Mothering Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/autism-war-fiction-true-crime/
If the 40% held true for all 1,323 cases (...I have never heard of autism being harder on the unusual-name population), then the true number of already compensated cases of autism is more like 530! That’s 530 cases of brain injury “caused by” routine childhood vaccinations that “resulted in” autism.
...the autism in these cases is “just a coincidence,” but if that were so – if the presence of autism were not due to the vaccine-induced brain injury – then the prevalence of autism in the brain-injured population should be approximately the same as in the general population.
Saw this review from last year and this bit jumped out at me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
bumping up. This could stand a bit of discussion.

Is there a hole in the reasoning? Someone please point it out!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Still hoping someone can explain the oddity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anne Jividen

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Not sure what you want discussed, but I read the thinking moms blog and then I read the actual paper that was written. The 2011 paper was written by Mary Holland , two personal injury attorneys who are litigants trying to get compensation for autism and vaccine connections, and Louise Conte a probation officer who founded the National Vaccine injury compensation Justice Project. I think it is important to note, that all four authors of the study have vested interests in the claim that vaccines cause autism. They started their study from the perspective that vaccines cause autism and then set out to prove that. Louise Conte then wrote a fictional novel about what he thinks is going on, and Thinking Moms interviewed him. I am not going to comment on the novel because it is fictional. But I will comment on the actual study.

First, Not sure where the 1323 number comes from the total number of cases was 2500 according to the study (page 43 on the study). They investigated a subset of 83 cases allegedly all they could find. They didn’t use representative sampling so we have no way of knowing how representative these 83 cases are to the larger population of 2500. Because all of the authors have a vested interest in vaccines/autism connection, I have doubts about the sampling since they don’t provide any discussion of what they did to find people or what the participation rate was of those they found.

Of the 83cases they note that 39 (47% of the subset) have autism. However,, this isn’t actually accurate. They are basing it off parental reports, and their own interpretations of the child’s symptoms. They note that an actual medical diagnoses is beyond the scope of their study and that they have in no way proven these subjects have autism (page 34 of the study). It appears that 17 had actual autism documentation (which changes the 3 times more likely to have autism from the study dramatically).

Much of the paper is based on the idea that all autism like symptoms are autism because autism is a diagnosis of symptoms. That because lack of normal eye gaze and non normal social relations are listed in the DSM_IV autism and the VICP encephalopathy classification as diagnostic criteria that all lack of normal eye gaze and non-normal social relations are autism. That isn’t accurate. Just like having a seizure ( a main epilepsy symptom) doesn’t automatically mean you have epilepsy.

Summary of my thoughts Four individuals who believe vaccines cause autism and all have a vested interest in that causation (are involved in litigation) did a study of VICP, there is nothing known about their sampling. They found that by their interpretation of what Autism is (and none of them are doctors) and parental reports (NOT actual autism documentation) autism is 3 times more common among VICP compensated individuals. Then Louis Conte wrote a fictional “medical thriller”. 3 years later thinking mom’s revolution wrote a blog reviewing the fictional novel and interviewing the author. The actual study never gained any traction because there is significant methodological problems (non representative sampling and not using documented autistic disorder but diagnoses from those not qualified to make that diagnoses).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,831 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Thanks @Dakotacakes.

I take your argument to be:

conflict of interest

prejudice

limited number of cases

lack of dependable diagnosis

This doesn't address the oddity of the names, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anne Jividen

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Every part of my being wants to some how, some way, work in, "you can't make this sh#* up". :grin:

Have not read the book and started following TMR shortly after that post so did not see that one. Last Christmas asked hubby for the Canary Party book list but that gift fell prey to better needs. Think this year will ask for the one book cuz now I have to read it!

I had heard Mary Holland on a handful of occasions reference these 83 cases. Was not aware of the, "vested interest". It seems odd to me that "vested" now means defending one's position.

IMO, in this instance, the rule is not trying to prove the theory, the evidence is trying to explain the rule.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top