Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure - Page 2

[Rrrrrachel]

Uh, yeah, like I said, it's an excellent first line of defense.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.

And she almost always publishes in "Entropy" which is a journal on entropy and information studies. Not sure how good the peer review for immunology would be..... The article seems to have some pretty loose citing of "well known" facts about aluminium, mercury and vaccines. 

 So potentially interesting I suppose, but not very convincing by itself. 

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

And she almost always publishes in "Entropy" which is a journal on entropy and information studies. Not sure how good the peer review for immunology would be..... The article seems to have some pretty loose citing of "well known" facts about aluminium, mercury and vaccines. 

 So potentially interesting I suppose, but not very convincing by itself. 

Maybe, maybe not - instead of insinuating and attempting to undermine the credibility of the study, why not just prove her wrong or not ... and put the matter to rest.

[MamaMunchkin]

Also, on "Entropy" - the study is based on data mining VAERS among other things - as Rachel pointed out.   This is correct.

Rachel also pointed out that doing so is by no mean sufficient to conclude whether or not X causes Y - this is also correct.

However, this does - not - mean all studies based on VAERS data are meaningless.

One does - not - jump from findings based on VAERS alone to vaccine safety or not.  There are other hoops - which I'm glad there are.  There a are health records from (see Vaccine Safety Datalink - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html) which can be studied to see if there are any patterns - yet another datamining here.

And if warranted for further studies (see priority studies in VSD), then experiments with labs, people, mice, epidemiological studies etc might be conducted.

The problem is ... it takes time from a pattern being noticed from datamining etc to studies that will prove/disprove it otherwise - we're talking years here, not months, not weeks - as it should be I might add.  In the mean time, parents have to make vax decision, well, pretty much now.  Or, rather, in a time period - much - shorter than it'll take to have the last word established ... this complicates the matter for some of us.

[Rrrrrachel]

Many of those other steps you describe have already been taken for the safety concerns addressed in this study.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Many of those other steps you describe have already been taken for the safety concerns addressed in this study.

Of course they have been - as they should - this is nothing new.  It does - not - mean the process stops.  CDC, FDA, and other scientists have the responsibilities to - keep - monitoring the data.  The studies continue.  None of these implies that the study cited in this thread is useless.

To recap:

- you dismissed this study right off the bat, because it's based on VAERS data

- I pointed out that VAERS data is and has been used as an important tool in the process of vaccine safety study

Now, I can't tell whether you agreed with this or not.  However, assuming, you did

- you then said, well, yeah, the study is no good because finding based on VAERS is data is not enough

- I said, of course it's not sufficient - other studies are needed

I don't know whether you agreed or not with this.  However assuming you did

- you then said, yeah, but those studies have been done ...

- and I'm saying, of course, there has been studies but ... what's wrong with more studies?

It'd be interesting if they can check her findings using other data, perhaps the health records that VSD uses ... if you have a source/link on this, or anyone else ... I'd love to see this ...

Anyway, I'm keeping an open mind.

Edited by MamaMunchkin - 11/15/12 at 9:23am

[MamaMunchkin]

double post

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm dismissing this study because the authors have drawn conclusions and made assumptions that are completely unfounded based on the nature of their study.

[MamaMunchkin]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm dismissing this study because the authors have drawn conclusions and made assumptions that are completely unfounded based on the nature of their study.

I think we have to agree to disagree.  It'd be interesting if we can invite her to MDC and talk about this particular work ... admins?

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin 

So, if I understand you ... studies based on VAERS data should - not - be taken seriously?  

I take them seriously, since I automatically assume that there's many adverse reactions that are NOT being reported.

I'll never forget how Hannah Poling's mother Teri (who used to be a nurse) admitted in a press conference about her daughter's autism/vaccine case that she didn't even know about VAERS (and I'll guess that neither did her husband, who is a doctor?):

Family of Girl in Autism Vaccine Case Holds News Conference

Quote:

It is my understanding that although Hannah came in and was diagnosed with a post-vaccine varicella reaction, which is a Chickenpox rash, with all my other complaints, they did not report this to VAERS. I didn't even know what VAERS was and I'm a nurse.

[Rrrrrachel]

There is a lot of under reporting AND a lot of overreporting to vaers. It's very problematic as a data set. Which is exactly why you have to be very careful about what kind of conclusions you draw from it.

[Chicharronita]

I'm leery of any claims about supposed vaccine safety.

[Rrrrrachel]

Well at least you put your bias right up front!

[Chicharronita]

Yes I'm biased in favor of health without unnecessary pharmaceutical interventions. 

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm dismissing this study because the authors have drawn conclusions and made assumptions that are completely unfounded based on the nature of their study.

But you accept--and post--every pharma-funded study as unassailable...hmmm....

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't post any study as unassailable.

What's the funding for this study, Taxi?

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

So what's the funding for this study?

According to the Acknowledgements, partly by the Quanta Computer company.

It has over 120 references; it piques my interest. Hopefully I'll be able to read the whole thing soon. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Yes I'm biased in favor of health without unnecessary pharmaceutical interventions. 

Me too! Guess the difference is the definition of what's unnecessary.

[DontFenceMeIN]

Thanks for the good discussion.  Doing research on this article is what brought me here.  Maybe I'll stay, because it's refreshing to hear good debate without anyone staging a big dramatic "goodbye cruel forum" exit thread.  I have a school-age child with autism.  We did not see a link between the regression and any vaccines for some reasons I won't get into.  But like so many other parents, I'm always looking for answers.  Anyway, thanks for the great points. 
 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by DontFenceMeIN 

Thanks for the good discussion.  Doing research on this article is what brought me here.  Maybe I'll stay, because it's refreshing to hear good debate without anyone staging a big dramatic "goodbye cruel forum" exit thread.  I have a school-age child with autism.  We did not see a link between the regression and any vaccines for some reasons I won't get into.  But like so many other parents, I'm always looking for answers.  Anyway, thanks for the great points. 
 

People do leave in a huff - but not that often.  Some come back.

Here is a link for you on a recent autims debate.  There is some good stuff in it. 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1356520/formal-debate-thread-vaccinated-children-are-more-likely-to-have-autism-than-unvaccinated-children