjuan]

Wouldn't that also apply to the testimony of vaccine makers, distributors, etc. involved in those lawsuits?






Your article said that the data came from the CDC.





I didn't see that in the study.

They didn't indicate that in the study. That is why it was retracted.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

They didn't indicate that in the study. That is why it was retracted.

So how do you know that?

[dannno]

The only group he could find any correlation between a group of people who were vaccinated and had autism was with a group of black boys who were vaccinated AFTER they already were diagnosed as autistic.

Does that seem suspicious at all to you?

[Zippyjuan]

Suspicious how?