Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Opacity isn't science ...

In theory, science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science), the process of discovering factual information and verifying that it is true, must be transparent and open.

On August 25, 2014 the CDC released a statement (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/cdc2004pediatrics.html) addressing the controversy swirling around a whistleblower who has come forward alleging the scientific process was corrupted in research looking at the relationship between autism and vaccination.

They do not directly address the allegation made by one of the authors of the study in question. It seems they are circling the wagons to protect the status quo. Hopefully this initial response will be followed with one that more completely addresses the issues involved. Since one of their employees is making the allegations they may not yet be at liberty to be more forthright - though if that is truly the case why didn't they say so?!

This statement is very interesting:
 "Additional studies and a more recent rigorous review by the Institute of Medicine have      found that MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism."
The whistleblower implies the IOM review was compromised by the results of this study that he alleges was gerry-rigged to arrive at pre-determined results. He further alleges that he informed his co-workers and supervisors of his concerns about the methods of analysis that were being used and the conclusions being drawn.

The selective framing of this statement is also worth looking at:
"Vaccines protect the health of children in the United States so well that most parents today have never seen first-hand the devastating consequences of diseases now stopped by vaccines."
Those sounding the alarm regarding risks of vaccination do not deny that becoming ill from any disease can cause sequelae, sometimes devastating. Yet having seen first hand what can happen as a result of vaccination they simply want to be able to make a medical decision for themselves or their minor children without being harrassed or have receipt of service be tied to vaccination status. They want others to be spared the pain and suffering with which they and their loved ones have had to cope.

Use of the word "protect" is also very telling - a more accurate choice of words would be "reduce risk" - even those who promote vaccines acknowledge they do not work 100% of the time, even when so called "herd immunity" is achieved. The concepts of protection and risk reduction are not equivalent, nor are the inter-changable.

Then there is this:
"The data CDC collected for this study continue to be available for analysis by others. CDC welcomes analysis by others that can be submitted for peer-review and publication. For more information on how to access this public-use dataset please go to the this webpage." 
Obtaining the data is not as simple as this statement may make it seem - ask Dr. Brian Hooker. While access to data should not be without boundries, especially when it may contain sensitive information (ie: personally identifiable records) one wonders why it would require years of FOIA requests? This seems like stone-walling. Here is a link to a story with information about his efforts to obtain other information pertaining to the issue of vaccines and any link to neuro-developmental problems: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/big-pharma-tries-to-discredit-documents-hidden-by-cdc-linking-vaccines-to-austism/ Please note: it took him 10 years and >100 FOIA requests. Our employees (ie: those who serve the people of the United States who happen to work at the CDC) should not be making it so difficult for us to review their work - WE PAY THEM!!

As always -
Those who perceive vaccination to be beneficial should get whatever vaccine they want.
Those who believe vaccination is risky should not be penalized for declining vaccination, nor should they be manipulated into acceptance.

link to original video:

CDC Statement:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated - expect your post to be approved within 24 hours.
Polite, respectful discussion welcomed.