Lancet retracts Autism Vaccine Study

[Brightsy]

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...l-retracts-study-linking-vaccines-to-autism/1

Thought it might be of interest to some.

 

[cm8]

that is so sad, big pharma losing money, so they attack the article to keep their wealth in check.......................One day we will all know the truth.............

 

[pugdog]

The biggest problem with the study is that he used 12 consecutive patients that were referred to him. Any good medical study uses random people not consecutive referred people. So the way he did the study is not even close to the gold standard of being a blind random study. That is why the study no longer meets scientific requirements. Now if someone wants to redo the study using a random blind study to see if the science still stands that would be great to answer the question one way or the other.

 

[SueM in MN]

The biggest problem with the study is that he used 12 consecutive patients that were referred to him. Any good medical study uses random people not consecutive referred people. So the way he did the study is not even close to the gold standard of being a blind random study. That is why the study no longer meets scientific requirements. Now if someone wants to redo the study using a random blind study to see if the science still stands that would be great to answer the question one way or the other.

They have and it did not.
As I understand, he did not even use consecutive people referred to him, he chose 12 people in his caseload who had gastrointestinal symptoms, so left out people in his caseload who did not have gastrointestinal symptoms.
He also did not disclose to the Lancet that he was acting as an expert witness in lawsuits for some of those children against drug companies (which was a conflict of interest).

 

[bookwormde]

Everyone who took a serious look at this study knew it was so severely flawed that it was virtually worthless. I read 100s of Autism studies and unfortunately none are well structured, particularly in their cause /effect analysis and assumptions and the duelality of the results because of this.

bookwormde

 

[Schmeck]

well bookwormde, maybe you should do a study - would this be possible for you? You've definitely put in the effort for the premise, reading 100's of studies already.

 

[bookwormde]

Schmeck,

I do informal ones all the time, and do comment to the reaserch designers about the issues.

bookwormde

 

[Schmeck]

Maybe it's time to step up and do a formal one? Would it be possible for you? Do you have the resources/accreditations, or know someone who does? You'd have a great resource here at the dis for a wide population sample (excluding the Disney interest of course).

 

[christymarie]

Maybe it's time to step up and do a formal one? Would it be possible for you? Do you have the resources/accreditations, or know someone who does? You'd have a great resource here at the dis for a wide population sample (excluding the Disney interest of course).

Just include us in your study, lol. We didn't immunize our children and they both got Autism. Now they are fully immunized with no regression. I'd love to be in one of these studies.

We really have to start looking at genetics.

 

[freckles and boo]

This "study" did years and years of damage and drew resources from other areas of research, especially genetics. My daughter was BORN with autism and ADHD. It didn't sneak up on her through a syringe.

 

[pugdog]

We really have to start looking at genetics.

Your right on with that. It is clear that vaccines are not the cause but genetics should be high on the list. It could also be something environmental too.

 

[Schmeck]

I wonder how much research funding will be lost by this revelation?

Also, will they want to look for a genetic link - as in, do they want to find out how/if it was passed on from a parent? That would be so difficult - letting a parent know that he/she was the genetic donor of a child's condition. I know those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome don't necessarily feel that it is a disease/illness, etc, but I've worked with children diagnosed to be at the other end of the spectrum - the nonverbal, violent, completely dependent ones that have lives devastated by this syndrome.

 

[Alesia]

I wonder how much research funding will be lost by this revelation? Also, will they want to look for a genetic link - as in, do they want to find out how/if it was passed on from a parent? That would be so difficult - letting a parent know that he/she was the genetic donor of a child's condition. I know those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome don't necessarily feel that it is a disease/illness, etc, but I've worked with children diagnosed to be at the other end of the spectrum - the nonverbal, violent, completely dependent ones that have lives devastated by this syndrome.

I'm sure I'm wrong, but it seems like you're implying that it's better to keep pouring money into faulty research rather than to find the real cause because it may hurt parents' feelings.

 

[Schmeck]

I'm sure I'm wrong, but it seems like you're implying that it's better to keep pouring money into faulty research rather than to find the real cause because it may hurt parents' feelings.

I should have hit return after the first sentence - sorry! No, I wasn't trying to link the two together, my mistake! No, what I wanted to say was that first off, how many people/foundations/etc will decide not to contribute this year (with this bad economy) after having been led astray by this study?

Then, with proper spacing to split the two ideas, I wondered if anyone would want to step up the research by going at it from a genetic point of view - obviously there are no easy markers for ASD, and I doubt there will be considering the depth and variety of manifestations - and how hard it would be to have to tell a parent that they are a carrier, etc.

If it was a simple recessive singular gene change, there would be a 25% chance of passing it on (unless it is sexlinked). But if it involves changes in a multiple of alleles, it gets very difficult to pin down, as we have so many variations to start out with. Telling a parent that they carry certain markers, but you are unsure of how many markers need to be passed on, is not an option, in my opinion.

 

[pugdog]

From my personal experience I think ASD is genetic. My nephew has ASD and looking back my brother also has it. We didn't know what is was back then we just thought he was lacking a little in the social area.

 

[bookwormde]

There are very few competent clinicians (or any other one who has significant knowledge and experience with Autism) who do not accept that Autism is a multigenerational genetic inheritance. There are a few groups like Autism Speaks who refuse to acknowledge it (from what appears to be promoting an agenda that can "blame it on someone" and "find a cure").

bookwormde

 

[Alesia]

I should have hit return after the first sentence - sorry! No, I wasn't trying to link the two together, my mistake! No, what I wanted to say was that first off, how many people/foundations/etc will decide not to contribute this year (with this bad economy) after having been led astray by this study?

Then, with proper spacing to split the two ideas, I wondered if anyone would want to step up the research by going at it from a genetic point of view - obviously there are no easy markers for ASD, and I doubt there will be considering the depth and variety of manifestations - and how hard it would be to have to tell a parent that they are a carrier, etc.

If it was a simple recessive singular gene change, there would be a 25% chance of passing it on (unless it is sexlinked). But if it involves changes in a multiple of alleles, it gets very difficult to pin down, as we have so many variations to start out with. Telling a parent that they carry certain markers, but you are unsure of how many markers need to be passed on, is not an option, in my opinion.

It isn't likely to affect funding at all. It has been proven conclusively that vaccines do not cause autism. That has been known for quite some time among the scientific community, so the Lancet finally retracting the study is really just a formality.

Unfortunately, among the general public, celebrity opinions carry more weight than science. Those people will continue to believe what celebrities say, regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them, even though they're actually delaying a cure by pouring funding into the wrong place.

Sadly, there is a lot of money to be made by exploiting the fear of parents desperate for a cure.

 

[Schmeck]

It isn't likely to affect funding at all. It has been proven conclusively that vaccines do not cause autism. That has been known for quite some time among the scientific community, so the Lancet finally retracting the study is really just a formality.

Unfortunately, among the general public, celebrity opinions carry more weight than science. Those people will continue to believe what celebrities say, regardless of the scientific evidence presented to them, even though they're actually delaying a cure by pouring funding into the wrong place.

Sadly, there is a lot of money to be made by exploiting the fear of parents desperate for a cure.

yes, I agree - that's what I was trying to say - you said it so much better, thank you!

bookwormde, your "competent clinicians" better be careful what they preach - has there been a definitive study to prove that idea? You know, once, all the "competent clinicians" believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

 

[Alesia]

yes, I agree - that's what I was trying to say - you said it so much better, thank you!

bookwormde, your "competent clinicians" better be careful what they preach - has there been a definitive study to prove that idea? You know, once, all the "competent clinicians" believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Funny that you should use that example. I was going to use it in my last post, but couldn't quite word it the way I wanted to. The gist of it was that, even though the general public believed that the earth was flat for quite some time, the scientific community has known it was round since about 500 BC. The whole Columbus proving the earth is round is just a myth.

As to the "earth being the center of the universe" thing. The scientific community knew about that, too. Unfortunately the church had reasons to want everyone to believe otherwise.

 

[SueM in MN]

Funny that you should use that example. I was going to use it in my last post, but couldn't quite word it the way I wanted to. The gist of it was that, even though the general public believed that the earth was flat for quite some time, the scientific community has known it was round since about 500 BC. The whole Columbus proving the earth is round is just a myth.

As to the "earth being the center of the universe" thing. The scientific community knew about that, too. Unfortunately the church had reasons to want everyone to believe otherwise.

And the scientific community had their own reasons to keep quiet about it (house arrest, book banning and excommunication were dome of the penalties).
Copernicus had his book about the earth revolving around the sun published right before he died (before Columbus), but Gallileo just got un-excommunicated recently. His crime was saying he agreed with Copernicus.