What weight do you give to anecdotes wrt vaccines? - Page 4

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

We don't have mountains of evidence either way, but we don't know nothing, either. We have science that gives us information about safety of the various ingredients, as well as epidemiological data. I think everyone who chooses to vaccinate makes the decision despite some amount of uncertainty.

yes, and sometimes science gives us information causes serious doubts about the safety of various ingredients.

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1352498/thimerosal-studies

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1352538/aluminum-studies

All vax doubts are not just based off of anecdotes.

[Rrrrrachel]

I never said they were.

Te statistical significance of the relationships studied by simpsonwood were dubious at best. I don't have it in front of me but only like one thing of the several they looked at was significant and that was borderline. It's an interesting preliminary result but that's about it.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I never said they were.
Te statistical significance of the relationships studied by simpsonwood were dubious at best. I don't have it in front of me but only like one thing of the several they looked at was significant and that was borderline. It's an interesting preliminary result but that's about it.

Ok, so I guess the Vaccine Safety Datalink researchers hired to study this do not understand statistics as well as you do. The only graphs I have ever seen in relationship to this were those I posted in the Autism thread, which was a draft copy done months before the actual meeting. When Thomas Verstraeten is saying "statistically significant" I am taking that at face value, since the slides and info he speaks of at the presentation is not available, or at least, I have never seen/found it.

[Rrrrrachel]

The slides are at the end of the transcript. If you read the transcript they talk about most of those relationships being not significant and the ones that are are marginally so. They also talk extensively about different reasons for it. There's a reason why they talked about it for two days and several hundred pages of transcripts, it wasn't clear cut by a long shot.

[slmommy]

The version I'm looking at has graphs attached at the end which look like the graphs from the draft copy from months/year prior, (it says DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL and feb/march 2000 at the bottom), I have also seen/linked to that document separately. I'm not sure that that is what is really being referenced in the transcript. I have read other places that those slides were never made available. 

I do remember reading that some outcomes were not significant because the sample size was not large enough.... do I have to do more quote-mining to show Verstraeten saying "statistically significant"???

Anyway, simpsonwood isn't really on topic for this thread.

Edited by slmommy - 5/19/12 at 11:41am

[Rrrrrachel]

He said one relationship was statistically significant, yes, not that they all were. Then they discussed various reasons why it might be showing up as significant.

I think those graphs are the same as the ones referred to by how they are described. They are graphs of the same data.

[One_Girl]

I voted none. I had two personal first hand encounters and read about the research pointing to higher autism rates in unvaccinated kids and that influenced my decision to vaccinate but I gave no weight to anecdotal stories about other people random friends hear about through the grape vine.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by One_Girl 

I voted none. I had two personal first hand encounters and read about the research pointing to higher autism rates in unvaccinated kids and that influenced my decision to vaccinate but I gave no weight to anecdotal stories about other people random friends hear about through the grape vine.

What research points to higher autism rates in unvaxed kids? 

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

He said one relationship was statistically significant, yes, not that they all were. Then they discussed various reasons why it might be showing up as significant.
I think those graphs are the same as the ones referred to by how they are described. They are graphs of the same data.

Quote:

we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.”

Quote:

Dr. Guess, pg. 77: "So this essentially is a 7% risk per antigen, an antigen is like in DPT you've got three antigens."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "Correct."

Dr. Egan, pg. 77: "Could you do this calculation for aluminum?"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "I did it for aluminum…Actually the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one."

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

[Rrrrrachel]

I already explained that.

[slmommy]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I already explained that.

which part, aluminum/mercury/antigen? that just means, to me, that taking thimerosal out of vax was NOT the magic answer.

[One_Girl]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

What research points to higher autism rates in unvaxed kids? 

It was a study I heard about on NPR when my dd was younger. I believe it was out of England and it they had a large sample group for a study. They found that autism rates were slightly higher in kids who weren't vaccinated and recommended further research. I can't do a thorough search for a link that old on my phone but someday if I am really bored I might try to look for it.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by One_Girl 


It was a study I heard about on NPR when my dd was younger. I believe it was out of England and it they had a large sample group for a study. They found that autism rates were slightly higher in kids who weren't vaccinated and recommended further research. I can't do a thorough search for a link that old on my phone but someday if I am really bored I might try to look for it.

If this is true - I wonder if it might be because people who believe their children are genetically susceptible to autism might be more inclined to not vax?  Someone with autism in their family is more likely to develop autism, period.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Or the first child gets autism so they choose not to vaccinate the rest o their children, who are more likely to be autistic because of genetics. There are several studies that have gown the same thing (including generation rescues phone survey) but its generally considered a fluke and a lack of proper control.

[LitMom]

General anecdotes don't tend to sway me, but things that are genetically more likely-- genetic-family-member reacted to the same vax my kid did. We had delayed it knowing that, and first dose went off without a hitch. Second triggered hives. Not doing the third one!