Lancet retracts study linking autism to vaccines

[Ellen]

Hudson, thank you. I appreciate the kind response, really.


kama, birth defects were not that meds only problem. And I dunno, my "gut" tells me GSK would not fork out that kind of money on a "joke" trial. But I could be wrong! And lastly, your saying there's another study to disprove it (whether it's true or not) doesn't really prove anything.


zhu, thanks for the elaboration on the publication. I don't know honestly what the answer is. But I don't think it's too fair to blame the public (who no, are not doctors!) for becoming concerned. Yanno?


icekid, I'm sorry you feel slapped in the face. I honestly did not post this to make anyone feel bad. And I'm thrilled to hear pharma is denied access. That's encouraging, hopefully the practice spread.

The "past" as you put it on scanndals, has not been all that far back. And it remains to be seen when and if the next one arises. I honestly hope it does not.


What I have proven is reason for doubt. Ladies, there has been more than enough evidence to show why people are leary. Please, don't shoot the messenger. As an expert within one of these articles put it, the situation make everybody/everything suspect. That doesn't mean it is, but it's the whole pool thing again.

As I said earlier, some medicine IS good, never said it was all bad. It's not. And I never said people should not vaccinate their kids, not in here, not in my other thread. As for what causes Autism, I have no clue.

I'm am really surprised at all of you who seem to be aware of the influence pharma has, I really didn't get that from my other thread. But good to hear!

Lastly, I think the info posted here has more than proved there is cause for great concern and suspician, as the experts stated as well. I'm not going to keep debating that. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Because it's here in black and white, I'm not going to keep reiterating what the info shows.

And as I said in the first post, I truly respect all of you, and of course don't think you are bad/evil/etc. I never said anything like that.

 

[hlmr]

I see both sides of the debate, and understand why people get their backs up on certain issues. I think you can find documentation out there to back up just about anything you want to be true.

I believe that in most cases, autism is present at birth, but I also think there are certain cases where a vaccine could exacerbate or trigger the condition. Whether or not this is just a matter of timing remains to be seen. These are points that I have noted with friends/relatives who have autistic children.

 

[kama_s]

*I* am pharma. So what you are saying IS a slap in the face to me. Thanks Ellen, because I''m in pharmaceutical world I must be unscrupulous - and every pharma I worked with and every drug I''ve researched must be horrible. Seriously, I''m done with this entire issue. It''s past the point of aggravation, it''s now insulting.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 2/6/2010 11:34:27 PM
Author: kama_s
*I* am pharma. So what you are saying IS a slap in the face to me. Thanks Ellen, because I''m in pharmaceutical world I must be unscrupulous - and every pharma I worked with and every drug I''ve researched must be horrible. Seriously, I''m done with this entire issue. It''s past the point of aggravation, it''s now insulting.

To be fair, they''ve got YouTube links and all you have is a crappy PhD in the same field they''re experts in finding links about. Sorry kama!

 

[JSM]

I'm shocked that people are shocked that the pharmaceutical industry's number one objective is profit.

I don't have an MD or PhD (just a lousy MS in mol. physiology), so I definitely don't have the insight that others here have. But I'm in general appalled at the lack of understanding and distrust the general public has in science. It's a real shame. That's all I should really say because others debate far more articulately than I do.

BTW (and I'm out of town and can't access medical journals at the moment, so my sources are basic), according to PBS.org there is greater than 50 ug (micrograms) of mercury in 6 ounces of chunk white tuna. The amount in a thimerosal containing vaccine (according to the FDA) is ONE ug.

 

[waterlilly]

No one denies the fact that Pharma tries and can have an influence on what medications are chosen to treat certain ailments - and that there are some unscrupulous physicians that allow themselves to be "bought" by Pharma...and some unscrupulous companies that attempt to buy their way into a successful drug trial outcome.

What does a sponsored drug trial have to do with the folks that are researching disease development? In particular, how would Pharma have an influence on a post-doc or PhD student researching embryonic development, brain development, genetics or cell signaling involved in a particular disease?

Worlds apart.

 

[LAJennifer]

Does anyone know of any twin studies that may show a higher rate of autism in identical twins as opposed to fraternal twins? How about any twin studies that show the same rate of autism in identical twins and fraternal twins?

 

[cara]

LAJenn, current thought is that there are multiple genetic factors that affect autism risk, as well as environmental factors. I did a quick pubmed search for ''autism genetics twins'' and got 150+ hits, one of which was a twin study showing much higher rates of autism concordance in identical twins than fraternal (Rosenberg et al. "Characteristics and concordance of autism spectrum disorders among 277 twin pairs." Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2009). Other articles imply that there have been prior twin studies with similar finding, and some studies that question the reported amount of concordance in identical twins (but grant that there is an enhancement above baseline rates) and studies quibbling over the amount of genetic versus environmental cause. But that there is a genetic component to the risk seems well accepted in the literature.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 2/7/2010 12:04:36 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 2/6/2010 11:34:27 PM
Author: kama_s
*I* am pharma. So what you are saying IS a slap in the face to me. Thanks Ellen, because I''m in pharmaceutical world I must be unscrupulous - and every pharma I worked with and every drug I''ve researched must be horrible. Seriously, I''m done with this entire issue. It''s past the point of aggravation, it''s now insulting.

To be fair, they''ve got YouTube links and all you have is a crappy PhD in the same field they''re experts in finding links about. Sorry kama!

HI:

Apparently all the MD''s and PhD''s, medical researchers, educators, etc etc who immunize their own children and submit their families to other treatments to numerous to mention here are all on Big Pharm''s payroll too cuz they lack the ability to criticall think and do a risk benefit analysis based on evidence.

Why do these threads always devolve to this?

Sharon

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/7/2010 3:57:23 PM
Author: LAJennifer
Does anyone know of any twin studies that may show a higher rate of autism in identical twins as opposed to fraternal twins? How about any twin studies that show the same rate of autism in identical twins and fraternal twins?

In a 2009 report published in Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.by Rosenberg et al (2009 Oct;163(10):907-14.) Using IAN, an internet-based autism registry for US resident, they examine patterns of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) inheritance and other features in twin pairs by zygosity, sex, and specific ASD diagnosis.

They found [my comments]:

"RESULTS: Pairwise ASD [autism spectrum disorder ] concordance was 31% for DZ [fraternal twins] and 88% for MZ [identical twins] twins. Female and male MZ twins were 100% and 86% concordant[sex of the child may play a role in the degree of gene effects, ie: gene by sex interaction?], respectively, and DZ twin pairs with at least 1 female were less likely to be concordant (20%) than were male-male DZ twin pairs (40%)[sex difference]. The hazard ratio for ASD diagnosis of the second twin after a first-twin diagnosis was 7.48 for MZ vs DZ twins (95% confidence interval, 3.8-14.7). Affected DZ individual twins had an earlier age at first parental concern and more frequent diagnoses of intellectual disability than did MZ twins; MZ twins had a higher prevalence of bipolar disorder and Asperger syndrome and higher concordance of the latter. Results of autism screening correlated with parent-reported ASD status in more than 90% of cases [this shows how well parental reporting of ASD disease is compared to the diagnosis by a professional].

 

[Porridge]

Ellen thank you for your obviously well researched response. It''s what was missing from the "other side" of this thread. It sure makes for interesting reading and as I said before, of course it is important to question and to be informed. Thank you.

However - and Ellen, this is not aimed at you, but rather at all research I''ve seen - all I can see is some evidence that there are unethical folks in the pharmaceutical and medical profession. Well, d''uh! There are humans working in the pharmaceutical and medical professions, therefore unethical practice is going to take place.

Same as my car dealer, who ripped me off to high heavens on my last service, and now my handbreak won''t release. I''m sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are shady people and shady dealings high up in the auto industry. But I''m still gonna drive a car! Always will! There''s a risk I''ll die in an accident. But everything carries risks.

Same as the folks who prepare my food. Someone quoted the mercury levels in tinned fish above. Yes, those deep sea fish contain heavy metals, and that fact is not widely advertised. But I weighed the risks, researched the European standards and how they came to be, and I''m going to go ahead and enjoy my tinned smoked mackarel.

I could go on about every single industry that exists. The point is obvious. When it comes to vaccines the risks outweigh the benefits. I''ve researched it to my satisfaction. I trust that there are enough people out there working for my benefit, creating new preventions and cures, stricter standards and regulations, better ethical practice, because that is what the evidence has shown. We have better lives and life expectancies now.

Thanks to those that bust their tooshies for it.

 

[elrohwen]

Date: 2/7/2010 5:35:35 PM
Author: Porridge
Ellen thank you for your obviously well researched response. It's what was missing from the 'other side' of this thread. It sure makes for interesting reading and as I said before, of course it is important to question and to be informed. Thank you.

However - and Ellen, this is not aimed at you, but rather at all research I've seen - all I can see is some evidence that there are unethical folks in the pharmaceutical and medical profession. Well, d'uh! There are humans working in the pharmaceutical and medical professions, therefore unethical practice is going to take place.

Same as my car dealer, who ripped me off to high heavens on my last service, and now my handbreak won't release. I'm sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are shady people and shady dealings high up in the auto industry. But I'm still gonna drive a car! Always will! There's a risk I'll die in an accident. But everything carries risks.

Same as the folks who prepare my food. Someone quoted the mercury levels in tinned fish above. Yes, those deep sea fish contain heavy metals, and that fact is not widely advertised. But I weighed the risks, researched the European standards and how they came to be, and I'm going to go ahead and enjoy my tinned smoked mackarel.

I could go on about every single industry that exists. The point is obvious. When it comes to vaccines the risks outweigh the benefits. I've researched it to my satisfaction. I trust that there are enough people out there working for my benefit, creating new preventions and cures, stricter standards and regulations, better ethical practice, because that is what the evidence has shown. We have better lives and life expectancies now.

Thanks to those that bust their tooshies for it.

Great post

Very well said.

I think as a society (including US, Can, and EU in this) we tend to overestimate some risks and underestimate others. Just as far more people are afraid of flying than driving, despite the much higher death rate related to driving, I think we don't look at the actual risk for medical procedures, we look at the perceived risk. We want things to be 100% safe when they never will be (for medicine, food, machines, or anything else). Especially when there's such a great benefit (as in vaccs), I feel that we should be looking at the risks that exist rather than getting caught up in the hype and fear that medical procedures in general tend to create.

A small percentage of children (growing larger) are extremely allergic to peanuts, but I don't know any parents who decided to not give their child any peanut butter "just in case" - they determine if there is or is not an allergy, usually through feeding peanuts once or twice, then proceed. Not sure why we're more concerned with vaccines than we are with a very common food (that we all love way too much to get rid of permanently).

 

[Rock_of_Love]

Date: 2/6/2010 8:00:22 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker

Date: 2/6/2010 7:39:15 PM
Author: icekid
Ellen, you are a nice lady and I believe your intentions are genuine. However, you''ve just slapped me (and most physicians) across the face.


As a community, we are WELL aware of the untoward influence that pharmaceutical companies can have. In fact, my department flat our denies them access to any of us residents as well as attendings. This is certainly not true everywhere, but it becoming more and more commonplace.


Your physicians are trained NOT to take NEJM, Lancet as gospel. No, instead we are trained to critically apprise the literature and take from it. We combine this with what we see in practice and experience. This is no easy task, to be sure, but we do our best.


Big Pharma certainly has its problems and scandals in the past. There are bad people, bad companies throughout any part of life. That simply does not make ALL physicians unethical liars, all medications poison. Would you deny life-altering, life-saving treatment because it was developed by a big drug company? Throw the baby out with the bath water???


Ellen, nothing you have posted has proven ANYTHING except that there are bad, deceitful people in this world. This is just not evidence that vaccines cause autism.


I work way, way too hard to see my field maligned so viciously.

Could not have said it better myself. I also am aware of the influence the pharmaceutical companies have and have made a point to keep pharm reps and formula reps out of my practice as well. I use a lot more generic drugs than some others in my practice and I believe that is because I really try to make a point to look at guidelines from the NIH and my professional organization rather than ads in some of the journals I receive (which I never asked for).

Please don''t lump us all into one big group of evil, money driven people.

Are you referring to the same reps who bring you the latest clinical trials to expand your knowledge and free samples for your patients? While I agree these reps should be "taken with a grain of salt" - they are after all "sales" reps - but isn''t it somewhat narrow-minded to block access, stick to generics, and *only* practice based on guidelines or NIH studies...which many of these guidelines are only based on historical experience vs. any new findings.

We have NIH to thank for many women being scared of HRT. We have ATS/IDSA pneumonia guidelines that still say vancomycin should be the first choice for MRSA pneumonia. Scary. If I have MRSA pneumonia, PLEASE do not use a generic on me.

In some cases, this reasoning is fine, but I would never go to a physician who is so narrow-minded as to block access to reps who are just trying provide some education and information. I actually rely on reps to get referrals to the good doctors...reps are the ones who know the difference between doctors who block access and are close-minded, doctors who are "in it for the money and pharma perks," and doctors who are up-to-date on the latest information AS WELL AS the guidelines and standards of care.

Bringing this back full circle to topic, I guess what I am trying to say is that there is A LOT of information out there...evidence-based medicine, solid clinical research, as well as case reports, side effect reports, post-marketing drug experiences, and a lot of other information that can cause us to say "hmmmmm..." in a good or bad way. Which is why I think it is dangerous to block any information...just consider the source when you read it.

 

[icekid]

Date: 2/7/2010 6:01:14 PM
Author: Rock_of_Love

In some cases, this reasoning is fine, but I would never go to a physician who is so narrow-minded as to block access to reps who are just trying provide some education and information. I actually rely on reps to get referrals to the good doctors...reps are the ones who know the difference between doctors who block access and are close-minded, doctors who are ''in it for the money and pharma perks,'' and doctors who are up-to-date on the latest information AS WELL AS the guidelines and standards of care.

Just wanted to say that I am glad this thread has evolved into a thoughtful discussion!

Rock_of_Love- I''m really not convinced that the information provided by reps (though certainly often true) cannot be gleaned from elsewhere. No matter what, they always have their slant and bias. Reps are NOT only trying to supply information; they want you to use their drug! And sometimes it is just more effort to sift through the truth with the garbage than to go to the source yourself. I''m not really sure why you would only go to a physician who talks with drug reps. Many teaching hospitals have banned them completely

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Rock of Love,

I think you took my statement a little too far, I said I use more generics than some other doctors I know, I don''t use generics only. There are some cases when the brand name is worth using. However, there are several cases where generic drugs work better than brand names and the pharm reps try to convince you to use their drug. There are also cases when a drug goes off patent and the pharm company makes one small change to it (example, makes an extended release form) and re markets the same drug. But, when the pharm industry truly comes up with a medical breakthrough, I will support it all the way.

I pay about $500 a year out of my own pocket to get information that is unbiased as possible (I know that that is difficult, but I try). If I didn''t have resources through my work, I would probably need to pay much more. There are other ways to become educated than through the pharm industry.

BTW, the patent for vancomycin expired in the 80''s, that has been a generic drug for years

 

[janinegirly]

Well this is interesting---seems like now there is more credence to mother''s age impacting risk factors (vs. father''s). Also the overall risk is still extremely low (based on parental age).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_he_me/us_med_autism_mother_s_agehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_he_me/us_med_autism_mother_s_age

 

[janinegirly]

Date: 2/6/2010 12:01:46 PM
Author: girlface
Thanks for your reply Blenheim. I''m sure it differs quite a bit from state to state as well.

And Ksinger, I did read your thread about the ''Denialism'' book. I have also been noticing this ''trend'', so to speak. I can''t believe there is a book about it!

Haven''t read the book but I think one aspect to take into account is Americans in general tend to be suspicious of big establishments and government--this harks back to the colonial days. It is not unusual for there to be general distrust of any large body backed by the "establishment". This is heightened today after countless political scandals, and general bad times. Now this is a gross generalization but it is part of the social fabric. Of course as a result we do have some extremists (militia, those who do not listent to facts and are consipiracy theorists on everything) who are illogical but they are an anticipated (and albeit fringe) aspect of an open society.

 

[Rock_of_Love]

Date: 2/7/2010 6:51:21 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
Rock of Love,

I think you took my statement a little too far, I said I use more generics than some other doctors I know, I don''t use generics only. There are some cases when the brand name is worth using. However, there are several cases where generic drugs work better than brand names and the pharm reps try to convince you to use their drug. There are also cases when a drug goes off patent and the pharm company makes one small change to it (example, makes an extended release form) and re markets the same drug. But, when the pharm industry truly comes up with a medical breakthrough, I will support it all the way.

I pay about $500 a year out of my own pocket to get information that is unbiased as possible (I know that that is difficult, but I try). If I didn''t have resources through my work, I would probably need to pay much more. There are other ways to become educated than through the pharm industry.

BTW, the patent for vancomycin expired in the 80''s, that has been a generic drug for years

I may have taken it a bit too far, but this is a hot button with me and honestly I think some doctors and academic medical centers have taken it a bit too far by banning reps. I agree with you and icekid that there are also *some* pharm reps who are all about pushing their drug and can be completely biased - in a sense, they are also very narrow-minded. But, I know A LOT of reps who take their job very seriously when it comes to sharing information and education and getting into intelligent and meaningful discussions with physicians. I will also say that for most companies, a rep that calls on an academic medical center must be of a certain caliber...not the same brand new rep that is calling on primary care offices.

I also agree that there are cases where generics work better than branded, but not a lot. I make it a point to request only branded when I pick up a prescription at the pharmacy. There are huge quality control issues with generics, as well as additional fillers and excipients that are not part of the original, branded drug. For me, a branded medication represents the science and innovation that went into it from all the countless researchers and trials it went through.

I am very familiar with vancomycin and when the patent expired. And, guess what, that drug was NOT used AT ALL for years because it wasn''t considered a very good drug - poor tissue penetration, poor pharmacokinetics, bad side effects, etc. Only with the onset of hospital acquired MRSA is when anyone began to use it again...because there was NO OTHER choice. NOW, there are choices that are far superior in many, many ways, but physicians still continue to use vanco on dying patients. No thanks.

All I''m saying is that this is a parallel to me with the vaccination debate. Why are doctors still using vanco in MRSA pneumonia when there is only 20% lung penetration...as evidenced by a few recent studies? Well...a few smallish studies here and there just aren''t enough proof for everyone. They want more...more well-controlled, large sample size studies...more proof. But, how many patients will die in the meantime. How many patients will become septic because vanco was not able to adequately kill MRSA in the lung? How many more "case reports" of kids becoming autistic supposedly after receiving a vaccine will it take before we can at least look into this deeper and not just deny deny deny?

Can ANYONE say with 100% confidence that certain vaccines DO NOT cause autism? I see both sides, but I certainly have doubts...and I am an extremely scientific minded person. I have doubts about epidurals and pitocin and their potentially harmfull effects...I doubt I am in the majority here...but I will admit, I have my doubts.

I think this is just scary, guys. What if yours was the kid that changed after the vaccine? What if?? What if there FOR SURE isn''t a correlation? Great...then what is really going on? But, what if there is a correlation that we just do not know about yet? Where is NIH now?

 

[RockHugger]

Date: 2/8/2010 1:01:34 PM
Author: Rock_of_Love

Date: 2/7/2010 6:51:21 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
Rock of Love,

I think you took my statement a little too far, I said I use more generics than some other doctors I know, I don''t use generics only. There are some cases when the brand name is worth using. However, there are several cases where generic drugs work better than brand names and the pharm reps try to convince you to use their drug. There are also cases when a drug goes off patent and the pharm company makes one small change to it (example, makes an extended release form) and re markets the same drug. But, when the pharm industry truly comes up with a medical breakthrough, I will support it all the way.

I pay about $500 a year out of my own pocket to get information that is unbiased as possible (I know that that is difficult, but I try). If I didn''t have resources through my work, I would probably need to pay much more. There are other ways to become educated than through the pharm industry.

BTW, the patent for vancomycin expired in the 80''s, that has been a generic drug for years

I may have taken it a bit too far, but this is a hot button with me and honestly I think some doctors and academic medical centers have taken it a bit too far by banning reps. I agree with you and icekid that there are also *some* pharm reps who are all about pushing their drug and can be completely biased - in a sense, they are also very narrow-minded. But, I know A LOT of reps who take their job very seriously when it comes to sharing information and education and getting into intelligent and meaningful discussions with physicians. I will also say that for most companies, a rep that calls on an academic medical center must be of a certain caliber...not the same brand new rep that is calling on primary care offices.

I also agree that there are cases where generics work better than branded, but not a lot. I make it a point to request only branded when I pick up a prescription at the pharmacy. There are huge quality control issues with generics, as well as additional fillers and excipients that are not part of the original, branded drug. For me, a branded medication represents the science and innovation that went into it from all the countless researchers and trials it went through.

I am very familiar with vancomycin and when the patent expired. And, guess what, that drug was NOT used AT ALL for years because it wasn''t considered a very good drug - poor tissue penetration, poor pharmacokinetics, bad side effects, etc. Only with the onset of hospital acquired MRSA is when anyone began to use it again...because there was NO OTHER choice. NOW, there are choices that are far superior in many, many ways, but physicians still continue to use vanco on dying patients. No thanks.

All I''m saying is that this is a parallel to me with the vaccination debate. Why are doctors still using vanco in MRSA pneumonia when there is only 20% lung penetration...as evidenced by a few recent studies? Well...a few smallish studies here and there just aren''t enough proof for everyone. They want more...more well-controlled, large sample size studies...more proof. But, how many patients will die in the meantime. How many patients will become septic because vanco was not able to adequately kill MRSA in the lung? How many more ''case reports'' of kids becoming autistic supposedly after receiving a vaccine will it take before we can at least look into this deeper and not just deny deny deny?

Can ANYONE say with 100% confidence that certain vaccines DO NOT cause autism? I see both sides, but I certainly have doubts...and I am an extremely scientific minded person. I have doubts about epidurals and pitocin and their potentially harmfull effects...I doubt I am in the majority here...but I will admit, I have my doubts.

I think this is just scary, guys. What if yours was the kid that changed after the vaccine? What if?? What if there FOR SURE isn''t a correlation? Great...then what is really going on? But, what if there is a correlation that we just do not know about yet? Where is NIH now?

Great post. Highlighted portion I agree with 100%, and is the basis of my argument.
As for the vanco, I was put on vanco in the ER for my MRSA mastitis on my 2nd ''attack'' and I felt MUCH better after about 24hrs. But I had the worse reaction from it, where my head (not just face) swelled up double its size in 5 min. I wouldnt wish that stuff on my worst enemy. I was admited a few weeks later for another flare up and the doctor KNOWING my reaction hooked a HUGE bag of the stuff to my IV. The nurse told me a min later what it was, and I told her what happened last time and she riped the tube from my IV faster then I could blink. The doctor came back and told me "Getting the vanco is worth the reaction you will get from it". That is when I opted for my more natural treatment, and it worked within a week.

 

[swimmer]

In science, there is no 100% certitude. Hence gravity is still a "theory." One day we could wake up and it will have ceased to apply, of course we will either be hurtling into the sun or out into the cosmos, with imminent death becoming a new "theory."

Thank you to those posters who work in science and try to heal people everyday. Your pursuit of elusive truths is honorable and helps all of humanity. Thank you.


"Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works."
The Economist 8/09

 

[Mandarine]

This thread gave me a headache!. In all fairness I may have had a slight one when I started reading!.

I don''t think anyone can say 100% with anything!

Can you say cell phone use don''t have any effect on the human body?....no with 100% accuracy...but you use one anyway, right?

I think what most people are trying to say is that first of all, it''s the socially responsible thing to do and second that the risks far outweigh the benefits.

 

[Lanie]

Date: 2/9/2010 8:16:36 AM
Author: Mandarine
This thread gave me a headache!. In all fairness I may have had a slight one when I started reading!.

I don''t think anyone can say 100% with anything!

Can you say cell phone use don''t have any effect on the human body?....no with 100% accuracy...but you use one anyway, right?

I think what most people are trying to say is that first of all, it''s the socially responsible thing to do and second that the risks far outweigh the benefits.

I think you mean the other way around??!?

 

[Mandarine]

hahahaha yes!!!

sleep deprivation+headache!

Sorry

 

[geckodani]

I just read the entire thread so far, and wanted to say thank you to everyone that posted their thoughts, backgrounds, studies etc.

I am immensely glad that Lancet retracted the study - having read about the unethical practices used to obtian the supposed results, I am grateful that the unreliable study was retracted.

I had taken it for granted that there could possibly be a link between vaccines and autism, and was troubled by what action to take when it was time to have my own children. My sister recently had a baby, and I was concerned for that little man as well. My sister, (the crazy health conscious makes her own baby food breast feeding safety crazy woman) did her research, and had my nephew vaccinated. She is also the one that originally sent me the story that the article had been retracted.

I then came to the startling realization that I had been making an assumption based on a study that I had NEVER ACTUALLY READ. I had heard the hype, and it is terrifying how quickly that hype went from something heard, to something assumed.

This experience taught me to be frightened of how much we as a culture, and I personally take for granted. When it is time for me to decide what actions to take in regards to my own children, I will do the research, and decide accordingly. That said, at this point in time I fully intend to vaccinate my children. The risks, to me, far outweigh the chance that my hypothetical children could have a bad reaction to a vaccine.

Just because something has feathers, doesn't make it a duck. Do your research before making any decisions.

 

[ksinger]

Interesting analysis.

Retracting a Medical Journal’s Autism Study

 

[kama_s]

Date: 2/10/2010 8:50:18 PM
Author: ksinger
Interesting analysis.

Retracting a Medical Journal’s Autism Study

I really wanted to be done with this thread, but your link has sucked me in. Great article, especiallly this little blurb:

"We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now. We don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in the public space about difficult controversial issues without people drawing a conclusion which could be very averse."

Very often the media will take a study and print something conclusively that the study might only discuss as potential possibilities in the discussion section. The scientific community is also to be blamed, because you frequently see hyped up abstracts only to find the results barely significant, or statistically significant but not clinically significant. At what point do we draw the line and say open speculation (i.e., publication in a journal) has more risks than benefits? Especially since all studies/trials begin with a mere hypothesis. To add to that, most future studies are usually based on the results (both, positive and negative) of a previous study. Definitely food for thought.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 2/10/2010 9:59:59 PM
Author: kama_s

Date: 2/10/2010 8:50:18 PM
Author: ksinger
Interesting analysis.

Retracting a Medical Journal’s Autism Study

I really wanted to be done with this thread, but your link has sucked me in. Great article, especiallly this little blurb:

''We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now. We don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in the public space about difficult controversial issues without people drawing a conclusion which could be very averse.''

Very often the media will take a study and print something conclusively that the study might only discuss as potential possibilities in the discussion section. The scientific community is also to be blamed, because you frequently see hyped up abstracts only to find the results barely significant, or statistically significant but not clinically significant. At what point do we draw the line and say open speculation (i.e., publication in a journal) has more risks than benefits? Especially since all studies/trials begin with a mere hypothesis. To add to that, most future studies are usually based on the results (both, positive and negative) of a previous study. Definitely food for thought.

Sorry.

I should have let it go I suppose, but after all this thrash it was good to read something ... real and nuanced? Nuance is notoriously lacking in the media - which still runs on hyperbole and if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality. Unfortunately, nuance and discernment is also lacking in the reading public, to a large degree. I mean how many people are going to choose, "Study Finds Walnuts May Affect Cancer Growth" when they can read "Walnuts CURE Cancer"? Which one sells more papers/clicks? (and yeah, I''m just making that up. I remember some outsized claim for walnuts years ago, and when I delved deeper, the study was funded by The Walnut Growers'' Council or some similar body. I threw up my hands. It may have BEEN a great study, but then again I haven''t seen any claims for walnuts recently).