Ah, so your bias caused you to intentionally quote only the portion of the statement you believed in. Which is the ‘lie’ in the 2004 report. The data was excluded as it appeared to be corrupted by a small sample and an over sample of those vaccinated in order to attend early start preschool who had autism.
But then if you subscribe to the entire coverup theory, then if you aren’t talking about an black male child, then the MMR is clearly demonstrated as to be unrelated to autism. Or are you going to cherry pick that too?
Be consistent. If you’re going to say that study with the omitted data included indicates that there is a more that 300 percent increase in autism amoung black male children, then you also have to include the zero percent increase in all other demographics.
No, I quoted the important part.
He lied. On paper. In an official CDC publication. An important publication. We’re not talking the effects of tertiary cigarette smoking on the field mouse population.
Anything else he says is suspect.
His religious belief in vaccination matters not. He’s no different than the climate ‘scientists’ who cheered on ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ and ‘hide the decline’.
I don’t have to subscribe to the ‘coverup theory’. He ADMITTED to the coverup. There’s no ‘theory’ there. It’s a coverup FACT.
What else have they covered up? Hmmm?
That’s just the data he personally admitted excluding. We have no idea about any OTHER data. If he felt compelled to eliminate one data set, do you think he was the only author? Who knows?
We know now that there is a policy of excluding data to meet ‘policy’ expectations. Any other paper by this author, or on this subject, from the CDC is suspect. Good luck with any FOIA on that though.