Exclusive: US CDC vaccine presentation cites study that does not exist, author says (Update)
June 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted a report on Tuesday that said evidence does not support a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders, ahead of a two-day meeting of an advisory panel later this week.
30 replies
That’s all well and good, but the people leading these organizations believe that science = jumping to a vibes based conclusion and then smashing a bunch of shit together calling it a process. It doesn’t matter if the sources are just made up or simply not there. Actual data driven results are for egghead gay communists who think chem trails are fake.
I wonder if this is a last ditch effort to get info out before it all get rolled back pseudoscience becomes gospel.
Hey, what time is Dr. Phil on? /s
Not just the people leading these organizations, this seems to have become what the average American thinks science is, and it is literally killing our society.
Just wait until that son-of-a-bridge RFK Jr. gets to it. I hear he has a fresh shipment of Sharpies from the White House to make sure it is totally accurate.
He will start by editing out the "not" in the above quote. See? Science works!
That's what we call peer review.
Breaking News from RFK Jr: 100% of people who have Autism and have this shot, had this shot! It was the shot!
Way too coherent and clear. You forgot the proceeding "Uh wuh wuh buh bup wah we well..."
But what does a panel of con artists, quacks, cranks and influencers say?
Definitely surprised that the incompetent administration allowed this.
US CDC report shows
nolink betweenthimerosal-containingvaccines and autism~RFK Jr
Tomorrow:
"They're all fired anyway"
Too many people can’t grasp that autism symptoms show up around the age these vaccines are given, and that it often causes your child to regress to a degree. But no, they don’t want to accept a complicated answer that doesn’t let them blame somebody.
Again?
That's just going to make the nutjobs believe it more...
I don't think this headline belongs to this article.
The article is talking about how the study referenced a non-existent source
Updated
If the evidence doesn't support your cause: lie
Interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury
Is it?
I'm inclined to believe it, but the CDC has very little credibility right now
It had quite a bit up to about 5 months ago.
Thats the great thing about science, you don't have to 'believe' it.
Unless you're a trained scientist qualified to review their studies, you have to believe someone.
Indeed, but if just one person is caught fudging numbers to get desired results, all of their work gets called into question. Without transparency, all you can go on is credibility and "believing".
Thats..not how science works.
It isn't, but not all scientists can maintain scientific integrity when faced with significant external pressures (from people like RFK, for example). Those that can't dont stay scientists for long.
All findings can eventually be reproduced or disproven, but not without time and money. In the short term, trust and credibility is paramount.
You do know that peer review exists, right? This isn't some brand new hypothesis being tested for the first time.
I'm sure the memes you see on TikTok are much more credible and fact-based.