New Posts  All Forums:
 

Interesting new study

post #1 of 20
12/3/12 at 7:17am
Thread Starter 
Sorry for the bad cut and paste job on my phone, but I just had to share this with you guys, as I knew you'd want to know. I can get the full text if anyone's interested, just pm me!

Vaccine, June 2012

The combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines and the total number
of vaccines are not associated with development of autism spectrum
disorder: The first case-control study in Asia
Uno, Y.ab , Uchiyama, T.bc , Kurosawa, M.d , Aleksic, B.a , Ozaki, N.a

Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship
between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and general vaccinations,
including measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, in Japanese subjects, a
population with high genetic homogeneity.

Conclusions: In this study, there were not any convincing
evidences that MMR vaccination and increasing the number of vaccine
injections were associated with an increased risk of ASD in a
genetically homogeneous population.

Edited by Mosaic for copyright guidelines
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 20
12/3/12 at 7:35am

UA infringement, you have broken the copyright rules. 

post #3 of 20
12/3/12 at 7:47am

I believe this is the link for the pubmed of this study. HTH

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285

post #4 of 20
12/3/12 at 8:07am
Thread Starter 
Goodness, I had no idea. I work at a medical school and people send/email/post abstracts all the time, since they are freely available to the public online. How is it a copyright violation?
post #5 of 20
12/3/12 at 8:13am

The general rule around here is you can only quote 100 words.  I know it's tricky from your phone.

post #6 of 20
12/3/12 at 8:18am
Thread Starter 
Oh, huh, that's a funny rule. I will edit when I'm at a computer.
post #7 of 20
12/3/12 at 8:48am

Yeah I agree.  Especially with something like an abstract that's pretty much meant to be shared around and posted.  shrug.gif

post #8 of 20
12/3/12 at 8:58am
Thread Starter 
Well, I guess the powers that be have never been much interested in sharing the reasons they do things.
post #9 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eligracey View Post

Well, I guess the powers that be have never been much interested in sharing the reasons they do things.
Oh goodness, our copyright guidelines are certainly not hidden away:

http://www.mothering.com/community/a/copyright-concerns

I went ahead and edited out some of the text for you. BTW, in the future, you can flag copyright violations with the report button instead of derailing the thread.
post #10 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:26am
Thread Starter 
No, that part is clear. I said, "the REASONS they do things."
post #11 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:28am
Um, because it's the law? I don't think I understand. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat more.
post #12 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:32am

It's not really the law.  The law on fair use says:

 

 

 

Quote:
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; . . . ”

 

There's nothing special about 100 words.  

 

Ok sorry I'm done now.

 

(whoops, I had to edit it because it was 152 words ;) )

post #13 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:37am
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Rachel. I agree--my professional organization uses 400 words as their magical cutoff. Which I think is not law, either, but simply their interpretation of the spirit of the law. I would C&P their guidelines but I don't want to violate the UA! smile.gif
post #14 of 20
12/3/12 at 9:42am
Quote:
Feel free to PM me if you want to chat more.

Getting you back on track:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

I believe this is the link for the pubmed of this study. HTH

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22521285
Edited to quote myself
post #15 of 20
12/3/12 at 4:16pm

dbl post


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/3/12 at 5:37pm
post #16 of 20
12/3/12 at 4:20pm

That is just the abstract.  I do not find that useful.  As has been argued many time here, and by pro-vaxxers, an abstract is not particularly useful.  

 

 

"Abstracts in research publications often do not accurately reflect the methodologic quality and results found in full-text articles. "

 

https://dynamed.ebscohost.com/content/7-step-process     (step 3)


Edited by kathymuggle - 12/3/12 at 4:51pm
post #17 of 20
12/3/12 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

That is just the abstract.  I do not find that useful.  As has been argued many time here, and by pro-vaxxers, an abstract is not particularly useful.  

 

 

 

 

""Abstracts in research publications often do not accurately reflect the methodologic quality and results found in full-text articles. "

 

https://dynamed.ebscohost.com/content/7-step-process     (step 3)

 

???

Go look it up yourself.  What is she supposed to do, post the entire article?

post #18 of 20
12/3/12 at 4:32pm
The abstract is just to wet your appetite, Kathy.
post #19 of 20
12/3/12 at 6:04pm

Full articles cannot be posted here as per the Copyright Guidelines. WildKingdom and Rrrrachel: Sarcasm that contributes nothing to the discussion isn't welcome here. Edit or I can delete it for you.
 

post #20 of 20
12/3/12 at 6:14pm
I wasn't being sarcastic? I was actually trying to be friendly.