Quote (Perd_Hapley @ Apr 2 2019 07:34am)

so again, the "actual science" is what I want to be looked at, through the lense of COIs in a similar way to this bmj review, by statisticians and epidemiologists as far removed from bias as possible

because again, if this bmj review is anything to go by are anything to go by, and if the CDC and the WHO are anything to go by, there are huge problems with bias and conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy

no lol, thimerosal was removed before before the cdc finished pumping out its thimerosal studies, at a time where Verstraeten's initial research was shaping up to look like thimerosal was a big problem for them and Eli Lilly was still desperately trying to lobby for immunity

Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 2 2019 10:25am)

citation needed

Quote

In terms of the Bush administration, and at the time of,
particularly, the Homeland Security Bill, Bush had installed Eli Lilly
vice-president for corporate strategy, Mitch Daniels, as his Director of
the Office of Management and Budget—a highly powerful position within the
White House. He also named Mitch Daniels to the National Security Council
and the National Homeland Security Advisory Counsel. The CEO and President
of Eli Lilly, Sidney Taurel, was likewise named to the president’s
Homeland Security Advisory Counsel. Only, I think, 13 positions were made
open—highly coveted spots for people in industry because, as the
government started to formulate its terrorism response after 9/11, it
needed to incorporate the private sector into its plan. And for a
pharmaceutical company to be in there was very beneficial for them. The
list goes on.

Of course George Bush Sr. sat on the Board of Directors of Eli Lilly
for many years, and other Eli Lilly company officials have been appointed
to different Homeland Security advisory panels within the bureaucracy. And
of course, Eli Lilly is a very generous donor to political
campaigns—historically, about 80% of which has gone to Republican
candidates. In the 2000 election they were one of the most generous donors
of all, and they have also donated to the campaigns of Senator Bill Frist
and also the Republican Senate Campaign Committee.

Washington has looked into the influence of large industries on
Congress, and also in the bureaucracy, as a matter of fact, in terms of
writing regulations. And again the pharmaceutical industry is among the
most generous of donors. Now the soft money ban has reduced that somewhat
and large contributions are not as large as they use to be. But the amount
of influence that drug companies and others seem to get in return for
their investment is well documented.

So, tell us about the different bills that have been introduced and
the Homeland Security Bill riders. How did that get in there and what do
disabled kids have to do with Homeland Security anyway?

Dan Burton ran to the House floor to ask how Eli Lilly got into the
Homeland Security Bill rider as soon as he found out that the rider had
been inserted. This is a very complicated web of intrigue, in terms of all
those different bills, and also the Homeland Security Bill. As far as the
Homeland Security Bill is concerned, that was inserted by Representative
Richard Armey, Republican of Texas. He was the House Majority Leader at
the time and about to retire. He retired at the end of the year. At first
he said that the order to do it had come from the White House. The White
House denied this, I believe. The White House said it may have come from
Senator Frist’s office. Senator Frist denied that, and later Dick Armey
retracted his statement that it had come from the White House. He insisted
he had acted alone to protect the nation and our bioterrorism response
system. It’s hard to know if Dick Armey himself would have known exactly
which passages from a many, many page bill of Senator Frist, to cut and
paste into the Homeland Security Bill. Either he knew exactly which
language, or someone in his office knew which language, or of course it
was furnished to them by sources unknown.

That provision, which was inserted into the bill and passed in
November and signed by the President, was then rescinded when Congress
came back in 2003. The new Majority Leader, Senator Bill Frist, to his
credit, honored a pledge made by the outgoing Majority Leader of the
Senate, Trent Lot, to revisit the issue— and he indeed did. And the
unsettling language was removed—I say unsettling in terms of the way it
was put into the bill—but he vowed and Eli Lilly vowed, and others vowed
to fight to get most of that language back in. Now, the language basically
gets very complicated and technical and is explained in the book. The
language of the Homeland Bill was basically to proclaim Thimerosal a
vaccine ingredient and therefore Eli Lilly would be a vaccine maker and
therefore protected under the Federal Vaccine Compensation Program. In
other words, plaintiffs could not file private cases in private court,
they would have to go into the Federal program, which happens to have a 3
year statute of limitations. So, if your child was injured more than 3
years ago, you’re not eligible—leaving most parents in a terrible “catch
22”—they couldn’t file in civil court, and yet they can’t file in the
vaccine court either.

Ever since then, Frist and others have introduced several different
versions of similar bills, and none of these passed, obviously. Most
recently Senate Bill 3, which is rather Draconian in its reach. Not only
would it prevent families from filing in state courts—it does not include
the Homeland Security Bill provision of proclaiming Thimerosal as an
ingredient, however—there is now a version in the House that does do that.
And eventually if these pass, they’re going to have to work together as
one bill.

Quote

To the Editor.—
I am the first author of a recent article on a study undertaken by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to screen
for a potential link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and
neurodevelopmental delays.1 The article has been subject to heavy
criticism from antivaccine lobbyists. Their criticism basically
comes down to the following two claims: the CDC has watered
down the original findings of a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has hired
me away from the CDC so as to convince me to manipulate the
data further before publication. Because I was responsible for
nearly all aspects of this study, including study design, data
gathering, data analysis, and writing of the article, I wish to give
my opinion on these claims. These are my personal opinions and
do not represent the opinion of the CDC or GSK.
Did the CDC water down the original results? It did not. This
misconception comes from an erroneous perception of this screening study and other epidemiological studies. The perception is
that an epidemiological study can have only 1 of 2 outcomes:
either an association is found (or confirmed), or an association is
refuted. Very often, however, there is a third interpretation: an
association can neither be found nor refuted. Let’s call the first 2
outcomes “positive” and “negative” and the third outcome “neutral.” The CDC screening study of thimerosal-containing vaccines
was perceived at first as a positive study that found an association
between thimerosal and some neurodevelopmental outcomes.
This was the perception both independent scientists and antivaccine lobbyists had at the conclusion of the first phase of the study.