Categorie


Metalli pesanti


Stress ossidativo


Perfusione Cerebrale


ca++ ed autismo


Neurotossicita'


Disbiosi Gastrointestinale

Venerdì, 21 Agosto 2015 14:02

Mistificazione della realtà: autismo e vaccini

Scritto da 
Vota questo articolo
(0 Voti)

Gia nel 2004 in una una pubblicazione su Pediatrics degli scienziati del CDC USA avevano provato la non correlazione vaccini ed autismo.

Purtroppo  dopo 10 anni un coautore di quello studio lo scienziato William Thompson confessa ad un medico con figlio autistico il dr. Hooker che moltio dati di quello studio erano stai omessi e distrutti.

Lo stesso Hooker analizzando ed integrando i dati conclude in una sua pubblicazione, ritirata dall'editore chissà perchè, che le conclusioni di quello studio del 2004 erano false e che addirittura la prevalenza fra la popolazione afro nella città di Atlanta era molto aumentata rispetto alla correlazione autismo ed MMR ( trivalente ).

Il 27 luglio 2015 il congressman Boyle mette agli atti le accuse e le prove di Thompson e le pone a disposizionde del Congresso USA e verosimilmente sarà aperta una inchiesta per accertare se quello studio del 2004 sia stato fraudolento o meno.

 

Tutti gli studi invece che provano la correlazione vaccini-autismo vengono sistematicamente rectracted ed i loro autori

pagano con problemi personali e professionali.

 

Ora Frank de Stefano ci riprova di nuovo con un articolo del 2013 ma gli va male perchè il dr. Hooker lo critica nel merito motivando il suo dire con acume e analisi dettagliata dello studio sempre plubblicato su Pediatrics qui

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf

Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism

 

Frank DeStefano, MD, MPHcorrespondenceemail, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, Eric S. Weintraub, MPH
Received: September 26, 2012; Received in revised form: December 26, 2012; Accepted: February 1, 2013; Published Online: April 01, 2013




La prima cosa che mi viene in mente è che il primo firmatario dello studio Frank de Stefano è presentato come

Immunization Safety Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta



A fine studio viene testualmente scritto

Funded by a contract from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), and by subcontracts from AHIP to Abt Associates, Inc. The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

 

 AHIP  ( America's Health Insurance Plans   https://www.ahip.org/ )

Quindi studio da contratto finanziato da organizzazioni non proprio senza conflitto di interesse

Ma la cosa più sorprendente è che nello stesso studio si dice testualmente

 

The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cioè uno studio finanziato dal CDC USA e da AHIP le cui conclusioni non rappresentano necessariamente la posizione ufficiale del CDC beh è abbastanza curioso....io ti finanzio ma non mi interessa che fine fanno i soldi che ti do......davvero strano

Gli autori dichiarano il non conflitto di interessi..... ANCHE SE LE ASSICURAZIONI AMERICANE PROPRIO NON è CHE SIANO SENZA INTERESSI...SPECIALMENTE NELLE CAUSE DI RISARCIMENTO...

 

A fine studio gli autori ringraziano il dr.  Paul Offit che non è proprio esente da conflitti di interesse

da wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit

Along with his colleagues Fred Clark and Stanley Plotkin, Offit invented RotaTeq, a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine which is currently manufactured by Merck & Co. RotaTeq is one of two vaccines currently used against rotavirus.

 

La cosa che è da tempo che dico e che è di buon senso è perchè mai non si struttura uno studio per dimostrare finalmente che i vaccini non provocano autismo o malattie autoimmuni con una comparazione fra casistiche di bambini VACCINATI E NON VACCINATI

Ecco ciò che il dr Hooker dice

Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Children Not Studied

 

 

 

This points back to the study that the CDC refuses to do: Health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. What is the CDC’s point?

 

Ethics – i.e., we don’t believe that is ethical NOT to vaccination children?… Nonsense – there are portions of the United States’ population that choose

not to vaccinate regardless of what CDC believes; Lack of “blinding” within the study design?… again, Nonsense – all current vaccine safety studies are

retrospective anyway without any type of blinding to the subjects.

 

The CDC is simply afraid of what they already know – vaccines cause chronic disease and an unvaccinated population will be much healthier, period (as

evidenced in the Glanz et al. 2013 study within the Journal of the American Medical Association which stated that unvaccinated children were seen at a

lower rate of frequency in emergency room and outpatient visits).

 

Secondo il CDC uno studio del genere non può essere fatto perchè NON E' ETICO NON VACCINARE BAMBINI....ASSURDO

Assurdo perchè oramai migliaia di familgie scelgono liberamente di non vaccinare e quindi potrebbero partecipare ad uno studio del genere

Passiamo ai dettagli

 

l'autore delle critiche è

 

 

Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes in chemistry and biology. Additionally, Hooker is the Senior Process Consultant at ARES Corporation, working closely on process design for the environment restoration industry. His design efforts focus on industrial biotechnology and chemical engineering principles. Brian dedicated over 15 years as a bioengineer and the team leader for the High Throughput Biology Team and Operations Manager of the DOE Genomics: Genomes to Life (GTL) Center for Molecular and Cellular Systems at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Dr. Hooker managed applied plant and fungal molecular biology research projects at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, where systems biology researchers are focused on understanding gene and protein networks involved in individual cell signaling, communication between cells in communities, and cellular metabolic pathways. In 1985, Dr. Hooker earned his Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering, from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. He earned his Masters of Science degree in 1988 and his doctorate in 1990, both in biochemical engineering, from Washington State University, in Pullman,

Washington.

 

Brian Hooker has many accomplishments to his credit including: co-inventor for five patents, recipient of the Battelle Entrepreneurial Award in 2001, and a Federal Laboratory Consortium Recognition Award in 1999, for his work on “Reactive Transport in 3-Dimensions.” The breadth of Hooker’s 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer reviewed journals. He has a 15-year old son with autism and has been active in the autism community since 2004.

 

l'ARTICOLO IN INGLESE LO TROVATE QUI

 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

 

Ecco il testo in originale 

Critique of Destefano et al. 2013 J Peds. Study

By Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

The recent CDC study “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism” by Destefano et al. 2013 was released in the Journal of Pediatrics last week. This study purports that “increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder).” Of all of the papers I have reviewed over my 26-year career as a research scientist, this is perhaps the most flawed and disingenuous study I have encountered. The Destefano et al. 2013 study is to science what the movie Ishtar was to cinema.

No New Data

The basis for the study is essentially a rehash of the data that was used to generate the fraudulent Price et al. 2010 Pediatrics study (Price et al. 2010 “Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal From Vaccines and Immunoglobulins and Risk of Autism” Pediatrics 126:656) that was supposed to be the CDC’s “final word” stating that thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative in some vaccines, was in no way causally linked to autism. Not only was this original study fatally flawed due to a statistical error called “overmatching” (which I’ll discuss further below) but also the study authors hid data regarding the only valid part of the study (i.e., prenatal thimerosal exposure) which showed that children exposed to just 16 microgram mercury in thimerosal in utero were up to 8 times more likely to receive a diagnosis of regressive autism (Price C, et al. Thimerosal and Autism. Technical report. Vol I. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc; 2009). The study authors instead falsely reported no risk of autism associated with prenatal thimerosal exposure.

No True Controls in the Study

Within the Destefano study released last week, with the help of multimillionaire vaccine industrialist Dr. Paul Offit, CDC researchers merely added up the number of vaccine antigens that the case (autism) and control (neurotypical) children were exposed to through the infant vaccination schedule. The theory that they were trying to refute essentially was “children exposed to a greater total number of antigens had a greater risk of autism.” Given this train wreck of a study, it is very difficult to know where to start my critique. However, the following statement stood out from the rest as the study authors described the control group:

Of the remaining 752 controls included in the analysis, 186 had an SCQ (Social Communication Questionaire) score <16 but had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plan.

This clearly shows that the 186 aforementioned controls (25% of the control group) were not controls at all but instead had some underlying developmental deficit (all of which are features of autism or autism spectrum disorder). Unlike the study design described (i.e., where autism cases were matched to neurotypical controls), autism cases were matched with “cases” of other, similar neurodevelopmental maladies. Thus, you would expect to see no difference between the two groups.

Antigen Correlation is Meaningless

Next, the basis of the study was to confirm or deny a correlation between the “number of antigens received” and the incidence of autism. The possible number of antigens per given vaccine was reported in Table 1 of the study. However, the term “number of antigens” is a complete white-wash of what is actually in these vaccines, their concentrations and their relative strengths in terms of inflammatory response, and is not an accurate predictor of how the body will respond to specific antigens.

For example, “antigens” for the five antigen DTaP vaccines (e.g., Infanrix) include diphtheria toxoid, tetanus toxoid, pertussis toxoid, filamentous hemagglutinin and pertactin. The number “5” assigned in this category is merely the number of different antigens and doesn’t account for each antigen’s amount or relative strength.

Neither does this account for the fact that Infanrix also contains aluminum (an adjuvant – designed to elicit a non-specific immune response), formaldehyde and polysorbate 80, all which could also elicit some form of inflammatory reaction.

Thus, the main “independent” variable of “number of antigens” within the Destefano et al. 2013 study is essentially completely meaningless.

High Participant Refusal Rate Creates Selection Bias

The high participant refusal rate in this study is also problematic. Out of 668 cases and 2444 controls originally selected for the study, only 321 cases (48.1%) and 774 controls (31.7%) chose to participate in the research. In other words, 65% of the individuals contacted as potential participants flat-out refused to participate in the study.

Who could blame them?! The CDC has been producing junk science regarding vaccines and autism since 2002 and the public knows. This indeed could produce selection bias in that the 35% of individuals that did participate were less likely to believe that vaccines were responsible for neurodevelopmental sequelae including autism.

Overmatching Statistical Error

Also, the analysis is plagued with a statistical error called “overmatching.” For a comprehensive analysis of the previous CDC study completed on the same data set (Price et al. 2010 Pediatrics), regarding thimerosal exposure rather than the number of vaccine antigens, please see Chapter 6, “Vaccine Safety Study as an Interesting Case of ‘Over-Matching’” by M. Catherine DeSoto and Robert Hitlan (http://www.intechopen.com/books/recent-advances-in-autism-spectrum-disorders-volume-i/vaccine-safety-study-as-an-interesting-case-of-over-matching-) in the book “Recent Advances in Autism Spectrum Disorders – Volume I”, edited by Michael Fitzgerald, ISBN 978-953-51-1021-7.

The point made by Dr. DeSoto and Dr. Hitlan is that the cases and the controls in this study are too closely matched to each other. Cases were matched with controls of the same age, sex, within the same HMO and essentially the same vaccination schedule using the same vaccine manufacturers. This may be seen in Figures 1 and 2 of the Destefano et al. 2013 paper which indicated that there are almost no differences between the exposure to antigens between the case (autism) and control groups in every exposure group tested. This holds for cumulative antigen levels (Figure 1) as well as single day antigen exposure levels (Figure 2).

This type of error of course precludes “finding a difference” between cases and controls because all differences were matched out case-by-case.

This would be akin to analyzing radiation workers that got the same dosage of gamma radiation within cases and control groups to determine the relationship between gamma radiation and cancer incidence. Of course, since cases and controls got the same dosage, no effect would be seen. However, this is an unfair study. To see the true effect, cases would need to be matched with controls with variable levels of gamma radiation exposure and perhaps a “no exposure” group would be included as a baseline comparison to cancer rates within higher exposure groups.

In the same way, the CDC has used these overmatched data to obfuscate any true effect between vaccine antigen exposure and autism incidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Letto 1765 volte Ultima modifica il Venerdì, 21 Agosto 2015 15:39
Salvatore Morelli

web designerweb mastermultimedia editorgraphic designerdigital video masterstreaming producerprogettista ed amministratore piattaforme FADelearning content editoraudio content editorDigital Video Streaming-Editor ed infine logopedista

Devi effettuare il login per inviare commenti
Claim betting bonus with GBETTING
Enable