On Jun 25, 8:06=A0am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:30 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://theresma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!80EE15D075B65A13!361.entry
>
> > June 20
>
> > CDC Admits Thimerosal Safety Study Flawed
> > ... so basically, you can't trust anything they've said about how safe
> > thimerosal is, or vaccines are. They've been doing the bidding of Big
P=
harma
> > all along, in addition to their own pathological quest to vaccinate
eve=
ryone
> > against everything as soon after birth as possible (as if there is no
o=
ther
> > way to prevent diseases, and as if vaccines are harmless).
>
> > Click through the link to read David Kirby's piece on the Huffington
Po=
st.
>
> > Quote
>
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/cdc-vaccine-study-design_b_...
>
> > CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered a potentially
explosive
> > re****t to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in which she
adm=
its
> > to a startling string of errors in the design and methods used in the
C=
DC's
> > landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and
> > autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics.
>
> > Gerberding was responding to a 2006 re****t from the National Institute
=
of
> > Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which concluded that the CDC's
> > flag****p thimerosal safety study was riddled with "several areas of
> > weaknesses" that combined to "reduce the usefulness" of the study.
>
> > "CDC concurs," Dr. Gerberding wrote in an undated mea culpa to
Congress=
,
> > (provided to me through a Capitol Hill staffer) adding that her agency
=
"does
> > not plan to use" the database in question, the Vaccine Safety
Datalink,
> > (VSD) for any future "ecological studies" of autism.
>
> > In fact, Gerberding's re****t said, any continued use of the VSD for
sim=
ilar
> > ecological studies of vaccines and autism "would be uninformative and
> > potentially misleading."
>
> > Ecological vaccine studies are large, epidemiological analyses of
risks=
and
> > trends using computerized data from large populations -- in this case
> > children enrolled at several big HMOs -- without ever examining a
singl=
e
> > patient in person.
>
> > CDC officials conducted at least five separate analyses of the data
ove=
r a
> > four-year period from 1999-2003. The first analysis showed that
childre=
n
> > exposed to the most thimerosal by one month of age had extremely high
> > relative risks for a number of outcomes, compared with children who
got
> > little or no mercury: The relative risk for ADHD was 8.29 times
higher,=
for
> > autism, it was 7.62 times higher, ADD, 6.38 times higher, tics, 5.65
ti=
mes,
> > and speech and language delays were 2.09 more likely among kids who
got=
the
> > most mercury.
>
> > Over time, however, all of these risks declined into statistical
> > insignificance, statistical inconsistency or else outright oblivion:
Th=
e
> > relative risk for autism plummeted from 7.62 in the first analysis, to
=
2.48
> > in the second version, to 1.69 in the third round, to 1.52 in the
fourt=
h,
> > and down to nothing at all in the fifth, final, and published analysis
> > printed in the Journal Pediatrics in November of 2003.
>
> > Vaccine officials attributed the steady drop to the elimination of
> > "statistical noise" from the data through due diligence and the
endeavo=
r for
> > excellence in governmental statistical analysis.
>
> > Indeed, the VSD study was the main pillar of a hugely influential 2004
> > re****t by the Institute of Medicine, which also concluded that there
wa=
s no
> > evidence of link between mercury, vaccines and autism.
>
> > To this day, public health officials routinely point to five "large
> > epidemiological studies" representing the "highest quality science,"
no=
ne of
> > which found any link to thimerosal.
>
> > In fact, the American VSD study has long been held up as the best and
> > brightest of them all (the others were in Sweden, the UK, and two in
> > Denmark). And this reputation has stuck in the minds of medicine and
th=
e
> > media.
>
> > Curiously though, even the study's lead author -- Dr. Thomas
Verstraete=
n, an
> > employee of vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline -- protested that the VSD
stu=
dy
> > "found no evidence against an association, as a negative study would.
I=
n
> > fact, he said that additional study was needed, which "is the
conclusio=
n to
> > which a neutral study must come."
>
> > That's when Congress stepped in.
>
> > In 2005, a group of Senators and Representatives headed by Sen. Joe
> > Lieberman wrote to the NIEHS (an agency of the National Institutes of
> > Health) saying that many parents no longer trusted the CDC to conduct
> > independent minded studies of its own vaccine program. Lieberman et al
=
asked
> > NIEHS to review the CDC's work on the vaccine database and re****t back
=
with
> > critiques and suggestions.
>
> > The final NIEHS re****t was a serious and thoughtful critique of where
t=
he
> > CDC went wrong in its design, conduct and analysis of the study. The
NI=
EHS
> > panel "identified several serious problems," with the CDC's effort,
> > criticism to which the agency had not responded -- until now.
>
> > In her letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the CDC Director
> > responded directly to many -- though not all -- of the most im****tant
> > criticisms and recommendations contained in the NIEHS panel re****t.
>
> > For example, the NIEHS had criticized CDC for failing to account for
ot=
her
> > mercury exposures, including maternal sources from flu shots and
immune
> > globulin, as well as mercury in food and the environment.
>
> > "CDC acknowledges this concern and recognizes this limitation," the
> > Gerberding reply says.
>
> > The NIEHS also took CDC to task for eliminating 25% of the study
popula=
tion
> > for a variety of reasons, even though this represented, "a susceptible
> > population whose removal from the analysis might unintentionally
reduce=
the
> > ability to detect an effect of thimerosal." This strict entry criteria
> > likely led to an "under-ascertainment" of autism cases, the NIEHS
re****=
ted.
>
> > "CDC concurs," Gerberding wrote, again noting that its study design
was=
"not
> > appropriate for studying this vaccine safety topic. The data are
intend=
ed
> > for administrative purposes and may not be predictive of the outcomes
> > studied."
>
> > Another serious problem was that the HMOs changed the way they tracked
=
and
> > recorded autism diagnoses over time, including during the period when
> > vaccine mercury levels were in decline. Such changes could "affect the
> > observed rate of autism and could confound or distort trends in autism
> > rates," the NIEHS warned.
>
> > "CDC concurs," Dr. Gerberding wrote again, "that conducting an
ecologic
> > analysis using VSD administrative data to address potential
association=
s
> > between thimerosal exposure and risk of ASD is not useful."
>
> > Read that sentence one more time. The head of the CDC is saying that
it=
s
> > most powerful and convincing piece of exonerating evidence for
thimeros=
al
> > is, in effect, "useless."
>
> > I hope everyone will read it, including the recommendations to make
the=
VSD
> > better, and the CDC's agreement with all of the suggestions.
>
> > As questionable at the US thimerosal study was, "it was an improvement
=
on
> > other studies, including the two in Denmark, both of which had serious
> > weaknesses in their designs," Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Professor of
Pu=
blic
> > Health at UC Davis Medical School and Chair of the NIEHS panel, told
> > re****ter Dan Olmsted at UPI.
>
> > That leaves very little for the CDC to go on in terms of proving that
> > thimerosal and autism are not associated in any way.
>
> > Yes, there is always the study of disability services data from
> > California -- which seem to be rising among the youngest cohorts of
kid=
s,
> > who presumably received little or no mercury because thimerosal was
lar=
gely
> > removed from childhood shots.
>
> > But California is an "ecological study" with problems of its own.
>
> > "Although (this) information is often used by media and research
entiti=
es to
> > develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
> > misrepresent the quarterly figures," cautions the website of the
Califo=
rnia
> > Department of Developmental Services (DDS). "Increases in the number
of
> > persons re****ted from one quarter to the next do not necessarily
repres=
ent
> > persons who are new to the DDS system."
>
> > Even the CDC admits that "there are several limitations" with linking
a=
VSD
> > study design with the California data, Gerberding wrote to Congress,
> > because, among other things, California only counts "persons who were
> > referred to and/or voluntarily entered" the disability system."
>
> > It will be interesting to see how the House Committee -- and the
mainst=
ream
> > media -- react to this rather breathtaking confession by the CDC,
which=
does
> > seem to want to conduct the best vaccine-autism science possible (see
> > Gerberding's replies to NIEHS recommendations for improving the VSD:
CD=
C
> > officials are currently conducting in- depth follow up studies with
VSD
> > patients).
>
> > As the waning months of the Bush administration get underway, I can't
h=
elp
> > but wonder if a little housecleaning might be going on at some of our
t=
op
> > health agencies.
>
> Oh WHOOPS! =A0Darn it, the studies were flawed...
>
> WE'RE SORRY EVERYONE, SAYS THE CDC, BUT... DARN IT,
> =A0"CDC concurs," Gerberding wrote, again noting that its study design
> was "not
>
> > appropriate for studying this vaccine safety topic. The data are
intend=
ed
> > for administrative purposes and may not be predictive of the outcomes
> > studied."
>
> > Another serious problem was that the HMOs changed the way they tracked
=
and
> > recorded autism diagnoses over time, including during the period when
> > vaccine mercury levels were in decline. Such changes could "affect the
> > observed rate of autism and could confound or distort trends in autism
> > rates," the NIEHS warned.
>
> > "CDC concurs," Dr. Gerberding wrote again, "that conducting an
ecologic
> > analysis using VSD administrative data to address potential
association=
s
> > between thimerosal exposure and risk of ASD is not useful."
>
> is NOT USEFUL??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And THIS is the data that Bowditch
> and Probee were using ...
Actually, David Kirby is flawed. Seriously flawed.
Read the articles at this blog, written by a trained and experienced
epidemiologist.
Note how Kirby's lies are well do***ented.
Now, do your homework, and try to remember what you have read. I
posted this before, you responded, and, apparently your dysfunctional
brain could not retain it.
|
