or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Safety of Infant Vaccine Schedule Affirmed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Safety of Infant Vaccine Schedule Affirmed

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Vaccines/20249

Thoughts? I find the title quite misleading, even if the study is accurate- just because there may be no neurological delays certainly doesn't affirm "safety" of the vaccines.
Also, am I reading it right that Smith and Woods receives funding from vaccine manufacturers?
post #2 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlec View Post
Also, am I reading it right that Smith and Woods receives funding from vaccine manufacturers?
That's what it looks like to me...either they or their colleagues running the studies have.
post #3 of 38
In this study, children on the spectrum were exluded.
From the abstract
Quote:
Finally, our analyses were limited to publicly available data from the original study. Future VSD studies without this restriction would be able to assess a wider range of outcomes. These include putative vaccine adverse effects such as neurodevelopmental delay, autism, and autoimmune disorders.
So these things were not studied, so, it proves NOTHING - It's all spin
post #4 of 38
I read the study quickly last night.

Two words: Bonferroni adjustment.
post #5 of 38
I read it and I think Hilary Butler said it best: It was an answer searching for a method.
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
In this study, children on the spectrum were exluded.
From the abstract


So these things were not studied, so, it proves NOTHING - It's all spin
It was looking to see whether there was a neurological difference between full vaxed and selective/delayed vaxed. That was merely a suggestion for further studies. Just because it doesn't prove EVERYTHING doesn't mean that it proved NOTHING.
post #7 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post
I read the study quickly last night.

Two words: Bonferroni adjustment.
I googled Bonferroni adjustment. I still don't get it. What's sad is that it's probably something kids learn in high school and I'm sitting here like
post #8 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
It was looking to see whether there was a neurological difference between full vaxed and selective/delayed vaxed. That was merely a suggestion for further studies. Just because it doesn't prove EVERYTHING doesn't mean that it proved NOTHING.

It doesn't prove what they are trying to spin that it proves
post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
I googled Bonferroni adjustment. I still don't get it. What's sad is that it's probably something kids learn in high school and I'm sitting here like
No, sorry. It's a statistical term that one would not learn until, probably, a college-level stats class.

Basically, it means that when you run a lot of tests (like the 42+ they ran), you have to adjust the p-value to account for that. The p-value is typically set at .05, which means that for something (a difference between the 2 groups) to be accepted as statistically significant, the probability of that difference being due to chance is less than 5 in 100. Well, if you run 42+ tests, SOMEthing will come up significant, just because you've run that many tests. (and, with a p-value of .05, 5 tests out of 100 would come up significant, just due to chance). So, a Bonferroni adjustment, you divide the p-value by the number of tests you run.

.05/42 = .0011

None of their results would be significant if they had done a Bonferroni adjustment.

A good peer review should have stopped that paper right there. We make our undergraduate honors candidates use Bonferroni adjustments when they run more than 4 or 5 tests!

Although one might argue that it would still be publishable withOUT finding any differences between the lesser vaxed group and the most vaxed group, as this is the type of finding that the CDC would use as "evidence" that vaccines are "safe."

As the study stands now, the 2 groups - lesser-vaxed and more vaxed - were different on SES and mother's education (favoring the more vaxed group), and the differences on the neuropsy tests that favored the vaxed group all but disappeared when they statistically accounted for SES and income. The ONE difference that is left is the one they should not have accepted had they done a Bonferroni adjustment.

HOWEVER, the fact that the lesser-vaxed group had lower SES and lower mother's education means that it is NOT a good comparison group to the lesser-vaxed children of today. (not sure whether someone may have already said this up-thread)
post #10 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
I read it and I think Hilary Butler said it best: It was an answer searching for a method.
love this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
It doesn't prove what they are trying to spin that it proves
The headlines about this study are spinning it in the very direction that the CDC is probably very happy about.

ETA - and the majority of the lesser-vaxed group received all the scheduled vaxes by 12 months of age, they just didn't get them all in the first 6 months.

The lesser-vaxed group had 6 or fewer vaxes in the first 6 months of life. The on-time vaxed group had 7 or more vaxes in their first 6 mos.
post #11 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASusan View Post
None of their results would be significant if they had done a Bonferroni adjustment.
I think that's their point, yes? No difference between the early-full-vax and delayed-vax groups.

Quote:
Although one might argue that it would still be publishable withOUT finding any differences between the lesser vaxed group and the most vaxed group, as this is the type of finding that the CDC would use as "evidence" that vaccines are "safe."
Right. They didn't even bother discussing the two measures in which full-vax outperformed delayed-vax (NEPSY speeded naming and WAIS) in their conclusions section, because the effect is small, probably a statistical burp, and not central to the authors' point, which is no *adverse neurological outcomes* associated with early full vax.

I'm curious as to why you say this study doesn't count as evidence?

Quote:
HOWEVER, the fact that the lesser-vaxed group had lower SES and lower mother's education means that it is NOT a good comparison group to the lesser-vaxed children of today. (not sure whether someone may have already said this up-thread)
But they adjusted for SES, etc... so their results don't depend on that. I'm not clear on the concern here.
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyrestorm View Post
In this study, children on the spectrum were exluded.
From the abstract


So these things were not studied, so, it proves NOTHING - It's all spin


I looked, and cannot find where you pulled your quote from. Can you please link me, if possible?
post #13 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post
I looked, and cannot find where you pulled your quote from. Can you please link me, if possible?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2009-2489v1
page 8, center column, towards the bottom.
post #14 of 38
So... infants vaccinated over a decade ago, on a different schedule, is relevant how?
post #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katerz2u View Post
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ds.2009-2489v1
page 8, center column, towards the bottom.
Thanks!!
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post
So... infants vaccinated over a decade ago, on a different schedule, is relevant how?
Because they're still part of the current vax recommendations. So if people are worried about vaxes causing neurological disorders they can cross these off their lists. Much fewer to investigate. And it's over a decade ago because they're trying to look at the long(er) term results. Most people want to see more vax studies include long-term results.
post #17 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Because they're still part of the current vax recommendations. So if people are worried about vaxes causing neurological disorders they can cross these off their lists. Much fewer to investigate. And it's over a decade ago because they're trying to look at the long(er) term results. Most people want to see more vax studies include long-term results.
And according to media doctor Dean Edell, an ophthamologist, those studies will never be done, because they take too long.

He has said that for the past 30 years and I suppose he is right.
post #18 of 38
But... they didn't compare vax to unvaxed, they compared tons of vaxes to slightly less vaxes... Not that big of a difference, so... whats the point?

Coures, thats been my issue with most/all vax 'safety studies' the whole time: they never compare vax to a TRUE placebo (saline), the compare one vax to another vax!!
post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamadelbosque View Post
But... they didn't compare vax to unvaxed, they compared tons of vaxes to slightly less vaxes... Not that big of a difference, so... whats the point?

Coures, thats been my issue with most/all vax 'safety studies' the whole time: they never compare vax to a TRUE placebo (saline), the compare one vax to another vax!!
All vaccine studies are like that. Don't be so surprised. Vaccine manufacturers do not want any studies to be done to compare vaxed and nonvaxed. Too risky for the old bottom line!
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by caned & able View Post
And according to media doctor Dean Edell, an ophthamologist, those studies will never be done, because they take too long.

He has said that for the past 30 years and I suppose he is right.
You're kidding, right? In the past 30 years, they could have been conducting a well-designed longitudinal study.... Wow.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Safety of Infant Vaccine Schedule Affirmed