New website that dissects autism/vaccine studies

[Ophelia]

In case you haven't seen it yet and are interested:

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/index.html

I highly recommend browsing around the site.

[Sileree]

Awesome thanks!

[emma1325]

bookmarked.

Thank you!

[Harmony08]

Awesome site! Thanks for sharing!

[yd66]

#
# No studies have ever considered unvaccinated children to compare their autism rates to those who receive vaccines.

i have heard the opposite of above line parroted on youtube vaccine video discussions and other places, people insist that there is no difference between children with autism among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. who is right?

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by yd66

#
# No studies have ever considered unvaccinated children to compare their autism rates to those who receive vaccines.

i have heard the opposite of above line parroted on youtube vaccine video discussions and other places, people insist that there is no difference between children with autism among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. who is right?

There has not been a study of unvaccinated children vs. vaccinated. Doctors consider it to be "unethical" to withhold vaccines from the unvaccinated group, so no research.

[Romana]

Originally Posted by yd66

#
# No studies have ever considered unvaccinated children to compare their autism rates to those who receive vaccines.

i have heard the opposite of above line parroted on youtube vaccine video discussions and other places, people insist that there is no difference between children with autism among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. who is right?

There are no vaccine safety studies conducted on vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The reason for this is that it would be unethical NOT to vaccinate a child. You cannot randomly assign a child to a vax or non-vax group because not getting the vaccine is withholding vital medical care and unethical. (This is the explanation of why it isn't done.)

Looking at vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations and trying to see who has higher rates of autism is different from doing a double-blind, controlled study on children who actually are and are not vaccinated. The latter might yield helpful information. The former is rather speculative. There is one study that was done using vaccinated and unvaccinated populations by some green-type group - can't remember the name - and it showed significantly lower rates of autism in the unvaccinated group. However, because it was just a retrospective analysis of data on two populations, and the group is one that has concerns about mass vaccination, the results were written off as unreliable.

ETA: It was Generation Rescue that published that study.

[honeybunch2k8]

Thanks!!!

[Gitti]

I like it and will post it every so often.

[Deborah]

I was going to recommend this, but I was way too slow!

Thanks for putting it up.

[newmum35]

Incredible. Love it

[Deborah]

Anyone want to discuss one of the actual studies? Could be fun.

How about this one: http://www.fourteenstudies.org/pdf/HG_10.pdf

the actual study starts about half way down the 2nd page with this statement:

Concern has been expressed over the possibility
that the mercury-containing compound thimerosal
in vaccines may cause autism.1–4
Thimerosal is sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, an
organic compound of ethyl mercury, included in
certain vaccines to protect multiple dose ampules
from bacterial and fungal contamination. Mercury in
sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more
toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask
whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases
risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and
specifically of autism. The available data with which
to address the question are very limited and largely
inferential.

[Deborah]

And here is the evaluation from the 14 studies web-site:

This isn't a study at all, but rather a review of other studies and some opinions rendered from two scientists. It is helpful, however, in explaining how neurotoxic mercury really is.

Actual Question This Study Asked & Answered:

Q: Are Thimerosal and autism related, according to other studies?

A: No.

Did the study look at unvaccinated children?

No.

Conflict of Interest (from the study itself):

Lead author works at a government agency, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Ability to Generalize:

None. It’s not a study, it’s a review.

[Dera]

I like the site, too. She mentions that DTP is on the current schedule as opposed to DTaP. Is there a way to contact with the correction?

ETA: I contacted them through Generation Rescue.

[gr8blessings]

Originally Posted by Deborah

Anyone want to discuss one of the actual studies? Could be fun.

There is a discussion of several of the studies and the website in general in this blog post:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=451


gr8blessings

[Deborah]

Thanks for the link.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

There is a discussion of several of the studies and the website in general in this blog post:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=451


gr8blessings

Yeah, I saw that. Too bad I couldn't get past the first three, long-winded paragraphs of the logical fallacy of: Appealing to Ridicule.

I did find this a little comical:

Unfortunately, here at SBM can’t afford to spend the hundreds of hours that Generation Rescue spent on this website in order to counter the misinformation there. We do not have the time, nor do we have the money to pay someone to do it, as Generation Rescue apparently does.

He could have used the real estate and brainwaves he used for ad hominem to do just that.

[nwmamas]

Ditto the ad hominem. The tone was so...hateful....that I just couldn't get through the discussion of the studies in a critical way.

[Deborah]

Some people substitute abuse for discussion and then wonder why people fail to find their arguments convincing.

Gr8blessings, couldn't you find something with a bit more depth? That doesn't seem to be convincing anyone.

[yd66]

has anyone actually read that whole article in response to the 14 studies page? are any of the criticisms/comments valid?