I also did a little happy dance when I saw your username..although I usually am a lurking reader and not a poster. :-)
Not much of a dancer, but other than that, same here. :-)
I looked at the article about the study. I wish it provided the names of the actual researchers at Jackson State University (the university is not conducting it nor funding it they just approved the human subject protocol). But perhaps it isn't far enough along or they don't want to deal with the press.
I am however, concerned about how this is being funded. It is being funded by generation rescue and through individual private donations to generation rescue. This screams conflict of interest. this studies results when it finds that vaccinated children have ill health compared to unvaccinated it will not be taken seriously by anyone but those who believe that vaccines are bad (for lack of a more sophesticated term). By the same reasoning, if Merck or Pfizer funded a study that showed vaccines caused better health in general...How seriously would you take that research?
I am concerned that it is limited to homeschoolers. It is not a secret that some people, both vaxers and non, choose homeschooling specifically because they do not want a "label" (diagnosis) for their child. I suspect that certain conditions will be underreported and underrepresented. I do not have a theory as to HOW it will sway the results, but I do not believe the results will be accurate. And I write this having no idea what the results will be, so personal bias can't be a factor.
I don't think it's strictly limited to homeschoolers. It will just be easier to find unvaccinated children through homeschooling organizations and their grapevines. I wouldn't mind participating even though my dd goes to a public school.
It sure would be nice for Congress to help fund it, since supposedly it cares about the autism epidemic.
How else are they going to easily find unvaccinated children? Seeing as Merck & co. probably won't pony up any $$, since they don't make very much money and all. 
How else are they going to easily find unvaccinated children? Seeing as Merck & co. probably won't pony up any $$, since they don't make very much money and all.
How about targeting a school district with a high rate of exemptions. Portland, OR springs to mind (or am I making that up?).
That study I shared in a thread recently which was about sources of information about vaccines and how it differs for those who choose not to vaccinate versus those who do seemed to find enough unvaccinated children to include....
I don't think it's strictly limited to homeschoolers.
Did you read any of the article that was linked? http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/12/03/official-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-finally-being-done-please-read-and-contribute-suzanne-humphries-md/
Well there goes my wish to directly participate. I'll just send some money then.
It will be a challenge, but it's worthwhile to look into.
How about targeting a school district with a high rate of exemptions. Portland, OR springs to mind (or am I making that up?).
No, I think you're right. But I wonder if they'd have to compare them to similar vaccinated children in Portland to be completely kosher.
I guess they've chosen strictly homeschoolers since that's the easiest and cheapest way to find the unvaccinated. Boo hoo.
If it's genuinely a plan to do an unbiased study of this then I welcome it - as I do with all continuing checks of vaccine safety which are ongoing. I do have concerns that it'll be self reported from the mothers (so what's to stop either mothers of vaccinated or unvaccinated children with an agenda to lie about their children's health?). Sounds like they are planning to check accuracy though, so maybe that's too skeptical of me.
If this does find no difference in the health of vaccinated an unvaccinated children (excepting the VPDs they have of course), which all prior evidence which exists suggests it will (if it's unbiased) will the non-vaxers and places like NVIC really accept that it's showing that vaccines in general do more good than harm?
Why would either provaccine or antivaccine parents who have chosen to homeschool wish to lie about this topic? Remember if they do, the lies could well be on both sides. such a suggestion is bizarre to me, and those who chose NOT to vaccinate would have nothing to gain and eveything to lose by doing such a thing, for the simple reason that LIES always come back and bite the tellers firmly on their posterior, their brains and reputations.
Secondly, will people who don't vaccinate accept this study? I think you misunderstand this study. It's a pilot study. The FIRST study ever done on this topic. And you know that no first study is EVER accepted by anyone.
Look at any debacle of any drug be it vioxx, or any of the other legion of drugs that FDA has landed up with egg on it's face about. Every single one of those drugs lasted out their patent period because the drug manufacturers insisted on keeping researchers well heeled for sometimtes decades to "replicate" and "confirm" previous findings.
Look at acetaminophen, a drug which I've long had a hatred for, and have spoken out here about, since 2001. For fifty years, it's purveyors ignored the problems with it, and kept telling parents that it's safe to use with infectious fevers in spite of a 50 year long trail of medical articles warning NOT to use it for that purpose. Only now in the last 10 years, have the sellers of this drug decided to capitulate and let it be known that acetaminophen has some serious issues.
Not that the average mother will have much of a clue, even to this day, give the way I see thoughtless New Zealand parents still pouring it down their babies throats.
Even I, a parent who does NOT vaccinate my children, will NOT accept this study result whichever way it goes, for the simple reason that USA does not replicate the NZ schedule or society, AND because a first study is only a tentative step towards the truth.
What I do expect is the usual drug company mantra which will make sure that if there is a difference, PARTICULARLY if that difference does not favour vaccinated children, that there will be immediately implemented their usual "5 to 1" strategy. In other world you would expect in quick succession five cobbled together retrospective studies purporting to prove that the study is wrong.
Also, don't underestimate the strength of feeling about this issue amongst those who don't vaccinate. it's possible the provaccine who will be most likely to participate. The worst potential bias might be that it's the PROVACCINE with healthy children only, who will respond, for the simple reason they want to prove their decision right, and those with vaccinated children with problems may not want to respond, and neither may the non-vaccinators, for several reasons:
a) the provaccine may not believe that their child's health issues are in any way related to vaccines, but even so, won't participate because they don't want to "undermine" the provaccine position.
b) the provaccine who realise their child's problems are vaccine related may be too scared to. Do you know what problems parents who believe their children are vaccine damaged have with the medical profession? If you so much as mention it, you are treated like a criminal in waiting, a dangerous paraiah. In this country (New Zealand), even IF your case is proven, and you get compensation for a vaccine damaged child, the medical profession can literally threaten you, if you speak about it publicly. TV programmes in this country have fallen over, because parents who wanted to tell their story were told if they did, they could find a new doctor.
So many parents of children who they believe are vaccine damaged, may not want to participatett for fear that they will be penalised for doing so, and that could well apply to this study.
So only the provaccine in a win/win situation may be motivated to answer this survey. That instantly will skew the study.
c) the non-vaccinators may be equally as scared to participate because of the way American doctors treat them. You can be fired from a practice for not vaccinating. Schools can treat you like scum. Provaccine parents can treat non-vaccinating parents as if they are criminals about to kill all the vaccinated children, such is society's paranoia surrounding parents who don't go with the flow. Parents may worry that participating in a study like this could jeopardise them in spite of the steps which are being taken to secure the anonymity of children, yet still make sure that ONLY homeschooling people are able to participate.
Anyone who attempts to "interlope" into this study will be quickly picked up, whether they try to access via their own ISP or a proxy server. Security will be very high on this study for obvious reasons, not just for the parent's sake, but for the study's sake.
The link clearly states that it does, which means that it is already not a random sampling.
No study is EVER a random sample, even on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Go and look for yourself.
Invitations are sent out for participants OR an organisation like, for example, kaiser, might use their own database.
Then, consent forms for participation have to be sent out. I've seen studies where out of an eligible population of 10,000, 3,000 parents refused to participate.
So right there, you have a "self-selected" population.
Now, go to clinicaltrials.gov and look at vaccine studies.
Participants are invited, so only those motivated to participate, participate. THEN look what happens. There is always a catagory called EXCLUSION CRITERIA which usually includes any person who might have any possible problem ranging from early birth, traumatic birth, family history of allergy to something, underweight babies - whatever. The list can be huge.
The researchers go through the medical histories of all possible participants looking at their medical files, and all those who fit the exclusion criteria are automatically disqualified.
So that leaves all the uber healthy children who are squeeky clean, and who are "fit" to become the guineapigs. (What's worse, usually the first group of parents who are told their babies need this new SAFE vaccine, tested on sqeeky clean kids, are parents of the fragile kids who were excluded from the trials because the researchers considered them "unfit" to be guineapigs)
Now, tell me that THAT is a random selection - - - and I have a bridge I'd like to sell you..
Who on this forum do you think is not a parent?
You expect me to take the bait?
Those who fit the hat, wear it and are pretty obvious to the intelligent observers.
I am concerned that it is limited to homeschoolers. It is not a secret that some people, both vaxers and non, choose homeschooling specifically because they do not want a "label" (diagnosis) for their child. I suspect that certain conditions will be underreported and underrepresented. I do not have a theory as to HOW it will sway the results, but I do not believe the results will be accurate. And I write this having no idea what the results will be, so personal bias can't be a factor.
I looked at the article about the study. I wish it provided the names of the actual researchers at Jackson State University (the university is not conducting it nor funding it they just approved the human subject protocol). But perhaps it isn't far enough along or they don't want to deal with the press.
I am however, concerned about how this is being funded. It is being funded by generation rescue and through individual private donations to generation rescue. This screams conflict of interest. this studies results when it finds that vaccinated children have ill health compared to unvaccinated it will not be taken seriously by anyone but those who believe that vaccines are bad (for lack of a more sophesticated term). By the same reasoning, if Merck or Pfizer funded a study that showed vaccines caused better health in general...How seriously would you take that research?
And you are NEVER concerned that 99.9% of vaccine/drug/device studies are funded by manufacturers? Bizarre.
If that doesnt' scream conflict of interest, I don't know what does.
This study is NOT being funded by GR. They are the money collection point for anyone, in any country, including you, who would like to invest in this study.
It is like a public debenture, for lack of a better word, for the simple reason that the vaccine manufacturers, wouldn't come to the party. No surprises there, either.
And I agree with you. This study will not be taken seriously, particularly by the provaccine. They have already hypocritically dissed is as being funded by the "antivaccine" (even though the major participants could end up being the provaccine, depending on fear levels!)
Of course, as I said, if the study is skewed by the provaccine with vaccine damaged children being too scared to participate, then the provaccine will have won hands down, and then it will be lauded from the roof-tops, so yes, ....there is scepticism from both sides. The antivaccine have way more to lose from this study than the provaccine, for the simple reason that the provaccine have the floor, own the media and are judge, jury and prosecution.
That said, I will donate, and will support this study because it needs to be done, should be done, and this university is the only one serious enough to not drag it's feet on the issue.
Merck and Pfizer already fund studies showing that vaccines cause better health in general (because X vaccine prevents X disease, and vaccines NEVER cause "unrelated" problems therefore that child has "better health") , and anyone who knows me, knows how I view that research.
About as valid as all the research on Vioxx. And vaccine companies use just as pathetic placebos as the Vioxx study did as well.
I don't believe you are correct.
1) There is no such thing as random sampling, when parents exempt themselves from a study group, vastly reducing the numbers. Random, is random, with no exemptions. Random is ONLY random, when no children are removed to suit the needs of the researchers.
2) I note you chose not to deal with the way that clinicaltrials.gov criteria selection is implemented.
3) The very fact that only homeschoolers are eligible enables better analysis, because there will be few confounders to contend with - WITHOUT removing children because of a pre-existing exclusion criteria..
4) Please provide the pubmed URL for the study in Germany.
It will be a challenge, but it's worthwhile to look into.
No, I think you're right. But I wonder if they'd have to compare them to similar vaccinated children in Portland to be completely kosher.
I guess they've chosen strictly homeschoolers since that's the easiest and cheapest way to find the unvaccinated. Boo hoo.
Particularly when all the provaccine people like Offit, and Salzberger say such a study can't be done, and there is no vaccine manufacturer willing to fund one.
Bill Gates isn't about to throw millions the way of such a study even though billions are ploughed into GAVI.
I think it bizarre that the detractors here are exactly those who will NOT donate to such a study, but appear to be content to simply sit back, pontificate and criticise, as if they could do better after falling out of bed in the morning.
Do you perhaps think that this study and jackson University are staffed by lowly research technicians, and the committee was too brainless to see what you say are flaws?
Getting more bizarre by the moment here.
Follow Mothering