Post

@marycheh

@marycheh

More from @HighWireTalk

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Oct 29

x.com/P_McCulloughMD…

🧵THREAD: Many have focused on the groundbreaking conclusions of this report, which are vital. But few have focused on the critical history contained in the full PDF.

LINK: zenodo.org/records/174512… x.com/P_McCulloughMD…

2. It’s important to read the introduction, which presents a concise timeline of ASD, its evolution, and the changes in diagnoses. It also explains the controversy surrounding MMR and the contribution of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues.

We present a summary of this to you, directly from the paper, below.

3. In 1996, an American clinical immunologist named H.H. Fundenberg published a paper in which he claimed that 15 autism patients developed symptoms within a week after immunization with MMR.

During this period, Dr. Wakefield was treating and researching inflammatory bowel disease in the UK, and was contacted by the parents of 8 children who developed both irritable bowel and neurological symptoms after vaccination with MMR.

Read 19 tweets

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Oct 23

🚨CRITICISMS & RESPONSES:

The following summarizes and responds to criticisms published by Henry Ford, The Conversation, and Stat News regarding the unpublished study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children in the Henry Ford Health System.

We address these criticisms not because we must, and not to demonstrate that this is a “perfect” study, but because science demands debate. ICAN has not claimed that this unpublished study is without limitations. However, if it is thrown out, then one must throw out most of the studies in the already limited universe of post-licensure vaccine safety literature. People should carefully assess this and every study, and raise challenges, highlight limitations, and discuss flaws. That is scientific debate, and everyone should be free to engage in it and to do so without fear of professional reprisal.

(LINK: aninconvenientstudy.com/criticisms)

Criticism: The size of the unvaccinated group was smaller than the size of the vaccinated group.

Response: The difference in the size of the vaccinated group (16,511 children) and the unvaccinated group (1,957 children) is not a serious issue since the study calculated the “rate” between these two groups. The numbers in each group are also large enough to have statistical significance. Studies routinely compare the rate of harm between groups of different sizes, just like what was done in this study. Rejecting this study because group sizes were different would mean throwing out most studies in the medical literature.

Criticism: The unvaccinated children were, on average, followed for a shorter duration and hence, were less likely to be diagnosed with a chronic disease (so-called “surveillance bias”).

Response: The unpublished study directly acknowledges and accounts for potential surveillance bias, explaining:

"Since median enrollment time was shorter in the unexposed [i.e. the unvaccinated] group, a sensitivity analysis for developing a chronic health condition was conducted for subjects enrolled in the health plan for at least 1-year, 3-years and 5-years which demonstrated consistent results. Vaccine exposure was associated with higher incidence … as well as a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (HR [Hazard Ratio] 2.84, CI [Confidence Interval] 2.38-3.38), 3-years (HR 3.48, CI 2.74-4.42), and 5-years (HR 4.05, CI 2.82-5.83)."

This means that when including only children enrolled from birth and for at least five years, the result was an even higher rate of chronic health issues among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated children. Further, if the chronic health rate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was due to differences in enrollment time, then we would expect the “HR” or “hazard ratio” number in the above quote to have gotten smaller the longer the duration of enrollment. Instead, the hazard ratio got larger.

Additionally, the CDC white paper on how to conduct a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, which the study’s lead author agreed was followed in conducting the unpublished study, states that many more children are diagnosed with numerous relevant health outcomes from birth through the age of 2 than from ages 3-8 years old. So, the shorter time period should not have a large effect, if any, on diagnosed health outcomes. Here is a copy of the table (3.d on p. 32) from the white paper:

Regardless, even if the researchers had not done the sensitivity analysis described above, this limitation should not render the study unpublishable. To the contrary, it should, as per the scientific method, lead to additional studies that could better address this purported limitation.

Read 10 tweets

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Oct 22

🧵THREAD: FDA Approved Pfizer Drug to Treat Serious COVID-19 Side Effect Just Two Months After Rollout of COVID-19 Vaccines:

Just two months after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, FDA granted Pfizer approval to start marketing its drug, Panzyga, for the treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP), a life-threatening neurological autoimmune condition. CIDP has since been documented as a serious adverse reaction to the mRNA vaccines.

Back in April of 2020, before its COVID-19 vaccine human clinical trials started, Pfizer submitted an application to FDA asking to market its immunodeficiency drug, Panzyga, as a treatment for CIDP. Could data from Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine preclinical animal trials have pointed to neurological issues (such as CIDP) even then, possibly prompting Pfizer’s desire to market this drug for that condition?

See more: fda.gov/media/145883/d…

Coincidentally, FDA sat on Pfizer’s request to market Panzyga for CIDP for almost a year before suddenly approving it on February 12, 2021.

At that point, the COVID-19 vaccine had been rolled out to over 42 million Americans and the V-safe and VAERS data was rolling in. FDA may have seen an early safety signal for CIDP and recognized the need for the drug.

Read 5 tweets

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Oct 11

💉🧵THREAD: CDC Concedes Never Conducted Vaccinated v. Unvaccinated Study.

We are pulling this from the archives because this was initially published in 2021.

On July 29, 2020, after months of false claims and objections, the CDC finally conceded that it could not find a single study comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and that it “has not conducted a study of health outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.”

LINK: icandecide.org/article/cdc-co…

Parents, doctors, and scientists have, for decades, demanded that the CDC compare the health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

This is, in part, because the increase in the CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule over the last 30 years -from 8 vaccine injections to 50 vaccine injections (plus two injections during pregnancy) - has occurred in lockstep with the increase in the rate of autoimmune, developmental, and neurological disorders in children from 12.8% to 54%.

The demand for this study has grown so great that even the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2013 issued a report stating that the CDC could and should perform this study, explaining that it “is possible to make this comparison [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] through analyses of patient information contained in large databases such as VSD [the Vaccine Safety Datalink paid for by the CDC].”

Incredibly, the CDC then spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to have scientists, such as Dr. Stanley Plotkin, write a white paper, published in 2015, on how to conduct this simple study.

Read 10 tweets

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Oct 10

💉🧵NO RECORDS FOUND: CDC Unable to Support Claim that COVID-19 Vaccine Spike Protein is Quickly Cleared from the Body

🛑For at least two years, CDC claimed that “After the body produces an immune response, it discards all of the [COVID-19] vaccine ingredients, just as it would discard any substance that cells no longer need.” ICAN’s (@ICANdecide) attorneys challenged CDC to support this claim with facts. Here’s what we found.

In its overwhelming zeal to promote the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as “safe and effective” at all costs, CDC made many dubious claims on its website.

🛑One of those claims on its “Overview of COVID-19 Vaccines” webpage confidently asserted as late as July 2024 that “The mRNA from the vaccines is broken down within a few days after vaccination and discarded from the body.”

(LINK: web.archive.org/web/2024071319…)

This statement came as quite a surprise to ICAN, since multiple studies (published while CDC still had this claim on its site) have shown that the spike protein can linger for months, if not years, in some vaccinated people. In fact, a Yale preprint study showed that the spike protein could persist for up to 709 days!

Link: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…

Read 6 tweets

The HighWire

@HighWireTalk

Mar 1

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE DISNEY MEASLES OUTBREAK

Del breaks down the California Department of Health report made in response to the 2014 Disneyland measles outbreak, revealing that vaccinated individuals played a significant role in spreading the disease themselves.

DID THE MEASLES VACCINATION PROGRAM BACKFIRE?

Del questions the efficacy of measles vaccination programs by looking at the unachieved elimination of measles yearly cycles, RNA shedding statistics more than 100 days post vaccination, and more.

CAN THOSE VAXXED AGAINST THE MEASLES BE ASYMPTOMATIC & INFECTIOUS?

Providing context to the failed Sri Lankan measles elimination campaign in 2019, Del dives into the science showing that children who received the measles vaccine become slowly more susceptible to infection and more asymptomatic as they grow older.