or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Misleading reports about autism data - Page 24  

post #461 of 586
And 1000 is really a substantial sample size for most studies. The sample size is 1000, not 10. I am not am expert on autism but I am an expert on statistics. Take any freshman statistics class at any university in the country and you will learn the same thing. I'm not sure what you would consider a large sample size, but tens of thousands really isn't necessary to get some
Legitimate results.
post #462 of 586
This Is why the issue will never be settled, no matter how many studies show there's no link people will always insist there's some small subset they just didn't detect. Im curious what proportion of autism cases you think might be caused by vaccines. 5%? 10%? 50%?
post #463 of 586
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

This Is why the issue will never be settled, no matter how many studies show there's no link people will always insist there's some small subset they just didn't detect. Im curious what proportion of autism cases you think might be caused by vaccines. 5%? 10%? 50%?

If you're an expert on statistics, you should know that studies can't "show there's no link." However, they can fail to show a link--which is very different. And they can purposely be set up to not show a link--one can easily find 1000 cancer-free heavy smokers; that doesn't show no link between smoking and cancer.

I think vaccines are just one causative factor in many cases of autism, combined with genetic and other environmental predispositions.

It's a foolish mistake to be looking for one magic bullet where there was a firing squad, but that's exactly what the studies do, and those studies are tweaked and twisted, anyway. "Look! We ruled out thimerosal in our study (by suppressing some of the evidence), therefore thimerosal causes NO HARM AT ALL! It's even good for you! Like broccoli!" "Look! We found that 90% of autistic twins are BOTH autistic, therefore autism is GENETIC!" (Never mind the likelihood of identical environment, including vaccines, combined with genetic predisposition, because we're only looking for ONE cause!). "Look! Japan removed MMR from their vaccine schedule and autism increased! That proves no link between vaccines and autism!" (Never mind that at the same time, they added other vaccines to the schedule."

If you are an expert on statistics, you should see the major flaws in the studies that purport to show safety; you should also see the conflict of interest in the industry, and the many instances of attempts to hide evidence of harm by the industry.

To fail to admit this, while posting reams of pro-vaccine propaganda, calls your motivation into question, be it professional (are you a paid Pharma-shill? Former pharmaceutical execs admit that this is standard.) or personal (do you have psychological reasons why you cannot admit a single flaw in the industry? Do your own beliefs, decisions, responsibilities, etc, come under attack here?).

You claim that parents alter the truth in their mind based on what they want to believe. It goes both ways. Parents who desperately believe in vaccines as a way to protect their child from "dread diseases" like flu, and doctors who blithely give vaccines to at-risk children who have reactions--they, too, may be altering the truth in their minds.
post #464 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Serenbat, I just really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Other stuff is wrong so don't bother?

Wrong thread AbbyGrant smile.gif

 

Rrrrrachel, we have already addressed the things you brought up *again* in your last posts. You can keep saying them if you want. Saying adjuvants are safe does not make them so. Lack of knowledge, reserach and  data does not gaurantee safety. Sorry, I don't think you are convincing anyone. would you like to go 10 more pages of "does not!" "does too!" posts? 

 

As for your last question about what percentage we feel perhaps vax has to do with autism... you really think anyone is feeling safe enough in this thread to put forth their personal ideas? You don't recognize the possibility, what's the point? What difference does it make if I think is 2% or 90%, or a small part in a huge combination of other factors? you believe it impossible. 

 

post #465 of 586
I didn't say I believe it's impossible, I said there's no science to support it. I was just curious.

I understand that you don't feel sufficient research has been done on adjuvant safety, but what I said is still objectively true.
post #466 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Ah, Beckybird…they are poo-pooing your suggestion.

 

They also did not like "let's study vaxxed versus non vaxxed populations"  or "lets delay vaccines to see if the autism rate changes".

 

I find it really surprising that the pro-vax community expect people to vaccinate when they will not give a little or look with an open mind on issues to parents.

 

 

The bolded is not at all what the pro-vax community has stated (I vax, but don't really give a damn if you or anyone else does - so I don't really know if that makes me "pro-vax" or just "vaxing").

 

What we keep saying is that studying non-vax vs. vax populations makes it too hard to control for too many variables. And a randomized double blind study is unethical. The "retrospective" studies that have been done so far don't tell us much, and certainly don't point to a connection. Could there BE a connection? There could be - but studying monkeys isn't going to get us there, and studies that are random and double blind are unethical, and retrospective studies have told us almost nothing so far.

 

I personally think looking for other causes would be a better use of time/resources. There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes. It's possible right? But by not studying other things, and beating the vax=autism horse we get nowhere) And if a parent self identifies their children as high risk for autism, they can selectively/delay vax, or not vax, if they think that will make a difference. My son is very very low risk for autism, so we don't worry about it, and so far he has no health issues (minor colds here and there, one incident of febrile seizures almost 2 years ago from a virus he caught at school, but nothing serious and he's well ahead of his peers developmentally). Other parents may choose something different - and that is their prerogative.

 

Nevermind the fact that no matter WHAT studies are done, and no matter WHAT they find (unless they find that vax=autism), the anti-vax community will not accept them, and will still try and state that they rigged it to make sure they found no link.

post #467 of 586
I haven't claimed that parents alter truth in their mind.

I don't think the industry is perfect, but I do believe in reviewing the entire body of evidence, the bulk of which seems to be pointing in one direction.

Various studies have actually rejected the link between various ingredients and autism, not just failed to find a connection but rejected that there is a connection. This is not a statistical conclusion, true, statistics can tell you theres no evidence in the data but not that evidence doesnt exist, but is sometimes the result of research. Usually because they combine the statistical findings with our theoretical knowledge of science and find a conclusion not biologically plausible.

I'm not sure why you keep consistently trying to make this conversation about me instead of the facts. I'm not that interesting.
post #468 of 586

wrong thread...sorry


Edited by AbbyGrant - 4/26/12 at 6:05am
post #469 of 586

 

Quote:
Wrong thread AbbyGrant smile.gif

 

 Sorry.  Thanks for letting me know.

post #470 of 586

okay something really weird is going in with my computer folks so I'm sorry for all the misposting

post #471 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And 1000 is really a substantial sample size for most studies. The sample size is 1000, not 10. I am not am expert on autism but I am an expert on statistics. Take any freshman statistics class at any university in the country and you will learn the same thing. I'm not sure what you would consider a large sample size, but tens of thousands really isn't necessary to get some
Legitimate results.

 

The study did not look at autism.  It did not mention autism at all.  Have you read it?  Moreover, while the base of the study was 1000 people, only about 10 of them would be expected to have autism.  Any freshman class would consider studying 10 autistic people too small a number to draw conclusions from.  

 

I have other issues with the study, but none of them relate to autism, so I will leave it at that.

 

Moreover, way back at the beginning of this thread, a few pro-vaxxers suggested that the population of non vaxxers (1/100) was too small to study.  I believe you said it as well.  1/100 out of millions of children is too small - but a study that realistically would only have about 10 autistics kids in it is a fine sample size? You cannot have it both ways. 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/26/12 at 7:47am
post #472 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes.

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

Side note....I know this was pages ago, but when I suggested comparing the unvaccinated with the vaccinated, I was referring to the animals in the experiment. Just wanted to clear that up!

post #473 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 There are known risk factors for vax reaction, and further research into something else may show an indirect connection (if _____, combined with vax (under specific circumstances = autism sometimes.

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

Side note....I know this was pages ago, but when I suggested comparing the unvaccinated with the vaccinated, I was referring to the animals in the experiment. Just wanted to clear that up!

 

I got that. The problem is, primate brains are different than human brains - in a significant way. There is no reason to believe that primates reacting to something in a vax (be it adjuvant or anti-gen) would be the same as humans.

post #474 of 586

Then pick whatever animal would be the closest. I'm interested how the injected ingredients affect the entire mammalian body. Does it cause autoimmune disorders, difference in brain development, or any other significant differences?  We test shampoo on animals, but not injected vaccine ingredients?

 

This is how we've learned about the dangers of genetically modified foods--from animals. People noticed their animals were not doing well on GM feed. Once the feed was switched, the animals recovered. (GMOs were not safety tested before they were added to our food supply, by the way.)  Humans are having health problems, some of which could be a result of GM food. How can we study the dangers of GMO? By testing on humans? Of course not, we test on animals. Animals are not humans, but if there was evidence that GMOs harmed animals, would you want to feed them to your own child?

 

If vaccine ingredients caused major problems in the test animals, I would not think they would be safe for my child or yours.

post #475 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 

 

 

What we keep saying is that studying non-vax vs. vax populations makes it too hard to control for too many variables. And a randomized double blind study is unethical. The "retrospective" studies that have been done so far don't tell us much, and certainly don't point to a connection. Could there BE a connection? There could be - but studying monkeys isn't going to get us there, and studies that are random and double blind are unethical, and retrospective studies have told us almost nothing so far.

 

You put it in nicer words, but the result is the same:  The pro vax community throwing up obstacles to exploration.

 

 

 

Nevermind the fact that no matter WHAT studies are done, and no matter WHAT they find (unless they find that vax=autism), the anti-vax community will not accept them, and will still try and state that they rigged it to make sure they found no link.

 

Maybe? 

 

I suspect there are non-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers who are so entrenched in their position that they will not move.  There is a lot at stake, a lot of frustration, distrust, etc on both sides.  

 

So…this generation of people might be a lost cause when it comes to vaccine/autism discussion.

 

Time changes things, however.  A 100 years from now people will not be sitting around discussing this.  The answer will either be solved, or people will have moved on.  

 

 

post #476 of 586
Kathy, you're no studying ten people, though, you're studying theatre of autism in all 1000 people. I thought there was a study posted that looked at the rate of autism, too, but maybe I am mistaken and it only looked at other cognitive disorders. I did not double check before I made the comment.

I think animal studies for other things vs. animal studies for autism are a little different. Animals have some things that are similar to humans, vascular systems, skin, etc, but autism is a neurological disorder (I assume) and a lot of it is about social skills, isn't it? I think our brains are the ingest way we're different from animals, so it would be extra challenging. I'm kind of talking out of my butt, though, maybe someone else knows more. Personally I think we may be able to learn something from an animal study, and vaccines have certainly been studied using animals before and we've learned useful things, with the usual caveat that someone has to have the money and the inclination to do it. If scientists don't think it will yield legitimate results for a variety of reasons about human vs animal physiology that are above my pay grade they're not going to do it.
post #477 of 586
Looks like they didn't look at autism specifically but they did look at a variety of autism related symptoms (tics, speech and language, behavior regulation, etc). Certainly not a perfect study (what study is) but I do think it has some relevance.
post #478 of 586

I know that people think autism is caused by different things for different people, so I'm not posting this study to prove anything, just because I think it was interesting.  It talks about how brains develop during the second trimester and how they think they might be developing a "time zone" for when autism develops in the womb (for some people, at least).

 

http://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/finding-the-time-zone-for-autism/

post #479 of 586

Tics were found to be higher in males in the not delayed group.  Tics are neurological is base, so that might have implications for an autism/vax discussion.

 

I don't know if that is relevant though - because, really, how many came down with tics?  It might be too small to look at.

 

OT:  but seeing as you read the study:

 

My other issues were with design.  

 

Overall, the kids vaxxed on schedule seemed to do very slightly better on cognitive tests than kids not vaxxed on schedule.

 

However, the not-on-schedule group were slightly poorer, had slightly less educated parents, had more single parents, and their delays in schedule were more caused by parents not getting around to getting the shots done - versus parents who deliberately chose to delay.

 

I do not doubt the on schedule group performed slightly better on cognitive tests overall, but I doubt it was due to vax staus, lol.

 

Back to your regularly scheduled program….

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #480 of 586
Yeah, I don't think anyone is trying to claim from that study that vaxxed kids do better cognitively.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data