All, or nearly all, of the studies that the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies (such as the CDC, FDA and NIH), many doctors, and almost all of the mainstream (“corporate”) media point to support their position that there is no causal connection (or even link) between vaccines and a wide variety of diseases and disorders such as autism, for example, are “epidemiological studies.”
“The advantage of doing epidemiological studies is that you can make it tell you anything you want it to… the weakest type of study is epidemiologic studies. Every government study is an epidemiologic study. That’s what they did with mercury and vaccines… they did massive epidemiologic studies in which they controlled all the factors so they could come back and say, well we studied 335,000 children, and we found no connection between the vaccine or thimerosal and the autism disorder. And then when people that were experts in statistics looked at the articles and said, well you know, you designed this study so it would fail. Well, that never gets into the media.
What gets into the media is the original story… the Institute of Medicine says huge studies show there’s no connection between vaccines and autism, and that no further study should be done. That was the shocker… when the Institute of Medicine said no further studies ever need to be done. Now there is nothing in science, in particular medical science, in which you would ever make such a stupid statement. Nothing is ever settled. Everything can change later as we learn more, as our methods of research improve. It can change, so that then you find, well, we were wrong 20 years ago. But for the first time they come out and say no further money needs to be spent on this, we don’t need to look at it anymore. And I hear that quoted constantly.”
— Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon
“[Epidemiological studies produce] hypotheses or thoughts that can generate a study going forward. But without doing the proper study, a prospective study, you cannot look at epidemiological studies as evidence that a particular way of doing something, or a particular treatment, is better or worse. It’s an interesting idea, but does not carry sufficient scientific strength for us to make a conclusion. And so if someone is making a recommendation to you based on an epidemiological study, it’s interesting, it’s not conclusive, it can be wrong just as well as it can be right.
And, in fact, we see this in the news all the time. Somebody will say that red wine is good for you, then someone will say that red wine is not good for you. Vitamin E is good, Vitamin E is not good. The problem is that in most cases, these are based on epidemiological studies, and they often lead to conflicting results, because they’re not well studied and not studied properly. With that information, keep it in mind that if you’re trying to decide what to do, don’t use an epidemiological study to help guide your decision process.”
— Dr. Gerald Chodak, urologist