Earlier this week the CDC (United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) had been proven to have hidden documents linking mercury found in vaccines to autism and various genetic disorders. The CDC had previously denied knowledge of this information until finally been proven wrong by a doctor who drafted his letter to congress.
You don't hear this news in the mainstream media though, do you? No. Instead, the American people are too busy out there worrying about what's going to happen to Justin Bieber, or who's going to be the next American Idol.
20 comments
"had been proven to have hidden documents"
Where is this proof? Produce it or shut the fuck up.
Oh, and if you know about these "hidden" documents, and are telling the entire internet, how are they "hidden"?
If there's an abnormally high amount of mercury in your body, it came from a coal-fired power plant, not vaccines or your fillings. Thimerosol is hardly used any more. Ethyl mercury v. methyl mercury. Learn the difference. Learn that elements in compounds can behave completely differently than the pure element. For example, you probably ate salt today, yet you didn't asphyxiate from the chlorine or whiz about the room in a white-hot flame from the sodium.
You don't hear this news in the mainstream media though, do you? No.
No, because it's a complete lie.
Odd. I just checked out the CDC Factsheet on mercury and there was not one mention of vaccines, nor how mercury can cause autism.
Can you provide the name of the doctor? Just so we don't go on regarding you as a lying SOB.
"You don't hear this news in the mainstream media though, do you?"
To be honest, I did not. However, I also didn't hear a bunch of other made up bullshit from the news, either.
"You don't hear this news in the mainstream media though, do you?"
So this and all of the other bullshit claims you don't hear about in the mainstream media are therefore true?
Which is more likely?
Short version: In 2000, the CDC had a conference about possible effects of thiomersal in vaccines, commonly known as the Simpsonwood conference. At the conference, a team lead by Thomas Verstraeten reported results of their data analysis that suggested that vaccinated children had a higher level of numerous disorders. Other attendees pointed out that the team had not controlled for the level of contact that children had with medical professionals - parents who vaccinate their children are generally more likely to see doctors if they have concerns, and therefore more likely to have their children diagnosed with various disorders, even if the actual prevalence of those disorders is the same. The team agreed to reanalyze the data, taking account of this major confounding factor, and publish their results.
Although the initial results were not published (because they were flawed), they were publicly reported at a conference the same year . Three years later, the results of the reanalysis were published and, to the the surprise of no one sensible, showed no link between vaccination and negative health outcomes.
Despite the fact that the preliminary results were stated publicly back in 2000, in 2005 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (an anti-vax wanker with no respect for pesky little matters like honesty) authored an article for Salon that contended that the CDC had covered up the initial Simpsonwood findings until they could manipulate the data in such a way that there would seem to be no connection. Periodically since then, some new nut will stumble on documents related to Simpsonwood that were released long ago and claim that they're new revelations of CDC perfidy. It's all a bunch of horseshit.
You don't hear it because it isn't true, if as I suspect you're ferring to Verstraeten's abstract presenting preliminary findings from the first stage of a planned two-stage study presented at the CDC's 1999 EIS conference.
The first stage looked only at raw numbers from a database without any attempt to confirm diagnoses of developmental disorders, while the second stage involved chart review to confirm diagnoses and also included additional raw data from a large HMO.
Following the completion of the second stage it was found that the initial appearance of a statistically significant correlation was artifactual.
See http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2014/02/22/is-the-cdc-hiding-data-about-mercury-vaccines-and-autism/
You mean those statements made by conspiracy theorists? Because there never was enough mercury in vaccines to be a concern and there never was a link between vaccines and autism. Even if there's a conspiracy theories tradition claiming it. It'd be normal for an expert health body to disregard a bunch of letters by conspiracy theorists. Assuming that they really discarded anything, because you may as well be lying.
The "the media does not want you to know" is also typical of conspiracy theorists. It's normal that non-crackpot and non-malicious sources don't actively promote falsehoods and that's not persecution.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
