Under RFK Jr.'s Leadership, CDC Launches Large Wasteful Study on Vaccines and Autism

[Say it aint so]

I'm not sure why you're acting like this is new. The CDC long ago abandoned science and has been following a political agenda for quite some time.

Yes. They ignore science. Not too long ago the overall head of that agency was literally cooking up reports.

 

[probinson]

Yes. They ignore science.

That's true. During COVID, the CDC ignored all kinds of science. You may recall that the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigned in protest over the unscientific recommendation of boosters for all.

Again, the politicization of the CDC is not a new problem.

 

[Sabertooth]

There's nothing in the data that the report presents to support this statement,...

Where did you see raw data in that report (to come to that conclusion)?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Where did you see raw data in that report (to come to that conclusion)?

I thought you were the one asserting that the conclusions were based on data from California DDS.

The data from DDS shown in the report show that autism has increased over time. Everybody knows this.
But the Department of Disability Services is a government service organization,

"DDS is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services and supports to more than 400,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, autism, epilepsy and related conditions. The state’s service system is designed to meet the needs and choices of individuals at each stage of their lives, and, to the extent possible, serve them in their home communities, providing choices that are reflective of lifestyle, cultural and linguistic backgrounds."

It is not a research organization devoted to determining the cause of autism, or any other disability. That's just not what they do. So the conclusions about the causes of autism did not come from them.

 

[Sabertooth]

So the conclusions about the causes of autism did not come from them.

Saying that the increase was "not due to expanded criteria and awareness" is not a statement of cause. This report does not put forth a cause and, in some ways, is even skeptical about a vaccine connection.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Saying that the increase was "not due to expanded criteria and awareness" is not a statement of cause.

What sophistry. The research shows that the cause of the increase is mostly expanded criteria and awareness. This pamphlet asserts (without supporting evidence) that that is not-a-cause. It has excluded it as a cause.

 

[Sabertooth]

The research shows that the cause of the increase is mostly expanded criteria and awareness.

ASD1? Yes, but not ASD2 & 3.*

1. They would never have been mainstreamed [placed in a regular classroom] under any previous diagnosis (or lack thereof).
2. If they had been identified (under a different diagnosis), their numbers would have stayed the same with just their labels being changed.

My preverbal ASD3 daughter regularly pooped herself and bit people on a whim, just like any 1.5yo would.
My ASD2 son required the teacher to talk about his favorite toys rather than the mundane fare that she was offering. And he would touch himself inappropriately (in public) whenever the mood struck him...!

Have you been living under a rock?

*DDS autism only encompasses severity levels 2 & 3.

 

[essentialsaltes]

ASD1? Yes, but not ASD2 & 3.*

Where is your evidence? Your source does not discuss this.

 

[Say it aint so]

That's true. During COVID, the CDC ignored all kinds of science. You may recall that the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA resigned in protest over the unscientific recommendation of boosters for all.

Again, the politicization of the CDC is not a new problem.

They resigned over the timing of when to get boosters shots, not the science itself. They were not cooking the books like this admin.
And btw, this today: "COVID-19 Is Surging Again, And These States Are The Most At Risk Right Now"
Maybe it's time to refocus on the booster shots.
Then this: Increases in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks threaten years of progress, warn WHO, UNICEF, Gavi.
Quacks in, quackery out.

 

[Sabertooth]

Where is your evidence?

Do you mean evidence that those are really my children's behaviors and they are representative of DDS [short-bus] autism?
Or evidence that my ASD1 children & I were successfully mainstreamed* [a.k.a. long-bus autism]?

Your source does not discuss this.

From page 5,
DDS autism cases: Typically are the more substantially disabled among those on the autism spectrum. (Lake, 2014).

*My ASD1 son was accelerated in his math classes and I participated in gifted classes. Having autism & giftedness at the same time is called "twice exceptional." It is abbreviated 2e.

 

[probinson]

They resigned over the timing of when to get boosters shots, not the science itself.

That's just not true.

Although the benefits of primary COVID-19 vaccination clearly outweigh the risks, there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4). If unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions, there could be implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, widespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate​

​

Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses

A new wave of COVID-19 cases caused by the highly transmissible delta variant is exacerbating the worldwide public health crisis, and has led to consideration of the potential need for, and optimal timing of, booster doses for vaccinated populations.1 Although the idea of further reducing the...

www.thelancet.com

​

​

Remember, these were the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA at the time. They warned of introducing boosters "too soon or too frequently", and how that would spill over to uptake of other vaccines. But the Biden administration ignored their warnings so they could push full speed ahead with their unscientific and evidence-poor vaccine mandates. Gruber and Krause resigned in protest over the Biden administration's rushing of boosters for all, which was not, and has NEVER, been supported by "the science itself".

They were not cooking the books like this admin.

At the time, the Biden administration was, as you say, "cooking the books". And the regulators stood against it and resigned in protest.

And btw, this today: "COVID-19 Is Surging Again, And These States Are The Most At Risk Right Now"
Maybe it's time to refocus on the booster shots.

Because we all know that will stop the surge.

Or maybe, as a Cleveland Clinic study found, boosting people might make them more susceptible to infection.

We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to vaccine effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.​

​

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the

academic.oup.com

​

Then this: Increases in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks threaten years of progress, warn WHO, UNICEF, Gavi.
Quacks in, quackery out.

It really is a shame the damage that COVID vaccine zealotry has done to vaccines in general. Of course, I said this on this very form way back in May 2021 in this post:

What's at stake is trust in all vaccinations.

That was long before anyone thought RFK Jr could end up as the head of HHS. I saw this coming a mile away. So did Gruber and Krause when the Biden administration decided they needed to boost and boost and boost some more without any evidence that it was necessary.

The collapse of trust was all but assured with such evidence-poor mandates. How many times did I post the "Lessons from History" out of the ACLU's pandemic preparedness plans. The warnings were there, but ignored:

Lessons from History​

​

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.​

​

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:​

​

Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.​

​

On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.​

​

Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.​

​

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/publications/asset_upload_file399_33642.pdf

​

RFK Jr might be a convenient scapegoat in this moment, but the bottom line is that public health willingly did this to itself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you mean evidence that those are really my children's behaviors

Deflection.

 

[Sabertooth]

Deflection.

Only if you have tunnel vision.

 

[Say it aint so]

That's just not true.

Although the benefits of primary COVID-19 vaccination clearly outweigh the risks, there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4). If unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions, there could be implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, widespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate​

​

Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses

A new wave of COVID-19 cases caused by the highly transmissible delta variant is exacerbating the worldwide public health crisis, and has led to consideration of the potential need for, and optimal timing of, booster doses for vaccinated populations.1 Although the idea of further reducing the...

www.thelancet.com

​

​

Remember, these were the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA at the time. They warned of introducing boosters "too soon or too frequently", and how that would spill over to uptake of other vaccines. But the Biden administration ignored their warnings so they could push full speed ahead with their unscientific and evidence-poor vaccine mandates. Gruber and Krause resigned in protest over the Biden administration's rushing of boosters for all, which was not, and has NEVER, been supported by "the science itself".



At the time, the Biden administration was, as you say, "cooking the books". And the regulators stood against it and resigned in protest.



Because we all know that will stop the surge.

Or maybe, as a Cleveland Clinic study found, boosting people might make them more susceptible to infection.

View attachment 369490​

We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to vaccine effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.​

​

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the

academic.oup.com

​

It really is a shame the damage that COVID vaccine zealotry has done to vaccines in general. Of course, I said this on this very form way back in May 2021 in this post:



That was long before anyone thought RFK Jr could end up as the head of HHS. I saw this coming a mile away. So did Gruber and Krause when the Biden administration decided they needed to boost and boost and boost some more without any evidence that it was necessary.

The collapse of trust was all but assured with such evidence-poor mandates. How many times did I post the "Lessons from History" out of the ACLU's pandemic preparedness plans. The warnings were there, but ignored:

Lessons from History​

​

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.​

​

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:​

​

Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.​

​

On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.​

​

Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.​

​

https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/publications/asset_upload_file399_33642.pdf

​

RFK Jr might be a convenient scapegoat in this moment, but the bottom line is that public health willingly did this to itself.

Yes. They were concerned about boosters being administered too soon and what target groups should get them, just as your article notes. This is just odd. And yes, the vaccine will keep people alive. And btw, to compare the push for boosters as comparable with RFKjr making up studies to support his report is rich. That's what I mean by cooking the books. He's no a scapegoat, he's a unqualified conspiratorial quack.

​

​

 

[probinson]

Yes. They were concerned about boosters being administered too soon as you're article notes.

And too frequently. And without evidence of benefit.

This is just odd.

Not really. People have been conditioned with the neanderthal-like approach of VACCINE GOOD! MORE BETTER! This flies in the face of science and evidence. But it sure is beneficial to the bottom line of the pharmaceutical companies if people believe more injections benefit them.

And yes, the vaccine will keep people alive.

This simplistic view and dismissal of evidence really is the issue. Some people may benefit from an additional dose. Others may not. This has always been the case and is why blanket mandates were ill-advised, non-scientific nonsense.

There is no question that in a study of >50,000 employees at the Cleveland Clinic, there was a perfect correlation between an increased number of doses and an increased number of infections. The study's authors called this finding "unexpected". It's not just "unexpected". It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would expect to see from an "effective" vaccine.

The study also references three other studies that found an association between increased infections and increased doses. Just a month or two ago, another study came out showing increased number of infections correlated with increased number of doses. If we were "following the science", this would cause us to stop and think. Maybe increased vaccine does aren't providing the benefit that is assumed. Indeed, that is EXACTLY what the Cleveland Clinic study stated.

But we've long ago abandoned any kind of evidence-based recommendations. All we need is a media article that says "SURGE!" and a small contingent of people are ready for yet another dose without any evidence it will provide them any benefit.

 

[Say it aint so]

And too frequently. And without evidence of benefit.



Not really. People have been conditioned with the neanderthal-like approach of VACCINE GOOD! MORE BETTER! This flies in the face of science and evidence. But it sure is beneficial to the bottom line of the pharmaceutical companies if people believe more injections benefit them.



This simplistic view and dismissal of evidence really is the issue. Some people may benefit from an additional dose. Others may not. This has always been the case and is why blanket mandates were ill-advised, non-scientific nonsense.

There is no question that in a study of >50,000 employees at the Cleveland Clinic, there was a perfect correlation between an increased number of doses and an increased number of infections. The study's authors called this finding "unexpected". It's not just "unexpected". It is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what one would expect to see from an "effective" vaccine.

The study also references three other studies that found an association between increased infections and increased doses. Just a month or two ago, another study came out showing increased number of infections correlated with increased number of doses. If we were "following the science", this would cause us to stop and think. Maybe increased vaccine does aren't providing the benefit that is assumed. Indeed, that is EXACTLY what the Cleveland Clinic study stated.

But we've long ago abandoned any kind of evidence-based recommendations. All we need is a media article that says "SURGE!" and a small contingent of people are ready for yet another dose without any evidence it will provide them any benefit.

Yes. About when and who. Not that it is junk science. You and I both know we can go to Lancelot and pull up studies promoting booster shots in general use. What this is; is a disagreement which, low and behold, is part of science. To suggest people are "making science up" in the same manner as RFKjr is doing is quite the thing.

 

[probinson]

Yes. About when and who. Not that it is junk science. You and I both know we can go to Lancelot and pull up studies promoting booster shots in general use. What this is; is a disagreement which, low and behold, is part of science. To suggest people are "making science up" in the same manner as RFKjr is doing is quite the thing.

The CDC has been "making science up" for years. The "studies' they ran to support masking, plexiglass barriers, 6-foot distancing, school closures, washing your groceries, etc. were all laughable nonsense. Yet they dictated these non-scientific mandates on the public.

I suspect this year's COVID vaccine uptake will be even less than it was last year. Less than 1/3 of HEALTH CARE WORKERS got the updated COVID shot last year despite the CDC's overly-broad recommendation that EVERYONE over the age of 6 months should get it. Clearly, the CDC has lost not only the public, but our health-care workers are even ignoring the CDC's recommendations.

It's amazing that all of these people have resigned from the CDC in protest over COVID vaccine recommendations that the vast majority of the population has been ignoring for years.

Trust is gone. The CDC cannot be an effective agency without the trust of the public. They destroyed that during COVID, and it won't be easy to regain.

 

[Say it aint so]

The CDC has been "making science up" for years. The "studies' they ran to support masking, plexiglass barriers, 6-foot distancing, school closures, washing your groceries, etc. were all laughable nonsense. Yet they dictated these non-scientific mandates on the public.

I suspect this year's COVID vaccine uptake will be even less than it was last year. Less than 1/3 of HEALTH CARE WORKERS got the updated COVID shot last year despite the CDC's overly-broad recommendation that EVERYONE over the age of 6 months should get it. Clearly, the CDC has lost not only the public, but our health-care workers are even ignoring the CDC's recommendations.

It's amazing that all of these people have resigned from the CDC in protest over COVID vaccine recommendations that the vast majority of the population has been ignoring for years.

Trust is gone. The CDC cannot be an effective agency without the trust of the public. They destroyed that during COVID, and it won't be easy to regain.

I think you and I have been over this before. Social distancing works no different than having a child stay home from school with a cold. There is nothing wrong with what you may think as a overkill as juxtaposed to those who relied on heard immunity and had to abandon that for safer protocols. Trust is gone only for those who are looking for fault. Welcome to the world of RFKjr, he could use your support.

 

[probinson]

I think you and I have been over this before. Social distancing works no different than having a child stay home from school with a cold.

Absolutely untrue. Someone not being somewhere is not remotely the same thing as simply standing six-feet away from that person. You don't even need science to understand that. Just some good ol' common sense, which also flew right out the window during COVID.

You have to know that if you're 10 miles away from someone in a completely different location, that's totally different than if you're in the same room six-feet away from them.

Trust is gone only for those who are looking for fault.

Trust is gone for the vast majority of people as polls have consistently shown.

 

[Say it aint so]

Absolutely untrue. Someone not being somewhere is not remotely the same thing as simply standing six-feet away from that person. You don't even need science to understand that. Just some good ol' common sense, which also flew right out the window during COVID.

You have to know that if you're 10 miles away from someone in a completely different location, that's totally different than if you're in the same room six-feet away from them.



Trust is gone for the vast majority of people as polls have consistently shown.

Someone wearing a mask 6 feet apart and taking preventive action like closing schools is far more effective then doing nothing. You don't even need science to understand that. Your issue, if I understand you, is your angst against over protective measures. Better safe than sorry as the dead are stacked up like cord wood. This isn't really worthy of discussion.