CDC researcher confesses to vaccine cover up
I haven’t written to you much about childhood vaccines.
There’s a reason for that. I feel they are a very personal choice. And as I’ve shared with you before, although I have my issues with the dozens of heavy-metal-laced vaccines we’re unloading on our children’s delicate and still-developing immune systems, I do understand that parents have some incredibly tough choices to make.
But, regardless of your feelings about childhood vaccines, a recent shocking revelation about a potential link between the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism will no doubt have your blood boiling.
A debate has been raging for years over a potential link between vaccines and autism risk. Mainstream medical experts have, of course, dismissed any connections. Some have even gone as far as ridiculing those who believe there is one.
Those on the other side of the debate insist that data from existing studies is insufficient, and in some cases may even have been manipulated. They say there is a link, and that vaccines may at least be least partially responsible for skyrocketing autism cases.
Now, for one often-cited 2004 “pro-vaccine”CDC study, the debate appears to be over.
The 2004 study concluded that there was no link whatsoever between the risk for autism and the MMR vaccine. But an independent reexamination of the data revealed a much different picture.
340% increase in autism after MMR vaccine
According to the newly crunched data, published in the journal Translational Neurodegeneration, there was actually a stunning 340 percent increased risk of autism in African American males who were given the vaccine before they were three years old.
Even worse, the fact that this critical finding was never shared with the public wasn't simply the result of shoddy research, or simply a random mistake. The data appears to have been deliberately manipulated and suppressed!
In fact, William Thompson, Ph.D has released a statement admitting that he—and his CDC co-authors—“omitted statistically significant information.”According to the statement, the research team apparently discussed the data after it was collected, and made a decision to cover it up. Thompson admitted that he didn't believe that the study protocol was even followed.
In other words, if Thompson‘s confession is true the study is essentially garbage.
Plus it calls into question other CDC studies, since there’s no way for us to know if similar tactics were used in them as well.
The CDCs illogical explanation
And how did the CDC respond to this controversy? Justify, justify, justify.
According to the CDC, they only published data on race from a subsample of children with birth certificates, rather than the larger sample used. Despite there being no logical explanation for why they wouldn’t use ALL of the relevant data, and why they wouldn't publish ALL of the findings, they seem to think this will be enough explanation for us.
Well I have news for you CDC, it’s not.
It’s illogical, it reeks of monkey business, and REAL lives are at stake here.
Sadly, the CDCs tactics appear to be working for them. Not only hasn't the 2004 CDC study been recalled, the new look at the data in Translational Neurodegeneration HAS been. Its publisher suddenly had questions about its conclusions.
I don’t know about you, but I smell a (strong-armed) rat here.
I realize that parents, and involved grandparents, still have to make difficult decisions about vaccinations. But when you’re reviewing all of the available information to make those tough calls, just remember to take everything with a huge grain of salt. No one is going to have your child’s best interests at heart, but you.