SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

February 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jonathan Campbell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:07:49 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
Chandler,

       Sorry for the confusing memo. The later study done by the Geiers
analyzed the entire VAERS database, not just the sample that they were able
to copy by hand at CDC headquarters, so that the AAP was not able to counter
its conclusions on methodological grounds. Its conclusions were also more
damning with regard to correlation between the amounts of thimerosal and
autism incidence. After this study was published, the AAP turned toward
using false evidence from fraudulent studies. After all, they do have to C
their respective As. The vaccine makers had a friend in the Senate named
Bill Frist, who slid a non-liability clause for them into an anti-terrorism
bill. But the pediatricians are still liable, as there are now (and were)
published studies showing probable cause, and they continued (and continue)
to use many times the number of vaccines than was medical precedent up to
the early 1980s.

Jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chandler Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Really Big Lie About Autism


> Jonathan, I try but I can't understand what you're saying. So the
> Geiers did a later study you did not tell us about in your article
> dated 2004? It must have differed in its conclusions, from what
> you DO tell us. Shall we assume, as the later study was not
> attacked by AAP, that it had conclusions less threatening to
> vaccinators? Then how do we interpret your continuing to
> disseminate your 2004 article? Do you believe what you said then,
> regardless of any change of heart the Geiers may have had? Very
> confusing.
> Chandler Davis
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2