Following on from my previous two posts here, and here, I decided to dig just a wee bit deeper. Why? Because there was one sentence in Michael J Smith’s study which I couldn’t work out. It was this: "Finally, our analyses were limited to publicly available data from the original study. Future VSD studies without this restriction would be able to assess a wider range of outcomes. These include putative vaccine adverse effects such as neurodevelopmental delay, autism, and autoimmune disorders." Lets rephrase this. If Michael J Smith’s study wasn’t restricted to solely using the publicly available data from the original study, he would have been able to study neurodevelopmental delay? …… But hang on! Wasn’t that the WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? To reassure parents that vaccinating on time wouldn’t cause neurodevelopmental delay? So….What exactly were these data limitations, Michael? Why didn't you specify them in your study?
To find out, you have to read the original study here, and also look at this document here which has three pages of mindboggling exclusion criteria which removed babies from the original study, including these exclusion criteria mentioned in the text of the original article: ”Children were excluded if they had certain conditions recorded in their medical records that could bias neuropsychological testing (e.g., encephalitis, meningitis, or hydrocephalus)” . Forget the hydrocephalus, but what about encephalitis or meningitis? Many children who have subsequently gone on to develop autistic spectrum disorders are children who screamed non-stop after a DPT or DaPT vaccine.
Why did the first study NOT evaluate autism spectrum disorders (see abstract)? Why did the data exclude Michael J Smith from assessing autism? What is the purpose of any study if you don't actually study the very thing you're trying to rule out?
Only when you understand who was excluded and why, do you “get” Michael J Smith’s statement.
Then, you wonder how Michael J Smith could have actually written the abstract of the article, and come to the conclusions he did!
This study wasn’t about testing children in the real world at all.
This study is pseudoscience, limited by the way the data was manipulated in the first place.
The original trial did find that some children most exposed to thiomersal developed tics, and failed one measure of speech articulation. But given that the stated rate of autism in the USA, across all groups of children (with no exclusions) is 1 per 150, wouldn’t you expect to find at least 6 children in here, with an autism spectrum disorder?
Not when your exclusion criteria is such that such a wide raft of children are medically excluded, … which pretty much guarantees that those children with neurodevelopmental delay are excluded!, Is that not what Michael J Smith is admitting, right here? “Future VSD studies without this restriction would be able to assess a wider range of outcomes. These include putative vaccine adverse effects such as neurodevelopmental delay, autism, and autoimmune disorders.”
In other words, they hoped parents wouldn’t notice, or check.
They hoped no-one would pick that up, ... unless they knew what was in the first study!
How could anyone with a brain, consider this second study, reassuring to parents that on-time vaccination did not result in neurodevelopmental delay?
And of course, journalists will just report what's handed to them on a plate and not do the leg work themselves, will they? So we'll get patsy little news stories about how wonderful vaccines are!
Oh hang on... I get it. The “devil” really is in the detail here.
The reality of this isn’t ‘science’.
It’s timing. This unbelievably unscientific piece of rubbish - littered with a litany of mathematical errors, inherent analytical biases, and exclusions ... which simply cannot be applied across the board to all babies in the universe, was published to coincide with…
wait for it…
Andrew Wakefield’s de-robing by the GMC!!!
This is all about “winning hearts and minds”, and THAT will be done, however they can, and with whatever it takes.
While they hope that no-one bothers to check out the actual studies to see just what sort of nonsense (nonscience) is being purveyed.
