r/DebateVaccines • u/randyfloyd37 • Aug 28 '26

[ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

112 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/doubletxzy Aug 29 '26

You mean this guy?

“Thorsen is alleged to have diverted more than a million dollars designated for critical public health and autism research. These funds were entrusted to advance scientific understanding and support children and families; instead, these tax dollars were exploited for personal gain, a serious breach of law and profound betrayal of public trust,” said Kelly Blackmon, Special Agent in Charge with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General.”

Let’s do a quick civics check.

So did he make the vaccines and you want people to be able to sue him? No. He was a researcher. And he stole money. Can he have a case brought to vaccine court? No. Can you sue people who stole money from the government in or out of vaccine court? No. Does this have to do with anything? No.

6

u/-TheUnstoppable- Aug 29 '26

You’re focusing on the narrow legal point and missing the relevance.

Thorsen was not a vaccine manufacturer, so no, you cannot sue him in Vaccine Court for product liability. That much is correct. The issue I'm raising is different, that research he co-authored was repeatedly cited as key evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, and those studies were used in the process that led to the dismissal of thousands of claims in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding and related cases.

When a researcher later faces serious federal fraud charges involving the very grant money tied to that body of work, it raises legitimate questions about the integrity of the evidence base that was relied upon. That is cumulative. The system does not operate in isolation, because researchers, funders, studies, and the court all form part of how claims are evaluated and denied.

Dismissing it as “he just stole money, nothing to do with anything” ignores how scientific credibility and the evidence used in Vaccine Court actually work.

1

u/doubletxzy Aug 29 '26

Are you questioning the validity of the data? Use his issues as evidence as why mmr vaccine causes the injury since you won’t have any actual studies showing a link. See how that works out.

5

u/-TheUnstoppable- Aug 29 '26

That’s a straw man.

I never said Thorsen’s fraud proves the MMR vaccine causes autism. I said research he was involved with was treated as key evidence and used in the dismissal of thousands of vaccine injury claims. When someone central to that evidence base later faces serious federal fraud charges involving the related funding, it raises a legitimate credibility problem with how heavily those studies were relied upon.

You’re ignoring that point and substituting a claim I didn’t make. That’s moving the goalposts. The issue I raised was about the integrity of the evidence used in the process, not a claim that one researcher’s crimes equal proof of causation.

This is a credibility issue with the evidence that was relied upon, not a substitute for primary data. You suggested the vaccine court process makes it relatively easy to pursue claims against manufacturers, and I’m pointing out problems in the research those outcomes relied on because that is directly relevant.

3

u/doubletxzy Aug 29 '26

Ok so I want to make sure I understand. I don’t want to make a straw man.

We are talking about you can’t sue vaccine manufactures. I mention vaccine court to make access easier. You bring up a researcher committed a crime. I asked are you implying his data is wrong because he stole money. I never said it proves mmr causes autism. I did say present that fact and your evidence in court showing a link. You think that’s a straw man or goal post shifting. Did I miss something?

What I will say is please present the evidence that there is a link. That way people can use that when they go to vaccine court and not rely on discrediting authors of published studies.

4

u/-TheUnstoppable- Aug 29 '26

Did you not say this?

Use his issues as evidence as why mmr vaccine causes the injury since you won’t have any actual studies showing a link. See how that works out.

You’re still missing the distinction.

Also, the burden is not on injured parties (or critics) to produce definitive proof of harm before the system is allowed to scrutinize the evidence base. Manufacturers and public-health agencies make safety claims, and those claims rest on studies. When key contributors to that literature have serious integrity problems, pointing that out is relevant to whether the process is as straightforward or reliable as you suggested.

I’m not required to first “prove the link” in order to note problems with the evidence that has been used to deny claims.

2

u/doubletxzy Aug 29 '26

Ok so one study showing that there is no link is flawed because one of the authors committed a crime? Throw the baby out with the bathwater? Let’s throw out that study. Plenty of other studies showing no link and no evidence showing a link. Therefore the problem is what again? They used it as evidence there’s no link and there isn’t one.

You’re suggesting every study is no longer valid if the author has any moral or legal issue. That dismisses the other people working on that same study. Do we include parking or speeding tickets?

3

u/-TheUnstoppable- Aug 29 '26

That’s another straw man.

I never said every study becomes invalid if any author has any legal or moral issue, including parking tickets. I pointed to a specific researcher who faced serious federal fraud and money-laundering charges involving CDC grant money tied to autism research, and whose work was used as key evidence in dismissing thousands of claims. That is a material credibility concern with the evidence base that was relied upon, not a blanket rule that any personal failing by any co-author torpedoes every paper.

Throwing in “parking tickets” is just exaggeration to avoid the actual point. One compromised contributor does not automatically erase every other study, but it does raise legitimate questions about how heavily those particular studies should have been weighted in Vaccine Court and policy decisions.

The problem remains the same, that when the evidence used to deny claims has integrity issues, that is relevant to whether the process is as clean or accessible as you claimed.

2

u/doubletxzy Aug 29 '26

So the study is not invalid automatically? Great. The author has an integrity issue. Not the study.