Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When I was in library school I took a class in medical librarianship. One class session was on evidence based medicine. Types of published material was set up in a sort of pyramid of validity as evidence based information. At the bottom of the pyramid were case studies: can be considered evidence based, but of little value unless you have lots and lots of them pointing to the same thing. At the top were double-blinded clinical studies.<br><br>
I asked my prof why epidemiological studies weren't in the pyramid at all. He answered that they are generally not considered part of evidence based medical information for a variety of reasons. He went on to say that there is one type of study that is an exception to this rule. This is a longitudinal study that observes subjects over time. <span style="color:#FF0000;">Not a retroactive study that goes back and reviews medical records.</span> It has to be a study that enrolls a large group of subjects, does a baseline data collection on all the participants and then reconnects with them at regular intervals for further data collection. An example would be the long-running study that demonstrated the dangers of hormonal treatment during menopause.<br><br>
So, I'm wondering if other people on this forum have other info about the problems with epidemiological studies. They are frequently brought forward as evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Are they good or bad evidence? Why?<br><br>
Thanks for any insights!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,133 Posts
<a href="http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/publications/overview/epidemiology.html" target="_blank">http://www.doh.wa.gov/Hanford/public...demiology.html</a><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Epidemiology is the study of disease in human populations.</td>
</tr></table></div>
<a href="http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/epidem/four.php3" target="_blank">http://www.facsnet.org/tools/ref_tutor/epidem/four.php3</a><br><br>
That link gives info about weakness and strength of each type of study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
from the first link:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">The basic approach of epidemiology is to compare groups of people. In doing so, it explores whether an association, or a link, exists between exposures and health effects. The comparisons are usually done by placing people into categories. There are two main categories: exposure and disease. A "cohort" study compares groups of people based on exposure. It tries to determine whether disease occurs more frequently or less frequently among a population (or group of people) which has been exposed than among those who have not been exposed.</td>
</tr></table></div>
No such study has ever been done on vaxed populations--they have never been compared to unvaxed populations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The second link is also quite useful. I think all of the epidemiological studies on vaccines (I'm thinking of the "disprove autism connection" stuff) have been of the case control type. The description uses the word "bias" at least twice and I can see where problems would arise.<br><br>
Thanks MITB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,622 Posts
Why don't some of the reputable anti-vax scientists get going on a study comparing vax'd vs. unvax'd children or adults? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/shrug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shrug">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>prettypixels</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7277357"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Why don't some of the reputable anti-vax scientists get going on a study comparing vax'd vs. unvax'd children or adults? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/shrug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shrug"></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
They have.<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/headscratch.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="headscratch"><br>
Blessed (an MD) posted a link to one of the studies last week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<a href="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showpost.php?p=7251889&postcount=5" target="_blank">http://www.mothering.com/discussions...89&postcount=5</a><br><a href="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showpost.php?p=7256464&postcount=8" target="_blank">http://www.mothering.com/discussions...64&postcount=8</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,009 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>prettypixels</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7277357"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Why don't some of the reputable anti-vax scientists get going on a study comparing vax'd vs. unvax'd children or adults? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/shrug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shrug"></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Funding. Who wants to pay for that research? The government won't. The drug companies won't. Who's left? You know research costs money, I assume. It's not like you just design a perfect study by yourself, call a bunch of people, get them to volunteer their kids, then take all the health histories yourself, while being the only researcher to follow up with them, then do all the statistical analysis yourself, too. Research costs money and no one wants to pay for this research.<br><br><br>
And before anyone accuses me of believing there's a vast conspiracy to kill children or at least maim them for life or some other ridiculous thing, let's be very clear on this. Believing that the government is utterly inept and that most people are so convinced vaccines are harmless that they refuse to research their dangers in no way suggests that there is a conspiracy to kill/maim/damage/harm or in any way do anything purposefully malicious or careless with children.<br><br>
Besides, PP, you know yourself that if any "reputable anti-vax scientist" studies this, most people who vaccinate will automatically discount their conclusion, stating that the Geiers are biased. Every time the Geiers (who did the analysis in the other thread mamakay linked) are mentioned, someone here says, "But they're biased anti-vax doctors," or "They're not reputable," or something similar. Interestingly, whenever pro-vax doctors or scientists publish research supporting vaccines, we never hear any vaxers complaining about bias.<br><br>
Edit: When I said, "...most people who vaccinate will automatically discount their conclusion, stating that the Geiers are biased," I meant to say, "stating that the scientists are biased".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
I'm really wondering why some pro-vax researchers don't get a study together showing how much healthier fully vaccinated kids are compared to totally unvaccinated kids.<br><br>
Between endemic pertussis, circulating diphtheria, Mumps outbreaks, pneumococcal bacteria, tetanus, and deadly seasonal influenza...<br>
The unvaccinated kids should just be a mess compared to the fully vaxed kids.<br><br>
( I picked the ones where there's not a case for herd immunity. Measles and a few others don't count because they're being kept at bay through high immunization, although we're not particularly thrilled about that, and don't think there would be a difference in general health favoring the vaxed kids if they were endemic, too.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,813 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Plummeting</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7278357"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Every time the Geiers (who did the analysis in the other thread mamakay linked) are mentioned, someone here says, "But they're biased anti-vax doctors," or "They're not reputable," or something similar. Interestingly, whenever pro-vax doctors or scientists publish research supporting vaccines, we never hear any vaxers complaining about bias.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Meanwhile, if it weren't for the persistence of Geiers, among others, vaxers would <i>still</i> be repeatedly injecting their precious babies with sh*tload of thimerosal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>LongIsland</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7278451"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Meanwhile, if it weren't for the persistence of Geiers, among others, vaxers would <i>still</i> be repeatedly injecting their precious babies with sh*tload of thimerosal.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/nod.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="nod"><br><br>
And then when you mention how bad the CDC messed up with thimerosal, they'll say "Well, they took thimerosal out, so it doesn't matter now".<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,622 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>mamakay</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7278404"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I'm really wondering why some pro-vax researchers don't get a study together showing how much healthier fully vaccinated kids are compared to totally unvaccinated kids.<br><br>
Between endemic pertussis, circulating diphtheria, Mumps outbreaks, pneumococcal bacteria, tetanus, and deadly seasonal influenza...<br>
The unvaccinated kids should just be a mess compared to the fully vaxed kids.<br><br>
( I picked the ones where there's not a case for herd immunity. Measles and a few others don't count because they're being kept at bay through high immunization, although we're not particularly thrilled about that, and don't think there would be a difference in general health favoring the vaxed kids if they were endemic, too.)</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I don't see why unvax'd kids should be "a mess," but unvax'd kids do get VPD's. It's all over the CDC website in their statistics. Asking for one reference to prove it is kinda like asking for a reference to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. I mean honestly, that unvax'd children get diseases is supported by the entire body of medical research available today and is the reason vaccines exist at all.<br><br>
Ah, the Geiers. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/lol.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="lol"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">:<br><br>
"District Court judge James Beaty addressed the qualifications (or patent lack thereof) of Mark Geier, MD in excruciating detail...Judge Beaty discusses how Mark Geier has testified in "about one hundred cases before the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program" and how his testimony, since 1995, has "...either been excluded or accorded little or no weight based upon a determination that he was testifying beyond his expertise."<br><a href="http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2006/07/we-interrupt-this-blog-for-breaking.html" target="_blank">http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot....-breaking.html</a><br><br>
"Dr. Geier, who is a geneticist and an obstetrician, is not qualified to give a neurological diagnosis...It is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfills the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for expert witnesses."<br><a href="http://www.casewatch.org/civil/geier.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.casewatch.org/civil/geier.shtml</a><br><br><a href="http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=384" target="_blank">http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=384</a><br><a href="http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=333" target="_blank">http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=333</a><br><br>
BTW, isn't there a post going right now about how reading results from other studies and using the info to draw conclusions is NOT an effective way to conduct a study? Based on everything I have read about them, that is exactly what the Geiers do. I am not a Geiers expert though, are they conducting studies of their own?<br><br>
Anyone else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">I don't see why unvax'd kids should be "a mess," but unvax'd kids do get VPD's. It's all over the CDC website in their statistics. Asking for one reference to prove it is kinda like asking for a reference to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. I mean honestly, that unvax'd children get diseases is supported by the entire body of medical research available today and is the reason vaccines exist at all.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Oh, we know unvaxed kids get VPDs. It's health in general that we're focused on. If you catch a virus or bacteria asymptomatically, what difference does it make.<br>
My three year old has never had any kind of bacterial infection, per say, but he's been exposed to the whole library of "bacterial meningitis" bacteria by now.<br>
And sort of like how vaxers expect their kids to be "under the weather" for a day or two after their shots, we expect our kids to be sick for a few days every once in a while.<br>
Of course, your fully vaccinated baby will get sick every once in a while, too.<br>
But these "dangerous immunable diseases" should really be having long term impacts often enough for there to be a marked difference in general health, right?<br><br>
Our children should have hearing loss from pneumococcal infections, lung damage from pertussis, etc. at a much, much higher rate than the fully vaxed kids.<br><br>
Why aren't the provax researchers pointing these differences out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
I love people who use <b>blogs</b> for primary research, btw. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
It shows that you're really serious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">BTW, isn't there a post going right now about how reading results from other studies and using the info to draw conclusions is NOT an effective way to conduct a study? Based on everything I have read about them, that is exactly what the Geiers do. I am not a Geiers expert though, are they conducting studies of their own?<br><br>
Anyone else?</td>
</tr></table></div>
Actually they were granted access to the VSD to go over the raw data for their 2006 report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,830 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Hm. So, Mamakay, your argument is that children who are not vaxed are known to come down with so called VPDs at a higher rate than vaxed children. If the VPDs do, indeed, have long-term health destroying consequences, the overall health of a group of non-vaxed children should be worse than the overall health of a group of vaxed children.<br><br>
Odd that this hasn't been studied. The only sort of studies I've seen have been the "unvaxed children catch VPDs at a higher rate than vaxed children" type, which doesn't actually tell you anything about the long-term consequences of having the diseases vs having the vaxes.<br><br>
Don't they believe in the overall results of their own very favorite intervention?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Deborah</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7278922"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Hm. So, Mamakay, your argument is that children who are not vaxed are known to come down with so called VPDs at a higher rate than vaxed children. If the VPDs do, indeed, have long-term health destroying consequences, the overall health of a group of non-vaxed children should be worse than the overall health of a group of vaxed children.<br><br>
Odd that this hasn't been studied. The only sort of studies I've seen have been the "unvaxed children catch VPDs at a higher rate than vaxed children" type, which doesn't actually tell you anything about the long-term consequences of having the diseases vs having the vaxes.<br><br>
Don't they believe in the overall results of their own very favorite intervention?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Right. If I really believed that vaccines are necessary for good health, and that these VPD often have serious long term consequences in the people who they're recommended for, I'd jump on the chance to study it.<br>
If I were the CDC, I'd want to do studies on the unvaxed kids all the time to prove how much healthier the fully vaxed kids are.<br>
Studies on unvaxed adults like you, Deborah, too. There should be really obvious problems with your "cohort" (those people who were the children of "antivaxers" in the 50's, 60's, and 70's).<br>
Your cohort should have all sorts of issues compared to the "vaxed" cohort. Paralysis from polio, mental problems from measles, deafness from mumps, lung and seizure disorders from pertissis, etc.<br><br>
Why aren't the provax researchers studying you guys?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Plummeting</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7278357"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Funding. Who wants to pay for that research? The government won't. The drug companies won't. Who's left? You know research costs money, I assume. It's not like you just design a perfect study by yourself, call a bunch of people, get them to volunteer their kids, then take all the health histories yourself, while being the only researcher to follow up with them, then do all the statistical analysis yourself, too. Research costs money and no one wants to pay for this research.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
But aside from the funding argument, wouldn't people who believe vaccines are good say that purposely withholding vaxes from a child is unethical? The child might catch a VPD during the course of the study. We can't have children be completely vax free - they might get sick. And sure, some parents choose not to vax their children but comparing those kids to others would have too many confounding factors such as lifestyle choices, etc. right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,343 Posts
I'd really like to see how unvaxed kids turn out in the long run.<br>
For example, find 200 kids who were vaxed for measles in the 60's and compare them to 200 kids who's parents didn't let them get the vax.<br>
How did that pan out for them?<br><br>
Somebody must have done that at some time.<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/loveeyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Loveeyes">:<br><br><br>
Can you find some studies on that, PP?<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/loveeyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Loveeyes">: <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/loveeyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Loveeyes">: <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/loveeyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Loveeyes">:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,133 Posts
It's unethical to study vax'd vs unvax'd, as they will say that they are putting non-vax'd kids at risk of death. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/shake.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shake">
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top