Latest CDC Vaccine Cover-Up

[steveh_131]

T. Lex, this may help. It is a little heavier on the statistical jargon, but readable.

Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn?t cause autism ? EpidemioLogical

This guy quotes the same pharma-funded bloggers that you did and makes the same fallacious claims:

As Reuben and others have pointed out, it shouldn’t be a surprise that a stronger association was seen between older children (age 3) and autism than between younger children (18 and 24 months) and autism. Children are usually diagnosed the older they are, when they start missing more milestones. So a younger kid has less of a chance to be diagnosed but, because of recommendations on vaccination, more of a chance of being vaccinated. That is yet another effect modification (or confounder, whichever) that the Hooker paper seems to not have accounted for.

I truly do not understand this. Level.eleven, I would ask that you clarify since you keep posting it.

When I read the paper, it was fairly clear that these numbers represented the age cut-off for MMR vaccinations. Why do these bloggers keep acting like this number is somehow related to the age at which they are diagnosed? These kids could have been diagnosed at any age.

 

[steveh_131]

Other than in the area of climate change, I think you would be hard pressed to find scientists that would discourage further study of an issue. At least, I would be (again) skeptical of any scientist that said we already know enough.

Interestingly, these same psuedo-skeptics are also firmly on the global warming bandwagon and would be glad to give you the same treatment if you challenged their 'science'.

 

[T.Lex]

T. Lex, this may help. It is a little heavier on the statistical jargon, but readable. Of course, Hooker is currently involved with some litigation concerning his autistic son and vaccines.

Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn?t cause autism ? EpidemioLogical

Yeah, my issue with that guy, and the other bloggers, is that they get WAY too personal. I mean, I guess blogging is a better place for that kind of personal attack than in scholarly papers, so thank goodness for the internet for that!

I get that he's taking data from one kind of study and filtering it through a different kind of study. That is certainly something to take into account. But, it doesn't necessarily negate the findings, in and of itself. He's simply approaching the problem from a different angle. That is perfectly legitimate.

I dislike having to apply an intellectual sieve to separate the valid criticisms from the name-calling.

 

[T.Lex]

I truly do not understand this. Level.eleven, I would ask that you clarify since you keep posting it.
... Why do these bloggers keep acting like this number is somehow related to the age at which they are diagnosed? These kids could have been diagnosed at any age.

I can explain that, based on our family (and friends') experience with autism.

It is VERY hard to clinically diagnose autism before certain behavioral milestones are met. Not saying it is impossible, not saying that new research may be coming up with ways to make earlier diagnoses, I'm just saying that as far as I know, doctors need to be able to gauge those behaviors in order to come up with a proper diagnosis of autism.

Generally, those behavioral milestones come at around 3 years old. In other words, a definitive diagnosis of autism-spectrum issues is most easily made at around that age. Can it be earlier? Yes. Can it be later? Yes.

But, that age also happens to be a common age for MMR. So, any study of correlation must account for a common timeframe for both the vaccination and diagnosis. In other words, by coincidence, the diagnosis and vaccinations tend to happen at around the same time. A statistical study should control for that.

Edit:
Thought of a different way to explain it. Let's say there is absolutely no factual link between MMR and autism. Let's say 90% of autism-spectrum diagnoses are made between 36 and 48 months. Let's say 90% of MMR vaccinations are between 36 and 48 months. There is then a statistical correlation that would suggest the vast majority of autism diagnoses are made within +/- 6 months of MMR vaccine. But again, that correlation does not equate to causation.

Even if you accept that it is an open question whether MMR vaccine contributes to autism, you still have to get around the statistical problem outlined above.

 

[steveh_131]

The small sample size is a more reasonable criticism, in my opinion.

Still curious to see how the whistleblower pans out.

 

[88GT]

Let's all say it together now... Correlation does not mean causation!

we can't rule it out 100%, but vaccines almost certainly are not related to autism. Just because you hear galloping doesn't mean a zebra is coming.

On the contrary, there is some very strong evidence that the MMR vaccine is a very big factor in a subset of autism cases.

The problem is that autism is defined by a set of symptoms, not a cause. It is very difficult to lump all neurological issues with similar symptoms under the same umbrella in the absence of a cause because when one factor doesn't explain all of the cases, people want to run to the "correlation is not causation" line as proof that there's no real relationship at all.

The result related to African American males is interesting. I may have missed the actual size of that subset, but the apparent conclusion that the correlation is stronger for that subset suggests there is some other dramatic factor working - likely some genetic issue. Like sickle cell anemia affects a disproportionate number of the African American populace, those results may foreshadow the genetic link to autism.

Either that or the MMR vaccine is racist.

Personally, I've always doubted any connection between autism and the vaccines. But, I'm also willing to consider every study of the subject. Clearly, more research is necessary.

I, too, found it interesting, particularly since I assumed that autism was more prevalent among caucasians.

 

[steveh_131]

I, too, found it interesting, particularly since I assumed that autism was more prevalent among caucasians.

I've been recently surprised by the number of African Americans with these sorts of developmental problems.

 

[T.Lex]

I, too, found it interesting, particularly since I assumed that autism was more prevalent among caucasians.

I suspect there may be cultural issues involving preventative/diagnostic health care choices that interfere with early diagnosis in non-caucasians.

(Hopefully, that clinical observation steers clear of the rules.)

 

[88GT]

I've been recently surprised by the number of African Americans with these sorts of developmental problems.

I wonder why it seems to be a "white" diagnosis, even if only by perception. And I wonder what percentage of diagnoses out of the total are black children. And I wonder what the black children diagnosis/black population is and how that compares to the white children diagnosis/total white population.

 

[level.eleven]

Yeah, my issue with that guy, and the other bloggers, is that they get WAY too personal. I mean, I guess blogging is a better place for that kind of personal attack than in scholarly papers, so thank goodness for the internet for that!

I get that he's taking data from one kind of study and filtering it through a different kind of study. That is certainly something to take into account. But, it doesn't necessarily negate the findings, in and of itself. He's simply approaching the problem from a different angle. That is perfectly legitimate.

I dislike having to apply an intellectual sieve to separate the valid criticisms from the name-calling.

Ah, if you view the glaring holes in the methodology as taking a different angle, we are simply talking past one another. There is a reason this was published in an open access Chinese journal without an impact rating.

 

[steveh_131]

I wonder why it seems to be a "white" diagnosis, even if only by perception.

I suspect the perception is very much socio-economic, even though caucasians do have slightly higher numbers.

 

[T.Lex]

Ah, if you view the glaring holes in the methodology as taking a different angle, we are simply talking past one another. There is a reason this was published in an open access Chinese journal without an impact rating.

And if you are going to conflate skepticism with sympathy for the "other" side, we probably are talking past one another.

At a conceptual level, I don't have a problem re-analyzing past data under another rubric. When done properly, it can reveal additional flaws or insights. I'm not saying the study in the OP was done properly, I'm only saying that "doing it differently" should not be an automatic rejection of the conclusions.

As for the placement of the study in a non-peer reviewed journal, that is another element that goes to weight. We must also accept that "mainstream" science has certain prejudices - some valid, others perhaps not.

If I had a lab in my garage and found that secretions from the snails eating my wife's roses held the cure for cancer, I doubt I could get it published in Nature, even if it was true.

Again, the study in the OP has holes. The original CDC study has holes (some of them are even admitted in the study itself). The size and importance of the holes could be debated without any meaningful result.

Regardless, I hope the studies on autism continue in as intellectually honest a way as possible. The families of those dealing with the realities of it deserve nothing less from the scientific community.

 

[MisterChester]

Correlation shows us where to focus the next research efforts. Once we find a correlation, we can start looking for evidence supporting a causal relationship.

If we ignore every correlation, especially those that are not politically expedient, then we never find the truth. This is true in every endeavor of medical research.

It hasn't been ignored though. The great majority of medical experts have said again and again that there is no clear link between vaccinations and autism.

 

[level.eleven]

It hasn't been ignored though. The great majority of medical experts have said again and again that there is no clear link between vaccinations and autism.

Conspiracy theories are the central doctrine of the anti-vaxx industry. It is how they pay the bills. It is simply amazing that people continue to trot out the same, tired tropes. None the less, there is an eager audience willing to give folks like Wakefield and Hooker thousands of dollars to speak at their homeschool or conspiracy conference. Hell, Hooker is a regular on Alex Jones. They must crank out these whackdoodle papers to keep the scam alive.

The central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement ? Respectful Insolence

 

[steveh_131]

"Orac" again, huh? David Gorski, pharmaceutical researcher? Yeah, let's read his blog.

 

[steveh_131]

I am uncertain of the veracity of this document, but if it is authentic it would suggest that Dr. Thompson did believe that there were 'problematic results relating to statistical associations between the receipt of MMR vaccine and autism'. Note that this letter was dated the day after his research was published.

Also note that this letter is addressed to Dr. Julie Gerberding, then head of the CDC. The same doctor who also received a letter from Dr. David Weldon of the U.S. House of Representatives demanding an investigation into prior fraud allegations involving vaccine research by the CDC.

Would anyone care to guess what she's up to these days?

She is now the President of Merck's Vaccine Division.

 

[MisterChester]

Conspiracy theories are the central doctrine of the anti-vaxx industry. It is how they pay the bills. It is simply amazing that people continue to trot out the same, tired tropes. None the less, there is an eager audience willing to give folks like Wakefield and Hooker thousands of dollars to speak at their homeschool or conspiracy conference. Hell, Hooker is a regular on Alex Jones. They must crank out these whackdoodle papers to keep the scam alive.

The central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement ? Respectful Insolence

There is no vaccine for stupid.

 

[level.eleven]

And if you are going to conflate skepticism with sympathy for the "other" side, we probably are talking past one another.

At a conceptual level, I don't have a problem re-analyzing past data under another rubric. When done properly, it can reveal additional flaws or insights. I'm not saying the study in the OP was done properly, I'm only saying that "doing it differently" should not be an automatic rejection of the conclusions.

As for the placement of the study in a non-peer reviewed journal, that is another element that goes to weight. We must also accept that "mainstream" science has certain prejudices - some valid, others perhaps not.

If I had a lab in my garage and found that secretions from the snails eating my wife's roses held the cure for cancer, I doubt I could get it published in Nature, even if it was true.

Again, the study in the OP has holes. The original CDC study has holes (some of them are even admitted in the study itself). The size and importance of the holes could be debated without any meaningful result.

Regardless, I hope the studies on autism continue in as intellectually honest a way as possible. The families of those dealing with the realities of it deserve nothing less from the scientific community.

Okay, I think things are clearing up a bit. Data is made available to a broad range of researchers. In particular, population and long term data. It takes decades to gather and is expensive. Researches pull from the same population sets daily. From stress fractures involving steel to the effects of Tylenol on patients with dementia. What is being questioned is the analysis. It isn't rigorous to use a data set to conduct an analysis for which it can't provide a legitimate conclusion. Even more so when your analysis of the data is rudimentary and doesn't correct for confounding factors. This is how you wind up in a Chinese open access journal that is willing to publish anything they are paid to print. This ties into your poor example of discovering a cure for cancer in your garage. If you were able to demonstrate your garage findings in a clinical environment, you would absolutely be published - along with being a billionaire. The idea that cutting edge research would be ignored by established journals isn't sound. It isn't that the research presented has holes, it is that the research presented doesn't come to the conclusion it is printing. I get the impression, and I will readily admit this is an assumption, you aren't familiar with the players involved in this latest conspiracy theory if you are truly interested in intellectually honest research. Read up on Wakefield, Hooker, Geier, and the others involved and weigh evidence versus interest. This is an industry. This is the reason actual biostaticians laugh at this finding. It is the same reason Wakefield and Hooker didn't go public with their conclusion. This is just more spin on the too many to soon conspiracy theory. A desperate spin that includes race baiting.

 

[level.eleven]

There is no vaccine for stupid.

Thankfully, there are actual epidemiologists and statisticians out there blogging about the bastardization of science. Honestly, hats off to them for engaging the conspiracy theorists. Of course, that won't stop the spread of disinformation. Swatting down this ignorance is the only, and best, outlet available. This junk spreads more than ever thanks to the internet. OP posted something the other day that was an obvious cut and paste from a conspiracy website. They have left the realm of science and ventured off to populism. A legitimate question could be raised if it is even worthy to engage them as their conspiracy theories will then appear as if they have merit. It is akin to creationism.

 

[steveh_131]

OP posted something the other day that was an obvious cut and paste from a conspiracy website.

Wait, what? I don't recall posting anything that wasn't fully referenced and researched, unlike your cuts and pastes from bloggers.

You disregard everything from a peer-reviewed journal basically because its editors are Chinese, but you want folks to believe these 'bloggers' that you quote? Why?

Why are you a skeptic of anyone who questions the mainstream, but completely buy in to whatever the CDC or pharmaceutical companies are trying to sell you?