MMR Study II [14 studies website read along (SPIN OFF)] - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-26-2009, 12:38 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,565
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
doctors on which side?

And I'm not sure that any of this is ever clearly laid out as in: "let's do a bunch of fake studies to cover up vaccine damage".

It just sort of flows...
Deborah is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-26-2009, 03:16 AM
 
CallMeIshmael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Deep Gray
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Okay, here is the big question.

Are the studies "proving" that MMR isn't connected to autism deliberately structured to miss the relevant children? To avoid collecting the inconvenient data?
...
We don't want to see that there is a connection between the MMR and sick children who are being labeled as autistic.

so

We will do studies that deliberately avoid looking at the actual sick kids, or if the studies do look at the actual sick kids we'll look at as small a group as we can possibly manage...And we'll set up the studies so the results can't possibly verify the existence of these children or the connection between their symptoms and the MMR.

The problem is, it's tough to have it both ways.

You can do a big epidemiological study that by its very definition can only tell you about population-level trends. If your study is really huge, you might be able to pull out some useful subgroup analyses. And at most, you can say that your data don't support a connection between, say, MMR and autism at the level of the population.

Or you can do a small targeted study in the lab, one that looks at individual kids. Apologies -- I only skimmed the first study, but it seemed to involve kids with GI symptoms + autism vs. GI symptoms + no autism, all of whom had undergone endoscopy. It involved actual biopsy specimens, and subjected those tissue samples to real-time PCR to look for measles. This is no trivial undertaking. It's no surprise that the numbers in this kind of study are tiny. And what can you say at the end? Well, we didn't find any more measles in one tiny group of kids versus the other. But you can't say anything about the group as a whole.

They're very different types of studies, performed in very different conditions (offices vs labs), by very different types of scientists (clinical vs basic) with very different types of training (MPH vs PhD in molecular bio).

As for the spin, well, that's coming from many different places. The scientists themselves are eager to get press, the press is eager to sell airtime (or ad space). True, there's a big desire to maintian the status quo, but I don't see it as a giant hush campagin.

From my reviews, the epidemiological evidence is limited in any given study, but starts to become more persuasive when several studies from different countries show the same thing. And the biomolecular data is intriguing but has the potential for major flaws that send everybody barking up the wrong tree (still have to review those studies).
CallMeIshmael is offline  
Old 04-26-2009, 03:17 AM
 
jessjgh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Shore MA
Posts: 4,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I meant researchers/doctors who realized what is goign on... ie the scewing the selection, etc.

You said:
Quote:
Are the studies "proving" that MMR isn't connected to autism deliberately structured to miss the relevant children? To avoid collecting the inconvenient data?
Quote:
Whereas every doctor who has done a study showing problems with MMR...how much you want to bet that at the very least their grant money dried up...some are probably out of work...and in the worst case scenario they get their reputations totally trashed AND lose their jobs AND get dragged through a two year legal case threatening their medical licenses.
I would think that these doctors/researchers could come forward now.

Again, playing devil's advocate... but I think going down that road (that scientists are deliberatly scewing studies) evokes a sense of 'conspiracy theory' and that's a hard leap for many to take, and often makes people less likely to see the overall logic and science an anti-vax opinion rests upon.

Or perhaps it is just too late and I'm not making sense or being productive...
Jessica

Jessica..lady.gifintactlact.gif Falling in love all over again..... 
Dhprivateeyes.gif, Joshua rolleyes.gif Rebeccagrouphug.gifand dog2.gif.    candle.gif for Laura
jessjgh1 is offline  
Old 04-26-2009, 10:20 AM
 
cloak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Verstraeten did come forward and say his study was being misused but that was ignored just like the study's actual conclusions are ignored. Pharma swooped him up and pays his salary now so don't expect him to come out with any more studies showing vaccines are bad. All of his original data is "lost" which is very convenient for pharma.

Maybe if Wakefield is vindicated more doctors will come forward but not many doctors want to commit career suicide even if they have celebrity support.

The Most Important Person on earth is a mother...She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral-a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby's bodyâ¦-Cardinal Mindszenty
cloak is offline  
Old 04-26-2009, 11:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,565
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
All we have to go on is the phenomena.

The phenomena is a pile of studies which "show" no connection between vaccines and autism. And a lot of spin making loud noises about these studies and attacking any parent with concerns, especially the parents of physically ill children with autism.

We can keep looking at the studies one by one. So far, two studies, both with serious problems, both widely spun.

What is going on behind the curtain is a mystery, but the studies are something we can look at.

I'll start study number III in the MMR series next week, unless someone beats me to it. (hint, hint, hint)
Deborah is online now  
Old 04-26-2009, 11:45 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,565
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
*
Just as I was feeling pretty frustrated--it seems obvious that the data is being manipulated--Olmsted publishes an article on Age of Autism laying out another example of an effective cover up of pharmaceutical related mayhem. This sort of thing happens. Nowadays it seems to be a very popular approach to dealing with problems--bury them.

Here is the link: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/d...-of-doubt.html

MANUFACTURE OF DOUBT!
Deborah is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off