Come on, this is classic. It appears to be yet another textbook case of defaming the messenger (Hooker) and massaging/suppressing the message (Thompson walking back his intent- vaccines don’t cause autism). Celia Farber, of all people, probably recognizes this technique. Maybe Thompson’s lawyer is playing both sides- reveal a bit (data was omitted or surpressed) but mostly indicate that Dr Thompson was duped (didn’t know he was recorded) and/or stands by vaccines. This way everyone everyone gets something and can parse out information in statements. Anyway, by suppressing community commons-public domain information and more objective research, CDC and public health officials have, for years, effectively controlled, managed and massaged the message. This is the kind of thing that WikiLeaks, DemandProgress, Anonymous, etc have been trying to fight for awhile.The journal where Hooker’s (2014) study was recently published has ‘retracted it’; this is fundamentally no different from what was done with Wakefield’s autism (1998) and Seralini’s glyphosate papers. The journals bowed to economic (ie, funding, advertising, research, editorial) pressures to basically suppress publicly funded and properly conducted scientific research findings. This is most curious since Dr Hooker has published many times over the years, most likely the article was peer-reviewed before publication, and Dr Hooker at least has provided a template for addressing this type of public health science.Why did the journal retract the article and likely bow to economic forces?
Because this kind of information essentially threatens moneyed, powerful interests and exposes them to many interesting legal (and ethical) questions. Also, this may be the result when publicly-funded research becomes essentially privatized and, rather than objective science truly resulting, becomes fundamentally beholden to the funding group(s). This is how tobacco science operated for 50 years. So, because we as a society have rolled back basic research funding and government size- essentially privatized many things that perhaps should have much tighter oversight and/or control, remain in the public domain, etc; we’ve essentially traded objective, easily obtainable information for some measure of false security, limited information access, and acquired a misplaced trust in the system. Unfortunately the system has become corrupt and we, as a society, currently remain clueless about how to fix it.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand
A data bias was identified in a Cochrane report (link below) back in 2005 about DeStefano’s (2003) original work. So there was a suspicion or recognition long ago that this DeStefano et al. 2003 paper was flawed.
Further, Hinjen and DeSoto (2013) used DeStefano’s and Price’s varied papers and their data (same data set) to determine that they were improperly biasing data and improper design. When a research study is used in a statistics book as a classic example of data bias and improper statistics, that can’t be a good thing. For a high profile outfit like the CDC and their funding pipelines, this is a PR disaster. Thus, DeStefano et al have a ‘track record’ of manipulating their data to get the results that they want (or need). In this case, it plays towards factors employing large scale (enforced) vaccination as a public health strategy. This likely sits well with the groups funding this ‘research’ as they also likely profit from both vaccine sales _and_ varied aids to manage/control adverse effects.
Hooker has long been critical of DeStefano’s work (link below). Since his 2014 paper, which began this latest CDC spin cycle, has been ‘suspended or retracted’ by the Journal, I thought it might be helpful to post a link.
Cochrane 2005 : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=6FE0084412306C5E4EE4D7C16F32E848.f02t02
DeSoto/Hinjen 2013: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/41866/InTech-Vaccine_safety_study_as_an_interesti ng_case_of_over_matching_.pdf