or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Approved University study to look at...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Approved University study to look at... - Page 3

post #41 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

A study run by generation rescue will not be lauded if the science is bad, period. Just like the phone survey that showed unvaccinated children were more likely to have autism wasn't lauded. Because the science was bad.
I am concerned with funding. But i don't consider it a reason to throw the whole thing out automatically. The methodological concerns that are already coming up, though . . .

 

Wonderful.  Are you assuming the science is bad?

 

Well, I guess then, to you, Jackson University might as well play baseball.

 

Funding.  Okay, suggest a way of funding that YOU would approve of, and then make it happen.

post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

 

You expect me to take the bait?

 

Those who fit the hat, wear it and are pretty obvious to the intelligent observers.

Odd.  I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, yet I can't tell who is a parent and who isn't.

 

Quick.  How many kids do I have???

post #43 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post

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. 

 

I'd love to see Congress help fund it.  Bingo.

post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

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.

The university staff approved the study as ethical from a human experimentation standpoint. That is all. They did not approve the methodology beyond that.
post #45 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

Odd.  I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, yet I can't tell who is a parent and who isn't.

 

Quick.  How many kids do I have???

 

lurk.gifLOL... I have my faults too you know, - albeit different.... - which is why I've been banned from Mothering so many times before whistling.gif

post #46 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


The university staff approved the study as ethical from a human experimentation standpoint. That is all. They did not approve the methodology beyond that.

 

Oh, how do you know that?  Were you there?  I happen to know that the analysis of the statistical methods has been way more rigorous than would normally happen.  Which actually isn't hard, when you look at some of the provaccine studies.

post #47 of 86
Thread Starter 

Can you imagine what would happen if the statistical basis for the analysis of this study was flawed?

 

the provaccine would eat it for lunch and pop the bag!

post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

Wonderful.  Are you assuming the science is bad?

Well, I guess then, to you, Jackson University might as well play baseball.

Funding.  Okay, suggest a way of funding that YOU would approve of, and then make it happen.

I'm not assuming the science is bad. But I am already seeing some issues with methodology.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

 

Oh, how do you know that?  Were you there?  I happen to know that the analysis of the statistical methods has been way more rigorous than would normally happen.  Which actually isn't hard, when you look at some of the provaccine studies.

 

 

No, I wasn't there, but I"m familiar with how IRB's work.  I'm interested in information you have about who reviewed the statistical methods and what information they had.  I'm surprised ot hear that since there's already such a fundamental flaw in their sampling design and I would imagine very little other statistics has been done yet.

post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post

 

Wonderful.  Are you assuming the science is bad?

 

Well, I guess then, to you, Jackson University might as well play baseball.

 

Funding.  Okay, suggest a way of funding that YOU would approve of, and then make it happen.

 

 

I'm open to a lot of different kinds of funding, but I like to see a firewall between the funding source and the researchers, and I pay attention to the methodology.

post #51 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

I'm open to a lot of different kinds of funding, but I like to see a firewall between the funding source and the researchers, and I pay attention to the methodology.

 

Answer the question:

 

 

Quote:

Funding.  Okay, suggest a way of funding that YOU would approve of, and then make it happen.

 

And answer it in the context of a situation where all normal channels of funding have been deliberately blocked up until now.

 

You want to criticise, then tell us how to do it better.

post #52 of 86

I feel like i have answered that?  Several times and several different ways?

post #53 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

No, I wasn't there, but I"m familiar with how IRB's work.  I'm interested in information you have about who reviewed the statistical methods and what information they had.  I'm surprised ot hear that since there's already such a fundamental flaw in their sampling design and I would imagine very little other statistics has been done yet.

 

 clap.gifPlease describe this "fundamental flaw".  Let's assume ...  then, that you are here in the spirit of constructive collaboration and are prepared to tell me how to fix this serious problem.  

post #54 of 86

Again I think I've already adressed that.

post #55 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I am concerned with funding. But i don't consider it a reason to throw the whole thing out automatically. The methodological concerns that are already coming up, though . . .
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

 

 

I'm open to a lot of different kinds of funding, but I like to see a firewall between the funding source and the researchers, and I pay attention to the methodology.

post #57 of 86
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


I'm not assuming the science is bad. But I am already seeing some issues with methodology.

 

Please tell me what you are seeing.  AND how you would rectify the issues of methodology.

post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Speaking for myself, I'm not concerned that people will lie, but I am concerned that the sample members will be systematically the same in some way that will bias the results. It's sampling design 101.
 
post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Using homeschooled students actually CREATES a confounding variable. Making the sample more homogenous never removes confounders, it adds them.
 
post #60 of 86

I give up.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Approved University study to look at...