14 studies website read along (SPIN OFF)... - Page 4

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by MissRubyandKen

So, the basis for this study is to take 25 children with autism and prove the MMR has no association with autism by showing that only 5 of the 25 recruited cases had GI problems and autism onset after the MMR vaccination, correct?

I just reread what you wrote. Sorry, I'm surrounded by clients and employees who are asking me a gazillion questions today. The study was supposedly set up to see if there was any relationship between MMR and autism with serious gut issues. There are thousands of children in the Omnibus alone and they can only come up with 25 children. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that cherry-picking.

There are numerous flaws with this study but the most blatant is they only had 25 total to prove MMR not involved. Of those, only a small percentage had anything to do with what they were looking for.

[Deborah]

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/a...f-the-dsm.html

just wanted to pop this in. Slightly OT, but all of these physically sick children, with doctors who will not pay attention to their symptoms because they are "autistic"--this is just insane!

This is what is sitting behind the study we are looking at. Lots and lots of sick children who are not being treated appropriately.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Deborah

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/a...f-the-dsm.html

just wanted to pop this in. Slightly OT, but all of these physically sick children, with doctors who will not pay attention to their symptoms because they are "autistic"--this is just insane!

This is what is sitting behind the study we are looking at. Lots and lots of sick children who are not being treated appropriately.

EXACTLY!!! This is the point I make all the time. This is also why this study is misleading on many fronts. I think the autism dx was created as a catch-all to prevent real investigation and understanding. They do this all the time with the DSM. ADHD is another one. This way they don't have to deal with truly, physically ill people. They can just label them with a mental health condition and everything they say or do is just a symptom of their emotional and psychological condition.

It's like that young girl who become paralyzed after the Gardasil shot, and they said she was just emotional because she was being bullied at school, as if she was pretending to be paralyzed.

How many children are walking around out there who have real physical conditions that need treatment that are being chalked up to "learning disabilities" or "ADHD" or "autism" or "depression" or "bipolar" or "oppositional defiance" or even "schizophrenia?"

[Deborah]

Okay, we'll be starting on the next MMR study pretty soon, and I want to give any defenders of this study a chance to respond to all the points being raised before we move on.

I'd also like to ask if there is anyone who could go through the thread, pick up the main arguments on both sides and create a summary statement. This is a way to get around one of the disadvantages of the thread format, which is the scattering of valuable information. But it does involve some work. Unfortunately, I can't possibly manage the time right now because I am moving in a couple of weeks.

So thanks in advance!

[Deborah]

No further responses from the defenders of this study?

The end point seems to be that the study only looked at 5 children who actually match the question: had MMR, got sick with digestive problems, have autism and of those 5 one has measles virus from the vaccine in the gut--so it doesn't look like this study really proves the MMR to be safe for all children, nor does it prove that the MMR is never connected to autism, nor does it prove that no child ever ends up with lingering measles virus from the vaccine.

(for complete quote and source see post #6)

The authors write, “This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV (measles virus) RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure.

I'd say this study was way overhyped.

I'll start a thread for the next study on the MMR list. Sharpen your pens, ladies and gentlemen!

[Deborah]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

It's on the 14 studies website under "our studies". First paper under #7. This paper has been retracted by 10 of the 13 authors. Notice that the 14 studies website fails to mention that this paper isn't even credible with the majority of its authors. Interesting since that credibility was such an important part of the ranking of the "fourteen studies". This paper fails on "conflict of interest", "ability to generalize", and "post-publication criticism".

gr8blessings

I wanted to clear this up. I finally (with the help of a friend) had time to find the information and get it organized. Here is the low down:

The paper was not retracted. The conclusions were not retracted by any of the authors or the journal. 10 authors only retracted an interpretation for political reasons as they outline clearly in their retraction. They also re-iterated a conclusion that was already published in the study.

Why did you incorrectly imply that the authors did not stand behind their science? That is very misleading.

quoting from the statement published by the authors:

The main thrust of this paper1 was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings.

and here is the retraction:

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.

It isn't the paper they are retracting. It is the "interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper"

Now, I know their statement has been widely described as totally retracting the entire study, but this is obviously untrue. The original study of the 12 children was a perfectly decent example of a case series study. The controversy arose because of the temporal link to the MMR vaccine. All of the pro-vax studies since then and all of the brouhaha are attempts to sever this temporal link and prove that no child's autism could ever be causally tied to receiving the MMR.

By the way, it is okay to quote snippets from studies and articles online. If it is under 100 words there will not be a copyright violation. An example of a copyright violation would be quoting from an unpublished piece (a private e-mail for instance) without the clear and express permission of the original author.

So you could have quoted up to 100 words from the retraction if you had wanted to.

Wanted to add that I've addressed the "conflict of interest" problem in some other posts. A case series study, by definition, cannot be used to generalize and Wakefield and his co-authors weren't trying to generalize. They were raising a legitimate concern, based on the very ill children they were seeing at the Royal Free. Finally, post-publication criticism? LOL.

[Scattershoot]

I wanted to clear this up. I finally (with the help of a friend) had time to find the information and get it organized. Here is the low down:

The paper was not retracted. The conclusions were not retracted by any of the authors or the journal. 10 authors only retracted an interpretation for political reasons as they outline clearly in their retraction. They also re-iterated a conclusion that was already published in the study.

This bears repeating. The retraction of the authors gets brought up repeatedly within the medical community. The study was NOT RETRACTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The authors only reminded everyone that they DID NOT FIND A LINK. They were put under tremendous pressure within the medical community for falling MMR rates and told who knows what behind the scenes.

The GMC hearing, which has done everything it could to attack Wakefield, would have had this first on the docket if the study were fake/false/lies/etc.