so what about the primate studies? - Page 2

[Super Glue Mommy]

my main thoughts on this, aside from poor monkeys, was was this study even necessary? The CDC admits that vaccines can cause autistic like symptoms in children, so why does it matter if that happens to monkeys or not. We already know a more controlled study needs to be done - though I don't see it happening anytime soon. Or, I suspect these studies have been done but they haven't gotten the results they (pro vaxxers) are looking for yet. I agree, a 3rd party needs to do a controlled unbiased study. Though if the choices are monkeys or children, I'm not quite so opposed to monkeys. I think the whole thing is sad though. I dont need a study to know what happened to my son.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by carriebft

And I think the fact that these were never published speaks for itself. (the abstracts are from the poster presentation)

There is no reason to assume they will not be published. Publication can take 18-24 months after analysis. Poster sessions are meant to be a "heads up" to fellow researchers.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by PaigeC

There is no reason to assume they will not be published. Publication can take 18-24 months after analysis. Poster sessions are meant to be a "heads up" to fellow researchers.

Very true.

And having only 3 primates in the control group is not surprising, given the expense of primates. The typical development of the macaque is fairly well-known, and there is likely not a lot of variability. So, three would work for a comparision control group assessing typical development. More animals are needed in the treatment group - the increased variability expected with treatment is one primary reason. If an animal's data suggests that it is an outlier (e.g., it's data are outside the mean by several standard deviations), then you cannot use the data from that animal for at least that bit of data, perhaps for all the data for that animal. The control group will have much less variability and measuring more typically-developing animals will not tell you more than measuring just a few of them.

ETA - I am sure that we have had this conversation on MDC a while ago, and that I wrote that very comment (or one similar) in response to this study.

[carriebft]

Gorski claims that in order to hit stastical significance with such a small group of controls v 13, you would have to have 77% of the test subjects with the trait. This is obviously for a simple yes/no question. I would think that is something to think about. ALso, he has an extensive section dedicated to the PCR issue here and the threshold for gene expression which I thought was pretty interesting.

I don't think you will see anyone publish this though. Though I will gladly eat my words if it happens (well, unless it's some no name journal with no standards ) I do wonder, if it does get published, how they will have a space big enough to fit all the conflicts of interest/biases...omnibus litigant, married to age of autism contributor, Wakefield's involvement and his ties/past, her husband's involvement in Thoughtful House...etc. I will have to wait and see which of these is reported.

[runes]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I don't think you will see anyone publish this though. Though I will gladly eat my words if it happens (well, unless it's some no name journal with no standards ) I do wonder, if it does get published, how they will have a space big enough to fit all the conflicts of interest/biases...omnibus litigant, married to age of autism contributor, Wakefield's involvement and his ties/past, her husband's involvement in Thoughtful House...etc. I will have to wait and see which of these is reported.

How does she "benefit" from her research as compared to how pharma researchers benefit?

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Gorski claims that in order to hit stastical significance with such a small group of controls v 13, you would have to have 77% of the test subjects with the trait. This is obviously for a simple yes/no question. I would think that is something to think about. ALso, he has an extensive section dedicated to the PCR issue here and the threshold for gene expression which I thought was pretty interesting.

I don't think you will see anyone publish this though. Though I will gladly eat my words if it happens (well, unless it's some no name journal with no standards ) I do wonder, if it does get published, how they will have a space big enough to fit all the conflicts of interest/biases...omnibus litigant, married to age of autism contributor, Wakefield's involvement and his ties/past, her husband's involvement in Thoughtful House...etc. I will have to wait and see which of these is reported.

do you apply these same type of questions to the "studies" (if you can even call it that, as sloppy as they are!) performed by the CDC?