Vaccination & epidemic

Just some food for thought, for those who still believe that the entire Wakefield scandal is about one journalist with a personal mission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5070670.stm

I do put some blame for the reemergence of measles at the feet of delusional celebrities (and if you don't know why I call Jenny McCarthy a "delusional celebrity", it's likely that you have been lucky enough to have missed seeing her old website and the bizarre statements she made there - ooh, remember when she was all into the "indigo" thing?)
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.co...ount/Home.html

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Just some food for thought, for those who still believe that the entire Wakefield scandal is about one journalist with a personal mission:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5070670.stm

I do put some blame for the reemergence of measles at the feet of delusional celebrities (and if you don't know why I call Jenny McCarthy a "delusional celebrity", it's likely that you have been lucky enough to have missed seeing her old website and the bizarre statements she made there - ooh, remember when she was all into the "indigo" thing?)
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.co...ount/Home.html

Bump.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

For one thing, look at all the other chemicals we regularly expose our bodies to, and that's just around the home. then consider all the chemicals in processed foods etc, aside from exposure to pesticides in the air from farming etc.

I'm sure you get my point. I just don't think autism et al, can be attributed to immunisation. certainly not all cases, and possibly none.

There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier, they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There are many factors involved, I absolutely agree. There is usually no one cause of autism even in a specific individual, let alone across all cases. But you can control for all those factors when you study the data, in order to isolate whether one factor is contributing or not. And in the link I provided earlier, they did just that. They surveyed 9,000 families living in roughly the same geographical area, the same culture, the same chemicals. The ones who didn't vaccinate had significantly lower rates of not just autism, but ADHD and asthma as well. This is the only major study that has compared vaccinated to unvaccinated children, which is really the question. All of the other studies compare autistic children to other autistic children, which as you point out, only leads to the conclusion that there are many causes of autism. But that's like saying there are many causes of cancer--you can still reasonably conclude that all the people with lung cancer probably got it from smoking, but only when you compare people who smoke to people who don't, not people who have lung cancer to people who have cervical cancer.

What I find interesting about that study is that the highest percentage of children diagnosed with ASD or AD falls under the partially vaccinated category. Its not a large difference, but for some individual categories, autism for example, partially vaccinated cases double the unvaccinated, fully vaccinated, and fully+ vaccinated categories.

I'm wondering if this is just a statistical error due to a smaller sample size or if there might be a correlation.

I'm afraid I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded surveys conducted by organizations with an agenda, just as I have a very hard time unskeptically accepting data from privately funded studies conducted by corporations with a bottom line.

I was just trying to find the study that showed a strong likelihood of bias in privately finded studies, but I couldn't find it online.

[Clodfobble]

Ah, so you finally got around to answering my earlier question, which is to say that you think they faked the data in that study?

[Aliantha]

Fair enough.

With regard to my family history, and I'm talking my small sample study of around 100 people, we have all been fully vaccinated, and there are none of us with any of the health issues possibly associated with vaccination.

I'd also like to point out that there are 'cancer clusters' sometimes associated with geographical areas. Also note the fact that non breast fed babies are more likely to suffer from asthma, and possibly take into account that there could be a link between parents who choose not to breast feed but choose to vaccinate. I see a logical connection there because I believe there are similar motivations behind breast feeding and not vaccinating.

It's also possible that they had a greater response to their survey from parents who are anti vaccination simply due to the fact people who are against vaccination in general seem to me to be more vocal.

Also, the people with kids who were vaccinated were probably too busy chasing their hypo kids to do a survey.

[Aliantha]

I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I note also that there are a couple of points in the course of the article worth consideration, such as 'All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR)'. It'd be interesting to know what that unusual result was. They also suggest that they don't consider this survey to be proof of the link, only that it proves there should be more research into the issue.

I think it's really odd, and interesting, that they removed the county with the highest population and the only major metropolitan area in the state.

I am also concerned at the lack of addressing a single very important built-in bias in the survey that is linked to it being a survey and therefore reliant on the accuracy of self-reporting; that families who choose not to vaccinate, unless they are carefully screened, may also be less likely to have their children tested for neurodevelopmental issues. The exclusion of Multnomah County heightens this possibility due to the reduced likelihood of developmental disorder screening in rural areas, and it is compounded, if you restrict the survey to suburban and rural areas, by the correlation between non-vaccinators and homeschoolers, as homeshoolers are far less likely to screen for mild neurodevelopmental disorders.

[Clodfobble]

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

But the CDC is continuously collecting health data nationwide. They don't "do" a study as much as collection of statistical data is ongoing. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...thimerosal.htm

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Absolutely. The fastest way to shut everyone up and kill the sensationalism and controversy would be to do widespread, thorough research across a variety of populations, vaccinated and unvaccinated, breastfed and unbreastfed, etc. And yet, the CDC and other various government organizations still haven't done it...

because reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.

the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

because reason doesn't have any money. and truth doesn't make a noise.

the pharma companies that fund vaccine development, marketing and apparent brainwashing of physicians.......stand to make money selling their snake oil.

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

And people selling Nissans tend to advocate the advantages of Nissans because they stand to make money from selling Nissans. It doesn't mean there's anything evil about the people selling Nissans. Just that it's in their best interest to promote their product.

The point is that it doesn't help the argument from either side to demonize any of the stakeholders.

As clod mentions, there isn't really any conclusive evidence (due to lack of non-biased research) and there should be.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

there is no profit to be made in studies that are pure science.

I don't think that line of thinking is productive, or at least, it's not something you should draw direct conclusions from. You might say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis." But you should never say "There is a systematic bias against my hypothesis, therefore my hypothesis is true."

Unprofitable studies happening at CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vsd/vsd_studies.htm

Including:

In response to public concerns, VSD researchers have begun a case-control study to examine the association between thimerosal and autism rigorously. The study aims to determine whether exposure to thimerosal in infancy or in utero is related to development of autism. The study will also evaluate whether exposure to thimerosal in infancy is related to development of the subclass of autism predominantly associated with regression. As part of the study, researchers will use automated data and registries to identify children with autism (cases) and without autism (controls). In-person examinations, telephone interviews, medical chart reviews, and immunization tracking systems will be used to collect information on vaccine history and other possible covariates. Recommended by the Institute of Medicine, this VSD study will be the first rigorous, epidemiological study conducted on the issue of thimerosal and autism. Data from this VSD study should provide the best available scientific information on whether a causal association between exposure to thimerosal and the development of autism is possible.

This study is in the data collection phase.