Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
What's the issue? Are they making the story up?
Here's another source:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/o...istleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress/
Last edited:
Vaccine related autism study?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
What's the issue? Are they making the story up?
Here's another source:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/03/o...istleblower-plans-to-testify-before-congress/
Bells
Staff member
The study that looked at 14 million children was not a Danish study. That study was conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration, which is not Danish.
So could you please explain what you are talking about?
Perhaps it is you who is not in the same thread. Did you even read the links I provided to those actual scientific studies? I understand you may find it strange, because they are not links to woo woo conspiracy sites you seem to constantly frequent, but to actual scientific journal sites...
And your link is not to anything scientific (and is about a guy who skimmed $2 million to buy a house and car). It is to an anti-vaccination site.
Now, can you please explain to us, with scientific links, why not giving children the MMR vaccine still saw an increase in ASD being diagnosed in children in Japan? If the MMR vaccine is causing it, why was it still on the rise in children who were not vaccinated?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Part of this post is plagiarised from an unacknowledged source. Members are reminded not to plagiarise.
My bad. Here's a report on this Cochrane study. Apparently there were major conflicts of interest here in this report helping the British govt to avoid vaccine damage lawsuits. There are also major issues of proper science being done. See the report here:
http://www.jpands.org/vol11no4/millerc.pdf
As for the Japanese study, here's some info on that:
5. No Effect of MMR Withdrawal on the Incidence of Autism: A Total Population Study (Honda, 2005)
Question Asked: Did MMR withdrawal in Japan in 1993 have an effect on incidence of Autism?
Published Conclusion: No, but admits, "Epidemiological data, however, cannot test the very different hypothesis that MMR might involve an increased risk of ASD in a very small number of children who, for some reason, are unusaually susceptible to damage from the vaccine." Well, no kidding.
Conflicts: None listed.
Problems:
• Study did not address the affected children. A recalculation of the data does show that the MMR does appear to have had an affect on Autism Spectrum Disorder rates. And finally, while children in the study were not vaccinated with MMR in 1994 and beyond for some time, children were still vaccinated against Measles and Rubella between 12 and 36 months; Mumps was optional for children on year or older. No never-vaccinated children were studied.
Actual Conclusion: Study tells us nothing about a subset of children who could be affected by MMR.
Last edited:
Here's another question for you to run from:
Given two apparently contradictory standards from the same source, how did you decide which to believe? Did you:
-Flip a coin?
-Identify the most relevant one, discard it, and select the other one?
-Just believe what the anti-vax site said without putting any thought into it yourself?
-Not even slow down so much in your copy-paste-flooding to read the content you were copy-paste-flooding? (Full disclosure: the relevant part was just above what you copy-paste-flooded, so only by very lackadasical skimming would it have been possible for you to have missed it.)
Given two apparently contradictory standards from the same source, how did you decide which to believe? Did you:
-Flip a coin?
-Identify the most relevant one, discard it, and select the other one?
-Just believe what the anti-vax site said without putting any thought into it yourself?
-Not even slow down so much in your copy-paste-flooding to read the content you were copy-paste-flooding? (Full disclosure: the relevant part was just above what you copy-paste-flooded, so only by very lackadasical skimming would it have been possible for you to have missed it.)
[retracted -- unsure]
Here's another question for you to ignore: why do you cite sources that you believe are unreliable - even fraudulent?
Yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geierwiki said:
Never a good idea to trust a conclusion of fraud that is provided by a convicted fraud.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
What conclusion? The news story is legit. It has nothing to do with Mark Geier.
Bells
Staff member
Umm.. Clifford G. Miller is a known anti-vaxxer who often features quite prominently along with Andrew Wakefield on anti-vaccine sites. Like this one: "Age of Autism"..
I was curious about why you did not link this part.
So I went and searched for it.
And I found it.
On an anti-vaccination site:
5. No Effect of MMR Withdrawal on the Incidence of Autism: A Total Population Study (Honda, 2005)
Question Asked: Did MMR withdrawal in Japan in 1993 have an effect on incidence of Autism?
Published Conclusion: No, but admits, "Epidemiological data, however, cannot test the very different hypothesis that MMR might involve an increased risk of ASD in a very small number of children who, for some reason, are unusaually susceptible to damage from the vaccine." Well, no kidding.
Conflicts: None listed.
Problems:
• Study did not address the affected children. A recalculation of the data does show that the MMR does appear to have had an affect on Autism Spectrum Disorder rates. And finally, while children in the study were not vaccinated with MMR in 1994 and beyond for some time, children were still vaccinated against Measles and Rubella between 12 and 36 months; Mumps was optional for children on year or older. No never-vaccinated children were studied.
Actual Conclusion: Study tells us nothing about a subset of children who could be affected by MMR.
Question Asked: Did MMR withdrawal in Japan in 1993 have an effect on incidence of Autism?
Published Conclusion: No, but admits, "Epidemiological data, however, cannot test the very different hypothesis that MMR might involve an increased risk of ASD in a very small number of children who, for some reason, are unusaually susceptible to damage from the vaccine." Well, no kidding.
Conflicts: None listed.
Problems:
• Study did not address the affected children. A recalculation of the data does show that the MMR does appear to have had an affect on Autism Spectrum Disorder rates. And finally, while children in the study were not vaccinated with MMR in 1994 and beyond for some time, children were still vaccinated against Measles and Rubella between 12 and 36 months; Mumps was optional for children on year or older. No never-vaccinated children were studied.
Actual Conclusion: Study tells us nothing about a subset of children who could be affected by MMR.
Could you please explain why you are quoting large chunks of material and not referencing any of it? Are you aware that we take a very dim view of plagiarism?
I provided you with a link to the actual study.
Perhaps you should read that instead of plagiarising by quote mining from anti-vaccination sites.
Could you please provide actual scientific studies that have not been discredited and not quote mined from anti-vaccination sites?
Oh, right, I forgot, you don't read your own citations, so I have to explain them to you: Mark Geier is the principal author and funder of the paper that the story is about. He's been stripped of his medical credentials due to fraud/crackpottery and he's accusing the FDA of fraud/crackpottery in the paper that is the source of story you linked.
It would be useful to cross-reference that to the number of pirates. As the number of pirates has decreased, autism rates have increased. It is impossible that this is just a coincidence.
Precisely.
IV solutions are an example of chronic exposure.
Vaccines are an example of acute exposure.
As I pointed out pages and pages ago, there is a difference between the two, and chronic exposure usually has a lower limit than acute exposure.
Trivially explained - see my previous post.
Did you ever work out what Wakefield's second patent was that he would have benefited greatly from should he have been able to prove his argument?
This applies to exposure to virtually anything that is potentially harmful (I mentioned x-rays earlier). By profession, I design and study lab ventilation systems. Chemical vapours in the air are measured and rated according to short term and long term exposures -- but minutes and hours, not days and months. For example, one particularly nasty lab vapor:
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3144.html
15 minute time weighted average exposure limit: 125 ppm
8-hour time weighted average exposure limit: 25 ppm
I know - I may work in Environmental law enforcement at the moment, however, I (at one stage) studied for a paper on the UNGHS which included an extensive discussion around toxicology and the various standards (LOAEL, NOAEL, 15 minute, 8 hour, and so on and so forth), had to learn all the hazard phrases, even had to put together our own hazard diamonds SDS's and such .
We studied Seveso and Bhopal among others.
I'm lucky in that one of the lecturers involved in the course also headed up/set up the national poisons center
I've been trying to get him to discuss the difference between acute and chronic exposure since before he was banned by Kitt - maybe I should threaten to ban him until he discusses the differences between them in the context of this discussion and tells us whether or not he's taken the ten minutes out of his life required to watch that video on herd immunity I linked to earlier (at which point he will be able to tell us what Wakefield's other patent was for).
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Well I guess I'm outta here. James R has taken it upon himself to use his own moderator power to ban discussion of the vaccine/autism link. Typical tripe ya know. I'm endangering the human race by suggesting parents not overvaccinate their own babies. Said I lied when I initially said I was for vaccines, which in fact I am just not for overvaccinated babies. That I made clear in the thread, but he apparently forgot about it. Whereas he's removed alot of infraction points I had from Kittamaru, he's basically informed me that the papers I've posted here are made up or retracted or something, which ofcourse is a total lie. I leave you to your own hysterical ranting comforted that I have provided enough information for any other posters here to make their own informed decisions on this matter. Cya folks!