New Australian Study Compares Vaccinated Kids With Autism to Vaccinated Kids With Autism And Declares “No Link Between Vaccines & Autism” – Quelle Surprise [More Junk Science]

OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen - From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

OIG Fugitive: Poul Thorsen – From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

And the reason why he was not aware of the risk?  This shows just how poor his study is as evidence.  His study excluded clinical evidence of real cases and only considered “tobacco-science” statistical studies.  In fact the authors of the paper went out of their way to exclude literally thousands of papers to come up with just ten [yep thats right – just 10] papers and ten already known discredited papers at that.

And when we get around to actually looking at the supposed “new” study we find that what it was claiming to have found was not supported by any of the evidence the authors relied upon.  How can this bizarre situation arise?

The supposed new study searched for journal published statistical studies for its starting point and then tried to amalgamate the results into one big “study of studies” – which is given the misleading jargon-name of “meta-analysis“.  Now everyone knows that if you have a witness giving evidence in a court or public inquiry or a politician makes claims in public or a parliament and they lie about something, everyone loses confidence in their evidence and we have to chuck it out – abandon it as unreliable.  It really does not help your case if you get ten witnesses like that.  And of course it is even less helpful when none of the witnesses saw the events you claim they did.

So that is what this supposed “new” study achieves.