The Danish Study rebuttal (part 2)

It always amazes me that the pro-vaxers do not care to look at the source of funding of a particular study or in other words, where the money is coming from.

Study after study shows that the results of published data are highly favorable to the sponsors.

This article was published in 2011:

“Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products”

The authors concluded:

“Out of 44 studies determined to have a financial or professional conflicts of interest, 43 produced results favorable to the sponsor.”

This paper:

“Research in the pharmaceutical industry cannot be objective”

The authors stated:

“In the face of tight public budgets, more and more studies are being funded by the pharmaceutical industry. …The dominance of company-funded research does not only have a bearing on the choice of study priorities, though. Company sponsorship also has an influence on the results of trials.

“Company-funded trials are four times more likely to find evidence in favor of the trial drug than studies funded by other sponsors.

According to the AMA:

“When control lies with the commercial rather than academic or public sector, bias can also envelop the process through the trial design,”

The report stated:

“Outcome bias can result from the use of unreliable methods or instruments, as well as inadequate sample size or comparison groups.”

• Sample size
• Delay in publishing unfavorable results
• Unreliable methods
• Control group issues
• Skewed data

There are dozens of studies out there that support this statement: conflicts of interests are highly prevalent in research which influence greatly the outcome of the research.

And this is the case with the new Danish study that evaluated the relationship between MMR and autism.

Joshua Bennett, one of my followers, sent me his critique of the study, which was a big eye-opener to see how big pharma can influence the outcome of a particular study in favor of what they wanted to obtain.

“Shortcomings in the Latest MMR Vaccination and Autism Study: A Healthcare Administrator’s Response”

You can read his article here:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/adf864_5ba52e538e474fc899dfa16ca6204abe.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1rcW-FvnDEaOcwwTAWq_buZOSa3DjZGctYAJGdjIapTSs2I7bhC7gGI6Y

Joshua stated:

“Hviid says that Andrew Wakefield’s conclusions in the retracted Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive development disorder in children have not been replicated”.

Hviid is the author and epidemiologist of the Danish study. This statement is puzzling to me because I could identify at least 34 research papers that confirm what Wakefield found 20 years ago:

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. Am J Gastroenterol 2005.100:979-81.
3. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
4. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr 2005.  69:19-25.

1. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
2. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 
3. Mol Pathol 2002. 55:84-90.

1. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
2. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
3. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
4. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
5. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
6. J Biomed Sci 2002. 9:359-64.

1. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
2. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
3. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 1998. 89:105-8.

1. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
2. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
3. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
4. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000;15(7):429-35
5. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
6. Pediatr Neurol 2003.  28:292-4.

1. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
2. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
3. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
4. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
5. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
6. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
7. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
8. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
9. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
10. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
11. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
12. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

Either Hviid is not aware of this literature (which would be surprising as he works in the same field) or that he is being completely dishonest with us and keeps repeating the same garbage that the other vaccine promoter doctors.

I believe the latter makes sense as we will see.

The first Danish paper was a fraud as well.

The following is a quotation of Dr. Thompson’s admission (Dr. Thompson was responsible for the epidemiology and statistics of this study:

“I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed. I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits [5] Opposing views presented on the matter include the interpretation of the CDC[6], and Dr. Hooker’s take can be found here. [7] Trasncripts of the phone calls between Dr. Hooker and Dr. Thompson are also available. [8].”

Then, Joshua continues:

“Concerns about the financial backing of the study also exist: Financial support was provided by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Ministry of Health. Novo Nordisk is a massive multinational pharmaceutical company in Denmark with a market capitalization that is greater than $49B USD. According to last year’s annual report they anticipate an effective 2019 tax rate of 20-22%. [9] The government of Denmark receives significant tax revenue in an arrangement like this. Therefore, both the Danish Ministry of Health and Novo Nordisk have a vested interest in a study that will not produce any negative outcomes. A study that demonstrated an association between vaccination and autism would obviously decrease demand for the MMR vaccine, thereby causing a negative financial impact for Novo Nordisk. This decrease in revenue leads naturally to less tax revenue for the government of Denmark.”

This is unbelievable! It is all about the money! Vaccination is a big business and they want to make sure that they do not lose that profitable market!

And then continues with this shocking statement:

“The editor-in-chief of the Annals of Internal Medicine has a personal financial interest in the continued promulgation of vaccination. Dr. Jaya K. Rao, a Deputy Editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, has stock holdings/ options in Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Pfizer is a publicly traded company and is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States, having manufactured virtually all sorts of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, for years. Eli Lilly is also a major American pharmaceutical company and is probably most well known for being the first company to develop Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine in large quantities. A deputy editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine has a personal financial interest in the continued promulgation of vaccination. Dr. Catharine Stack, a Deputy Editor for Statistics at the Annals of Internal Medicine, reported holdings in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Colgate-Palmolive.”

So, the editors of the journals have a vested interest in pharmaceutical companies being shareholders…

You can see that there were several conflicts of interests questioning the validity and truthfulness of the results.

I strongly believe that we should disregard those articles filled with COIs. This is not science but data manipulation.

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler has a theory of autism

“He argues that autism should be viewed as an acquired cellular detoxification deficiency syndrome. His theory, called the ER Hyperstress theory, holds that autism is a form of toxicant-induced loss of tolerance of toxins, and he argues that vaccine adjuvants play a significant role in this process.”

I totally agree with this. The total toxic burden is what we need to focus on. There are so many toxins (mercury, aluminum, Roundup, fluoride, formaldehyde, etc.) that a small body can handle. We need to make sure that those detox pathways are open and working properly

Autism is a multifactorial disease that involves several factors that include diet and lifestyles.

Yes, autism can be cured! By detoxifying the body with good nutrition!

God bless y’all!

Dr. Serge

@DrSergeTheNutritionScientist