0

Nation of Islam (a black nationalist group) has highlighted the following claim in their official website:

Dr. William Thompson, a CDC whistleblower, has charged the agency with dumping studies showing how vaccines containing mercury have had a disproportionate negative impact on Black males and increased cases of autism.

Is it true that CDC covered up such studies?

Sakib Arifin
  • 15,705
  • 14
  • 63
  • 137
  • 4
    And how would the CDC go about covering up studies done in other countries? – PhillS Mar 30 '17 at 16:53
  • @PhillS I have no idea what the claim is about. That's why asked it, to know what it is about. – Sakib Arifin Mar 30 '17 at 16:54
  • We've already given a good answer about the scientific evidence on vaccines and autism. – DJClayworth Mar 30 '17 at 17:44
  • 2
    I think this is a reasonable question. It is based off of the [Vaxxed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed) movie, which is a specific and notable claim. This is separate (somewhat) from the Wakefield claim. It covers a specific claim of cover up, so it can't be addressed with a generic response to vaccine/autism links. – KAI Mar 30 '17 at 17:59
  • @DJClayworth The question is not about that. – Sakib Arifin Mar 31 '17 at 05:14
  • 5
    @MohammadSakibArifin: But the question is **exactly** about what DJClayworth linked here. The *one* study that "found" this link was the Wakefield study. It was completely and utterly debunked, *repeatedly*, with none of the follow-up studies "finding" a link to autism. So either the CDC didn't have any studies to "cover up", or they did a *very* thorough job "covering up" studies in countries where the CDC doesn't hold any sway (as PhillS pointed out)... – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 07:45
  • @DevSolar It it was exactly about that then it would have marked as a duplicate. – Sakib Arifin Mar 31 '17 at 07:53
  • 1
    It *has* been marked as possible duplicate, and several people agree. As soon as there are five *with closing vote priviledge*, it *will* be closed, unless you provide some *rationale* as to why it isn't a duplicate. "Because it isn't" doesn't cut it. – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 08:00
  • @DevSolar The rationally is provide by KAI – Sakib Arifin Mar 31 '17 at 08:14
  • 2
    *Vaxxed* was *made* by the [discredited anti-vaccine activist **Andrew Wakefield**, whose license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom was revoked due to ethical violations related to his fraudulent research into the role of vaccines in autism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed). The linked Q&A shows that Wakefield's findings were not reproducable (and fraudulent to begin with). Which means there was nothing for the CDC to "cover up". – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 08:16
  • @DevSolar This looks like a answer than a comment. – Sakib Arifin Mar 31 '17 at 08:22
  • Then accept KAI's answer, as that's what he's saying in his first paragraph as well. I consider this well answered already by the question linked by DJClayworth, i.e. a duplicate. – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 08:24
  • @DevSolar I waiting to see if another better answer is posted or not. – Sakib Arifin Mar 31 '17 at 08:27
  • 1
    I have not seen Vaxxed. However, my understanding is that the movie is making claims distinct from Wakefield's Lancet paper or from the generic claim that vaccines cause autism. That is, it claims a conspiracy theory that the CDC has covered up evidence for a link between autism and vaccines - specifically, it claims that the CDC manipulated and destroyed data. A question about that supposed cover up is not a duplicate, and is on topic. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 13:43
  • 1
    Put another way, "Is JFK actually dead?" and "Was the government involved in a conspiracy theory involving the death of JFK?" are entirely separate questions. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 13:44
  • 1
    The criterion for closing as duplicate is that "This question is already answered", not that the other question is the same. The other question points out that there is no valid evidence for a vaccine autism link: therefore the CDC cannot have covered it up. So this question is answered. – DJClayworth Mar 31 '17 at 13:56
  • 2
    @DevSolar - no, it's not about the Wakefield studies. There was the claim that a whistle-blower within the CDC was fired for bringing to light OTHER studies that supported Wakefield. It is a different claim than "are there studies that show the link" - this is more about the "whistleblower," what, if any claims were made by the person, and if the situation is actually as claimed, specific to the CDC and that person. It's more "is there a whistleblower who was a CDC professional who was fired and made certain claims?" And not about the validity of certain claims. – PoloHoleSet Mar 31 '17 at 15:45
  • @DJClayworth The previous question addressed the results of studies. This question asks if the studies were fair. If the studies were unfair due to a conspiracy, the previous answer of "there are no studies showing a link" might not be relevant. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 16:22
  • @KAI: If you want to answer this question in the affirmative, you'd have to show that study showing the link between vaccination and autism, **and** proof that the CDC tried to cover it up. *There is no such study.* Implication: As A is false, B cannot be true. The question is a duplicate. – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 16:22
  • 1
    @DevSolar - You know, you're right. I was looking at it, as KAI did, in assessing the claim from the point of view of whether it was true that a credible whistleblower ever even made such a claim, which is what I think is what the OP might be after. But, as worded, it is asking about whether actual existing studies were in fact suppressed. – PoloHoleSet Mar 31 '17 at 16:30
  • @PoloHoleSet: Wow. That's... like... about the second or third time I've seen this happen in 20 years of being "on the internet". :-D Respect, sir. – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 16:35
  • @DevSolar - glad you saw that and the not the two comments I posted (then deleted) before I stepped back and re-assessed the materials we're discussing. lol – PoloHoleSet Mar 31 '17 at 16:37
  • @PoloHoleSet: I saw them. That's why I *am* so impressed. :-D You re-assessed. Too few people do. (Actually, *I* was starting to question my own reasoning facing how adamant you were about the contrary.) – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 16:37
  • 1
    @DevSolar The unique claim is that the CDC was systematically suppressing studies which would present evidence for said link. A specific attempted study from a supposedly reputable source was named. Since studies showing the link were allegedly suppressed, their non-existence is meaningless. One side is saying that they can't publish studies due to unfair suppression, and your counter is that they have no proof because...THEY HAVE NO STUDIES! So this is a question on the ability to publish studies, not on their truth value. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 16:49
  • Of course, the question of how the CDC would suppress stuff worldwide is fair, but the implication is probably that multiple bodies do it, and they just have the recordings for the CDC specifically. This is all nonsense of course, but the question itself is fair. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 16:50
  • @KAI: OK, I admit ignorance on the fine print of US medical research. Does the CDC have any say in the *conducting* of studies as well? Because that's the only way I could see that what you are telling me would make sense in my head... (Because, if all they could do is throw their weight around regarding the publishing of results, I think my argument holds -- where are those reputedly covered-up studies? Because otherwise we're talking tinfoil hats...) – DevSolar Mar 31 '17 at 17:00
  • @DevSolar Of course its a tinfoil hat theory. But such theories are on topic for [this site](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19615/do-tinfoil-hats-protect-against-any-sort-of-radiation). I'm not arguing that the Vaxxed claim is reasonable (its not - see my response). I'm arguing that the question from the submitter is reasonable for this site. – KAI Mar 31 '17 at 17:04
  • I don't think this is an answerable question, it's just a generic, nonfactual claim. *Which* studies have supposedly been dumped? A generic accusation is smearing. – Sklivvz Apr 02 '17 at 00:18

1 Answers1

12

No.

The Nation of Islam is essentially repeating the claims made in the movie Vaxxed. This movie was made by the discredited Andrew Wakefield, author of the famous "utterly false" Lancet study on the supposed link between autism and MMR vaccines.

William Thompson himself was concerned about the presentation of data in a particular paper as discussed here. He still strong supports giving children vaccines as stated in the press release. The CDC released a statement saying that the reason the supposed vaccine/autism link was not included in the original Thompson paper was because it disappeared when the authors performed a more in depth analysis. Rather than covering this up, the CDC has made the data available, so anybody is welcome to do their own analysis if they want.

Thompson never talked to the creators of the Vaxxed movie. Rather, he had some discussions about the presentation of data with a fellow scientist - Brian Hooker. Hooker eventually published a paper pushing the autism/vaccine link in black children, but it was forcibly retracted by the journal pending an investigation due to "serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions".

Hooker recorded Thompson's conversations with him (without Thompson's knowledge). These recordings were stitched together in non-chronological ways in the movie.

The stitched together recordings created by a discredited scientist, in a movie directed by a discredited doctor, form the basis of the Nation of Islam claim. The named doctor in the claim supports vaccines in all demographics per his press release statement.

KAI
  • 1,925
  • 16
  • 16
  • perhaps the fact that Thimerosal (the source of a *mercury-containing compound*) has been discontinued for childhood vaccines since 2001, (and was not in all vaccines prior to that) should be mentioned as well. – Yorik Mar 30 '17 at 18:23
  • 2
    @Yorik - That's not really relevant to this answer. We'd also have to get into ethyl vs methyl mercury, concentrations, etc, if we wanted to cover the broader issue. – PoloHoleSet Mar 30 '17 at 18:49
  • 1
    And, frankly, that issue *has* been covered, repeatedly and at length. – Shadur Mar 31 '17 at 07:15