+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63
  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    That debunks nothing, it just tries to excuse it and downplay it.





    Which is how reliable now? You can go on and on about conspiracy theories but there are obvious issues around transparency and ommitting results.
    In one paper....one out of literally thousands and thousands.

    There will always be dodgy people in the world, those who look at dollar signs instead of doing the right thing. Andrew Wakefield is a perfect example of that.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    In one paper....one out of literally thousands and thousands.

    There will always be dodgy people in the world, those who look at dollar signs instead of doing the right thing. Andrew Wakefield is a perfect example of that.
    Exactly. This is one study. @Hootenanny If you read the article I posted above, there are serious issues around the method of re analysis and the results but even so- ONE study in bucket loads where all other studies have shown no link between autism and MMR vax. It has been studied quite a bit. If there was actual evidence, peer reviewed, replicable and demonstrated, that showed vaccines to be dangerous and ineffective, I wouldn't vax. This isn't the case, though.

    The antivax community refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of vaccine safety and efficacy studies but will accept the re analysis of one study despite questionable method (not to mention motivation) and questionable results? You can't have it both ways. Either peer reviewed scientific study is an acceptable method of showing whether vaccines are safe and effective or it is not. It can't only be acceptable when proving the antivax worldview. The Antivax movement: Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

  3. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    ArthurDent  (30-08-2014),atomicmama  (30-08-2014),beebs  (30-08-2014),btmacxxx  (30-08-2014),delirium  (30-08-2014),kezanazz  (30-08-2014),littlelove  (30-08-2014),MsViking  (30-08-2014),NoteToSelf  (30-08-2014),snowqu33n  (30-08-2014)

  4. #53
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Great post Atropos!

    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Exactly. This is one study. @Hootenanny If you read the article I posted above, there are serious issues around the method of re analysis and the results but even so- ONE study in bucket loads where all other studies have shown no link between autism and MMR vax. It has been studied quite a bit. If there was actual evidence, peer reviewed, replicable and demonstrated, that showed vaccines to be dangerous and ineffective, I wouldn't vax. This isn't the case, though.

    The antivax community refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of vaccine safety and efficacy studies but will accept the re analysis of one study despite questionable method (not to mention motivation) and questionable results? You can't have it both ways. Either peer reviewed scientific study is an acceptable method of showing whether vaccines are safe and effective or it is not. It can't only be acceptable when proving the antivax worldview. The Antivax movement: Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (30-08-2014)

  6. #54
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    This is a very short article, and very clear - in lay persons terms. Which clearly shows just how this non existent cover-up came to be.

    http://www.parents.com/blogs/parents...with-this-yet/

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (30-08-2014)

  8. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Exactly. This is one study. @Hootenanny If you read the article I posted above, there are serious issues around the method of re analysis and the results but even so- ONE study in bucket loads where all other studies have shown no link between autism and MMR vax. It has been studied quite a bit. If there was actual evidence, peer reviewed, replicable and demonstrated, that showed vaccines to be dangerous and ineffective, I wouldn't vax. This isn't the case, though.

    The antivax community refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of vaccine safety and efficacy studies but will accept the re analysis of one study despite questionable method (not to mention motivation) and questionable results? You can't have it both ways. Either peer reviewed scientific study is an acceptable method of showing whether vaccines are safe and effective or it is not. It can't only be acceptable when proving the antivax worldview. The Antivax movement: Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.
    I don't accept the re analysis, I accept the fact that there were scientists that made a decision not to share the information that there may have been a higher incidence of autism in a certain group who were vaccinated. I accept that Thompson had some concerns about the responsibility to share this information, whilst others in the CDC did not give it a second thought. The original scientists knew.

    You call into question motivation, you cannot have it both ways either, who has the ultimate motivation, who makes money from it. It's hypocritical to say motivation is a reason to question the results of a study done by someone who believes vaccines may cause harm, and not when it is funded by vaccine manufacturers.

    Thompson has done what very few scientists will do, and because of that he will very quickly go from being a reputable scientist who produced one of those 'studies' you rely on, to being discredited and untrustworthy. I imagine cognitive dissonance is what led to his sharing of his concerns.

    I can certainly see the benefits of some vacines in some circumstances, but it needs to be a fully informed risk assessment.

    I don't expect this to change vaxxers minds, they are too invested in it, I just hope this results in greater transparency so any concerning results are investigated further. Not finding proof doesn't mean it didn't happen, until they know exactly what causes Autism and a whole heap of autoimmune diseases this is not going away. Ignoring the bits you don't like is not going to make it go away. The research to date does not have all the answers.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Hootenanny For This Useful Post:

    Harriet  (30-08-2014)

  10. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    I don't accept the re analysis, I accept the fact that there were scientists that made a decision not to share the information that there may have been a higher incidence of autism in a certain group who were vaccinated. I accept that Thompson had some concerns about the responsibility to share this information, whilst others in the CDC did not give it a second thought. The original scientists knew.

    You call into question motivation, you cannot have it both ways either, who has the ultimate motivation, who makes money from it. It's hypocritical to say motivation is a reason to question the results of a study done by someone who believes vaccines may cause harm, and not when it is funded by vaccine manufacturers.

    Thompson has done what very few scientists will do, and because of that he will very quickly go from being a reputable scientist who produced one of those 'studies' you rely on, to being discredited and untrustworthy. I imagine cognitive dissonance is what led to his sharing of his concerns.

    I can certainly see the benefits of some vacines in some circumstances, but it needs to be a fully informed risk assessment.

    I don't expect this to change vaxxers minds, they are too invested in it, I just hope this results in greater transparency so any concerning results are investigated further. Not finding proof doesn't mean it didn't happen, until they know exactly what causes Autism and a whole heap of autoimmune diseases this is not going away. Ignoring the bits you don't like is not going to make it go away. The research to date does not have all the answers.
    http://time.com/3208886/whistleblowe...e-autism-link/
    For the non clickers:

    If you haven’t noticed, there’s a war going on between those who believe in the health benefits of vaccines – that they can prevent deadly infectious diseases such as measles and polio – and those that believe that the immunizations do more harm than good. Now one of the authors of a 2004 government study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism says the study omitted some important data.

    The vaccine war is being fought on social media, in social circles and increasingly in doctor’s offices, as physicians are faced with doubts and questions from parents who find themselves being recruited onto the side of skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, and the sign of curious minds, but not when it flies in the face of evidence. Especially gold standard, rigorous scientific evidence that has been accumulating for decades and shows that vaccines are not linked with an increased risk of the developmental disorder.

    William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and one of the authors of a 2004 study published in the journal Pediatrics, spoke with Brain Hooker, who serves on the board of Focus Autism (which was founded to “put an end to the needless harm of children by vaccination and other environmental factors”), about the data that was not included in the final report. The study looked at both healthy children and those with autism, to see if there were any differences in their rates of being vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), and found none. That suggested that childhood immunizations likely were not contributing to an increased risk of autism. Hooker and Thompson, however, discussed a subset of the 624 children with autism and 1824 without the condition who were studied and Thompson admitted that among African-American boys, the incidence of autism was higher among those who were vaccinated than among those who weren’t. But that information was not part of the paper. Thompson claims he was not aware that the discussion was being recorded, and his statements appeared in a video released on YouTube on August 22 entitled “CDC Whistleblower Revealed.”

    Did the CDC cover up the data, as Hooker claims? A couple of things to keep in mind, both about the people behind the video and about how epidemiological studies like the one published in Pediatrics work (and explained in more detail in this article from Science-Based Medicine). For starters, the video was narrated by Andrew Wakefield, the British researcher responsible for seeding the questions about vaccines and autism in the first place. In 2010, the General Medical Council in the UK revoked his license to practice medicine and a year later, the journal that published his paper concluded that his findings were fraudulent.

    Next, any time scientists take the original population of participants in a study, however large, and drill down to analyze trends in a subgroup – in this case the African-American boys – the power of the associations they find dwindles. That’s because the numbers get smaller, and in order to be statistically relevant – something known as statistical significance to statisticians – certain threshold numbers and confidence intervals for the connection have to be reached. In the 2004 study, the scientists looked at a smaller set of 355 children with autism and 1020 without for whom they had Georgia state birth certificates, which included additional information that might be relevant for any associations, such as birth weight, gestational age, and mother’s age, race and education. “This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence the CDC study did not present data by race on black, white or other race children form the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates,” the CDC notes in a statement responding to the video. Thompson claims that the findings were statistically significant, but results from smaller numbers of subjects still don’t hold as much weight as correlations found in the larger group.

    In addition, it’s important to note that the study simply correlated age at vaccination and reports of autism, which says nothing about the direction of the connection. For example, the authors of the 2004 study note that “Case children, especially those 3 to 5 years of age, were more likely than control children to have been vaccinated before 36 months of age.” The association between vaccination and symptoms, however, was more likely due to the fact that the children had to be immunized in order to register in preschool, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the shots contributed to the autism.

    In a statement issued through his attorneys, Thompson says “Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information.” He calls for transparency in the data collecting and reporting process, but says that the way that the 2004 study was presented does not negate the importance of vaccination. “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.”


    This give a good, simple, plain English explanation, I thought.

    Anti vax groups DO make money. The AVN is constantly sourcing donations and used to sell magazine subscriptions. Websites that preach anti vax crap sell advertising and products. For example, mercola flogs all kinds of supplements etc. Natural news too. So if money motivates scientific researchers it certainly motivates the anti vax brigade too.
    In this case I didn't say money was the motivator. I believe the motivator here is confirmation of an idea that has been disproven over and over again.

    No, this doesn't change my mind. Because it's not been proven to be significant enough. In thompson's own words, he is still recommending people vaccinate and acknowledges that data can be interpreted differently by different scientists. He is not calling for a mass recall of the vaccine. He is not saying the vaccine definitively causes autism. Yet the anti vax groups are in a lather, seeing this as a victory for their cause.

    Also, he didn't share his concerns. He has said he did not know he was being recorded. He's not a whistleblower. He made comments in private that were aired publicly without his apparent consent. The whole thing is farcical.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (30-08-2014),MsViking  (30-08-2014),SJG  (30-08-2014),snowqu33n  (31-08-2014)

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,914
    Thanks
    482
    Thanked
    552
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    I don't accept the re analysis, I accept the fact that there were scientists that made a decision not to share the information that there may have been a higher incidence of autism in a certain group who were vaccinated. I accept that Thompson had some concerns about the responsibility to share this information, whilst others in the CDC did not give it a second thought. The original scientists knew.

    You call into question motivation, you cannot have it both ways either, who has the ultimate motivation, who makes money from it. It's hypocritical to say motivation is a reason to question the results of a study done by someone who believes vaccines may cause harm, and not when it is funded by vaccine manufacturers.

    Thompson has done what very few scientists will do, and because of that he will very quickly go from being a reputable scientist who produced one of those 'studies' you rely on, to being discredited and untrustworthy. I imagine cognitive dissonance is what led to his sharing of his concerns.

    I can certainly see the benefits of some vacines in some circumstances, but it needs to be a fully informed risk assessment.

    I don't expect this to change vaxxers minds, they are too invested in it, I just hope this results in greater transparency so any concerning results are investigated further. Not finding proof doesn't mean it didn't happen, until they know exactly what causes Autism and a whole heap of autoimmune diseases this is not going away. Ignoring the bits you don't like is not going to make it go away. The research to date does not have all the answers.
    You know what, im not pro-vax and im not anti-vax. I am however a scientist and I know how to read and interpret scientific papaers. THATS why I KNOW vaccines dont cause autism.

    Sent from my GT-I9305T using The Bub Hub mobile app

  13. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to kezanazz For This Useful Post:

    ArthurDent  (30-08-2014),atomicmama  (30-08-2014),Atropos  (30-08-2014),beebs  (30-08-2014),HappyBovinexx  (30-08-2014),littlelove  (30-08-2014),MsViking  (30-08-2014),Ngaiz  (30-08-2014)

  14. #58
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    I guess this comes down to looking at the bigger picture. We are basically talking about a study, where one scientist wasn't 100% with the way it was done.

    Okay - so sure, further assessment needs to happen, another study perhaps to see if the data can be replicated - which it won't be.

    The reason this won't happen - is because thousands and thousands of studies have already and still continue to be done that show no link. You cannot dismiss all those studies on the basis of this one study. To do so is being biased and blinded to your cause. You cannot cherry pick, refuse to see the mountains of evidence and only scoop up the one or two studies that come out ever decade or so that may raise questions relating to autism.

    And we do know what causes autism, it is genetic, and it is something that starts in the fetus - well before vaccines even come into play.

    Autoimmune diseases, genetic as well.

    There is no conspiracy, there is no link. There is however around 3 million people walking around today at this very point in time - that would not be alive if it weren't for vaccines.

    I am not a scientist, I find it absolutely mind boggling that google warriors think they know and can interpret science better than an entire group of experts.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (30-08-2014),Atropos  (30-08-2014),kezanazz  (30-08-2014)

  16. #59
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Hootenanny View Post
    Ignoring the bits you don't like is not going to make it go away. The research to date does not have all the answers.
    I agree with you here, research doesn't have all the answers, in terms of medical science and genetics we are well and truly in the infancy. However, the vaccine thing is flogging a dead horse, it has been shown time and time again there are no links. None. What about all the other things that we as humans do now, that we never used to? What about crap food? Pollution? Chemical sprays? Lead? The list literally goes on and on and yet - we keep coming back to vaccines. How many more studies is it going to take? Should we not be looking else where.

    We know that both autoimmune diseases and ASD are genetic - we should be starting there.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (30-08-2014)

  18. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    1,868
    Thanks
    3,216
    Thanked
    1,513
    Reviews
    4
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    http://time.com/3208886/whistleblowe...e-autism-link/
    For the non clickers:

    If you haven’t noticed, there’s a war going on between those who believe in the health benefits of vaccines – that they can prevent deadly infectious diseases such as measles and polio – and those that believe that the immunizations do more harm than good. Now one of the authors of a 2004 government study that found similar vaccination rates among children with and without autism says the study omitted some important data.

    The vaccine war is being fought on social media, in social circles and increasingly in doctor’s offices, as physicians are faced with doubts and questions from parents who find themselves being recruited onto the side of skepticism. Skepticism is healthy, and the sign of curious minds, but not when it flies in the face of evidence. Especially gold standard, rigorous scientific evidence that has been accumulating for decades and shows that vaccines are not linked with an increased risk of the developmental disorder.

    William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and one of the authors of a 2004 study published in the journal Pediatrics, spoke with Brain Hooker, who serves on the board of Focus Autism (which was founded to “put an end to the needless harm of children by vaccination and other environmental factors”), about the data that was not included in the final report. The study looked at both healthy children and those with autism, to see if there were any differences in their rates of being vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), and found none. That suggested that childhood immunizations likely were not contributing to an increased risk of autism. Hooker and Thompson, however, discussed a subset of the 624 children with autism and 1824 without the condition who were studied and Thompson admitted that among African-American boys, the incidence of autism was higher among those who were vaccinated than among those who weren’t. But that information was not part of the paper. Thompson claims he was not aware that the discussion was being recorded, and his statements appeared in a video released on YouTube on August 22 entitled “CDC Whistleblower Revealed.”

    Did the CDC cover up the data, as Hooker claims? A couple of things to keep in mind, both about the people behind the video and about how epidemiological studies like the one published in Pediatrics work (and explained in more detail in this article from Science-Based Medicine). For starters, the video was narrated by Andrew Wakefield, the British researcher responsible for seeding the questions about vaccines and autism in the first place. In 2010, the General Medical Council in the UK revoked his license to practice medicine and a year later, the journal that published his paper concluded that his findings were fraudulent.

    Next, any time scientists take the original population of participants in a study, however large, and drill down to analyze trends in a subgroup – in this case the African-American boys – the power of the associations they find dwindles. That’s because the numbers get smaller, and in order to be statistically relevant – something known as statistical significance to statisticians – certain threshold numbers and confidence intervals for the connection have to be reached. In the 2004 study, the scientists looked at a smaller set of 355 children with autism and 1020 without for whom they had Georgia state birth certificates, which included additional information that might be relevant for any associations, such as birth weight, gestational age, and mother’s age, race and education. “This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence the CDC study did not present data by race on black, white or other race children form the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates,” the CDC notes in a statement responding to the video. Thompson claims that the findings were statistically significant, but results from smaller numbers of subjects still don’t hold as much weight as correlations found in the larger group.

    In addition, it’s important to note that the study simply correlated age at vaccination and reports of autism, which says nothing about the direction of the connection. For example, the authors of the 2004 study note that “Case children, especially those 3 to 5 years of age, were more likely than control children to have been vaccinated before 36 months of age.” The association between vaccination and symptoms, however, was more likely due to the fact that the children had to be immunized in order to register in preschool, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the shots contributed to the autism.

    In a statement issued through his attorneys, Thompson says “Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information.” He calls for transparency in the data collecting and reporting process, but says that the way that the 2004 study was presented does not negate the importance of vaccination. “I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.”


    This give a good, simple, plain English explanation, I thought.

    Anti vax groups DO make money. The AVN is constantly sourcing donations and used to sell magazine subscriptions. Websites that preach anti vax crap sell advertising and products. For example, mercola flogs all kinds of supplements etc. Natural news too. So if money motivates scientific researchers it certainly motivates the anti vax brigade too.
    In this case I didn't say money was the motivator. I believe the motivator here is confirmation of an idea that has been disproven over and over again.

    No, this doesn't change my mind. Because it's not been proven to be significant enough. In thompson's own words, he is still recommending people vaccinate and acknowledges that data can be interpreted differently by different scientists. He is not calling for a mass recall of the vaccine. He is not saying the vaccine definitively causes autism. Yet the anti vax groups are in a lather, seeing this as a victory for their cause.

    Also, he didn't share his concerns. He has said he did not know he was being recorded. He's not a whistleblower. He made comments in private that were aired publicly without his apparent consent. The whole thing is farcical.
    Bravo.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to MsViking For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (30-08-2014)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Flu vaccine
    By mandy81 in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 25-04-2014, 11:52
  2. Very red arm after 4 yr vaccine
    By Sairz in forum Immunisation & Vaccines
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28-11-2013, 21:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Ro&Co
Share magical moments this Christmas with this gorgeous gingerbread house. Exclusively available in Brisbane, with FREE delivery in Brisbane Metro areas. Each Christmas Centrepiece is unique and made to order, from $240.
sales & new stuffsee all
Bub Hub Sales Listing
HAVING A SALE? Let parents know about it with a Bub Hub Sales listing. Listings are featured on our well trafficked Sales Page + selected randomly to appear on EVERY page
featured supporter
Carmels Beauty Secrets
An online beauty and wellness site which offers simple and effective time saving methods and tips which help you look younger for longer.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!