Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › Vaccines, Autism & Epidemiology - A Call for Better Science
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Vaccines, Autism & Epidemiology - A Call for Better Science

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

Here is an interesting article by someone who clearly isn't anit-vax and would prefer there not to be a link be a link between vaccines and autism, but feels that to date the epidemiological studies have not shown that to be the case.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

[I] am not saying I believe autism and vaccinations share a relationship with one another, nor am I saying I believe they do not. What I’m trying to bring light to is the fact that the science which has been used to address this question, in my perception, has been woefully inadequate in its capacity to answer it. We need more lab-based studies, ones which look at exposure and then gauge, not only changes in animal behavior, but changes in brain development. And studies, I would stress, which comprise scientists who are well-trained and offer reliable results; not the slapdash methodology which comes from inexperience. The benefit of animal studies is the reduction of variables which must be accounted for, offering the researcher a better means to judge cause and effect in minute detail. Epidemiology offers no such benefit.

http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/vaccines-autism-epidemiology-a-call-for-better-science/

post #2 of 6
I completely agree with what he says here.
Quote:
Well, you can just call me a scientific stickler I guess, because to me epidemiological studies generally don’t answer questions but raise them and are meant to lead lab-based science in the directions it needs to go to answer those questions.

What I'm not sure I agree with is a great need for lab studies on a question that epidemiological studies haven't raised in the first place.
post #3 of 6
Ooh and this.
Quote:
Some researchers say that a hypothesis test can have one of two outcomes: you accept the null hypothesis or you reject the null hypothesis. Many statisticians, however, take issue with the notion of ‘accepting the null hypothesis.’ Instead, they say: you reject the null hypothesis or you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Man after my own heart.
post #4 of 6
Interesting reading. She makes some good points. Thanks for sharing Mirzam.

PS. Rrrrrachel - the writer is called Emily. Seems to be a "woman after your own heart". smile.gif
post #5 of 6
Oh. Sorry. Gender bias.
post #6 of 6
No worries. We all suffer from that.
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Discussion and Debate › Vaccines, Autism & Epidemiology - A Call for Better Science