The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and autism

[WORTHYWISH]

From The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
"Background: Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that usually presents in early childhood and that is thought to be influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Although abnormal metabolism of methionine and homocysteine has been associated with other neurologic diseases, these pathways have not been evaluated in persons with autism.....
Conclusions: An increased vulnerability to oxidative stress and a decreased capacity for methylation may contribute to the development and clinical manifestation of autism."

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/6/1611.full

 

[WORTHYWISH]

"There was a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the regressive ASDs observed and the total mercury dose children received from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho (D)-immune globulin preparations. Based upon differential diagnoses, 8 of 9 patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing biologic/vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods, and subsequently, between 12 and 24 mo of age, these previously normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560

 

[WORTHYWISH]

From The University of Texas Health Science Center:
"We suspect that persistent low-dose exposures to various environmental toxicants, including mercury, that occur during critical windows of neural development among genetically susceptible children (with a diminished capacity for metabolizing accumulated toxicants) may increase the risk for developmental disorders such as autism."

http://civileats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/palmer2008.pdf

 

[WORTHYWISH]

"In this pilot study, infant macaques receiving the recommended pediatric vaccine regimen from the 1990’s displayed a different pattern of maturational changes in amygdala volume and differences in amygdala-binding of [11C]DPN following the MMR/DTaP/Hib vaccinations between T1 and T2 compared with non-exposed animals. There was also evidence of greater total brain volume in the exposed group prior to these vaccinations suggesting a possible effect of previous vaccinations to which these animals had been exposed. Because primate testing is an important aspect of pre-clinical vaccine safety assessment prior to approval for human use (Kennedy et al. 1997), the results of this pilot study warrant additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function. Additional studies are underway in the primate model to investigate the mechanistic basis for this apparent interaction."

http://www.ane.pl/pdf/7020.pdf

 

[WORTHYWISH]

"As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19357975

 

[WORTHYWISH]

"In summary, the present study documents that exposure of infant rats to THIM perturbs the balance between excitatory and inhibitory amino acids in the brain, shifting it toward excessive neuroexcitation. DHEAS prevents some of these effects. Despite of intrinsic limitations, present findings have important clinical implications, as they provide a plausible mechanism, whereby THIM exerts neurotoxic effects in the brain. It is likely that this mercurial—still present in pediatric vaccines in many countries—causes a similar disturbance of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters in the brains of human infants, leading to neurotoxicity, encephalopaties, and in consequence to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism [7, 8,20, 21, 26–29]."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264864/?tool=pubmed

 

[WORTHYWISH]

There's your science...

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Ahhhhh...the Argument by Fast Talking. Let's take one post at random.

"There was a significant dose-response relationship between the severity of the regressive ASDs observed and the total mercury dose children received from Thimerosal-containing vaccines/Rho (D)-immune globulin preparations. Based upon differential diagnoses, 8 of 9 patients examined were exposed to significant mercury from Thimerosal-containing biologic/vaccine preparations during their fetal/infant developmental periods, and subsequently, between 12 and 24 mo of age, these previously normally developing children suffered mercury toxic encephalopathies that manifested with clinical symptoms consistent with regressive ASDs. Evidence for mercury intoxication should be considered in the differential diagnosis as contributing to some regressive ASDs."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17454560

And rebut:

New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: I. Scientific Fraud or Just Playing with Data?

There are two more parts to the deconstruction of the Geier's work. And what of the Geiers themselves?

May 20, 2011
Late last month, the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspended Mark Geier’s license to practice medicine in the state [it has since been suspended in Virginia, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, California, and Missouri]. Over the past decade, Geier and his son David have become heroes of families seeking alternative therapies for autism — primarily by promising answers (and cures) when the medical establishment couldn’t provide any. Geier’s suspension was the result of his promotion of something he advertised as the Lupron “protocol”–which involves injecting autistic children with powerful doses of a drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders. ['cause that makes a whole lot more sense than vaccinating your child, right, WORTHYWISH?]

(The Chicago Tribune‘s Trine Tsouderos was one of the first reporters to detail how the Geiers’ supposed “miracle cure” was pseudoscientific bunk. Her May 21, 2009 piece remains one of the best introductions to the Geiers.)

When Geier’s suspension was announced, there was speculation that there was still another shoe to drop–specifically, one belonging to David, who does not have an MD (or any advanced degree). There’s no need to speculate any more: David Geier has been charged with practicing medicine without a license.


So a link chosen at random turns up a couple of quacks taking advantage of distraught parents and injecting children with a drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders. You should hide your head in shame for posting such crap.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Ahhhhh...the Argument by Fast Talking. Let's take one post at random.



And rebut:

New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: I. Scientific Fraud or Just Playing with Data?

There are two more parts to the deconstruction of the Geier's work. And what of the Geiers themselves?

May 20, 2011
Late last month, the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspended Mark Geier’s license to practice medicine in the state [it has since been suspended in Virginia, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, California, and Missouri]. Over the past decade, Geier and his son David have become heroes of families seeking alternative therapies for autism — primarily by promising answers (and cures) when the medical establishment couldn’t provide any. Geier’s suspension was the result of his promotion of something he advertised as the Lupron “protocol”–which involves injecting autistic children with powerful doses of a drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders. ['cause that makes a whole lot more sense than vaccinating your child, right, WORTHYWISH?]

(The Chicago Tribune‘s Trine Tsouderos was one of the first reporters to detail how the Geiers’ supposed “miracle cure” was pseudoscientific bunk. Her May 21, 2009 piece remains one of the best introductions to the Geiers.)

When Geier’s suspension was announced, there was speculation that there was still another shoe to drop–specifically, one belonging to David, who does not have an MD (or any advanced degree). There’s no need to speculate any more: David Geier has been charged with practicing medicine without a license.


So a link chosen at random turns up a couple of quacks taking advantage of distraught parents and injecting children with a drug used to chemically castrate sex offenders. You should hide your head in shame for posting such crap.

Of course, your nice little "BLOG" doesn't show that the study has no merit. What about the other 13 studies I linked to? You have some work to do.....

 

[WORTHYWISH]

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Of course, your nice little "BLOG" doesn't show that the study has no merit. What about the other 13 studies I linked to? You have some work to do.....

I'm not going through your data vomit. I chose one at random and turned up total bullshyte. You want more than a blog - which shows that the "researchers" had not a clue what they were doing?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604060812/http://aap.org/profed/thimaut-may03.htm

Again, you should be ashamed. Do your homework before you post total crap from anti-vaxxer sites.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

I'm not going through your data vomit. I chose one at random and turned up total bullshyte. You want more than a blog?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604060812/http://aap.org/profed/thimaut-may03.htm

Again, you should be ashamed. Do your homework before you post total crap from anti-vaxxer sites.

anti-vaxxer sites? Since when is the US National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health an "anti-vaxxer site?"
You're trying, but you really need to try harder.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Please tell me which study I linked to that was from an "anti-vaxxer" site. I'll wait...

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Oh...the links are real...and likely collected on some anti-vaxxer site you frequent. so let's choose another at random:

CDC Whistleblower's Statement
"My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august...-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

Whoa...more bullshyte.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

I know it's just a "blog" but it's in response to a "statement" so I think it stands up to your scrutiny. I'm done with your "evidence diarrhea". Two bad apples chosen at random likely spoil the rest of your barrel.

 

[KitingHigh]

Carson was being quite reasonable as well as accurate. Criticizing him for that is a douche move.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Oh...the links are real...and likely collected on some anti-vaxxer site you frequent. so let's choose another at random:



Whoa...more bullshyte.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ew-wakefield-wrong-about-vaccines-and-autism/

I know it's just a "blog" but it's in response to a "statement" so I think it stands up to your scrutiny. I'm done with your "evidence diarrhea". Two bad apples chosen at random likely spoil the rest of your barrel.

You're right, just another BS blog that proves nothing. I reference scientific studies, you reference blogs. Thanks for trying.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Still waiting on which study was from an anti-vaxxer site.... LMAO

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Funny that you would claim that I get my information from "anti-vaxxer" sites when in reality, it seems like you are just visiting pro-vaxxer blogs instead of the real data/science.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You're right, just another BS blog that proves nothing. I reference scientific studies, you reference blogs. Thanks for trying.

You referenced a statement by William Thompson - do I need to repost it for you? His claims and the claims of his handlers were completely discredited. The "scientific study" chosen at random was complete bullshyte cobbled together by two men who have been discredited. I'm shocked that you would support people who - based on NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL - inject children with a powerful drug used to emasculate sex offenders.

That you aren't ashamed of yourself for supporting these men is very telling. Like I said, your links were likely collected on some anti-vaxxer site and you just reposted them without investigating a single one. Data vomit to try and overwhelm the argument - it's a logical fallacy. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the Geiers.

Done.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

You referenced a statement by William Thompson - do I need to repost it for you? His claims and the claims of his handlers were completely discredited. The "scientific study" chosen at random was complete bullshyte cobbled together by two men who have been discredited. I'm shocked that you would support people who - based on NO CLINICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL - inject children with a powerful drug used to emasculate sex offenders.

That you aren't ashamed of yourself for supporting these men is very telling. Like I said, your links were likely collected on some anti-vaxxer site and you just reposted them without investigating a single one. Data vomit to try and overwhelm the argument - it's a logical fallacy. You clearly know absolutely nothing about the Geiers.

Done.

LMAO
Why don't you go search some more blogs.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ahhhhh...the Argument by Fast Talking. Let's take one post at random.



And rebut:

New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: I. Scientific Fraud or Just Playing with Data?

I didn't find that argument convincing.

I certainly get that there are proper and improper ways to impute data. But I didn't think he made the case that this was improper.

Not that I really care.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

CDC Whistleblower's Statement
"My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed."

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august...-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

That's not a scientific study. Check your link - perhaps for the first time. It's a statement that's been completely debunked. You were mistaken when you said you linked to studies.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I didn't find that argument convincing.

I certainly get that there are proper and improper ways to impute data. But I didn't think he made the case that this was improper.

Not that I really care.

Do you find this from the American Academy of Pediatrics convincing?

Other flaws in the article include the following:

• The law relating to VAERS reporting is misstated. Most VAERS-reported conditions fall into a category in which voluntary and passive, not mandatory or required, events after immunization are recorded. Only a specific set of more severe adverse events are specified as mandatory under the Vaccine Injury Table, and even then, reporting is inconsistent.
• Conclusions of the 2001 Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review Committee report2 as to what constitutes maximal permissible dose exposures to mercury are misinterpreted, and misleading statements are made concerning federal safety guidelines for mercury exposure levels that might be expected to cause harm.
• The authors fail to depict accurately the differences between pharmacokinetics of and exposure to methylmercury (found in contaminated food) and ethylmercury (found in thimerosal) and make unsubstantiated assumptions about the risks of the route of exposure (ingested versus injected).
• Adult heart disease is included as a possible thimerosal-related condition, although heart arrest reports in very young children are used in the analysis. Heart arrest in very young children (a common term used on pediatric death certificates and often unrelated to the actual cause of death) has nothing to do with adult coronary heart disease. The authors’ implication that thimerosal in vaccines is a cause of acute cardiotoxic events is unfounded in any scientific or clinical reports and represents a misuse of the terminology found in VAERS reports.
• The authors fail to reveal how thimerosal exposure was calculated—a critical omission, because much of the data required to estimate mercury exposure are not available in VAERS reports. The authors’ stated estimates of exposure attributable to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis combination vaccines (DTaP or DTwP) do not add up. Some DTaP vaccines never contained thimerosal as a preservative, and any child may have received 1 or more DTaP doses, which would have resulted in no ethylmercury exposure.
• The authors claim to have analyzed data from biologic surveillance summaries by manufacturers, although data regarding specific manufacturers (some of which incorporated thimerosal as a preservative and some of which did not) and age and year of birth of vaccine recipients are not available in the publication cited. Data as to the number of patients receiving vaccines with thimerosal plus the number of doses of vaccine actually received by patients versus total doses of vaccine manufactured cannot be derived from biologic surveillance summaries, making the authors’ claims for baselines of actual vaccine use untenable.
• Calculations for incidence rates and relative risk, which require information (age or year of birth) that is not available from biologic surveillance data, are not shown.
• An appropriate comparison is not made between thimerosal exposure and no thimerosal exposure, which is not possible using VAERS data, because one cannot be sure whether a child received a thimerosal-containing vaccine at any point before the event for which the VAERS report was created. Depending on the manufacturer, many of the children listed in VAERS reports could have received all vaccines that were free of thimerosal.
• Statistical methodology for calculating the relative risk and correlation coefficients is not stated.
• The authors claim to have performed their own analysis of a Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) thimerosal screening study (reference 17 in Geier and Geier), although the raw data needed to perform an independent analysis are not available in the document cited. (Note: neither the original preliminary VSD study of thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders nor any of the follow-up expanded studies identified a “signal” indicating any association between thimerosal and autism.)
• The authors claim that data for thimerosal exposure and autism risk follow an exponential distribution, although none of the thimerosal exposure categories had a significantly increased risk of autism. The figures used are confusing and not supported by an adequate explanation as to how they were constructed. Comparing the occurrence of late onset, chronic conditions like autism by using acute vaccine reactions like fever, pain, and vomiting (presumably attributable to other vaccine components) as controls makes no sense as a measure of relative adverse event rates.
• When comparing early (1984-1985) to late (1990-1994) birth cohorts, the authors make arbitrary and unlikely assumptions of possible thimerosal exposure for both groups that are contrary to when thimerosal vaccines were introduced and what their expected pattern of use in the private and public sector was. The average level of thimerosal exposure claimed by the authors is not realistic.
• The authors claim high correlation coefficients for thimerosal with certain neurologic disabilities without describing the statistical methods used, which makes the results highly unreliable.
• The authors fail to note that a recently published review by Nelson and Bauman3 casts doubt on the biologic plausibility of symptom similarities between mercury poisoning and autism.
• The authors claim falsely that children in the United States in 2003 may be exposed to higher levels of mercury from thimerosal contained in childhood immunizations than any time in the past, when in fact, all routinely recommended infant vaccines currently sold in the United States are free of thimerosal as a preservative and have been for more than 2 years (www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#1).

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

GMO's? There really isn't any peer reviewed evidence that they are harmful. Although, using a term like "genetically modified organisms" is so broad that it doesn't actually mean anything. Here's the thing, I'm willing to bet that every single thing you eat (and any organic fibers in your clothes) is the result of genetic modification. Humans have been doing this for over 25,000 years.

This is where the far left falls pretty badly. You can't chastise conservatives who deny the science of climate change and then turn around and deny the science that hasn't found any links between GMO's and health issues.

I can't believe how wrong you are on this.

Sensible lefties object to some GMOs and not others. As you say, the term is too broad. There's a huge difference between inserting a gene in rice to enhance vitamin A production so as to help alleviate vitamin deficiency problems in some regions vs engineering pesticide resistance into crops that not only encourages excessive introduction of harmful chemicals into the environment, food chain, and water supply, but results in adaptations among pests, which cascade across the animal kingdom. And those are merely 2 examples.

Contrary to your assertion, there is good science on a lot of these. Some suggesting the changes are safe, some showing the opposite. And plenty more where the evaluations aren't and may not be conducted but where risk may exist. Lumping the good, bad and unknown together and concluding that because we don't havce conclusive science we shouldn't do ANYTHING to protect ourselves is just the sort of dishonest manipulation of science we get from the climate change deniers - just the opposite of your suggestion that the GMO-cautious are like the CC deniers.

It's also disingenuous to suggest that because man has bred variation into crops and animals for millennia that therefore GE changes are safe and require no care. It's like saying there have always been climate cycles, so climate change is nothing to worry about.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Do you find this from the American Academy of Pediatrics convincing?

Other flaws in the article include the following:

• The law relating to VAERS reporting is misstated. Most VAERS-reported conditions fall into a category in which voluntary and passive, not mandatory or required, events after immunization are recorded. Only a specific set of more severe adverse events are specified as mandatory under the Vaccine Injury Table, and even then, reporting is inconsistent.
• Conclusions of the 2001 Institute of Medicine Immunization Safety Review Committee report2 as to what constitutes maximal permissible dose exposures to mercury are misinterpreted, and misleading statements are made concerning federal safety guidelines for mercury exposure levels that might be expected to cause harm.
• The authors fail to depict accurately the differences between pharmacokinetics of and exposure to methylmercury (found in contaminated food) and ethylmercury (found in thimerosal) and make unsubstantiated assumptions about the risks of the route of exposure (ingested versus injected).
• Adult heart disease is included as a possible thimerosal-related condition, although heart arrest reports in very young children are used in the analysis. Heart arrest in very young children (a common term used on pediatric death certificates and often unrelated to the actual cause of death) has nothing to do with adult coronary heart disease. The authors’ implication that thimerosal in vaccines is a cause of acute cardiotoxic events is unfounded in any scientific or clinical reports and represents a misuse of the terminology found in VAERS reports.
• The authors fail to reveal how thimerosal exposure was calculated—a critical omission, because much of the data required to estimate mercury exposure are not available in VAERS reports. The authors’ stated estimates of exposure attributable to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis combination vaccines (DTaP or DTwP) do not add up. Some DTaP vaccines never contained thimerosal as a preservative, and any child may have received 1 or more DTaP doses, which would have resulted in no ethylmercury exposure.
• The authors claim to have analyzed data from biologic surveillance summaries by manufacturers, although data regarding specific manufacturers (some of which incorporated thimerosal as a preservative and some of which did not) and age and year of birth of vaccine recipients are not available in the publication cited. Data as to the number of patients receiving vaccines with thimerosal plus the number of doses of vaccine actually received by patients versus total doses of vaccine manufactured cannot be derived from biologic surveillance summaries, making the authors’ claims for baselines of actual vaccine use untenable.
• Calculations for incidence rates and relative risk, which require information (age or year of birth) that is not available from biologic surveillance data, are not shown.
• An appropriate comparison is not made between thimerosal exposure and no thimerosal exposure, which is not possible using VAERS data, because one cannot be sure whether a child received a thimerosal-containing vaccine at any point before the event for which the VAERS report was created. Depending on the manufacturer, many of the children listed in VAERS reports could have received all vaccines that were free of thimerosal.
• Statistical methodology for calculating the relative risk and correlation coefficients is not stated.
• The authors claim to have performed their own analysis of a Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) thimerosal screening study (reference 17 in Geier and Geier), although the raw data needed to perform an independent analysis are not available in the document cited. (Note: neither the original preliminary VSD study of thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders nor any of the follow-up expanded studies identified a “signal” indicating any association between thimerosal and autism.)
• The authors claim that data for thimerosal exposure and autism risk follow an exponential distribution, although none of the thimerosal exposure categories had a significantly increased risk of autism. The figures used are confusing and not supported by an adequate explanation as to how they were constructed. Comparing the occurrence of late onset, chronic conditions like autism by using acute vaccine reactions like fever, pain, and vomiting (presumably attributable to other vaccine components) as controls makes no sense as a measure of relative adverse event rates.
• When comparing early (1984-1985) to late (1990-1994) birth cohorts, the authors make arbitrary and unlikely assumptions of possible thimerosal exposure for both groups that are contrary to when thimerosal vaccines were introduced and what their expected pattern of use in the private and public sector was. The average level of thimerosal exposure claimed by the authors is not realistic.
• The authors claim high correlation coefficients for thimerosal with certain neurologic disabilities without describing the statistical methods used, which makes the results highly unreliable.
• The authors fail to note that a recently published review by Nelson and Bauman3 casts doubt on the biologic plausibility of symptom similarities between mercury poisoning and autism.
• The authors claim falsely that children in the United States in 2003 may be exposed to higher levels of mercury from thimerosal contained in childhood immunizations than any time in the past, when in fact, all routinely recommended infant vaccines currently sold in the United States are free of thimerosal as a preservative and have been for more than 2 years (www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#1).

tl;dr

Did any of that address my point? At a glance, no. If so, could you highlight it?

 

[WORTHYWISH]

That's not a scientific study. Check your link - perhaps for the first time. It's a statement that's been completely debunked. You were mistaken when you said you linked to studies.

OMG! I linked to several scientific studies. Dear Lord! Stop being a tool.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

tl;dr

Did any of that address my point? At a glance, no. If so, could you highlight it?

That was too long but the EpiWonk link was easy reading? Did you miss this?

From the Geier's paper:

“For example, 37% of autism cases in the study were diagnosed after 5 years old with about 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years old. This is a conservative estimate since it includes the 2 years (1995-1996) that had shorter follow-up times. Examination of the distribution of age of diagnosis by birth year for autism revealed that only about 15% of cases were diagosed after 5 years of age in the 1995 birth cohort while the 1996 birth cohort had no cases diagnosed after 5 years of age and only 3.5% of cases diagnosed between 4.5 and 5 years of age. Based on the average age at diagnosis for all cohorts the 1995 count of autism cases was increased by 45 cases with the assumption that all of these would have been added in the 5 year+ age group (bringing this percentage close to the overall average of of 37% diagnosed after 5 years of age.) The same was done for 1996, but the number of cases was augmented by 80 because it was assumed that these would be diagnosed in the 4.5 to 5 and 5+ groups essentially bringing the percentage after age 4.5 close to the overall average of 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years of age. The new augmented frequency counts of cases in 1995 and 1996 birth cohorts were then use as new case counts in the analysis.”

And the response:

This is just not done. It’s not valid. It’s not ethical. Adding imaginary cases into a data set borders on scientiific fraud.

What about that is "unconvincing"? Perhaps the analysis was also tl;dr for you? They added 125 cases of autism that DIDN'T EXIST in the data. Are you suggesting that it is valid and ethical to add made up cases to bolster your claims in a scientific paper? BTW, you should read parts II and III of the dissection of the Greier's work...unless it's too long.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

OMG! I linked to several scientific studies. Dear Lord! Stop being a tool.

And I checked one at random and found that it was complete crap - which you have yet to address. So defend that link. Then, perhaps, we can take another one apart.

 

[Joes Place]

I'm not going through your data vomit. I chose one at random and turned up total bullshyte. You want more than a blog - which shows that the "researchers" had not a clue what they were doing?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604060812/http://aap.org/profed/thimaut-may03.htm

Again, you should be ashamed. Do your homework before you post total crap from anti-vaxxer sites.

It's called a Gish Gallop.

Throw a whole lotta BS in a debate; even though it's completely refuted nonsense, it takes up time and energy to rebut/refute the nonsense.

WorthyWish would be better informed if he went to American and international physician organizations' sites to find accurate information and statements on vaccination - unless THOSE people are 'in on the conspiracy', too.....

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It's called a Gish Gallop.

Throw a whole lotta BS in a debate; even though it's completely refuted nonsense, it takes up time and energy to rebut/refute the nonsense.

Gotta love Duane.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That was too long but the EpiWonk link was easy reading? Did you miss this?

From the Geier's paper:

“For example, 37% of autism cases in the study were diagnosed after 5 years old with about 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years old. This is a conservative estimate since it includes the 2 years (1995-1996) that had shorter follow-up times. Examination of the distribution of age of diagnosis by birth year for autism revealed that only about 15% of cases were diagosed after 5 years of age in the 1995 birth cohort while the 1996 birth cohort had no cases diagnosed after 5 years of age and only 3.5% of cases diagnosed between 4.5 and 5 years of age. Based on the average age at diagnosis for all cohorts the 1995 count of autism cases was increased by 45 cases with the assumption that all of these would have been added in the 5 year+ age group (bringing this percentage close to the overall average of of 37% diagnosed after 5 years of age.) The same was done for 1996, but the number of cases was augmented by 80 because it was assumed that these would be diagnosed in the 4.5 to 5 and 5+ groups essentially bringing the percentage after age 4.5 close to the overall average of 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years of age. The new augmented frequency counts of cases in 1995 and 1996 birth cohorts were then use as new case counts in the analysis.”

And the response:

This is just not done. It’s not valid. It’s not ethical. Adding imaginary cases into a data set borders on scientiific fraud.

What about that is "unconvincing"? Perhaps the analysis was also tl;dr for you? They added 125 cases of autism that DIDN'T EXIST in the data. Are you suggesting that it is valid and ethical to add made up cases to bolster your claims in a scientific paper? BTW, you should read parts II and III of the dissection of the Greier's work...unless it's too long.

Yes. That's the part I was talking about that wasn't convincing. He might be right, but he doesn't make the case.

I'm assuming you understand the point of imputing data. It's not wrong because the cases don't exist, as you seem to think, but because, if done improperly, it distorts rather than improves the analysis.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

Turns out that the pro-vaxxers are the science deniers. Go figure.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes. That's the part I was talking about that wasn't convincing. He might be right, but he doesn't make the case.

I'm assuming you understand the point of imputing data. It's not wrong because the cases don't exist, as you seem to think, but because, if done improperly, it distorts rather than improves the analysis.

What they’ve done bears some relationship to a procedure called “direct age standardization,” but age standardardization might be useful in a situation where investigators were comparing birth cohorts — not where the birth cohorts are the units of analysis.

The author is saying it was done improperly...clearly improperly. Ethically improperly. Argue otherwise. They were studying cohorts directly looking for autism and created cases of autism out of thin air because they assumed they would be there.

 

[Joes Place]

OMG! I linked to several scientific studies. Dear Lord! Stop being a tool.

You linked a bunch of crap you have no idea how to interpret or understand. Many (if not most) of your 'studies' have been discredited or are nonsensical.

If you want to know what the real experts on this topic say, you should go to the organizations that they hold membership to, namely:

Immunization Alliance Member Organizations:
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
America's Health Insurance Plans
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
California Immunization Coalition
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Every Child By Two
GAVI Alliance
Immunization Action Coalition
Infectious Diseases Society of America
March of Dimes Foundation
Meningitis Angels
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Foundation for Infectious Diseases
National Meningitis Association
Parents of Kids with Infectious Diseases
Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
Sabin Vaccine Institute
Society for Adolescent Medicine
UnitedHealth Group
Vaccine Education Center at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Voices for Vaccines
​

https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-...immunization/Pages/immunization-alliance.aspx

If you want to claim a 'conspiracy' over vaccination, and/or that vaccines are too risky/unhealthy, you should probably send formal letters to each of these groups, with your 'links' to show them they are all wrong, and are being duped by 'Big Pharma', or whomever you think is behind this. And this is not just an 'America' thing.....the organizations with statements on vaccines are international, so your 'conspiracy' has to encompass tens of thousands of physicians and scientists...

Or, you should probably learn a little about statistical analysis, and how many published studies end up being retracted, because they do a crap job of running their sample sizes correctly, or properly weeding out co-variates that mask the real associations.

My guess is you have the internet jockey skills to link things, but lack the science skills to understand what you're linking. That being the case, you should probably look to the experts (at the associations I've listed above) to help you out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What they’ve done bears some relationship to a procedure called “direct age standardization,” but age standardardization might be useful in a situation where investigators were comparing birth cohorts — not where the birth cohorts are the units of analysis.

The author is saying it was done improperly...clearly improperly. Ethically improperly. Argue otherwise. They were studying cohorts directly looking for autism and created cases of autism out of thin air because they assumed they would be there.

For the 3rd time, I get that he CLAIMS they did it improperly. But he did not SHOW that they did it improperly. Hence my original and ongoing object.

 

[like-woahh]

What I find particularly funny when it comes to the anti-vax crowd is that they say it's some sort of money grab by Big Pharma.

Completely ignoring that Big Pharma would make a hell of a lot more money by treating the diseases with drugs, rather than completely eradicating the disease from the get go.

It's been awhile, so the statistics might have changed - but vaccinations were something like 17th or so on the list of where they make their money.

I'm sure worthy will barf out another 10 posts linking random things to discredit this.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

For the 3rd time, I get that he CLAIMS they did it improperly. But he did not SHOW that they did it improperly. Hence my original and ongoing object.

Yes. He. Did.

Jesus...tl;dr is no way to go through life.

You may be wondering why I’ve been emphasizing the word “value.” Note that our definition of imputation is “the substitution of some value for a missing data point.” So let’s say a researcher has a file of data on children and 8% are missing data values on parent’s household income, 4% are missing data values on gestational age at birth, and 1% are missing data values on birth weight. She decides to use an imputation procedure to impute values for parental income, gestational age, and birthweight where they were missing. Perfectly fine, legitimate, and scientifically valid under most circumstances. However, let’s say the outcome she’s interested in is autism. She examines the data and sees that in certain cohorts in her study population the distribution of autism isn’t quite what she would like. So she “imputes” autism cases into the data set. Except that she’s not imputing a value on a variable for an existing study participant. She’s adding imaginary autism cases into the analysis. This isn’t imputation — it’s cooking the data. Sorry folks, but when you have a data set that comes from the real world with certain number of cases and non-cases, the data are what they are.

I have no idea what you're not understanding here. You don't "impute" non-existent cases into a cohort to support your hypothesis. You can impute certain values for EXISTING CASES but you can't make up cases out of thin air. How do you control for variables like when or if these non-existent children were vaccinated? Do you make that up as well?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Yes. He. Did.

Jesus...tl;dr is no way to go through life.

You may be wondering why I’ve been emphasizing the word “value.” Note that our definition of imputation is “the substitution of some value for a missing data point.” So let’s say a researcher has a file of data on children and 8% are missing data values on parent’s household income, 4% are missing data values on gestational age at birth, and 1% are missing data values on birth weight. She decides to use an imputation procedure to impute values for parental income, gestational age, and birthweight where they were missing. Perfectly fine, legitimate, and scientifically valid under most circumstances. However, let’s say the outcome she’s interested in is autism. She examines the data and sees that in certain cohorts in her study population the distribution of autism isn’t quite what she would like. So she “imputes” autism cases into the data set. Except that she’s not imputing a value on a variable for an existing study participant. She’s adding imaginary autism cases into the analysis. This isn’t imputation — it’s cooking the data. Sorry folks, but when you have a data set that comes from the real world with certain number of cases and non-cases, the data are what they are.

I have no idea what you're not understanding here. You don't "impute" non-existent cases into a cohort to support your hypothesis. You can impute certain values for EXISTING CASES but you can't make up cases out of thin air. How do you control for variables like when or if these non-existent children were vaccinated? Do you make that up as well?

OK, I keep giving you the benefit of doubt on this. You are a liberal and a Tar Heel fan, so I know you are a good guy. But you are trying my patience.

The part you just quoted which I had also read before making my original comment - because I read that article in it's entirety - only illustrates improper imputation. He then ASSERTS but does NOT DEMONSTRATE that the person he's criticizing made an error of imputation.

Neither of the 2 parts of that article you quoted support his claim or yours. Again. He may be right. But he did not show it.

As for tl;dr being no way to go through life, you seem to have lost track of the fact that I DID read this article. My tl;dr comment was directed at your very long post that seemed (and still seems) to have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point I made.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I give up. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I assumed you didn't actually read the article (which is longer than the post that was too long to read.). I'm not sure how you defend a scientist adding non-existent cases to a cohort to bolster his or her hypothesis but it sure as hell isn't imputation by any existing definition. Your data-set is what it is - that's science 101.

If there aren't enough autism cases in the data-set, you can try to figure out why but YOU CAN'T ADD IMAGINARY CASES to make it add up. You just can't. It's not an "error of imputation" because it isn't imputation at all. Had they not openly admitted doing it, it would be fraud.

 

[WORTHYWISH]

What I find particularly funny when it comes to the anti-vax crowd is that they say it's some sort of money grab by Big Pharma.

Completely ignoring that Big Pharma would make a hell of a lot more money by treating the diseases with drugs, rather than completely eradicating the disease from the get go.

It's been awhile, so the statistics might have changed - but vaccinations were something like 17th or so on the list of where they make their money.

I'm sure worthy will barf out another 10 posts linking random things to discredit this.

I love when people post bullshit figures with nothing to back them up. Hell, the last I checked I had a 10 inch penis. Do you believe me?