+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. #61
    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
    The more I read about Hooker -the less credible he seems, he is an anti vaxxer and very vocal in those groups and he believes that his child is on the spectrum because of vaccines. This was never going to be unbiased.
    This from scienceblogs

    "
    Next come the statistics. Hooker uses Pearson’s chi squared test to see if there is a significant association between MMR and autism in children at different ages. DeStefano et al used conditional logistic regression. For the non-biostatisticians out there, the technique that DeStefano et al used accounts for confounders and effect modifiers, different traits in their population that could skew the results. Hooker’s technique doesn’t really do that, unless you stratify results and use very, very large datasets. Hooker’s approach is more “conservative,” meaning that it will detect small effects and amplify them, and those effects can come from anything.

    In other words, Hooker used a method prone to false positives.

    The nail in the coffin for the Hooker paper is that autism is usually diagnosed by the time a child is three years old. There was no increased risk at 18 months, higher but not by a whole lot at 24, and then the three-fold increase at 36 months. Gee, was it the MMR vaccine, mister? No, the effect is being modified by age. It’s as if I asked you if your shoe size was bigger at 36 months because you drank milk vs because you were 36 months. It’s age. It’s the way that autism is diagnosed. You’re going to have more children diagnosed as autistic at 36 months than you will at 18 months or at 24 months. Using the chi square test doesn’t tease this out, Dr. Hooker! That’s more than likely why DeStefano et al used conditional logistic regression, to take age into account in the analysis.

    So why did we not see this in the other ethnic groups or in girls? The answer here is simple, again. Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. In this table, for example, he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group. It’s the same goddamned mistake that Andrew Jeremy Wakefield wanted to pass off as legitimate science. You cannot, and must not use small numbers to make big assertions…"

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    atomicmama  (31-08-2014),Atropos  (31-08-2014)

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,821
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Exactly @beebs - his method was flawed. Even Thompson has basically said he can see that other scientists would not have considered it to be statistically significant and that it's not a reason not to vax yet the anti vaxxers have really run with it. Yet not one credible news source is giving this any attention. It's only being reported on alt med/anti vax sites (epoch times, infowars, whale.to etc). Even the cnn thing wasn't actually cnn but part of their website where content is user generated.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Atropos For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (31-08-2014)

  5. #63
    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 think they should report it, the anti vaxx groups use the none reporting in main ****** media to meant that they are "on the right track", that it is sooo sensitive and sooo true that the big pharma are covering the whole thing up.

    Which of course is not the case -they need to come out and say exactly what you said above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atropos View Post
    Exactly @beebs - his method was flawed. Even Thompson has basically said he can see that other scientists would not have considered it to be statistically significant and that it's not a reason not to vax yet the anti vaxxers have really run with it. Yet not one credible news source is giving this any attention. It's only being reported on alt med/anti vax sites (epoch times, infowars, whale.to etc). Even the cnn thing wasn't actually cnn but part of their website where content is user generated.

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

    Atropos  (31-08-2014)


 

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, 22:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Pea Pods Reusable NappiesPea Pods are the smart choice when it comes to choosing what's best for you, your baby and the environment. Affordable ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
pregnant and homesickIssues with Family Members
Amazing August TTCConception & Fertility General Chat
hospital based care versus shared carePregnancy & Birth General Chat
What's next?Second Trimester Chat
Hormone help!?General Health
Joyous June/July TTC! #2Conception & Fertility General Chat
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›