Approved University study to look at... - Page 4

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


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

Please describe what confounders are created by making a sample more homogenous.  Then describe how you would design a study acceptable to you.

[Ethelpea]

Originally Posted by midstreammama 

I also did a little happy dance when I saw your username..although I usually am a lurking reader and not a poster. :-)
 

Me too!!

[kathymuggle]

I have not studied all the ins and outs of this (or studied it very much at all - but I did read a few links)….

And can I just say that at least someone is trying to create a study?  

I don't expect it to be accepted by either ardent pro or non -vaxxers depending on which way it swings (I think any study can have holes shot in it) but at least they are trying.

There is a serious dearth of information when it comes to comparing truly unvaxxed children with vaxxed children.

….and welcome, Momtezuma (and OMG do I love your siggy!  If  you disappear (don't!) I might steal it.)

[Mosaic]

Momtezuma, your comments toward Rrrrrachel are violations of the UA. This thread is about the study mentioned in your OP; it's off-topic, inappropriate, and baiting to dig after Rrrrrrachel for the quintessential research study design and funding sources and then be sarcastic when she refuses to engage in your game.

I highly recommend you quit derailing your own thread before I have to close it. Go back and edit your posts to remove the inquisition; focus on emphasizing the strengths of this study. If you want to start a new (separate) thread to hypothetically design a perfect research project, you may do so.

[tonto]

OK. I found the first MAJOR problem with the German study posted.  Unvaccinated were categorized porperly. But vaccinated was anyone with even ONE vaccine!!  How do you suppose that skewed the results?  If a child with only one vaccine and one with 15 are in the same category as vaccianted that would water down the negative effect of the vaccines. 
 

The University study being done now stratifies how many vaccines a child has been given as the German study should have. 

From the German study:  "We cannot entirely exclude the possibility that some
children without a vaccination card were vaccinated without adequate documentation A systematic question
regarding this issue will therefore be included in future
KiGGS studies"   Good idea. 

Note also 0.7% of children are unvaxed in this random population.  There will be a higher proportion of unvaxed in the University study. How do you think it affected the results in the GErman study that proportionally so few unvaxed were available to study?"Because of the low proportion of unvaccinated
persons in the population, the numbers even in the large
KiGGS study are small, so that statistical evaluation—
especially subgroup analyses—is hindered by
small case numbers."  Ideally you'd want 50:50 but the German study didn't even come close .

The German study has not a mention of ADHD or autism. Interesting.  I guess they were playing it safe and only counting a few minor disorders. I'll be looking forward to future studies looking at these unvaxed vs vaxed into adulthood looking at how survives into adulthood and who gets cancer. 

"Dr Schlaud was the lead investigator of an epidemiological study of deaths in children aged 2–24 months (TOKEN Study) in 2004–2009, which was jointly
funded by the Federal Ministry of Health, the Paul Ehrlich-Institute, Sanofi Pasteur,
and Glaxo Smith Kline."  The lead investigator was collecing drug money elsewhere. How do you feel about that?

Edited by tonto - 12/7/12 at 6:44am

[nia82]

There is far more to the German study... Selection bias... Etc. If you understand German, google the study on German Google and lots of interesting things will pop up.

[Rrrrrachel]

Tonto, it's interesting that you're criticizing the German study for classifying even one vaccine as vaccinated, when other studies have been criicized for classifying that group as unvaccinated

Unfortunately they didn't look for every possible health issue in this study, and the unvaccinated group is too small to detect significant differences in rare events like autism. That's definitely a major limitation.

[tonto]

Rachel.  The thing is that if a person has one vaccine they are partially vaccinated which is why they would be criticized either way. You skew the data by not reporting just what it is.  In this case you can clearly see how putting a child with one vaccine into the same group as those with many vaccines. It would dilute any harmful effect of numerous vaccines because if vaccines are causing harm and it is dose dependent or repetition dependent or numerous vaccines at once dependent, you'd not be able to see it so easily with this stratification.  Hopefully you can see that. 

In the University questionnaire that problem will not happen because partially vaccinated and how many vaccines is part of the questioning.

This is an old trick that was also done in the Danish autism study. 

I assume you are saying that studies were criticized for saying a person with any vaccines is unvaccinated. this is also a problem because they are not unvaccinated and depending on what you are looking for, it will affect the result in way so as not to reflect the truth.  In the Danish studies if I recall properly that is what they did, they said that kids without MMR were unvaccinated even though they had other vaccines. That is not unvaccinated. So when you are wanting to show there is no autism of course you want to add more vaxed kids to the unvaxed group to throw a few autistic kids into there.

In the Danish study they contaminated the supposedly unvaxed group with vaccinated kids. In the German study they diluted the vaxed with kids who were more unvaxed than vaxed. See how it all has the same effect to make vaccines look innocuous?

In the German study they threw less vaxed kids into the vaxed group to throw off the effect of vaccines.  There is a tremendous difference between a kid with one vaccine and a kid who had followed the schedule--- in general. I have seen major problems in kids with just one vaccine but in general what I say is what I see in reality. 
 

[tonto]

Originally Posted by nia82 

There is far more to the German study... Selection bias... Etc. If you understand German, google the study on German Google and lots of interesting things will pop up.

nia82 can you send us a link that has English? thanks . that sounds interesting. 

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Tonto, it's interesting that you're criticizing the German study for classifying even one vaccine as vaccinated, when other studies have been criicized for classifying that group as unvaccinated
Unfortunately they didn't look for every possible health issue in this study, and the unvaccinated group is too small to detect significant differences in rare events like autism. That's definitely a major limitation.

I think grouping  sel/delayed with either unvaxxed or fully vaxxed and on schedule gets very messy.

[Rrrrrachel]

Tonto, if studies were just doing a simplistic comparison of the two groups I would agree with you more, but there's generally more to it than that. You can analyze within the vaccination group and look for correlations with number and timing of vaccines, for instance. Many studies have done this.

[Rrrrrachel]

And the Danish study did that, I believe, because they were looking at mmr, specifically, but I haven't looked at that study in awhile.

Every study design comes with limitations. You can be aware of limitations without throwing the whole study out. It's inaccurate to say vaccinated vs unvaccinated has never been studied, although you could certainly say there's room to study it more.

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Tonto, if studies were just doing a simplistic comparison of the two groups I would agree with you more, but there's generally more to it than that. You can analyze within the vaccination group and look for correlations with number and timing of vaccines, for instance. Many studies have done this.

Can you give me an example of a vax unvax study that has done that?  That is the point of the University study.  The database will allow for numerous questions to be answered. 

[rlneub]

What I find interesting in the Danish study is that mid stream they changed the criteria by including the outpatients.  So originally you have those that are inpatients (usually more severely affected in health) and then you include another whole group in the midst of the study and proclaim a conclusion. Nothing fishy about that.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by rlneub 

What I find interesting in the Danish study is that mid stream they changed the criteria by including the outpatients.  So originally you have those that are inpatients (usually more severely affected in health) and then you include another whole group in the midst of the study and proclaim a conclusion. Nothing fishy about that.

Well no, not necessarily.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita 

Well there goes my wish to directly participate. I'll just send some money then.

The Jackson study is actually more of a pilot study.  Depending on the outcomes, it could lead to further studies, including international comparative study.  Yes, that's all talk.  The thing is we are contributing to the first study which should have a reasonable number of never vaccinated children partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated children to get a more accurate picture than the one researchers currently have.

So who knows who might be able to participate in future trials?

I live in New Zealand, but hope that one day, a properly constructed study will include this country.

[tonto]

There is so much wrong with the Danish studies it is not even worth entertaining at this point and is a complete diversion, not to mention that one of the investigators has been in hiding until recently but that probably didn't keep him off CDC payrolls.  Just for fun here is a summary of some of what was wrong with the study(ies). And yes they changed things up a bit.  Rachel have a look. But I am not going to get into a fullblown discussion of this.  Let's keep the subject on track so as not to lose the original topic which is a new study being done.  http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/critique_of_the_6_epidemiologica.htm
 

[Hans Tolzin]

Hi,

I am a German Medical Journalist and publishing an anti vaccination magazin called "impf-report".

(see www.impf-report.de or www.impfkritik.de)

I am very exited about the study. Before I recommend donating for it I need to read more details about the design. I am in contact with some scientists in Germany who are willing to look over it.

Where can I find more details about the study-design?

greetings

Hans Tolzin

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Hans Tolzin 

Hi,

I am a German Medical Journalist and publishing an anti vaccination magazin called "impf-report".

(see www.impf-report.de or www.impfkritik.de)

I am very exited about the study. Before I recommend donating for it I need to read more details about the design. I am in contact with some scientists in Germany who are willing to look over it.

Where can I find more details about the study-design?

greetings

Hans Tolzin

It's difficult to understand what you are asking.

Exactly what study are you excited about? (I assume you mean "excited," not "exited;" is that correct?)

What details of study-design are you talking about?

I don't mean to criticize you, but just want to make you aware that there is a language barrier here. What might seem crystal-clear to you is very confusing to us; it might not have successfully translated from German to English.

[Hans Tolzin]

Yes, excited. Of course

I am refering to the study "Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children." This thread was started with a posting about it.

greetings

Hans