Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Congressional Hearing on the Federal Response to Autism on C-Span Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-13-2012 12:55 PM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Yeah, like how 14Studies actually wanted studies designed  to be accurate, scientific, free from conflict of interest, and all that stuff, rather than set up with rigged data, etc.

I interpret it a it differently. I tank 14 studies defines a good study as one which shows vaccines are bad, and a biased rigged study as one which doesn't.

Another point we may have to agree to disagree on.
12-13-2012 12:42 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

14 studies main point, as far as I can tell, is that the studies weren't designed exactly the way they wanted them to be. A lot of their criticism is very arbitrary.

Yeah, like how 14Studies actually wanted studies designed  to be accurate, scientific, free from conflict of interest, and all that stuff, rather than set up with rigged data, etc.

12-12-2012 07:49 PM
Rrrrrachel 14 studies main point, as far as I can tell, is that the studies weren't designed exactly the way they wanted them to be. A lot of their criticism is very arbitrary.
12-12-2012 07:35 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

Science Based Medicine has some analysis: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/14-studies-later 

The SBM "analysis," written by Adventist Medical Center internist Mark Crislip basically says, "oh, these studies make perfect sense" while completely ignoring the valid criticisms explained by www.14studies.org.

 

Instead of discussing the points made by 14studies, he makes a nice little attack on the whole idea of a (gasp) government cover-up of data, suggesting that anyone who believes that (gasp) the government would cover up data would also believe "that the REAL widespread, well funded, conspiracy between researchers, industry and government is suppress the truth about the Kennedy assassination. And man made global warming. And the Trilateral Commission. And the Holocaust. And UFO’s. And Big Foot. And Homeopathy. And Fluoridation. And the Loch Ness Monster. And and and and…"

 

Yeah, in lieu of actual discussion, we see an awful lot of insults thrown at those who question and criticize vaccine safety.  Crislip is also good at making it look like he is discussing 14studies' points--but if you do a side-by-side comparison, he's not even touching on those points. Nice sleigh-of-hand--but it doesn't fool anyone who bothers to actually read both, side-by-side and point by point

 

Just to give one example:

 

14Studies' take on "Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintance Organization Database"

Pediatrics, Thomas Verstraeten, MD (November 2003)

 

A disaster. The most widely quoted study, and the only study ever done with American data on American children, reached a neutral conclusion, asked the wrong question, and the author left to join a vaccine company before its publication. And, the world's most incriminating and public "secret meeting" calls the entire study into question. If this is the CDC's best work, we're all in trouble. Recently, the former CDC Director called this study "unhelpful and potentially misleading."

 

Crislip's "analysis:"

 

In this study they looked at HMO records of 124,170 infants for associations between neurodevelopemental disorders and thimerosal exposure. They then reevaluated the same disorders on another 16,717 children in another HMO. They found different associations between neurodevelopemental disorders and thimerosal exposures at the two HMO’s. And when it came to autism and attention deficit disorder, there were no increased risks that they could determine.

 

Crislip's critique of 14Studies' critique: Their main issue with the paper was the politics and bias behind it. What about the science?

Gee, somehow Crislip doesn't even mention that this is a study held up to "prove" that vaccines aren't linked with autism?  No mention that "the study initially found statistically significant dose-response effects between increasing doses of mercury from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and various types of neurodevelopmental disorders. "  ALso no mention that it was later found that approximately 1/3 of the children in this study had actually received thimerosal-free vaccines, but were counted as having received thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

 

And it's pretty much the same for all those studies. Crislip mocks and jeers at 14Studies, and summarizes the studies as though he were paid to market them, but doesn't actually discuss the points made by 14Studies.

 

 

12-12-2012 07:23 PM
Dakotacakes That is helpful it does provide the "guest critics" which are published elsewere. But not the authorship of the overall discussions and ratings. It isn't that important. i just like names to work especially online.
12-12-2012 07:02 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

Thanks chickbiddy some reading for tommorrow smile.gif
Kathy, conflicts of interests some times are concerning. But that is the same regardless of direction. IIt is not always a reason to throw out the study but it does raise a flag and mean that i will look at it more closely As for hypocricy that works both ways. IIf the CDC igas a conflict of interest with drug companies. We shoudl be equally cocnerned with individuals conflicts with supplements, or therapies they are selling with their research.

Sure.  I can agree to that.

 

I took a look on the 14 studies pages, and it seems the critiques have individual authors.  

 

http://www.14studies.org/studies_thimerosal.html

 

If you click on "read more" you will find the list of authors within each review.  You do have to read a bit, sometimes the names are embedded in the document instead of at the top.

12-12-2012 06:59 PM
Dakotacakes Thanks chickbiddy some reading for tommorrow smile.gif

Kathy, conflicts of interests some times are concerning. But that is the same regardless of direction. IIt is not always a reason to throw out the study but it does raise a flag and mean that i will look at it more closely As for hypocricy that works both ways. IIf the CDC igas a conflict of interest with drug companies. We shoudl be equally cocnerned with individuals conflicts with supplements, or therapies they are selling with their research.
12-12-2012 06:54 PM
chickabiddy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

I wish the 14 studies website indicated who is the writer of the explanation is. The about us only says that it is a generation rescue, Jenny McCarthy's Autism organization. They are trying to explain "what scientific studies REALLY say" but they aren't giving who is saying that that is what they say and what their qualifications are. I am certain it isn't Jenny McCarthy but I would like to know WHO is reviewing the studies and what their qualifications are and if they have a conflict of interest.

 

Science Based Medicine has some analysis: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/14-studies-later .

12-12-2012 06:49 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post

I wish the 14 studies website indicated who is the writer of the explanation is. The about us only says that it is a generation rescue, Jenny McCarthy's Autism organization. They are trying to explain "what scientific studies REALLY say" but they aren't giving who is saying that that is what they say and what their qualifications are. I am certain it isn't Jenny McCarthy but I would like to know WHO is reviewing the studies and what their qualifications are and if they have a conflict of interest.

Is conflict of interest concerning?  Funny, it does not seem to be when most of the vaccine studies come from vaccine manufacturers and vaccine manufacturers sit on boards of CDC advisory committees…...

12-12-2012 06:45 PM
Dakotacakes I wish the 14 studies website indicated who is the writer of the explanation is. The about us only says that it is a generation rescue, Jenny McCarthy's Autism organization. They are trying to explain "what scientific studies REALLY say" but they aren't giving who is saying that that is what they say and what their qualifications are. I am certain it isn't Jenny McCarthy but I would like to know WHO is reviewing the studies and what their qualifications are and if they have a conflict of interest.
12-12-2012 05:00 PM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


I don't understand why I'm supposed to accept the results of one pilot study, but yet reject the myriad studies that tell me that vaccination has no relationship to autism.

 

www.14studies.org has some excellent discussion of the flaws of the "myriad studies that tell you that vax has no relationship to autism."  The site also discusses the studies that do indicate just such a relationship.  In fact, at least one of the studies that purports to show no relationship actually does show that relationship.

12-12-2012 02:55 PM
WildKingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 This whole last page supports my point, actually.

I said "vaccine are not an easy fix - people will not want to change the vaccine program even if vaccines are implicated in autism" and rachel  disagreed. I am simplifying, but it is all upthread.

What do we have on the last page?

mild attack on the study 
pointing out the study is preliminary
-pointing out that depression is serious and of course pregnant women should not just go off it!


What we don't have is:

Hey - that is interesting! Autism is serious.   Maybe this is cause for caution?  Should pregnant women be told about this?  Any other studies?  Any alternative to anti-depressants?  

I am not sensing from pro-vax forces  a willingness to change or even consider change…why would it be different if it were vaccine implicated in autism?  It wouldn't.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to accept the results of one pilot study, but yet reject the myriad studies that tell me that vaccination has no relationship to autism.
12-12-2012 02:08 PM
Rrrrrachel Except, Kathy, as I keep pointing out to you, vaccinations are viewed an treated very differently when it comes to safety than (other) drugs.

Although no, I don't think a study with twenty people is what I would consider a conclusive link, either.
12-12-2012 12:56 PM
kathymuggle
Quote:
 

 This whole last page supports my point, actually.

 

I said "vaccine are not an easy fix - people will not want to change the vaccine program even if vaccines are implicated in autism" and rachel  disagreed. I am simplifying, but it is all upthread.

 

What do we have on the last page?

 

mild attack on the study 

pointing out the study is preliminary

-pointing out that depression is serious and of course pregnant women should not just go off it!

 

 

What we don't have is:

 

Hey - that is interesting! Autism is serious.   Maybe this is cause for caution?  Should pregnant women be told about this?  Any other studies?  Any alternative to anti-depressants?  

 

I am not sensing from pro-vax forces  a willingness to change or even consider change…why would it be different if it were vaccine implicated in autism?  It wouldn't.

12-12-2012 11:18 AM
Taximom5

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003012/tricyclic-antidepressants-compared-with-active-placebos-for-depression

 

"This review examined trials which compared antidepressants with 'active' placebos, that is placebos containing active substances which mimic side effects of antidepressants. Small differences were found in favour of antidepressants in terms of improvements in mood. This suggests that the effects of antidepressants may generally be overestimated and their placebo effects may be underestimated."

 

 

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004851/newer-antidepressants-for-depression-in-children-and-adolescents

 

"Based on 17 trials (3229 participants in total), there was evidence of an increased risk (64%) of suicide-related outcomes for those on antidepressants compared with those given placebo. Where rates of adverse events were reported, this was higher for those prescribed an antidepressant. There was no evidence that one particular type of newer generation antidepressant had a larger effect than the others when compared to placebo."

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/10/20/141544135/look-around-1-in-10-americans-take-antidepressants

 

"About 11 percent of people in the U.S. are taking antidepressants according tofresh figures out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antidepressant use has surged almost 400 percent, when you compare the figures from the three-year period ending in 2008 to the six years ending in 1994, the year the eye-opening memoir Prozac Nation was published."

 

And the numbers go even higher for young people:

"But wait, there's more. Nearly 4 percent of adolescents (ages 12-17) are on an antidepressant."

 

So if there IS a link between antidepressants and autism, then it looks like autism rates will continue to go up, even if the vaccine-autism link is addressed.

 

Great.  We've got serious problems caused by both vaccines AND antidepressants.  It looks like, in both cases, the pharmaceutical industry lied about safety/efficacy, and convinced the medical industry to prescribe these unnecessary medications to people, and the FDA was either clueless or ignoring the problems.

 

12-12-2012 11:09 AM
Taximom5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post


This is a false dilemma. Antidepressant drugs are not the only, or even necessarily the best, way to treat depression.

 

Absolutely, especially mild depression, which is far more common than severe depression.

 

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/02/01/are-antidepressants-really-that-ineffective/

"The more researchers delve into the research behind antidepressants — the class of drugs commonly prescribed to treat depression — the more they find that perhaps the majority of antidepressants’ treatment effect is based upon the simple belief that the drug will help."

 

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/research/articles/2010/01/05/antidepressants-not-very-effective-for-mild-depression

 

Antidepressants Not Very Effective for Mild Depression

A new study shows that sugar pills work about as well, except in people with very severe depression

 

"A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that the medications work no better than a placebo in those with mild or even moderate symptoms of depression."

 

 

12-12-2012 10:11 AM
Rrrrrachel
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post

This is a false dilemma. Antidepressant drugs are not the only, or even necessarily the best, way to treat depression.

In some cases. Not all.
12-12-2012 09:58 AM
pers
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Oddly or not, they just jumped to "she is wrong".  97% is equal to 1/33.33333   It is basic math.

 

Ohhhh….

 

1/100 = 1/100

2/100= 1/50

3/100 = 1/33.3333...

4/100  = 1/25

 

and so on.

 

I understand what you meant in your earlier post, but no. 

 

97% is not equal to 1/33.  

 

3/100 is 3%, not 97%. 

 

97% is actually about 32/33

12-12-2012 09:25 AM
Jennyanydots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You know why it's so easy for you to say you wouldn't go on antidepressants? You don't suffer from depression. Depression is a life threatening condition. Telling a mother to go off of a medication for a life threatening condition she actually has in order to reduce a small risk other fetus of a non life threatening condition is not something to be taken lightly, Kathy. It has its own very real and serious risks for mother and baby.
It is not AT ALL comparable to vaccination.
This is a false dilemma. Antidepressant drugs are not the only, or even necessarily the best, way to treat depression.
12-12-2012 07:06 AM
Rrrrrachel You know why it's so easy for you to say you wouldn't go on antidepressants? You don't suffer from depression. Depression is a life threatening condition. Telling a mother to go off of a medication for a life threatening condition she actually has in order to reduce a small risk other fetus of a non life threatening condition is not something to be taken lightly, Kathy. It has its own very real and serious risks for mother and baby.

It is not AT ALL comparable to vaccination.
12-12-2012 06:39 AM
WildKingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

from the study:

"A total of 298 case children with ASD (and their mothers) and 1507 randomly selected control children (and their mothers) drawn from the membership of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Northern California."

Yes, but only 20 of those 298 ASD children had exposure to SSRIs.

And if course there is nothing on the Zoloft insert about SSRIs causing autism. Becaus we can't say that they do.
12-12-2012 06:19 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post


Is that what you consider good evidence? A pilot study with 20 cases? What response do you expect from the medical community? Do you expect them to pull all depressed expectant moms off of SSRIs based on a pilot study?
The only, only conclusion that can be drawn from that study is the more research is warranted. Good thing that's being done (see clinical trials.gov for a list)

 

from the study:

 

"A total of 298 case children with ASD (and their mothers) and 1507 randomly selected control children (and their mothers) drawn from the membership of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Northern California."

 

In any event, I agree with the bolded.

 

I also think it is prudent to abstain from anti-depressants during pregnancy while they sort this out.

 

I also think it is prudent and ethical for medical advisors to let people know of this study (including that it is preliminary) in non-leading language, so they can decide for themselves. 

12-12-2012 06:10 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You know what else is serious? Depression. In glad they're being cautious and not having women go of their medication based on a preliminary study. It would be completely different with a vaccine, though. Since they're given to healthy people they are held to a completely different safety standard than a drug that is used to treat a medical condition.

Yeah, depression is serious….

 

I said the study might be preliminary (and I think it is)…but it also seems pretty solid.

 

I know this is OT. but if anyone has any solid criticism of the study, I would be all ears...

 

I personally would not go on anti-depressants at this point in time if I were pregnant.

 

I am not willing to increase (fairly substantially) the chances of my child having autism while the powers that be sort this out. 

 

I would figure out a way to get my depression under control without drugs, or I would not get pregnant.  A 1/33 risk is too high for me.

_______

 

also OT, but I wonder if the drug inserts for SSRI warn people of the increase, preferably in plain and not leading language….

 

Very preliminary glance at Zoloft insert……no mention is made of increase in chances of autism when pregnant hopmad.gif

12-12-2012 06:02 AM
WildKingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

If we look at how the medical community is handling research  that shows anti-depressents in pregnancy are linked to autism, we can see that this is not true.  There is good evidence SSRI's are linked to autism, and yet there does not seem to be much cautioning people against anti-depressents in pregnancy.  Indeed, the articles I have read (such as the one below) have been rather dismissive -  saying the odds of having a child with autism "only" slips from 99 to 98 or 97%.  This is huge.  99% means 1 in a hundred, 97% is 1/33.  

http://www.drgreene.com/blog/2011/07/07/autism-linked-prenatal-prozac-paxil-and-zoloft


"Autism of some kind is now diagnosed in about 1% of kids (or perhaps between 1% and 2%). Doubling 1% would take this to 2%, tripling to 3%. Looking at these same numbers the other way, in general there is about a 99% chance of having a child never diagnosed with any type of autism. For those taking antidepressants, if this link proves true the odds may slip slightly to 98% or 97% -- important, but not a cause to make rash decisions.



While the data suggests that prenatal antidepressant use and having a child with autism happen together a bit more frequently, it doesn’t prove the medicines are the cause."



 



 



 



 



Is that what you consider good evidence? A pilot study with 20 cases? What response do you expect from the medical community? Do you expect them to pull all depressed expectant moms off of SSRIs based on a pilot study?

The only, only conclusion that can be drawn from that study is the more research is warranted. Good thing that's being done (see clinical trials.gov for a list)
12-12-2012 05:56 AM
Rrrrrachel You know what else is serious? Depression. In glad they're being cautious and not having women go of their medication based on a preliminary study. It would be completely different with a vaccine, though. Since they're given to healthy people they are held to a completely different safety standard than a drug that is used to treat a medical condition.
12-12-2012 05:27 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 Actually she was right - just explained it a bit oddly - she meant that 99% chance of not getting autism means 1% chance of getting it. 1% is 1/100. If that changes to 97% chance of not getting  autism, its a 3% chance of getting it. And 3% is 3/100 or 1/33.

 

 How easy to determine are these numbers though?  

Are you referring to the info around anti-depressants and autism?

 

The study:

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1107329

 

Results:

 

"Prenatal exposure to antidepressant medications was reported for 20 case children (6.7%) and 50 control children (3.3%). In adjusted logistic regression models, we found a 2-fold increased risk of ASD associated with treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors by the mother during the year before delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.3]), with the strongest effect associated with treatment during the first trimester (adjusted odds ratio, 3.8 [95% confidence interval, 1.8-7.8]). No increase in risk was found for mothers with a history of mental health treatment in the absence of prenatal exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors."

12-12-2012 05:22 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

And a drug is completely different than a vaccine and held to a very different safety standard.

 

 

A vaccine is a drug - it is a biologic drug.  
 
Autism is pretty damn serious, yet messages around anti-depressants and autism seem wishy-washy.
 
It could be  the study is preliminary, but I still find the language that has been used in both the study and articles I have seen quite dismissive, and cautioning us not to do anything rash (g-d forbid we do not want their drugs).
 A jump from 1-3% for autism is huge (if it turns out to be correct) and I do not see people acknowledging that.
12-12-2012 05:16 AM
chickabiddy

Okay, thanks.

12-12-2012 05:16 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 Actually she was right - just explained it a bit oddly - she meant that 99% chance of not getting autism means 1% chance of getting it. 1% is 1/100. If that changes to 97% chance of not getting  autism, its a 3% chance of getting it. And 3% is 3/100 or 1/33.

 

 How easy to determine are these numbers though?  

Oddly or not, they just jumped to "she is wrong".   3% is equal to 1/33.33333   It is basic math.

 

Ohhhh….

 

1/100 = 1/100

2/100= 1/50

3/100 = 1/33.3333...

4/100  = 1/25

 

and so on.

12-12-2012 05:04 AM
prosciencemum
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

This math is incorrect.  99% is 99 of 100, 97% is 97 of 100, 33.3% is 1 of 33, 3% is 3 of 100, and 1% is 1 of 100.

 

 Actually she was right - just explained it a bit oddly - she meant that 99% chance of not getting autism means 1% chance of getting it. 1% is 1/100. If that changes to 97% chance of not getting  autism, its a 3% chance of getting it. And 3% is 3/100 or 1/33.

 

 How easy to determine are these numbers though?  

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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