Could we discuss this study? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 27Likes
  • 2 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By kathymuggle
  • 2 Post By samaxtics
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 1 Post By Deborah
  • 5 Post By Deborah
  • 2 Post By Deborah
  • 2 Post By kathymuggle
  • 2 Post By samaxtics
  • 3 Post By applejuice
  • 4 Post By Deborah
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 22 Old 06-24-2014, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Could we discuss this study?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...18/1/e139.long

One of the things that the study is supposed to be assessing is the effect of thimerosal exposure on the rate of PDD.
Quote:
Second, because of the ecological nature of the data set, individual thimerosal exposure data were not known. However, places of birth were available on all 180 of the PDD subjects. Of the 180 subjects, 158 (87.8%) were born in Quebec and were, therefore, extremely likely to have followed the immunization schedule.
Does that strike anyone else as sort of weird? How can you just assume that the level of exposure was typical or atypical without actual data?
serenbat and sassyfirechick like this.
Deborah is online now  
#2 of 22 Old 06-24-2014, 08:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
I'm also puzzled by this:
Quote:
Data on MMR uptake for the study period were available through the Direction de Santé Publique de la Capitale Nationale
This is NOT Montreal where the study was supposedly set. It is
Quote:
The main components of the Capitale-Nationale region are:
Québec City, Île d’Orléans and the regional county municipalities (MRCs) of Portneuf, Charlevoix, Charlevoix-Est, Jacques-Cartier and Côte-de-Beaupré.
http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.q...nationale.html

What is going on?

As an epidemiological study, using data from another area seems a bit weird to me, how about the rest of you?
fruitfulmomma likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#3 of 22 Old 06-25-2014, 02:53 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Here are some of the criticisms:

Quote:
MMR coverage data was taken from the city of Quebec, rather than from Montreal, where the PDD data was gathered. MMR data ―were available through N. Bouliane, of the Direction de Santé Publique de la Capitale Nationale,‖ the authors wrote. But the ―Capitale Nationale‖ refers to Quebec City, not Montreal, some 265 kilometers away. Ms. Bouliane confirmed that the MMR vaccination rates were from the Quebec City.
Quote:
LBPSB includes a Center of Excellence in Autism, so its high rates of PDD are likely influenced by the fact that it is the only totally inclusive school board of the Province of Quebec and has a very high ratio of integration of students with PDD into regular classes.
Quote:
Fombonne et al. chose to study MMR coverage rates, rather than the number of MMR vaccines received. He ignored the fact that autism rates increased following a doubling of the MMR exposure after 1996 when a second MMR shot was added to the schedule and chose to emphasize that a rise in PDD rates coincided with a decline in MMR coverage.
Quote:
Fombonne also ignored the possible effect of mass measles immunization campaigns in Quebec that delivered a second dose of measles to a large number of infants and children throughout 1996.22 The subsequent rise in PDD shortly after that campaign is clearly depicted in their figures.
Quote:
Published MMR vaccine surveys from Montreal show that rates among children 24 to 30 months old did not fall during the period in question, but actually increased
Quote:
Dr. Yazbak subsequently stated: ―I found and reported a glaring error in the paper. The rates of autism in Montreal have as much to do with MMR vaccination rates in Quebec City as pollution in Los Angeles with Diesel buses in Chicago. The lead author refused to respond to my criticism concerning that simple geographic fact and the editor was unable to force him to do so.‖28
#8 @ http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/i.../comment83.pdf
samaxtics is online now  
#4 of 22 Old 06-25-2014, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Thanks Samaxtics. I had read Dr. Yazbak's critique and I wanted to check and make sure he was right about the stats for MMR coming from a different area. He was. Montreal has their own office for "Sante".

This study, despite a number of glaring problems, is still listed by the AAP as a valid study demonstrating that there is no connection between vaccines and PDD. It is also on other lists as a good study. Fombonne testified before the Special Masters and misrepresented his credentials. I can find the background to this if anyone wants to discuss it.

I did my library degree at McGill. I have refused to donate to McGill as long as Fombonne is employed there.
samaxtics likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#5 of 22 Old 06-25-2014, 05:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
I would love to discuss some of the other studies defending vaccines--anyone up for it?
Deborah is online now  
#6 of 22 Old 06-25-2014, 07:16 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post

I did my library degree at McGill. I have refused to donate to McGill as long as Fombonne is employed there.
Concordia says hello

I did do two courses as a visiting student at McGill.
Deborah likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-25-2014 at 07:22 PM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#7 of 22 Old 06-26-2014, 06:25 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
Another point I would like to bring up is the tendency for the defenders of the American pro-vax position to rely mainly on non-American studies (meaning studies relying on data from countries other than the USA) to support their claims. I am led to believe that proponents of this study were counting on lay Americans not catching that data for MMR coverage and PDD stats were from two separate cities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I would love to discuss some of the other studies defending vaccines--anyone up for it?
Sure.
serenbat and beckybird like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#8 of 22 Old 06-26-2014, 12:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
It seems reasonable to interpret this "mistake" as either purposeful deception or an incredible level of carelessness. In either case, it should have been caught by Pediatrics, the well-known, and high-profile medical journal in which it was published.
beckybird likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#9 of 22 Old 06-26-2014, 08:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Here is the way the discussion has been framed the last two or three years:
Quote:
...seemingly relentless preoccupation with the notion that vaccines might cause autism, despite mountains of scientific evidence that have concluded there is no link. It's time for us all to put that behind us.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/0...tudy.vaccines/

Those silly anti-vaccine people just never give up, even though there is all this truly amazing scientific evidence...

Like the study we are discussing in this thread.

Please, someone come along and explain why this is a good study, based on good data.

Or stop talking about the wonderful scientific evidence.
beckybird likes this.
Deborah is online now  
#10 of 22 Old 06-26-2014, 08:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
And I don't think it solves the problem to go "oh well, so they screwed up on this one, the others must be okay."

This one is included on the AAP list of studies that demonstrate no link between vaccines and autism. It was published in the journal Pediatrics. It has not been retracted.

If a study which cites the wrong data can leap merrily over the peer-review hurdle and be included on a list which is supposed to be offered to parents as definitive, then why should we trust any other peer-reviewed studies on this list or other lists?

The last couple of years I've been trying (not on Mothering) to have a discussion about the "mountains of science" and it is close to impossible to even start a discussion analyzing a particular study with a vaccine supporter. If I do manage to get a discussion started, it won't last very long--they just vanish after a few exchanges.

Compare to the massive shark attacks that the same people will mount against any study which is critical of vaccines. Every aspect of the study will be taken apart and analyzed in exhaustive detail.

There is something freaky about all this. I'm really not a paranoid sort, but this sort of behavior does make me reach for my tin-foil hat.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 22 Old 06-27-2014, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
bumping this up. I'm still hoping someone will be interested in a two-sided discussion on this study.
Deborah is online now  
#12 of 22 Old 06-28-2014, 06:37 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Bumping it up again.
Deborah is online now  
#13 of 22 Old 06-28-2014, 07:13 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,451
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
I keep reading this thread to see what others say. I'm quite sleep deprived & therefore have a difficult time reading scientific-ese.

Wish I could play.

Sus
mama24-7 is online now  
#14 of 22 Old 06-28-2014, 07:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Sorry, you have my sympathy! mama24-7 wrote:
Quote:
I'm quite sleep deprived & therefore have a difficult time reading scientific-ese.
Deborah is online now  
#15 of 22 Old 06-29-2014, 11:34 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,729
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Life is busy right now and reading and reviewing scientific literature takes care and concentration.

Especially in a forum where I know 10+ people will likely object to anything I say!
prosciencemum is online now  
#16 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 06:29 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Life is busy right now and reading and reviewing scientific literature takes care and concentration.

Especially in a forum where I know 10+ people will likely object to anything I say!
I kind of agree.

I do not think there is anything weird in people not analysing the study - I think on MDC everyone is just tired of nitpicking of words, accusations, lack of common foundations, etc.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 08:22 AM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Yes, okay, except that no one, anywhere is willing to discuss this study. Except for other vaccine critics. And the more we discuss it the more problems and shortcomings we find. I've tried in several different settings.

I'll settle for this--no more claims that the science has spoken on autism and vaccines--unless we get an actual discussion of this study.

Thanks.
Mirzam and serenbat like this.
Deborah is online now  
#18 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 08:54 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
My personal experience with provaxers is that they will say that the mountain of scientific evidence is on their side and the benefits far, far exceed the smallest of risks of the vaccines in preventing these dangerous diseases in the populations.
applejuice is offline  
#19 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 09:34 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 147 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Yes, okay, except that no one, anywhere is willing to discuss this study. Except for other vaccine critics. And the more we discuss it the more problems and shortcomings we find. I've tried in several different settings.

.

I don't want to go too off topic (unless you want to?) so this will be my only post on this issue.



It has been my experience that pro-vaxxers on discussion sites do not typically bring forward studies for discussion. Oh, I am not saying it never happens (and a brief thumbs up to tea here, she is one of the pro-vaxxers who consistently brings up articles or studies for discussions) but 75% of the time in my estimation, they are critiquing article, studies, figures that non-vaxxers put up for discussion. That is my opinion, and if you go back in the archives on MDC, or over to any other vaccine discussion sites, I suspect you will find it is true.


The reason for this comes down to:


If they can make non-vaxxers look stupid, evil, etc....then people will vax.


The goal isn't to show that the pro-vax way is right but that non-vaxxers are wrong. Example: I post a study saying vaccines are unsafe. A pro-vaxxer comes along and successfully debunks the study. They have not proven vaccines are safe, just that I was wrong to use this study as evidence vaccines are unsafe.


The goal of pro-vaxxers is to get people to vaccinate. How and when they play all comes down to this goal.


___________________


Otherwise, I do think the issue PSM mentioned and I agree with is systemic (not just on MDC). Vaccine debates (more like wars) are so polarized and disrespectful that most people are not interested in investing the time. I would also say that we are fully in the information age right now. People can easily access the information they want or need and decide for themselves. I am neverty-ever going to agree with tea or PSM on most vaccine debate points, and they are not going to agree with me. Why spend a lot of time analyzing an article? For lurkers? The info is out there - they can do it themselves.
applejuice and carnelianlight like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-30-2014 at 10:45 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#20 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 10:41 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 55 Post(s)
I've seen people who question vaccines point out the shortcomings in studies that are used to question vaccines.

I don't think I have seen pro-vaxxers point out the shortcomings of studies that are used to support vaccines.

This is the perfect study though for pro-vaxxers to criticize and say that the methods are so questionable that they wouldn't use this study to support their position. I mean, c'mon, rates of autism from a different city? It won't take hours to come to the conclusion that it is utterly indefensible. Imagine the fall-out from the pro-vax side if a vaccine-critical study did that?
applejuice and serenbat like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#21 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 11:02 AM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
IN my discussions on line with vaccine fans, I always post studies to back up what I say, and none of the studies are ever good enough for them despite the fact that they NEVER post studies.

Vaccine proponents are arrogant enough to believe that they have the weight of the scientific community, studies, history and G-d on their side, no matter how selective they are about the evidence. This is the "appeal to authority argument" that I am accused of when I do cite a doctor or scientist or immunologist who opposes mandatory vaccination.

Most with whom I have discussed with, state that vaccine reactions are from an over active imagination or hormonal adolescents in the case of Gardasil; co-incidents, if you will ...
serenbat, beckybird and samaxtics like this.
applejuice is offline  
#22 of 22 Old 06-30-2014, 06:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,402
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments!

I WILL bring this thread back to the top if someone makes the claim that the "science" has shown that there is no connection between autism and vaccines. This particular study is probably the very worst of the studies (bottom of the barrel, so to speak), but all of the other studies I've actually dug into also have glaring problems.

Just a heads up.
Deborah is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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