CDC oculta Evidencia de Relación entre las Vacunas y el Autismo

Gracias a una solicitud de documentos a través de la Ley de Libertad de Información (FOIA), se sabe que la CDC deliberadamente alteró datos para tratar de ocultar las pruebas que relacionan el mercurio en las vacunas con el autismo.

Traducción Luis Miranda
02 de Noviembre 2011

Quienes niegan el vínculo entre el mercurio usado en las vacunas y el autismo va a tenerla difícil negando los hallazgos más recientes de la Coalición para el Uso de Medicamentos sin Mercurio (COMED). El grupo sin fines de lucro ha obtenido documentos importantes a través de la Ley de Libertad de Información (FOIA), que expone como el Centro para el Control de Enfermedades de los EE.UU. (CDC) miente deliberadamente y manipuló un estudio danés que mostraba una clara relación entre las vacunas que contienen mercurio y el autismo.

En 2003, la revista Pediatrics publicó un estudio realizado en Dinamarca en que se observa un descenso significativo en las tasas de autismo tras la eliminación de timerosal, un componente hecho a base de mercurio, usado en las vacunas. Pero gracias a la influencia corruptora de la CDC, la versión publicada del estudio en la revista Pediatrics en realidad afirma lo contrario, y alega que la falta de uso de timerosal provocó un aumento en las tasas de autismo. Vea aquí por qué la versión del Estudio publicada por la CDC es falsa.

Según los documentos, los funcionarios de la CDC eliminaron grandes cantidades de datos del estudio que mostró una disminución en las tasas de autismo después que se eliminó el timerosal. La agencia entonces manipuló el resto de los datos e implicó un aumento en las tasas de autismo después de la eliminación del timerosal, y sugirió que no existía ningún vínculo entre el timerosal y el autismo.

Tras la presentación de la versión corrompida de la CDC en el estudio de Pediatrics, los autores del estudio se pusieron en contacto con funcionarios de la CDC para hacerles saber que la agencia había interpretado erróneamente los datos. Se trató de decir a la CDC que sus cifras y las conclusiones eran erróneas, y que correcciones eran necesarias. Vea aquí los 14 estudios utilizados para apoyar la afirmación falsa de que las vacunas no causan autismo y otros trastornos neurológicos.

La CDC supuestamente respondió diciendo que echaría un vistazo a los datos incorrectos, pero procedió a presentar la versión falsa del estudio. Tras pedir a los editores de Pediatrics que llevaran a cabo una revisión acelerada del falso estudio, la CDC terminó por convencer a la revista que publicara el estudio fraudulento, lo cual se hizo en 2003.

Ahora que esta información es revelada al mundo, CoMeD está presionando a la CDC para llevar a cabo una investigación criminal completa sobre el asunto, y a hacer una declaración formal acerca de si hubo o no fraude científico. CoMeD también pide una rectificación completa e inmediata del estudio fraudulento de Pediatrics.

“Esto no debe ser tolerado por aquellos que están encargados de la salud y el bienestar de nuestros hijos”, dice Lisa Sykes, Presidente de CoMeD.

CDC Hides Evidence of Link Between Vaccines and Autism

Thanks to a FOIA request for documents, the CDC has been caught deliberately altering data to try to cover up evidence linking mercury in vaccines with autism.
October 2, 2011

Deniers of the link between mercury-laden vaccines and autism are going to have a hard time denying the latest findings by the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD). The nonprofit group has obtained critical documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that exposes the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) role in deliberately lying about and manipulating a key Danish study that showed a clear link between vaccines containing mercury and autism.In 2003, the journal Pediatrics published a study conducted in Denmark that observed a significant decline in autism rates following the country’s elimination of Thimerosal, a mercury-based component, from vaccines. But thanks to the CDC’s corrupting influence, the published version of the study in Pediatrics actually claimed the opposite, and alleged that removal of Thimerosal brought about an increase in autism rates. See here why the CDC’s published version of the study is bogus.

According to the documents, CDC officials removed large amounts of data from the study that showed a decline in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal. The agency then twisted the remaining data to imply an increase in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal, and suggested that there was no link between Thimerosal and autism.

Upon submission of the CDC’s tainted version of the study to Pediatrics, the study’s authors contacted CDC officials to let them know that the agency had incorrectly interpreted the data. They tried to tell the CDC that its figures and conclusions were wrong, and that corrections needed to be made. See here 14 studies commonly used to support the false assertion that vaccines DO NOT cause autism and other neurological conditions.

The CDC allegedly responded by saying that it would take a look at the incorrect data, but proceeded to submit the corrupted version of the study to Pediatrics anyway. After encouraging the editors of Pediatrics to perform an expedited review of the corrupted study, the CDC ended up convincing the journal to publish the fraudulent study, which it did in 2003.

Now that this critical information has been officially released for the world to see, CoMeD is pressing the CDC to conduct a full criminal investigation into the matter, and make a formal declaration about whether or not scientific fraud was involved. CoMeD is also calling for a full, immediate retraction of the corrupted study from Pediatrics.

“This should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children’s health and well-being,” says Lisa Sykes, President of CoMeD.

Obama Administration wants License to Lie Op/Ed

The Examiner
October 31, 2011

It’s not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration’s lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama’s Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn’t exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

Under FOIA’s current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document’s existence, “the agency should simply respond that ‘we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.’ This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation.” Such a response would preserve a requestor’s right to appeal to a federal court.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar’s rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. “Every day,” Farrell notes, “the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House — all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It’s truly Orwellian.” The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama’s proposed “license to lie.”