A bit of antivaccine misinformation from the left and the right

Allow me one more:

Actually Kreb, I do believe that scientists should continue their efforts with finding this unifying theory, because I too believe that the universe, for the most part, is governed by elegant, simple truths. The equations, and indeed statistics behind them may be downright scary, but these truths are, nevertheless, beautiful in their simplicity.

No, they're not. There is nothing "simple" about GR unless you're a simpleton (or George Hammond). It is the field equations. Moreover, one upshot is that there is no force of gravity. There is no "stage," to gloss one of the fundamental conflicts with QM, which, at its simplest, is nothing but the Schrödinger equation, which is notably short on analytic solutions. Are operators acting on bras and kets in Hilbert spaces simple and elegant? Beats the hell out of the alternatives, if you ask me, but I never even got to Feynmann. Gauge theory and thus Lie groups? Elegant, to be sure, but I doubt that's what you had in mind.

In any event, neither has "indeed statistics behind" it. Maybe you were thinking of thermodynamics. Or not thinking at all.

Ooops ---my bad: At #499 'cajones', not 'cajoles'.

@Narad

2. Ignore people who dropped out of the study because they were likely the ones with bad side effects. (I did think about this one when I read about dropouts with the Danish MMR study.)

Gerg, please explain in detail how one “drops out” of a retrospective study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did read somewhere in the study that some of the participants moved, and were not followed until the end of the study.

@Narad

Greg: I too believe that the universe, for the most part, is governed by elegant, simple truths

Narad: No, they’re not. There is nothing “simple” about GR unless you’re a simpleton (or George Hammond)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that I said for the 'most part'. Indeed QM appears to be so counter intuitive in so many ways. Yet Kreb, are you seriously comparing vaccine science to QM? Really Narad?

Greg:

Yet, when he reached the topic of vaccines and autism, for some inexplicable reason (perhaps not so inexplicable when considering John Stone’s take that he is seeking to protect his own nest egg), he seemed to suddenly lose his scrutinous, renegade zeal, recoiling to the party line by suggesting the MMR Danish study – a study of one vaccine – essentially settles the vaccines debate in its entirety.

If by "vaccine debate", you mean the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism, then yes, it does settle it. Incidentally, John Stone's claim of "conflicts of interest" is the old technique of ad hominem.
Finally Greg, I have an ultimatum question for you. If you do not answer within the next three posts, we can take that as evidence that you have no answer.
You have tried to dismiss the Denmark Study as flawed. How is it flawed? What evidence do you have to support your claims that it is invalid?
If you fail to give an answer (and supporting evidence) in your next three posts, I (and the rest of Orac's readers) can take that as proof that you have no evidence, and are simply engaging in handwaving because you don't like the conclusions of the study.

Greg,

I think it’s fair then to deduce that even he would accept that some of these parents are telling the truth, and their claims cannot be dismissed by the ‘coincidence and cognitive bias arguments.

No, you are conflating what I said about the statistical power of Madsen's study and my personal opinions on the matter. I think the vast majority of them are telling the truth, and that very probably all of them are mistaken due to coincidence and cognitive biases.

If you are going to be chasing down adverse effects of drugs and vaccines that are so rare that you can't even demonstrate they exist using epidemiology, accepting every claim of side effects at face value, you are going to need a huge amount of time and money.

That countless parents can recall how their children dramatically regressed into autism following vaccination

How can you simply dismiss the Madsen study that found no difference in incidence of autism between unvaccinated children and children at any time after vaccination? That is completely inconsistent with your claims.

Anyway, 'countless' presumably in your case means more than 5, but most people would take it to mean considerably more than that. How many parents have reported their child dramatically regressing into autism? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Where is the evidence for this?

I'll address your hilarious appraisal of Bad Science separately.

I'd be very curious what are the "elegant simple truths" that, for the most part, the universe is governed by. I can't think of any offhand. Examples:

At the very smallest level, we have quantum mechanics. It has tremendous predictive and explanatory power, but I'd be hard pressed to call it simple or elegant.

At the large level we have general relativity. Elegant, yes, but simple not so much.

The operations of the stars are horrendously complex. So is orbital mechanics once you get beyond two bodies.

In fact, once you get past Fudd's First Law of Opposition and look at anything in any detail you find all kinds of complexity. This is why Chaos Theory is useful, as well as tensor calculus and N-dimensional geometry.

I'm not seeing the general simplicity and elegance that would lead me to conclude that just because someone says "my child was vaccinated and immediately afterwards (s)he started a decline into regressive autism,; ergo, the vaccination caused the autism" that it is necessarily a statement of objective fact.

OK, I thought of three:
- F=MA remains true in all reference frames
- Conservation of momentum remains true in all reference frames.
- Conservation of energy remains true in all closed systems.

Maxwell's equations are elegant, but perhaps not simple.

Greg,

Yet, when he reached the topic of vaccines and autism, for some inexplicable reason (perhaps not so inexplicable when considering John Stone’s take that he is seeking to protect his own nest egg), he seemed to suddenly lose his scrutinous, renegade zeal, recoiling to the party line by suggesting the MMR Danish study – a study of one vaccine – essentially settles the vaccines debate in its entirety.

I don't see any such reversal. His assessment of the evidence is entirely consistent with what he has written previously in the book

I could not help but think WTF.

Why? The Madsen study was not carried out or funded by a drug company, and it was not a randomized clinical trial.

Perhaps you are conflating the clinical trials a drug company does to get its drug to market, which Goldacre is talking about, with post marketing surveillance carried out by government agencies (VAERS and VSD for example), and other independent research (Madsen for example) carried out to answer specific questions, such as the alleged vaccine-autism link.

You must be aware that the studies that looked at the alleged link between vaccines and autism did not, indeed in most cases could not, suffer from any of these weaknesses. You mention side effects specifically, yet the study I have been referring to was looking at one specific side effect: ASDs. As for:

If your results are bad, torture the data until you have something positive to say. Look for any subgroup within the study that may have yielded positive numbers.

Madsen did the direct opposite of this. His results showed no link between vaccines and autism but he still looked at different subgroups to see if he could find an association with any of them. He couldn't.

Greg,

Yet Kreb, are you seriously comparing vaccine science to QM?

Nope, that was you back at #409. I described it as an extraordinarily asinine analogy at #428.

Is Greg under the impression that big pharma are the only people running drugs trials and studies?

Chuff, that seems to be a common theme among Greg and his friends. Yet when they are given a list of studies like Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence, and asked to tell us which pharmaceutical companies paid for them with quotes from the "Conflict of Interest" sections, they do nothing. I have yet had anyone tell me which pharmaceutical companies are involved.

Apparently they are confused the author affiliations are things like "National Health Service", Centers for Disease Control, etc. Perhaps because none of those entities are traded on any stock market.

Dr. Offit's "Do You Believe in Magic?" is only $1.99 for the Kindle edition on Amazon. Has it always been priced so low? Picking up a copy.

@Chuff: probably. It gives them an "out" when the studies don't return the proof that antivaxxers want.
On a side note, I remember there was a study done in which Ginger Taylor (it might not be Taylor) was involved from the start. Taylor had no problem, until it became clear that the study would return data that didn't fit with her preconceived ideas. Then she blasted it.

OK, I thought of three:
- F=MA remains true in all reference frames

This is already broken in Maxwell's equations. F = dpt, or you don't get radiation pressure.

Sigh. F = dp/dt.

Narad - you're correct, I should have used the more general form. Technically what I said is only true if m is constant. And since we know that m is not constant (based on both special and general relativity) I should not have used the special case of F=ma.

Greg's New Year's resolution was clearly to redouble his stupidity and stubbornness. Ever notice that whenever Greg gets into a bad position, he announces very loudly how he's going to spend time with friends and family, and then returns repeating the same claims he was challenged to back up before and couldn't?

Just a few observations...

... how many kids have been diagnosed with autism so far, an affliction that no one knew anything about a few decades ago.

Ah, yes, the 1940s were just yesterday...

We could have a resolution if you would just admit that one explanation is that the parents may be mistaken. Not "all of them li-ars or lun-atics" – just that some are mistaken.

Thank you Chemmomo for supporting my argument, although perhaps you didn't even realize you did. To the extent that we cannot dismiss all the parents as lying, lunatics, and there may be merits to some of their claims of vaccine adverse reactions, the issue is not resolved.

Bzzzzt, wrong. Gerg's argument, boiled down, is as follows:

1. There are only three possible explanation for the perceptions in question: the parents are liars; the parents are lunatics; or, vaccines are causing autism (at rates that are somehow too tiny to be detected by professionally-done epidemiological studies and at the same time so huge that amateurs can see it clearly for reasons that have nothing to do with their vested interests.)
2. The first two possibilities cannot possibly account for all the parents who blame vaccines for autism.
3. Therefore, the third explanation must be true.

Exactly how does 'master logician' Gerg (who probably just saw the first syllogism of his life) think it supports his argument for Chemmomo to point out that premise 1 is ca-ca?

"The parents are mistaken" is in fact the most logical explanation. Gerg claims that that possibility has been ruled out, but when asked how it was ruled out, he inevitably changes the subject or suddenly remembers family obligations that will keep him away from the keyboard for several days.

And in fact, Kreb, who would like to close the chapter on the vaccine-autism issue, also believes that vaccines in 'extraordinarily rare cases' can cause autism.

Since this is Gerg, who has previously admitted to making statements about study design that he knew were lies because they served his purposes, I see no reason to think this is what Krebiozen actually believes.

I believe that if Gerg ever pointed to the statements by Krebiozen that he's taking as the basis for his claims about what Kreb believes, it would turn out that what Kreb said was more like "vaccines could cause autism in extraordinarily rare cases without being detected by the epidemiological studies that utterly trash the notion that vaccines are causing autism in mass numbers easily detected by untrained idiots who don't even control for confounders when they look at their data." To misinterpret that statement of "it theoretically could exist in a way that's compatible with the collected data, unlike most hypotheses of it existing" for "it can exist, it definitely can exist" is to commit the existential fallacy, which master logician Gerg probably thinks has to do with depressed French philosophers in berets.

Kreb is, nevertheless, arguing that we turn the chapter on these [hypothesized] cases. We shouldn't explore studies to determine if indeed vaccines was cause

Which is entirely logical, given the circumstances as they actually exist.

Let's assert for the sake of argument that it is, indeed, possible that vaccines are causing autism in extraordinarily rare cases, so rare as to avoid detection by epidemiological studies. What is the evidence that any such cases exist?? The existential fallacy rears its head again; you can speculate endlessly about how this or that might exist and might have avoided detection, whether "this or that" is vampires, alien visitations, cryptids in the woods, or cases of autism caused by vaccines. But the burden of proof is always to show that such things exist, not to simply assert that they might.

If we didn't know for a fact that this evidence was unreliable, we might find such evidence in the parental testimony that tells so many stories of an extremely tight correlation in time between the administration of the vaccine and the first signs of autism. If we didn't know what we do know, which is that the parental testimony is unreliable, both because the parents often miss signs of autism that preceded the vaccination, and because their memories, like those of all humans, are startlingly prone to alteration, changing to match what the person has come to believe is the truth. Anyone who has kept up with the scientific research on memory realizes that memory does not (as the average person believes) summon up a recollection of "what happened" so much as it reconstructs "what must've happened." The parents might tell a dramatic, moving story of how their child got the vaccination and started showing unmistakable signs of autism within 24-48 hours, frequently after dramatic medical symptoms. But just because they tell the story, just because they believe that story, doesn't mean that that's the way it actually happened; again and again, when the records are examined, it shows that there was a gap of months, sometimes half a year or more, not the 24-48 hours the parents think they remember.

Contrast this attitude with the reaction of vaccine zealots' to the CDC's news that last year was a bad year for measles cases, with a reported 150 odd cases. We are talking measles, which is a relatively mild affliction that the majority of its victims fully recover from.

Except for, y'know, the ones that do die, either immediately or years later from measles encephalitis, or those who go blind, or deaf.

These zealots were sounding the alarm, and screaming to the high heavens that the sky was falling because of anti-vaxxers' reckless ways. Yet, 450 possible annual cases of vaccines induced autism are not to be treated with such concern, and to the point that it is properly investigated,

This would doubtless have something to do with the fact that measles cases exist, and calling those imaginary cases of 'vaccines induced autism' possible just because someone can hypothesize them is to seriously misrepresent the situation. It would make about as much sense to chastise the police for paying more attention to children who are believed to have been abducted by their non-custodial parents, and less attention to the numerous "possible" UFO abductions that might be happening, with no evidence that they actually are.

even though autism is by far a more serious disease that none of its victims recover from.

And then Gerg wonders how we can possibly know that he is lying about being a professional in dealing with special-needs kids. Describing autism as a "disease"; claiming that autism is more serious than a disease which kills children each and every year; claiming that no one ever recovers from autism - the witticism that "everyone word X says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'", comes to mind.

There's so little "there" there, I'm going to fast-forward through the rest. Just a few bits here and there.

... such a theory would be an elegant one and likely to win someone a noble prize.

Oooh, and maybe it could also win that award when you get a baby chicken thrown at you when you least expect it. You know, the pullet surprise.

I too believe that the universe, for the most part, is governed by elegant, simple truths. The equations, and indeed statistics behind them may be downright scary, but these truths are, nevertheless, beautiful in their simplicity.

Translation: "I want so badly to believe that the truths of the universe are all things that can be grasped by a high-school dropout like me, who's not willing to put in much effort, I'm just going to believe that it's so, no matter how evidence there is that questions which have defied the world's greatest minds for decades, centuries, even millenia just might actually be somewhat difficult."

... the no-link claim is not very elegant, and is in fact downright ugly.

More whining that science should be easy for the willfully ignorant to follow, and if it isn't, they should be allowed to select a reality more to their liking. Needless to say, the appropriate response is actually more along the lines of "suck it up." The first proof of the four-color theorem was a proof by exhaustion that examined over 1,900 cases. Complaining that, in comparison, it's too hard to understand the well-established fact that people's memories are not reliable just because they feel reliable, and whining that people should be allowed to choose for something easier to understand to be true, would be a comedy routine, if the real-world consequences weren't so dire.

That countless parents can recall how their children dramatically regressed into autism following vaccination

... means nothing when the actual records don't match their memories. In fact, the more "dramatically" the regression follows the vaccination in the parents' account, the more reason we have to think the parents' recall altered to fit the narrative, rather than vice-versa.

that the autism explosion would coincide so precisely in time with the expanded vaccination schedule

which it doesn't, not for any actual meaning of the word "precise". Hint: If you say "autism rates went up over the same time period in which the number of immunizations on the schedule went up," that isn't even a claim of precision.

that vaccines would target the immune system with autism appearing to be an immune-mediated condition

fits just as well with the hypothesis that vaccination protects against autism.

that vaccine courts would compensate for damages leading to autism

Which they haven't. Not Ryan Jacobi, not Bailey Banks, not Hannah Poling. "Autism-like disorder" is not autism, any more than "a measles-like rash" is measles.

Greg has just listed all the reasons he thinks we should believe that vaccines cause autism, and not a one of them holds up.

In the one case where the courts did rule in favour, the plaintiffs used Wakefield's discredited study. It's being appealed, but the court should never have ruled like that.

Notice that I said for the ‘most part’. Indeed QM appears to be so counter intuitive in so many ways.

Leaving aside the fact that QFT is "the 'most part'" and that there are only a handful of associated oddities, most of them variations on a theme, and that you're probably not even aware of the better ones, the point is that you're willing to make pronouncements about physics while simultaneously demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what you're talking about, just as with statistics and epidemiology.

You invoked this as an example of just "asking for more science." But the reason that QM and GR need to be reconciled is a deep one, not a collection of anecdotes that don't yield a signal when examined.

*sigh* Hopefully it should be easy enough to read my answer despite the blockquote fail.

Don't feel bad, Antaeus. Blockquotes are RI's Khan.

One of my favorite examples of the bizarre complexity of biology is the question "Why don't female mammals lay eggs, if they have the requisite organs?" That was, for a time, a serious question. Despite what Greg hopes, the human body is extremely complex, and his simple mindset is ill-suited to understanding it.

2. Ignore people who dropped out of the study because they were likely the ones with bad side effects. (I did think about this one when I read about dropouts with the Danish MMR study.)

Gerg, please explain in detail how one “drops out” of a retrospective study.
———————————————————————————

I did read somewhere in the study that some of the participants moved, and were not followed until the end of the study.

So you think people moved out of Denmark because their children had autism caused by vaccines? I see. Makes perfect sense.

I know that if I suddenly discovered I was autistic, I'd move out of Denmark and to some place warmer.

Or maybe it was the other way around.

But then, everything I know about Denmark I learned from Hamlet.

Another thing:

that vaccines would target the immune system with autism appearing to be an immune-mediated condition

This is the second time you've trotted out this assertion in this thread, and you failed to back it up the first time. Now, I doubt that you actually understand what "mediated" means, but you have a few problems. The first is that, if we're talking about an ongoing process, findings about neuroglial activation (PDF) point to an innate immune response rather than an adaptive one. This pretty much takes all nonadjuvanted vaccines off the table, particularly MMR. But we know what the tradeoff is with adjuvants: local reactions rather than systemic ones.

The second is that the CNS is relatively immunoprivileged: your lymph bone isn't directly connected to your brain bone. Saying "autism has something to do with the immune system and vaccines have something to with the immune system, so vaccines cause autism" is not a convincing position.

Finally, if we're going to talk about immune-mediated pathogenesis, you're back to the implication of the confusion underlying the "40,000 plus severely maimed kids" crack: it's prenatal.

Greggums:

At a 1 in 50 autism rate, that’s possibly an approximated 450 annual autism cases that are caused by vaccines.

Oh, look, Gerg doesn’t understand the difference between incidence and prevalence, after all. How cute.

Not only that Narad but a helluva signal that epi studies could easily pick up. Love to hear how Greggums can explain that away.

@Kreb

"I think the vast majority of them are telling the truth, and that very probably all of them are mistaken due to coincidence and cognitive biases. "

So are you saying outside of the 83 odd cases to date that were settled in vaccine court, including the Poling, all the other parents are mistaken? Or, are you saying that the kids with 'autism-like' symptoms, and not real autism are only the ones that dramatically regressed after vaccines?

@Julian
"You have tried to dismiss the Denmark Study as flawed. How is it flawed? What evidence do you have to support your claims that it is invalid?"

Actually Julian, I explicitly made clear my main objection with the Denmark Study: It included a disproportionate amount of subjects who were too young for autism to be detected in them. Also, regardless of whether the study is flawed or not, I do not believe that it is by no means sufficient to resolve the matter of whether vaccines in their totality are correlated with autism. To keep insisting this is highly mendacious.

@Antaeus

Freddo -- ahem Antaeus!-- why must you insist that I am a high-school dropout in your attempts to dismiss me as intellectually feeble? Seriously Antaeus, are you suggesting that a high-school dropout will be unable to grasp the vaccines-autism issue? If you are suggesting this, I am curious about whether you believe it's the insufficient education, or presumed lower intelligence, or both, that prevents them from being able to understand the issue. (Hee hee hee)

Yet Antaeus, I have already mentioned that I have an undergrad degree and not an advanced one. I am sure most of you have advanced degrees, so even then you could diss my measly degree. Antaeus, why must you keep on slandering high-school dropouts?

@VCADODers
So indeed I must have scored a direct hit by rehashing Goldacre's criticisms of pharma's CTs judging by your muted response.

Greg - perhaps the "muted" response to your comment means nobody cares enough about what you say any more to bother. Of course based on your history if you get a lot of responses you think you've hit a nerve and if you get no response you think you've hit a nerve. If people dispute you they are liars; if they don't firmly dispute every point then they agree with you on your silliest statement.

So indeed I must have scored a direct hit by rehashing Goldacre’s criticisms of pharma’s CTs judging by your muted response.

Perhaps you missed the numerous replies on this very subject. It's not on point, you are guilty of what you're trying to distract with, you again don't understand what your're talking about, that sort of thing?

#531 Gerg: The problem you have with the Danish study is that it completely invalidates your beliefs.

Greg,

So are you saying outside of the 83 odd cases to date that were settled in vaccine court, including the Poling, all the other parents are mistaken?

I find it increasingly weird that I can point out incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong about something, and you just ignore it, and carry on making the same ignorant statements. What is wrong with you?

I don't think courts are particularly reliable arbiters of scientific fact, but I do seem to have missed the "83 odd cases" where vaccines alleged to be the cause of autism and the case was settled. Which cases are you referring to?
Perhaps you could also help me by pointing out where in the NVICP Vaccine Injury Table it mentions autism.

If you are referring to The Omnibus Autism Proceeding, it ruled that:

the MMR, whether administered alone or in conjunction with thimerosal-containing vaccines, is not a causal factor in the development of autism or autism spectrum disorders.

Hannah Poling is not autistic, her condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, and is therefore not autism by definition. She has a mitochondrial disorder that predisposed her to the symptoms she displays. I think it is very likely she would have developed those symptoms whether she was vaccinated or not, as other children with similar mitochondrial disorders do. The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation has stated:

There are no scientific studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause mitochondrial diseases or worsen mitochondrial disease symptoms. In the absence of scientific evidence, the UMDF cannot confirm any association between mitochondrial diseases and vaccines.

Even if her condition was exacerbated by vaccination, her case has little or no relevance to the 95% of autistic individuals who do not have mitochondrial disorders (PMID: 21263444). We have been through this over and over, yet you seem utterly unable to grasp the facts.

Or, are you saying that the kids with ‘autism-like’ symptoms, and not real autism are only the ones that dramatically regressed after vaccines?

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand the concept of coincidence. I'm sure that there are children who were diagnosed with regressive autism after vaccination. I'm sure there are also children who regressed after watching Sesame Street or eating broccoli. I don't believe that either broccoli, Sesame Street or vaccinations cause regressive autism.

BTW, you keep talking about "dramatic regression", as if the child was perfectly normal before vaccination, which is not the case. From 'Developmental regression in autism spectrum disorders' (PMID: 15362172):

Although several studies have documented the validity of parental reports of regression using home videos, accumulating data suggest that most children who demonstrate regression also demonstrated previous, subtle, developmental differences.

Please substitute "neurotypical" for "normal" in the last paragraph of my last comment, and apologies for the slip of the brain.

I think the vast majority of them are telling the truth, and that very probably all of them are mistaken due to coincidence and cognitive biases.

So are you saying outside of the 83 odd cases to date that were settled in vaccine court, including the Poling, all the other parents are mistaken? Or, are you saying that the kids with 'autism-like' symptoms, and not real autism are only the ones that dramatically regressed after vaccines?

Since Gerg answered the last ultimatum question posed to him, albeit with an illogical answer, I'll pose another: parents throughout history, way more than 83 of them, have blamed the medical problems of their children on the Evil Eye, cast by some malicious person around them. Do you believe that the Evil Eye really exists and that some number of those parents were correct? Or do you believe that a high number of parents can declare (and sincerely believe) that a particular phenomenon is the cause of their child's woes, but be mistaken in that belief?

If you make three comments, on this thread or any other, in which you do not answer the question, your answer will be taken as "I do not believe in the Evil Eye, and I realize that all those parents who were sure that the Evil Eye had caused their child's problems mean that parents very well can be mistaken in identifying causes, but I refuse to apply that logic to the situation of parents who blame their children's disorders on vaccines, purely because I don't like the answer."

@Kreb

"I don’t think courts are particularly reliable arbiters of scientific fact, but I do seem to have missed the “83 odd cases” where vaccines alleged to be the cause of autism and the case was settled. Which cases are you referring to?
Perhaps you could also help me by pointing out where in the NVICP Vaccine Injury Table it mentions autism."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed the courts do not typically compensate for damages if the specific word 'autism' is used. Yet, many of these odd 83 cases detailed dramatic regressions after vaccines even if encephalopathy was the precise term that was used. And, of course, we are well aware that encephalopathy may lead to autism, or 'autism-like' symptoms, if you may.

So again Kreb, are you saying it's possible that some of the parents, be they your ' extraordinarily rare' amount, may not be mistaken when they report that vaccines cause their kids' regressions? Only you are saying it's vaccine induced encephalopathy that is contributing to regressions but never autism?

If you are saying this Kreb, then I must ask, who is the one playing silly semantics games?

Kreb:
Hannah Poling is not autistic, her condition is the direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition, encephalopathy, which is listed in Appendix G of DSM IV, and is therefore not autism by definition. She has a mitochondrial disorder that predisposed her to the symptoms she displays. I think it is very likely she would have developed those symptoms whether she was vaccinated or not, as other children with similar mitochondrial disorders do. The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation has stated:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, is it true that Hannah Poling would not have developed autism ---ahemm!!-- or 'autism-like' symptoms, if it wasn't for vaccines? Here is what Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading top-notched neurologist, who examined Hannah, and incidentally, also ruled in the Onmibus Hearing, had to say:

The cause for regressive encephalopathy in Hannah at age 19 months was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic energy reserves. This acute expenditure of metabolic reserves led to permanent irreversible brain injury. Thus, if not for this event, Hannah may have led a normal full productive life. Presently, I predict Hannah will have a normal lifespan but with significant lifelong disability.

@Julian

You have tried to dismiss the Denmark Study as flawed. How is it flawed? What evidence do you have to support your claims that it is invalid?

Actually Julian, I explicitly made clear my main objection with the Denmark Study: It included a disproportionate amount of subjects who were too young for autism to be detected in them.

Which is a totally inadequate answer for at least two reasons: first, Gerg was totally approving of including those exact children in the study, back when he was trusting the numbskull from AoA who was claiming "Sure! You can totally get a meaningful result by comparing six-month-olds to six-year-olds, and attributing the differences not to a crucial half-decade of child development, but to vaccination!" Second, since the results were controlled for age and subgroups were evaluated individually, those who wanted to see a vaccine-autism correlation show up had nothing to lose by examining more groups.

Also, regardless of whether the study is flawed or not, I do not believe that it is by no means sufficient to resolve the matter of whether vaccines in their totality are correlated with autism. To keep insisting this is highly mendacious.

It's utterly mendacious to keep ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on those who think there is a correlation between vaccines and autism to show the evidence. If you want us to believe Bigfoot roams the woods, show us the photos or the footprints or the fur or something. If you want us to believe that vaccines cause autism, show us the population where the background rate of ASDs is one number and the rate among the vaccinated is significantly higher after controlling for confounders. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to guess what tortured variant of the hypothesis those who believe without evidence are going to concoct next.

@Antaeus

Freddo — ahem Antaeus!– why must you insist that I am a high-school dropout in your attempts to dismiss me as intellectually feeble? Seriously Antaeus, are you suggesting that a high-school dropout will be unable to grasp the vaccines-autism issue?

Gerg is the one who's saying "I cannot understand the simple concept that human memory is fallible and therefore dramatic tales of children regressing into autism immediately after vaccination doesn't mean that's what actually happened. Because I can't understand the concept 'the parents might be mistaken', I insist that something else must be the truth." I don't intend to suggest that every high-school dropout will be unable to grasp the vaccines-autism issue, but the one who's harassing us now sure doesn't grasp it.

If you are suggesting this, I am curious about whether you believe it's the insufficient education, or presumed lower intelligence, or both, that prevents them from being able to understand the issue. (Hee hee hee)

In this particular case, although the "Hee hee hee" would certainly hint broadly at lower intelligence, I believe the core cause is in fact a catastrophic ego problem.

What happens with many 'bright' children is that they actually go through too many years in which intellectual puzzles fall easily to their abilities, and they develop the expectation that this is the world should always be. But the fact is that everyone, even the greatest geniuses of the world, even Hawkings and Einsteins, finds problems that are actually hard for them, that require not just intelligence but hard work.

It is a challenge for the bright child to discover the courage to say "This is where my intelligence is inadequate, at least on its own." The child who does find that courage, may discover that those problems which don't fall to intelligence alone do fall to the right combination of persistence (to keep at the problem), humility (to recognize that someone else might understand the problem better, and swallow foolish pride enough to seek their help) and luck.

But the bright child who fails that challenge, not infrequently adopts an extreme "sour grapes" approach to what he/she fails at. "I can't breeze through high school? Then high school must be a joke. I can't understand how 0.9999999... equals 1? Then it isn't, and anyone who tells me different is an overeducated snot! I can't understand how multiple parents could have similar perceptions for any other reason than those perceptions being correct? Then those parents are correct, and anyone who thinks there's an answer that I haven't grasped is obviously a despicable liar, taking pay to spread false information!" It's much easier for a person of no moral courage to pretend "this person is a phony with no integrity" than to contemplate "maybe this person actually understands the answer to the problem that has me stumped."

Yet Antaeus, I have already mentioned that I have an undergrad degree and not an advanced one. I am sure most of you have advanced degrees, so even then you could diss my measly degree. Antaeus, why must you keep on slandering high-school dropouts?

Since Gerg has lied over and over again, I don't see why he expects that when he sometimes implies he's just a high-school dropout and sometimes claims that he's a trained professional therapist working with special-needs kids, we would believe the latter story. It's the story that's completely at odds with the limited capacities for understanding, empathy, factual comprehension and moral reasoning that he displays here.

@VCADODers
So indeed I must have scored a direct hit by rehashing Goldacre’s criticisms of pharma's CTs judging by your muted response.

That's what Gish gallopers often like to pretend: that if they make 33 pointless allegations in a post and 31 are replied to, that means the other two have absolutely befuddled the critics - because that's the only reasonable explanation, right?? Wrong. A Gish galloper might believe that every boneheaded thing spilling out of their gob must be answered - but guess what, just like all their other entitlement syndrome, it ain't so, it's just another symptom of their ridiculous egotism.

Greg,

Indeed the courts do not typically compensate for damages if the specific word ‘autism’ is used.

Perhaps that's because they recognize the fact that autism is not caused by vaccines.

Yet, many of these odd 83 cases detailed dramatic regressions after vaccines even if encephalopathy was the precise term that was used.

Oh I see, you are conflating regressive autism with regressive encephalopathy and claiming that the fact that an entirely different medical condition was referred to is somehow splitting hairs.

And, of course, we are well aware that encephalopathy may lead to autism, or ‘autism-like’ symptoms, if you may.

Firstly, I do not believe that vaccines cause encephalopathy, and secondly I don't believe that encephalopathy causes autism. To expand on something I explained earlier, DSM makes it clear that autism is a diagnosis of exclusion, and if developmental delay is a "direct physiological consequence of a general medical condition", such as encephalopathy, it isn't autism.

So again Kreb, are you saying it’s possible that some of the parents, be they your ‘ extraordinarily rare’ amount, may not be mistaken when they report that vaccines cause their kids’ regressions?

I am saying that epidemiological studies that have been done do not have the statistical power to exclude the possibility that vaccines may very rarely cause regressive autism. However, I see no reason to believe that they do in fact do so, just as I have no reason to believe that watching Sesame Street or eating broccoli cause autism, despite the paucity of studies that investigate these remote possibilities.

I have little doubt that if the Lancet published a study that suggested a link between broccoli and autism, speculating it is due to to the immunomodulatory chemical in the vegetable, thousands of parents would suddenly realize that their child was perfectly OK until they introduced them to broccoli. When this was debunked, a lunatic minority would stubbornly insist it must have been carrots, or perhaps cabbage instead, and someone like you would be insisting that these parents cannot all be liars or lunatics.

Only you are saying it’s vaccine induced encephalopathy that is contributing to regressions but never autism?

See above - I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as vaccine-induced encephalopathy. There is clearly such a thing as regression following encephalopathy, but I think this is a form of brain damage, not the same thing as autism at all. The vast majority of individuals with autism haven't suffered encephalopathy, and individuals with don't have mitochondrial disorders more commonly than neurotypical people, so it's a rather pointless point to labor.

If you are saying this Kreb, then I must ask, who is the one playing silly semantics games?

I think it is very obvious to everyone who is playing the silly semantic games here. A five year old could grasp that admitting that vaccines might possibly cause autism very rarely is not the same as conceding that 9 out of 10 cases of autism are caused by vaccines.

So, is it true that Hannah Poling would not have developed autism —ahemm!!– or ‘autism-like’ symptoms, if it wasn’t for vaccines?

I think the two years of chronic recurrent ear infections that required the insertion of two PE tubes and replacement of an obstructed and infected PE tube were far more likely to lead to the "fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic energy reserves" and thus to "permanent irreversible brain injury" than any vaccines. To quote Paul Offit:

Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge.

Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, the "leading top-notched neurologist, who examined Hannah" made a statement statement about Michelle Cedillo (04/24/07) that firmly excluded the possibility that vaccines played any role in causing her autism, while his statement on Hannah Poling (11/30/07) is almost exactly the opposite. Why? Because in Hannah's case Zimmerman was writing about regressive encephalopathy, which is not the same thing as regressive autism. This was written a year before the article I link to above (Paediatr Child Health. 2008 September; 13(7): 597–599) was published, putting forward a very compelling case that vaccine-induced encephalopathy is a myth.

I have little doubt that if the Lancet published a study that suggested a link between broccoli and autism, speculating it is due to to the immunomodulatory chemical in the vegetable, thousands of parents would suddenly realize that their child was perfectly OK until they introduced them to broccoli. When this was debunked, a lunatic minority would stubbornly insist it must have been carrots, or perhaps cabbage instead, and someone like you would be insisting that these parents cannot all be liars or lunatics.

I am still holding out for the cumulative broccoli load on the body over time theory. We don't need to introduce obviously blameless vegetables such as cabbage into the equation, though I find cauliflower and sprouts to have a distinctly unhealthful look about them.

@Kreb
So Dr. Zimmerman stated that fver from Hannah's vaccines caused her encephatology (sp?). Would you agree then that fever can cause encephatology and vaccines can cause fevers? And, also would you agree that this encephatology can cause regressions, or autism-like conditions as in the case of Hannah?

I don’t think courts are particularly reliable arbiters of scientific fact, but I do seem to have missed the “83 odd cases” where vaccines alleged to be the cause of autism and the case was settled. Which cases are you referring to?

Since Gerg didn't bother to actually answer this, he's referring to Holland's Pace "study." He apparently also hasn't read this, since only three-quarters of them were settlements. Or maybe he doesn't know what "settled" means, either.

In any event, of the settled cases, let us recall the methodology:* Louis Conte led a team of "trained volunteers" in contacting people who had reached settlements that "might include autism diagnoses" and worked a scripted questionnaire. The "volunteers reached over sixty families of individuals compensated for encephalopathy or residual seizure disorder, or both, who concomitantly have or had autism or autism-like symptoms." (Emphasis added.)

There is a reason that organizations such as NORC exist. There is no breakdown of the responses, and no number appears to be provided of how many contacts they required to get their sixty-odd respondents. It's basically meaningless as presented.

* BTW, the Pace production staff are incompetent at creating PDFs. It switches to custom font encodings partway through.

In light of the following, I'm going with "doesn't know what 'settled' means":

Here is what Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading top-notched neurologist, who examined Hannah, and incidentally, also ruled in the Onmibus Hearing, had to say

a leading top-notched neurologist
What? Zimmermann has a row of little grooves or indentations in his scalp?

Dr. Andrew Zimmerman [who] also ruled in the Onmibus Hearing,

IANAL but I don't think that expert witnesses get to make the rulings in courts, convenient and time-saving though it would be if they could.

@Antaeus

"Since Gerg answered the last ultimatum question posed to him, albeit with an illogical answer, I’ll pose another: parents throughout history, way more than 83 of them, have blamed the medical problems of their children on the Evil Eye, cast by some malicious person around them. Do you believe that the Evil Eye really exists and that some number of those parents were correct? Or do you believe that a high number of parents can declare (and sincerely believe) that a particular phenomenon is the cause of their child’s woes, but be mistaken in that belief?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually Antaeus, I will be quite straight with you. I consider that if there was even one documented case of medical problems caused by Evil Eye that defies scientists best explanation (ie. coincidence or cognitive bias), and it remained essentially unresolved (there is that word again), then I would expect scientists to recheck their evidence against Evil Eye. Further, if many parents are claiming Evil Eye and scientists are saying it may indeed be possible but in 'extraordinary rare circumstances', I would definitely start thinking that parents claims should not be dismissed, and indeed we should scrutinized more the scientific evidence against Evil Eye, and/or conduct more research.

Greg,
I know you must have been in a rush typing that last comment, but "encephatology ", really? Just remember that 'encephalo' means 'of the brain' and 'pathy' means 'suffering or disease', so encephalopathy means brain disease, which autism most definitely is not.

So Dr. Zimmerman stated that fver from Hannah’s vaccines caused her encephatology (sp?). Would you agree then that fever can cause encephatology and vaccines can cause fevers? And, also would you agree that this encephatology can cause regressions, or autism-like conditions as in the case of Hannah?

Did you read the paper I linked to above? Here's an apposite quote, my emphasis:

Similarly to diseases associated with mutations in the SCN1A gene, children with mitochondrial dysfunction often have an exacerbation in symptomatology (for example, encephalopathy or regression in milestones) with febrile illnesses. No clear evidence is available to suggest that vaccines can cause similar regression.

Despite this, if regression or encephalopathy did develop in a patient with mitochondrial dysfunction, it could be that the fever itself, and not the vaccine, is the real cause of exacerbation, as is seen in SMEI. If this is the case, it may be even more prudent to immunize children with mitochondrial disorders to decrease their risk of acquiring febrile illnesses in early childhood.

Additionally, as in SMEI, it is unlikely that those with mitochondrial disease simply require a vaccine ‘trigger’ to set off the disease process because most patients with mitochondrial disease do not have an onset of symptoms associated with vaccination.

Put in simple terms, if fevers can cause regressive encephalopathy in children with some mitochondrial disorders, it is probably even more important to vaccinate them. The fevers caused by measles or influenza are far more likely to cause much worse encephalopathy than the relevant vaccines. It seems very unlikely that children get through childhood without suffering a fever. I wonder if there are any individuals with the same mitochondrial disorder as Hannah Poling who avoided encephalopathy by avoiding vaccines. I very much doubt it, but I'm always open to evidence.

I understand you think that making a distinction between 'autism' and 'autism-like symptoms' is playing with words, but it really isn't. Someone who has suffered a head injury may have autism-like symptoms, but they will have additional symptoms that make it clear they have brain damage, not autism. The same is true of regressive encephalopathy. The increase in autism diagnoses we have seen over the past few decades is most definitely not due to children with mitochondrial disorders suffering regressive encephalopathy due to vaccinations, or due to anything else for that matter.

I consider that if there was even one documented case of medical problems caused by Evil Eye that defies scientists best explanation (ie. coincidence or cognitive bias), and it remained essentially unresolved (there is that word again), then I would expect scientists to recheck their evidence against Evil Eye.

You don't even understand the problem with this utterance, do you?

Narad,

Since Gerg didn’t bother to actually answer this, he’s referring to Holland’s Pace “study.”

Thanks Narad. I do vaguely remember that 'study'. So if an autistic individual suffered anaphylactic shock due to an allergy to a vaccine component, and the Vaccine Court compensated them for this, this study would see this as evidence that vaccines cause autism.

@Kreb

"So Dr. Zimmerman stated that fver from Hannah’s vaccines caused her encephatology (sp?). Would you agree then that fever can cause encephatology and vaccines can cause fevers? And, also would you agree that this encephatology can cause regressions, or autism-like conditions as in the case of Hannah?"

Further Kreb, here is how I see Dr. Zimmerman's assessment of Hannah's vaccines reaction chain events and how it led to her medical problem. Notice how they parallel the parents stories. Also, please correct me if I am mistaken in my conceptualization.

Dr. Zimmerman on Hannah Poling reaction to vaccines:
Vaccines --then fever---then regressive encephalopathy--then autism-like symptoms.

Parents worldwide on their kids' reactions to vaccines:
vaccines--then fever--then regressive encephalopathy (possibly if measured, but usually evidence of inflammation --seizures, brain inflammation -- that is consistent with this)--then autism.

Kreb, am I the only one seeing some similarities here?

Thanks Narad. I do vaguely remember that ‘study’.

You were citing its "results" without knowing what you were referring to?

So if an autistic individual suffered anaphylactic shock due to an allergy to a vaccine component, and the Vaccine Court compensated them for this, this study would see this as evidence that vaccines cause autism.

No, this statement is completely incoherent.

@VCADODers

Drug-dealers, recently this study caught my attention. In my work with my special needs clients, and observing what's going on in my daughter's school, and with friends and acquaintances, I had this nagging suspicion that the autism rate was higher than 1 in 50. Sure enough this study is saying that in Minneapolis, Somali kids and white ones have autism rates of 1 in 32, and a 1 in 36, respectively.

Wholly Sh!t -- are you guys ever in so much trouble!!

Anyway, do you guys believe that the autism rate may actually be worse than 1 in 50. Also, why do you think that non-Somali black and Hispanic children have a lower autism rate than the other two groups. Do you think this is a reflection of poorer rates of diagnosis for non-Somali black and Hispanic children? Also what's your take on the Somali autistic kids showing greater intellectual impairments than their white counterparts?

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_24734263/study-autism-high-minneapoli…

http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_24734263/study-autism-high-minneapoli…

Wholly Sh!t — are you guys ever in so much trouble!!

And who actually is causing us trouble? I don't see anyone causing me trouble.

Alain

@Kreb

Looks like you are opening the door ever so slightly to the possibility that fever from vaccines can contribute to encephalopathy, and even after we have Zimmerman's explicit words that Hannah's encephalopathy was caused by vaccine-induced fever.

Indeed we can have fever from other infectious source, but we did not have so much autism or 'autism-like' symptoms in the past, did we? This leads me to suspect that there is something unique about the vaccine event and encephalopathy.

You also spoke of mitochondrial dysfunction that may pre-dispose an individual to encephalopathy. You are suggesting it's an inherited condition. Yet, I would like to draw your attention to Dr. Zimmerman's words again:

“(M)itochondrial dysfunction may arise from multiple genetic and epigenetic causes. Genetic causes include mutations in nuclear and mitochondrial dna. Epigenetic causes include environmental toxins, infections, and various pharmaceuticals.”

Reflecting on this statement Kreb, what grounds do we have to suggest that only an extremely small subgroup of individuals with an inherited mitochondrial dysfunction are prone to encephalopathy from fevers. If infections such as vaccines can trigger the dysfunction are we not essentially blurring the lines between Hannah and the others. How can we say with any degree of certainty that Hannah's case is so unique?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115393658/Andrew-Zimmerman

Wholly Sh!t — are you guys ever in so much trouble!!

From someone who's too lazy to bother looking at primary sources? What's the vaccine uptake rate among the four demographic groups broken out in the summary data, Gerg?

@Greg - you do realize your answer about believing the Evil Eye story pretty much says you will believe anything if science cannot prove it false?

Do you want to know HOW suggestible human beings can be? My neurologist saw issues in my neurological exam, ones that I wouldn't have known, at least consciously, how to produce. Though we are moving on as though those symptoms are present, neither he, nor I are totally sure if what symptoms I have noticed and what deficits he saw in the exam would have been noticed in normal circumstances. We are both more wary about them because of family history.

That is not even recollected later memory, that is "right now" stuff. Until you realize how fallible human perception, especially memory can be, you're not capable of understanding any part of the argument.

Antaeus: In this particular case, although the “Hee hee hee” would certainly hint broadly at lower intelligence, I believe the core cause is in fact a catastrophic ego problem.

I'm not so sure, given that the man can't figure out call numbers, or how to use the catalog. I figured that stuff out first year of high school. (And this was in the dark ages, before the handy-dandy computer catalog.)

Greg: Also what’s your take on the Somali autistic kids showing greater intellectual impairments than their white counterparts?

Two things: first of all, I'd imagine that the Somali kids get less services than their white counterparts, since the parents aren't usually all that wealthy.
Therefore some of the intellectual impairment might simply be due to not getting appropriate services, and being behind in language development and other milestones. The lack of language then gets confused with having less intelligence.
Secondly, Greg, did you ever notice that Somalia was basically a war zone for several years? Therefore most Somalis of an age to be parents probably experienced malnutrition, intense stress, if not outright PTSD, and exposure to several nasty chemicals courtesy of the local militias.
Plus, immigrant communities, at least in the first generations, prefer to intermarry, so any inheritable problems are going to show up pretty quickly. Basically, the point is, the Somali community is very different from any other community in the US right now.

I’m not so sure, given that the man can’t figure out call numbers, or how to use the catalog.

He offered that as sarcasm. There is, however, no particular reason to think that he either has a public-library card or, if so, deployed it in the first place. The relevant portions of the text are to be had from G—le Books. My "book cipher" comment @415 stands to be tested.

infections such as vaccines

Venturing into Thingy territory now, I see.

How can we say with any degree of certainty that Hannah’s case is so unique?

The desperate clinging to it despite Mrs. Poling's suggestion to AoA that they bugger off, in response to which you accused her of being a traitor to the race, springs to mind.

Greg,

Parents worldwide on their kids’ reactions to vaccines:
vaccines–then fever–then regressive encephalopathy (possibly if measured, but usually evidence of inflammation –seizures, brain inflammation — that is consistent with this)–then autism.

This goes back to some of your very earliest comments here, where you described autistic individuals as "brain damaged". Autism is not brain damage and it is not caused by encephalopathy, though there may be some similarities in symptoms in regressive encephalopathy and severe autism.

Autism is characterized by the parts of the brain involved in communication, emotions and social function growing faster and to a greater degree than in the neurotypical. You could argue that autism and regressive encephalopathy are in some ways opposites: extra neurons versus damaged neurons.

Looks like you are opening the door ever so slightly to the possibility that fever from vaccines can contribute to encephalopathy, and even after we have Zimmerman’s explicit words that Hannah’s encephalopathy was caused by vaccine-induced fever.

What part of "Firstly, I do not believe that vaccines cause encephalopathy, and secondly I don’t believe that encephalopathy causes autism" did you not understand?

Indeed we can have fever from other infectious source, but we did not have so much autism or ‘autism-like’ symptoms in the past, did we? This leads me to suspect that there is something unique about the vaccine event and encephalopathy.

I explained that regressive autism and regressive encephalopathy are two entirely different clinical entities, but you continue blithely on, as if they are identical. They aren't. We haven't seen an increase in regressive encephalopathy, we have seen a dramatic decrease since the introduction of vaccines that prevent diseases such as measles and mumps that can cause encephalitis and meningitis.

You also spoke of mitochondrial dysfunction that may pre-dispose an individual to encephalopathy. You are suggesting it’s an inherited condition. Yet, I would like to draw your attention to Dr. Zimmerman’s words again:
“(M)itochondrial dysfunction may arise from multiple genetic and epigenetic causes. Genetic causes include mutations in nuclear and mitochondrial dna. Epigenetic causes include environmental toxins, infections, and various pharmaceuticals.”

The epigenetic effects of environmental causes that Zimmerman is referring to occur prenatally, during the first trimester (mostly), not after birth when vaccines are given. Valproate, an anticonvulsant, is known to have epigenetic effects on histone acetylation, histone methylation, and possibly DNA methylation and leads to a greatly increased risk of autism if the mother takes it during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Reflecting on this statement Kreb, what grounds do we have to suggest that only an extremely small subgroup of individuals with an inherited mitochondrial dysfunction are prone to encephalopathy from fevers.

A large amount of scientific evidence that contradicts your claim.

If infections such as vaccines can trigger the dysfunction are we not essentially blurring the lines between Hannah and the others.

I see no evidence at all that "infections such as vaccines" [sic] can trigger, cause or even exacerbate a mitochondrial disorder.

How can we say with any degree of certainty that Hannah’s case is so unique?

It isn't unique, it's rare. I don't know why Zimmerman wrote, "if not for this event, Hannah may have led a normal full productive life", as it doesn't seem to be supported by the scientific evidence.

Children with mitochondrial disorders start to develop seizures and symptoms of encephalopathy at the same age as Hannah did, with or without fevers to trigger this, when the number of affected mitochondria reach a threshold level.

@Antaeus

Now that you are giving your assessment of me, let me have my turn and tell you what I really think of you.

I must give it to you that I honestly believe that of all the VCADODers here you truly have the best brain. I say this because your intelligence embodies the full package. With Denice and Narad, for instance, we see how generally they are very intelligent people and how they have good psychological savvy. Yet, perhaps it's a little too much with Denice that it often pushes her over the edge into la-la-land, and where she likes to set the stage with her colourful stereotypical roles for anti-vaxxers and fellow doubters. With Chris and Kreb, we see how they have outstanding academic acumen, which allows them excel at grasping and relating the hard facts. Yet, their studious, no-nonsense ways make them vulnerable to provocation, and it's so easy to push their buttons. With you Antaeus, however, not only do you possess the psychological savvy, the education acumen, but you have masterful critical thinking skills and you can play with ideas in such brilliant ways. If only you were a little braver, you could have been quite something.

And, now let me give you your not so flattering side: You are a despicable shill, a fink of the worst order. I mentioned a while back that you are a character train-wreck. This is indeed so true of you.

Where other VCADODers here lash out at their critics out of shame and guilt for the unconscionable position that they have chosen, you do so to reaffirm your 'impeccable' image that you have of yourself. So, when face with opposition, you let loose your intellectual barrage, if not tinged with dishonest. Yes, indeed you like to see yourself as a gentleman, but you are a scoundrel. You are a scoundrel if for the only reason being that you know it but you still want to present yourself as a gentleman.

#564: Gerg, you're losing it. Kreb, Antaeus and the others have systematically demolished your assertions one by one, and all you have left now is slander.

@PGP

We never really did have our heart-to-heart. You know -- where we just chill and relate to one another!

Really? People you disagree with lash out at people out of "shame and guilt for the unconscionable position that they have chosen"? I had thought they responded to try to correct your deliberately erroneous comments.

I cannot imagine what led you to that conclusion, though I suppose the strain of you having to hold contradictory positions simultaneously while feigning concern for people with autism may have taken its toll. IANAPNDIPOOT, but you may want to do some self assessment and see if your grasp on reality is as firm as you think.

@Nick K

Nick --buddy --after my wranglings on some pecularities to the discussion with Kreb and others here, I don't see how you guys have demolished my basic position. I say a few studies on thimerosal, and MMR, and one on antigen comparing vaxxed kids to vaxxed kids do not settle the issue of whether vaccines in their totality is correlated with autism. You guys say they do. Last I checked, the Cochrane Reviews agree with me.

Greg, while you are in the neighborhood, I wonder if you could clear up something that baffles me? We know that Hannah Poling was compensated for encephalopathy yet anti-vax websites continue to lie with statements that say she was compensated for autism. It must be a lie since the verdict is there in black and white. Is this a policy of the end justifying the means? i.e. if it leads to fewer vaccinations in the future then a few lies now are justified?

@Chuff - not only that, but Hannah Poling's mother has asked, on numerous occasions, that anti-vaxxers stop using her story to support their position - and also pointed out (again, on numerous occasions) where the anti-vaxxers continually misrepresent (i.e. lie) the facts of the case as well.

@Greg: Last I checked, the Cochrane Reviews agree with me

Oh really? Which Cochrane Reviews? What studies are in the compilation? You can't toss out that kind of junk statement. You need to give citations. Because if you consider AOA's 14 Studies as proof, you ARE a liar.

Oh most worthy and excellent lurkers, sublimely recumbent in your respective dedicated niches, SILENTLY listening, arrayed across the frigid vastnesses of cyberspace...

I once presented the following to Jake Crosby ( in slightly different words):
in order to accept the vaccines-cause-autism position, you would need to
( 1) dis-regard a matrix of thousands of inter-related studies concerning vaccines, neurodevelopment, physiology, toxicology, cognitive bias, eyewitness testimony etc and the opinion of experts WORLDWIDE assembled over DECADES across several fields like medicine, genetics, psychology, education etc. You'd need to ignore what universities, governmental agencies and the media WORLDWIDE accept as fact after independent investigation.

And believe that
( 2) there is a conspiracy of mammoth proportion that explains why ALL of the above is merely window-dressing, as insubstantial as spun sugar and obviously a ruse to protect vested interests.

Like most altmed memes, this ( vaccines-autism) hypothesis cannot stand without the scaffolding that conspiracy theories provide.
There is no data so they cry," It's a fix!"( which is rather ironic considering that Andrew Wakefield is their patron saint).

What seems more likely:
thousands of people worldwide creating and maintaining an intricate masquerade for decades
OR a few compromised individuals ( researchers/ care providers seeking fame and money and parents with other conflicts of interest) working hard opposing facts and savaging the reputations of vaccine advocates?

AJW did so much wrong that even if he DIDN'T fix data ( which he did) his material would still be untrustworthy because
- there were too few subjects
- he acquired subjects in an unrandom fashion
- he treated subjects unfairly
- he had multiple, undisclosed financial interests.

Isnt that enough?

@gergle,

Your reading assignment start here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Child+Development+Disorders%2C+Pervasive%22%5BMesh%5D

How about we compete on the number of dissected publication?

Alain

Oh, and gergle,

Remember, there will be autists forever :D

Muhahahahahahaha!!!

Alain

Greg, question. If you had an argument with somebody, and later their child fell deathly ill, how would you go about proving that you didn't curse the child?

Greg: regrettably, I don't have enough middle fingers to express what I think of that proposal. (I think even four would be inadequate.) I have no reason to talk with someone who continually talks out of their ass. Plus, the only person who's a bigger creep than you on this blog is Delysid.

Greg #556:

Indeed we can have fever from other infectious source, but we did not have so much autism or ‘autism-like’ symptoms in the past, did we?

The fact that autism wasn't defined until 1944 does not mean that it didn't exist. I've seen good arguments that Thomas Jefferson and Michelangelo Buonarotti were both on the spectrum. Heck, I made the case that William Bligh was on the spectrum. Learn the difference.
#564:

Where other VCADODers here lash out at their critics out of shame and guilt for the unconscionable position that they have chosen, you do so to reaffirm your ‘impeccable’ image that you have of yourself.

Firstly Greg, presuming to tell other people what they are or are not thinking is the hallmark of the fool. Secondly, personal attacks show the weakness of your arguments. If you could refute our claims, you would.
#568:

after my wranglings on some pecularities to the discussion with Kreb and others here, I don’t see how you guys have demolished my basic position.

That's because you are too incompetent to realise your own incompetence.

Actually Antaeus, I will be quite straight with you. I consider that if there was even one documented case of medical problems caused by Evil Eye that defies scientists best explanation (ie. coincidence or cognitive bias),

This really demonstrates in a nutshell just how profoundly Gerg does not understand the issues he's trying to pose as an expert on. He seems to think that you can take any single case where "this happened, and also this happened to the same person" and rule out coincidence!

The fact is that coincidence is always a possible explanation. Always. Always. Always. The human mind is programmed to jump to conclusions about "if I perceive thing B happening while thing A still lingers in my memory, there's a connection between the two." But ten thousand "things" that happen around one person in a day, even more if you're willing to count so trivial an event as "someone looked at me" as a "thing". There are only two possibilities: either all ten thousand-plus things that happen in proximity to one person in one day are causally related to each other, or yes, coincidences can happen. Because the latter is the only reasonable option, coincidence is always a possible explanation.

So why don't we attribute everything in the universe to coincidence? (Anti-science crusaders like Gerg would probably offer the straw man that we do, but the truth is that that would be far more in line with their approach, of coming up with a possible explanation and then looking only for evidence that does fit with it, rather than evidence which doesn't.)

While coincidence is a possible explanation in all cases, that doesn't mean it's the best explanation. There are two basic reasons why coincidence would leave the position of "most likely explanation" for a given situation: either additional factors make coincidence much less likely, or our understanding of the mechanisms involved makes some other explanation more likely.

An example of the former would be an effect which was not limited to "one documented case", but seen in multiple subjects and/or on multiple occasions. If one person eats the shrimp at the buffet and within a few hours they're throwing up, that by itself doesn't mean there's something wrong with the shrimp. If three people who eat the shrimp start vomiting, that's a much stronger case that there's something wrong with the shrimp. Of course, contrary to what some antivaxxers wish, you can't simply fold all unfortunate effects into a catchall heading of "medical problems" and make a case look stronger that way. You can't say "A ate the shrimp and started sneezing; B ate the shrimp and a few hours later he was barfing; C ate the shrimp and the next day he broke his leg; obviously shrimp causes medical problems!!" All three of those are different effects. For purposes of determining causes, they are separate and individual cases.

An example of the latter would be if we had at least partial understanding of a mechanism by which a cause could plausibly lead to an effect. We know that vomiting can be caused by certain kinds of food poisoning; we know that the bacteria responsible for those varieties of food poisoning can thrive in places where shrimp are farmed. "The shrimp was contaminated with bacteria; he vomited because he ate the shrimp and the bacteria made him ill" is a plausible mechanism by which the shrimp and the barfing might be connected; that pushes us to rank the "the shrimp caused the vomiting hypothesis" more highly than the hypothesis of coincidence, at least tentatively.

(It's worth noting that we might, when we investigate, discover some other mechanism/circumstance that provides an even more plausible explanation - for instance, the person who ate the shrimp and later vomited turned out to have also drunk five bottles of wine by himself. It is important to remember that for purposes of evaluating a hypothesized shrimp-vomiting connection, this is coincidence - yes, there is a reason why this person developed this condition; no, that does not automatically mean that the reason you happened to have in mind is it.)

So how do these principles apply to Gerg's compatriots and their belief in the modern Evil Eye, vaccines-that-cause-autism? Do they have an effect which is seen in multiple subjects on multiple occasions? No, they do not, because the effect we are looking for is vaccinated children developing autism at a higher rate than non-vaccinated children. And when that effect is looked for, it is not there.

Gerg's crowd may think they are entitled to look instead for an effect entirely in their own perceptions. This, after all, is what they mean when they blather about how there has to be a "resolution" between parental perceptions and the science - what they are saying is that when actual data conflicts with what they have decided they see, it is actual data which has to be corrected to bring about a match. There is not much you can say to that attitude except "That ain't how it works here on Earth."

Is there a plausible mechanism known by which vaccinations could be causing autism? No. Again, Gerg's crowd thinks that sufficient quantities of venom can substitute for any and all unknowns; they are more than willing to assert that vaccines cause autism because ... because testosterone forms into big sheets inside human cells exactly the way it does in highly heated benzene solutions, of course! or because mercury is a magical substance that can not only sneak into a child's body through a vaccination that doesn't contain any mercury, but reproduce there! or because of homologous recombinaltion tiniker! But none of that is real-world. In the real world, we simply have not unraveled the riddle of how autism develops; the little we do understand is about changes that happen, in the main, pre-natally. The idea that we can torture this meager understanding into a certainty that vaccines caused a particular case of autism is just utter nonsense.

@Mrs Woo

"Greg – you do realize your answer about believing the Evil Eye story pretty much says you will believe anything if science cannot prove it false? "

Actually Mrs Woo, I thinking your are missing the full details of my argument of how to proceed when science is in conflict with observable evidence, be they anecdotal. The issue is one of effort. We must make every effort to resolve the dispute, whether it involves trying our darnedest to come up with a plausible explanation of why the anecdotal evidence is wrong, or, failing that, rechecking and rechecking the science to see if we did indeed get it right. And, I believe that if such efforts are made, 99.999% of such conflicts can be resolved. For the other .001%, then I would say, yes, go with the science.

And Mrs Woo, in respect to the vaccine-autism issue, this effort is not being made, and we are no where near the 99% mark. Maybe we are at 2%. As I explained over, and over, and over, a few studies by vested interest into vaccine ingredients are not sufficient. Neither is it satisfactory to dismiss all parents that provide vivid accounts of their kids' adverse reactions to vaccines by blanketing them as mistaken -- not understanding coincidence, and victims of cognitive bias.

And Mrs Woo, if you study the history of scientific advancements you will find that it often followed this model of theories and ideas being challenged relentlessly and exhaustively against observable evidence. Seeking to circumvent this process is not science. In fact, it's the anti-thesis of science.

The Greg entity's basic approach to science reminds me of that old website -- We have no evidence that Glenn Beck didn't kill a girl in the '90s, so he must prove that he didn't.

It's a relief that the Greg entity isn't actually self-aware, but merely an algorithm designed to provoke longer and longer responses. I can't imagine the unbearable sadness that would waft behind a person who actually acted the way the Greg entity does; I'm imagining innocents getting contact delusion and depression by simply being in the same room.

@Chuff

Greg, while you are in the neighborhood, I wonder if you could clear up something that baffles me? We know that Hannah Poling was compensated for encephalopathy yet anti-vax websites continue to lie with statements that say she was compensated for autism. It must be a lie since the verdict is there in black and white. Is this a policy of the end justifying the means? i.e. if it leads to fewer vaccinations in the future then a few lies now are justified?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuff, I don't presume to be a spokesperson for the anti-vaxx movement. In fact, every last anti-vaxxer could be instantaneously zapped to a distant planet (I do realize I am providing you guys with fodder here) and I would still be here carrying on with my obnoxious self.

Yet Chuff, let me say this: I do not agree with anyone lying to support their ideas. Let their ideas win on their own. But Chuff, anti-vaxxers are not lying when they say Hannah was compensated for her autism, despite the sham NVICP (or whatever the hell the initials are) court wanting to play a silly game of semantics by suggesting she was compensated for encephalopathy leading to 'autism-like' symptoms. Chuff, sometimes you have no choice but to call BS to BS.

@PGP

Greg: regrettably, I don’t have enough middle fingers to express what I think of that proposal. (I think even four would be inadequate.) I have no reason to talk with someone who continually talks out of their ass. Plus, the only person who’s a bigger creep than you on this blog is Delysid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very well then PGP, I am kinda sensing that you are not open to our little heart-to-heart. Saddened though by your depiction of me as a creep. I aim for many things in this forum, but never a creep. BTW, who is Delysid, and what makes him a bigger 'creep' than me.

@Antaeus - why did humans look up at the random stars in the sky & create constellations and stories to go with them? Why do we look at clouds and attempt give them formal shape and conform to something we recognize? Why do people see the form of Jesus is various breads & other food items?

We love to find patterns, even in places where there is no pattern....Gerg is suggesting that we should throw out all Science & just trust our eyes or whatever someone tells us to be true....this worked great for early religions (and even most modern ones) as a means to force individuals to conform and only believe what they are told - hence one of my original descriptions of Gerg as relying on the holy words of the Trinity of AoA to tell him what to think, as opposed to looking at the real scientific evidence.

We came up with fairly descriptive and details explanations for Thunder & Lightning back in the day, not to mention floods and volcanoes (and Earthquakes) which conformed to what we could see and understand at the time.....it wasn't until these natural phenomena were examined scientifically that we could understand what they were and why they occurred....

Time and time again, Gerg has denied even basic biological science, because his "holy handlers" have already told him what the "truth" really is....no amount of evidence will ever convince him that his "truth" is actually nothing more than a bunch of failed hypotheses.....at the end of the day, I believe that if Gerg was told that breathing air could lead to autism, he'd actually attempt to suffocate his "charges" rather than take the chance.

a plausible explanation of why the anecdotal evidence is wrong

The problem, of course, is that such an explanation already exists. Greg is just too arrogant to accept this.

@Anataeus

"The fact is that coincidence is always a possible explanation. Always. Always. Always."

Indeed it may be a possible explanation Antaeus, but the issue is whether it is always plausible. Perhaps this example may best illustrate the point:

In a small town lives a man that has pegged himself as a male witch, by the name of Tom. Tom likes to brag how he has the power of Evil Eye, and in which he can look at any child and cause harm to that child. A scientist by the name of Fred, from the same town, got whiff of Tom's 'ridiculous' claim and decided to take Tom to task, proving what a fool Tom was to his fellow scientists friends.

Fred brought Tom in for an interview, and explained that he wanted Tom to prove his Evil Eye skills. Yet, to show that Tom was indeed a fraud, he prescribed the terms for the test. He told Tom that he would present him with a victim, a child by the name of Bobby, and before he even gives Bobby the Evil Eye, Tom would have to report what harm would come of Bobby.

Tom agreed, and explained that he would give Bobby the Evil Eye, and the next day Bobby would suffer a broken right arm. And sure enough the test was conducted. Tom gave Bobby the Evil Eye, and to Fred's absolute amazement, Bobby suffered a broken right arm.

At an absolute loss for an explanation, Fred decided to save face by explaining to his scientists friends that Bobby's broken right arm was merely coincidental with Fred's Evil Eye.

Now Antaeus, do you think that Fred's 'coincidence' explanation is plausible? Further Antaeus, how would you proceed with resolving this case of apparent Evil Eye with the scientific evidence that says it's impossible?

@585
'coincidental with (Tom's) Evil Eye....'

“The shrimp was contaminated with bacteria; he vomited because he ate the shrimp and the bacteria made him ill” is a plausible mechanism by which the shrimp and the barfing might be connected

And this, aside from temporality, is in fact the only obstacle the Polings had to surmount to reach a settlement (emphasis added):

"In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

"DVIC has concluded that CHILD’s complex partial seizure disorder, with an onset of almost six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, is not related to a vaccine-injury."

The relevant statutory criteria are addressed in Althen, 418 F.3d 1274 (2005): "requisite showings of a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury, a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury, and a proximate temporal relationship between the [] vaccination and [the] injury."

This is the causation-in-fact standard.

^ (Unless I'm full of beans, in which case I hope Dorit will correct me.)

BTW, who is Delysid, and what makes him a bigger ‘creep’ than me I'm only here for the attention.

FTFY.

Yet Chuff, let me say this: I do not agree with anyone lying to support their ideas. Let their ideas win on their own.

Oh, that's rich, coming from Gerg, who has admitted telling lies to support the anti-vax cause on more than one occasion, such as when he claimed he knew of a study design which medical authorities could not possibly oppose doing for any other reason than if they were afraid of what the results might show, and then later admitted that among other things, he was completely ignoring the ethical concerns involved in such a study.

But Chuff, anti-vaxxers are not lying when they say Hannah was compensated for her autism, despite the sham NVICP (or whatever the hell the initials are) court wanting to play a silly game of semantics by suggesting she was compensated for encephalopathy leading to ‘autism-like’ symptoms. Chuff, sometimes you have no choice but to call BS to BS.

The double-think antivaxxers like Gerg can engage in is truly baffling to those of us who actually think things through. On the one hand they want to attach great importance to Hannah Poling being compensated, which only happened due to the judgment of the NVICP; then in the very same sentence, they want to call the NVICP a "sham" and pretend that the NVICP's statement of why they awarded that compensation is entirely wrong-headed. Surely even an antivaxxer has to stop and think "How can I be attacking the NVICP's authority and invoking it at the same time??"

There is no "silly game" here, except that being played by the antivaxxers, who want to pretend that there are no disorders in the entirety of the world that share any symptoms with autism - otherwise, those symptoms would be "autism-like symptoms" in the absence of autism, and that would be against the Party line, wouldn't it?

But Chuff, anti-vaxxers are not lying when they say Hannah was compensated for her autism,

Gerg, do you believe that Hannah had an underlying mitochondrial disorder all along, or do you believe that vaccines caused it? You get one chance.

despite the sham NVICP (or whatever the hell the initials are) court

Good to know that you again don't know what the hell you're pretending to talk about in the first place.

wanting to play a silly game of semantics

Oh, look, somebody "learned" a new word.

by suggesting she was compensated for encephalopathy leading to ‘autism-like’ symptoms.

Gerg, what specific part of her father's own statements would you like to take issue with, Gerg? Is he another race traitor?

"We are not sure that she had an '-itis' but we did clearly document a regressive encephalopathy based on not only our parental reporting, but also based on the pediatrician’s documents, affidavits from other family members, and the growth curve measurements (injury pattern)."

"Although she still exhibits mild autistic behaviors, our patient [sic] has continued to improve in language functions and sociability such that she now attends a regular kindergarten with an aide."

Might as well bring it all together.

Mewens: For some reason I'm reminded of this:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/department-of-libel-drew-carey-killed-…

Greg: You just have to go to the other threads to figure it out. By the way, could you explain how someone could be a 'race traitor' when the Polings and your crowd are white as parchment?

I laughed out loud just reading the headline, PGP. (I'm a copy editor, so I'm probably a pretty soft audience for headlines about libel.)

Thanks for the share.

despite the sham NVICP (or whatever the hell the initials are) court wanting to play a silly game of semantics by suggesting she was compensated for encephalopathy leading to ‘autism-like’ symptoms.

Ha! Gerg misspelled 'encephatology'.

So Greg, thank you for that. I have another question?

Person A is autistic and exhibits certain characteristic behaviors. Person B has a motorcycle crash resulting in head injury, who subsequently exhibits some behaviors similar to person A.

Has the head injury caused autism in person B?

@Greg: Last I checked, the Cochrane Reviews agree with me

Oh really? Which Cochrane Reviews?

I have an idea, and it involves failure to understand the abstract, which would be a generous assumption in light of the Holland debacle.

Greg,

But Chuff, anti-vaxxers are not lying when they say Hannah was compensated for her autism, despite the sham NVICP (or whatever the hell the initials are) court wanting to play a silly game of semantics by suggesting she was compensated for encephalopathy leading to ‘autism-like’ symptoms.

To expand on what Chuff wrote, if a child aged 18 months was hit by a car and sustained a head injury, she might well fit all the following DSM V criteria for being diagnosed with autism:

Persistent difficulties in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication as manifested by all of the following:
1. Deficits in using communication for social purposes, such as greeting and sharing information, in a manner that is appropriate for the social context.
2. Impairment of the ability to change communication to match context or the needs of the listener, such as speaking differently in a classroom than on the playground, talking differently to a child than to an adult, and avoiding use of overly formal language.
3. Difficulties following rules for conversation and storytelling, such as taking turns in conversation, rephrasing when misunderstood, and knowing how to use verbal and nonverbal signals to regulate interaction.
4. Difficulties understanding what is not explicitly stated (e.g., making inferences) and nonliteral or ambiguous meanings of language (e.g., idioms, humor, metaphors, multiple meanings that depend on the context for interpretation).
B. The deficits result in functional limitations in effective communication, social participation, social relationships, academic achievement, or occupational performance, individually or in combination.
C. The onset of the symptoms is in the early developmental period (but deficits may not become fully manifest until social communication demands exceed limited capacities).

She might have these indisputably "autism-like symptoms" but does this mean that the child is autistic? Do we conclude from this that head injuries cause autism and that the increase in ASD diagnoses is due to accidents?

I have missed out the last crucial criterion in the above list (my emphasis):

D. The symptoms are not attributable to another medical or neurological condition or to low abilities in the domains or word structure and grammar, and are not better explained by autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder), global developmental delay, or another mental disorder.

To labor the point, which is apparently always necessary with Greg, regressive encephalopathy due to a mitochondrial disorders is without any doubt at all, "another medical or neurological condition".

Doesn't this make it crystal clear that you and the other antivaxxers are lying when you insist that Hannah Poling is autistic and that vaccines caused her autism?

@Narad
@Greg: Last I checked, the Cochrane Reviews agree with me

Oh really? Which Cochrane Reviews?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/SafeMinds%20Epidemiological%2…

Just to clarify the Hannah Poling case, here's what her father wrote in a response to Paul Offit's article on the subject:

The Office of the Secretary of DHHS, through the Department of Justice, conceded Hannah's case. There was no courtroom hearing and no decision from the “unusual vaccine court.”

@herr doktor bimler

I did see you for a while now pretending to be that wise old sage, with your propensity for those Confuscious-like, one-line puns.

Please identify yourself and state your purpose! You may begin by stating whether you believe that vaccines as administered in their totality according to the CDC's childhood recommended vaccination schedule plays a causal role in autism. Please remember to provide just a one-word 'yes' or 'no' response. And, I suppose I need not remind you that Confucious never lied.

And, I suppose I need not remind you that Confucious never lied.

I don't suppose he played stupid word games a toddler could see through either.

@Greg,
Safeminds? Safeminds??
You lose, Greggles. I'm not up to deconstructing that, but I'd be very surprised if nobody here was able to do so.

Oh please, not the mind-numbingly moronic Safe Minds drivel, written by people who very obviously have not the faintest clue about interpreting epidemiological or any other scientific evidence.

For example Mark Blaxill offers his word of wisdom about the Madsen MMR study that we have looked at here in some detail:

He argued that "there is no really good reason (and the authors offer none) to consider duration of the disorder as opposed to its presence. Autism is generally considered a lifelong disorder, so the effect is the same among two year olds as it is among eight year olds.

He apparently did not notice that the study does not look at duration of the disorder, since diagnosis with autism is one of the endpoints of the study, and follow-up of a child diagnosed with autism ended at the point of diagnosis. To quote the study:

Follow-up for the diagnosis of autistic disorder or another autistic-spectrum disorder began for all children on the day they reached one year of age and continued until the diagnosis of autism or an associated condition (the fragile X syndrome, Angelman's syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, or congenital rubella), emigration, death, or the end of follow-up, on December 31, 1999, whichever occurred first.

"Duration of the disorder" was not measured, and was not part of the study. Maybe that's why they didn't feel the need to offer an explanation for why they included it: they didn't.

Like that dingbat from AoA, Blaxill also calculates the incidence of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children without controlling for age, which is a blindingly obvious confounder:

The actual prevalence of autism in the 440,655 children who received MMR vaccinations in Denmark was 6.1 per 10,000 as compared to the rate of 4.9 per 10,000 in the 96,648 unvaccinated children. At the population level, the risk of autism was therefore 26% higher in the group vaccinated with MMR, a calculation the authors never reported.

As we have discussed here ad nauseam, of course the prevalence of autism was higher in the vaccinated children, since the vaccinated children were older than the unvaccinated ones. The likelihood of both having had MMR and of being diagnosed with autism increase with age. I find it hard to express just how idiotic it is to ignore that in this way.

Blaxill also argues that children who developed autism or ASD before they were given MMR should be included in the vaccinated with autism group, more evidence that he doesn't understand that these children were not followed in the study after their autism/ASD diagnosis. Yes, I know it's hard to believe anyone could be so clueless, but he really does argue exactly that. In his own words:

The authors determined that six of the children diagnosed with autism and seven of those diagnosed with other autistic spectrum disorders had such an early onset of the symptoms that the disorder was diagnosed before the MMR vaccine was administered. They decided that this reversed sequence of events argued against a causal role for MMR in autism, so they placed these vaccinated children in the group they called "unvaccinated" even though they had clearly received MMR vaccine.

In moving autistic children into the unvaccinated group, the authors increased the pool of unvaccinated children by 13% and reduced the pool of vaccinated children by 2%.

It seems that in Blaxill's world, causality can work both ways, and MMR can cause a child to become autistic even before they receive the vaccine. Anything is possible, as long as it points to the conclusion that vaccines cause autism, it seems.

There is more, much, much more, but after a display of burning stupidity so intense, I am dropping the Safe Minds article into a safe idiocy-proof receptacle.

I will merely additionally note that they provide no evidence to support their hypothesis, they merely nit-pick at 16 studies that, despite any real or invented short-comings, all fail to provide the evidence one would expect to see if their hypothesis were correct.

@Kreb - so Blaxill is complaining that children that were diagnosed as "autistic" before they received the MMR, but were vaccinated later, should be included in the "vaccinated & autistic group?"

That logic alone shows why he is a gigantic fail - though the recent evidence that he has thrown the Geiers under the bus (and early on even, if only in private) shows that he's not entirely wedded to cranks....only willing to use them as long as they are useful for placating the lunatic fringe (and that's saying something, given the typical AoAer) but giving him plausible deniability later on, when their Science is exposed for the fraud it is....

OK, I will try again. My child was born in 1993 and has autism. Diagnosed at age 3.5 or so. We thought she was normal. Come to find out respective grandmothers both had suspicions she was not neurotypical. I posit that along with the mangoes in the grocery store and the two dogs we owned and the fact we were living on the edge of a dead river valley in a very cold part of the world, near a whole bunch of dinosaur fossils, all contributed to her condition (which by the way, she would not change even if she were given the opportunity to because she likes the way she is. Temple Grandin says the same thing). So, to all antivaxxers out there, prove that my daughter's austism was caused by vaccines rather than the above. And we love her the way she is and wouldn't change a hair on her head (although we would like it if she stopped trying to mimic Eric Idle in Life of Brian because she does the WORST cockney accent you have ever heard and she delights in annoying us with it.)

I have to believe that Greg made a simple copy and paste error when he posted that link. After all, the correct way to respond to the question "Which Cochrane reviews support your statements" would be a link to the Cochrane site, PubMed, or some other location that contained the paper or linked to it. If one were really trying to make the point, he would include an excerpt from that paper that proves the point. Something like:

"If you look at the Cochrane Summary titled "Using the combined vaccine for protection of children against measles, mumps and rubella" , available at http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-p…, it says

We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. The methodological quality of many of the included studies made it difficult to generalise their results.

This clearly shows that the Cochrane Collaboration has determined that vaccines may cause autism."

M.O'B.,

I have to believe that Greg made a simple copy and paste error when he posted that link.

I don't think so. In amongst the other drivel that SafeMinds article does regurgitate from Cochrane some of the weaknesses of the studies that fail to find a shadow of a hint of link between vaccines and autism. None of those weaknesses are enough to throw those studies out, and some of the weaknesses would make it more likely they would find a non-existent link (a Type 1 error), rather than not find a real one (A Type 2 error).

Lawrence,

@Kreb – so Blaxill is complaining that children that were diagnosed as “autistic” before they received the MMR, but were vaccinated later, should be included in the “vaccinated & autistic group?”

I have read and reread what he wrote several times, and can come to no other understanding. Can anyone else? Greg perhaps?

It annoys me very greatly that people so grossly incompetent that they can't understand a fairly simple study design, or even even understand that causes generally precede effects, feel they are somehow qualified to criticize and challenge competent scientists in such a dangerous way.

Krebiozen - Well, I was unwilling to believe that he would knowingly answer the question with a link to a site that was not a valid source for the statement he intended to back up and gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I stand corrected. And somewhat disillusioned. My impression of human integrity has been diminished by a small fraction.

Sigh.

Mewens: Thank you, glad you liked it.

@Kreb - why pay attention to all of those pesky researchers and scientists that have spent decades investigating and publishing....

I mean, we should only rely on eye-witness testimony...right? I mean, it isn't like Science has proven that eye-witness accounts are one of the worst forms of evidence.....

Oh yeah, it has...as evidenced by hundreds of people being freed from prison after being wrongly convicted by eye-witness testimony.

That's precisely WHY I posted the question. I sincerely doubt Greg can read and understand a Cochrane Review, link to it, and give an honest analysis of the findings. The fact that he linked to SafeMinds, which twists results to suit their needs, tells me how dishonest he is.

I'm personally not good with statistics. But I can certainly understand that in the Madson study the assessment of the child ended either when a) the child was diagnosed with autism or an ASD or b) when the study ended.

Can anyone tell me WTF Blaxill was thinking when he tried to include children who were diagnosed as autistic before they received the MMR in the 'vaccinated and autistic' category? Besides lying about the results and CYA, of course.

In that entirely made up evil eye example, I would assume that "Tom" either broke the child's arm himself, or got a friend or hireling to do it. That's a fairly simple explanation, which fits with the postulated facts that Tom is the sort of person who wants others to believe that he has the evil eye and is willing to use it on a random child just to prove he can. We also know (prior to this hypothetical) that there are adults who will break someone's arm--even a child's arm--on purpose, not by accident or in self defense.

Just to pile on, Greg:

thinking your are missing the full details of my argument of how to proceed when science is in conflict with observable evidence, be they anecdotal.

Category error. Anecdotes are by definition not evidence because it is not observable. It's a contradiction in terms. If anecdotes are classified as "observable evidence", i.e. in the same neighborhood as the results from proper trials, observed incidence and the likes... we should IMMEDIATELY start massive research into Lizard People. There are oodles of "observable evidence" presented by David Icke that we should look into toute suite!

Of course, Greg, that's not what you're saying. Those people are obviously nuts. What you're saying is that YOU can decide which anecdotes -- sorry, pieces of "observable evidence" -- are worthy of research and better than actual science that contradicts it.

This is the arrogance of ignorance. You do not have clue one about how science works, but feel justified in dismissing it when it contradicts a viewpoint you hold. The problem is that you are too damned stupid, uneducated and arrogant to even hold a substantiated view on this.

The issue is one of effort. We must make every effort to resolve the dispute, whether it involves trying our darnedest to come up with a plausible explanation of why the anecdotal evidence is wrong

Bullsh*t. You're advocating this "maybe all the science is wrong" on one issue only. Or are you saying you would support massive research into debunking the Flat Earth Society's viewpoints?

What, there's already sufficient evidence to call them kooks?

Same goes for vaccines. You've been slapped in the face with it here for weeks and you STILL hang on to your lunacy.

or, failing that, rechecking and rechecking the science to see if we did indeed get it right.

So you're openly admitting now that no research proving no autism-vaccine link will EVER be enough for you. Ever. We just need to keep re-checking it until something says you're right. Please point me to your same support for re-checking heliocentrism, Greg. If you do not, you've admitted to being nothing but yet another ignorant, arrogant, bottom-feeding hypocrite.

Oh, okay:

You may begin by stating whether you believe that vaccines as administered in their totality according to the CDC’s childhood recommended vaccination schedule plays a causal role in autism.

No. If you believe otherwise, please provide credible research.

This is just for Agashem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SXq5X9zEZI#t=105

“The fact is that coincidence is always a possible explanation. Always. Always. Always.

Indeed it may be a possible explanation Antaeus, but the issue is whether it is always plausible. Perhaps this example may best illustrate the point:

What Earthly good could it do to discuss that utterly unrealistic hypothetical scenario, when it bears absolutely no relation to the real-world situation?

In the hypothetical scenario, those who believe in the power of the Evil Eye can support their position by making extremely specific predictions about events that have not yet happened, predictions that then come true.

In the real world, not only can antivaxxers not make specific predictions that subsequently come true about the harm that will befall a specific named child as a result of vaccines (their 'Evil Eye') they don't even do very well accurately describing things that have already happened which they ascribe to vaccines!

We're getting a first-hand look at that right now, of course, with Gerg showing himself unable to grasp the concept that "autism-like symptoms" is not a synonym for "autism".

But we have even better proof than that; the Autism Omnibus trial was supposed to select, out of all these supposedly "countless" examples of children given autism by vaccines, the six that were absolutely the clearest examples. We can safely presume, I believe, that the best abilities of the antivax brigade were bent to this task, so if there was anyone in the antivax camp who possessed that near-miraculous ability to predict "Bobby will suffer the autism-equivalent of a broken right arm, and it will be the fault of those Evil Eye-like vaccines!!" it would have been child's play for them to select the six cases in which it was most clear that said damage had already been done. In reality, of course, the best minds of the antivax brigade could not even select six cases where in each case the development of an ASD came after the supposed cause of that ASD.

tl;dr: Anyone can make up imaginary friends. Demanding that the most unbelievable propositions be taken seriously in reality, because you can make up stories about your imaginary friends where they happen, marks you as ridiculous.

In the hypothetical scenario, those who believe in the power of the Evil Eye can support their position by making extremely specific predictions about events that have not yet happened, predictions that then come true.

It is somehow satisfying to see an example of the Begging-the-Question fallacy in its original form.

@ Stu:
" You've been slapped in the face with it here for weeks and STILL you hang on to your lunacy"
Perhaps S&M?
Hey, Orac's place costs less than calllng up Mistress Desiree for her afternoon chargecard special.

Of course, I'm joking. Heh.

Of course you are! /snirk

@Vicki

Thank you Vicki for responding to my Evil Eye example. Indeed you demonstrated what science should be all about. First, you did not dismiss the observable evidence of Tom's apparent Evil Eye skills by simply asserting that it is conflict with science, so we should reject it. You made a reasonable effort to come up with a plausible explanation for the dispute.

And Lurkers here who may be following this discussion, be not mistaken about what some VCADODers here are proposing about how we should proceed when anecdotal, or direct observable evidence, is in conflict with science. Some are indeed saying that we should flat-out reject such evidence because they are in conflict with science.

Also Vicki, seeing the sense in resolving the dispute you pursued a plausible explanation. I imagine you were well aware of the weakness in advancing the 'coincidence' argument to account for Bobby's broken harm, and after Tom made clear that would be the harm that he would inflict on Bobby. Indeed it's possible that Tom may have broken Bobby's arm.

And Lurkers, again, be not confused about what others VCADODers are saying about how should act when we find an explanation that in some cases may settle the dispute between anecdotal evidence and science. They are suggesting that such explanations -- be it the 'coincidence argument'-- are applicable for all cases without exception.

Thank you Vicki for doing your part in exposing the ludicrousness of these arguments, and in so doing, reaffirming science.

@Narad
@Greg: Last I checked, the Cochrane Reviews agree with me

Oh really? Which Cochrane Reviews?
—————————————————————————–
[...]safeminds.org/research/library/SafeMinds%20Epidemiological%20Rebuttal.pdf

Truly a bounty of riches, although I was off on one item: I thought Gerg was going to demonstrate not having understood the 2012 version. But he did get the quote attribution wrong, so there's that.

It is nice that they invoke Carol Stott, though. It's too bad they didn't go all Yazbak/Melanie Phillips on the operation and simply claim that large epidemiological studies are no good for detecting tiny signals because they're just too gosh-darn big.

I did see you for a while now pretending to be that wise old sage, with your propensity for those Confuscious-like, one-line puns.

Gerg, I am not familiar with the pithiness of Confuscious. On the other hand, Confucius (as hagiographically reconstructed by his disciples and their disciples) was not exactly known for making puns. In fact, he seems to have been something of a repetitive gasbag.

Confucius say: When wind in bag get bigger, so does bag. Wind in bag therefore same as bag, and bag same as wind.

@MI Dawn

"I sincerely doubt Greg can read and understand a Cochrane Review, link to it, and give an honest analysis of the findings. The fact that he linked to SafeMinds, which twists results to suit their needs, tells me how dishonest he is."

Actually MI Dawn, I was well aware of the citation that MOB provided. I came across it on several occasions during my online research of the vaccine-autism issue. When you requested it, I had problems finding it , so I provided the Safeminds link offering interesting commentaries on the vaccine studies, as well as relaying their Cochrane Reviews' assessments. Indeed I need to brush up on my citation skills.

As for being unable to understand a Cochrane Review and giving an honest analysis, perhaps you should reflect on this: Initially I was curious about the Danish study so I approached Kreb about it. Not at first understanding that it was a retrospective study, I did commit some blunders which Kreb have subsequently pointed out on several occasions. Anyway, after settling down and having Kreb explain the study fully, I concluded that the main fault of the study is that it included kids that were too young for autism to be detected in them.

And MI Dawn. quoting the Safemind link again, they reported the Cochrane Review as stating...

Follow up on medical records terminated just one year after the last day of admission to the cohort. “Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, the Cochrane
reviewers felt it became ‘… increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis

MI Dawn, does the fact that I arrived at the very same assessment of the Cochrane Review, without even initially being aware of this precise criticism, not undermine your argument, even a little, that I am wholly ill equipped to understand such reviews? (Hee hee hee.)

@Kreb
You probably won't believe me when I say that I honestly flubbed with the 'life-years' thing in my report to AoA. I seriously meant 'person-years

In fact, he seems to have been something of a repetitive gasbag.
Confustian, as it were.

Mao's short-lived "Let a hundred flowers blossom" policy was Confuschian.

Spoiled the flower joke. Should read "Confuchsian".

Follow up on medical records terminated just one year after the last day of admission to the cohort. “Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, the Cochrane
reviewers felt it became ‘… increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis

MI Dawn, does the fact that I arrived at the very same assessment of the Cochrane Review, without even initially being aware of this precise criticism, not undermine your argument, even a little, that I am wholly ill equipped to understand such reviews? (Hee hee hee.)

But you didn't come to the same conclusion as the Cochrane reviewers you twit:

"No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found."

You also don't seem to understand that in a retrospective population study, at some point the investigators have to set a cut-off date. Given how many they were able to include and no association between ASD diagnoses and MMR vaccination were found, there is only one reasonable and honest conclusion yet you boneheads would continue to whinge mindlessly even if the study cut-off was three, five or 7 years after. Go choke on your awkward adolescent tittering now.

Actually MI Dawn, I was well aware of the citation that MOB provided. I came across it on several occasions during my online research of the vaccine-autism issue. When you requested it, I had problems finding it

Uh-huh.

And MI Dawn. quoting the Safemind link again, they reported the Cochrane Review as stating…

Follow up on medical records terminated just one year after the last day of admission to the cohort. “Because of the length of time from birth to diagnosis, the Cochrane
reviewers felt it became ‘… increasingly unlikely that those born later in the cohort could have a diagnosis

MI Dawn, does the fact that I arrived at the very same assessment of the Cochrane Review<b?, without even initially being aware of this precise criticism, not undermine your argument, even a little, that I am wholly ill equipped to understand such reviews? (Hee hee hee.)

Gerg, please describe the Madsen entry in Table 3 of the 2005 review or Table 9 of the 2012 one.

Thank you Vicki for responding to my Evil Eye example. Indeed you demonstrated what science should be all about. First, you did not dismiss the observable evidence of Tom's apparent Evil Eye skills by simply asserting that it is conflict with science, so we should reject it. You made a reasonable effort to come up with a plausible explanation for the dispute.

Of course, we do in fact have the most reasonable grounds to reject it, since it is not observable evidence; it is a fantasy cooked up in the deluded noggin of an individual who wants to co-opt the authority of "science" without following its rules (or even comprehending them.)

And Lurkers here who may be following this discussion, be not mistaken about what some VCADODers here are proposing about how we should proceed when anecdotal, or direct observable evidence, is in conflict with science. Some are indeed saying that we should flat-out reject such evidence because they are in conflict with science.

Lurkers who are wondering if Gerg's claims here have some substance, or are merely a tissue of lies, be aware that Gerg has admitted lying to serve his cause more than once (such as when he claimed to have a study design that would completely resolve all question over vaccines and autism, and the only reason anyone could possibly oppose the study was if they feared the results; later, he admitted that he had no idea how such a study design could deal with the difficult ethical concerns.)

Can he come up with even one actual instance of any of the people here he is smearing (the ones he tars as "VCADODers") have suggested "we should flat-out reject such evidence because they are in conflict with science"? Or, if he were finally backed into a corner and pressured into disclosing the statements he was characterizing, would they turn out to be people simply rejecting his preposterous made-up hypothetical scenarios, and quite rightly refusing to count the antics of his imaginary friends as "observable evidence"?

Also Vicki, seeing the sense in resolving the dispute you pursued a plausible explanation. I imagine you were well aware of the weakness in advancing the 'coincidence' argument to account for Bobby’s broken harm, and after Tom made clear that would be the harm that he would inflict on Bobby. Indeed it's possible that Tom may have broken Bobby's arm.

Yet it's hard to imagine what relevance that would have to the current situation, since in the contrived imaginary scenario Gerg offers, the person who is accused of having the Evil Eye and the person who is making astoundingly accurate predictions about what the Evil Eye can do and the person who is doing the accusation of "He's got the Evil Eye!!!" are all the same person. That is in stark contrast to the real-world situation, where the role of accuser and accused belong to two vastly different groups - and the role of "backing up those lurid, outrageous accusations with something other than bull ca-ca" belongs to no one.

If we had any reason to take Gerg's fantasy story seriously, and seek a reasonable in-universe explanation for the events involved, the most reasonable resolution would be that the party who is deeply committed to proving that the malign power of the Evil Eye actually exists is the only one with a motivation to break little Bobby's arm and try and make people think that the Evil Eye was responsible. That party would correspond to the antivaxxers.

And Lurkers, again, be not confused about what others VCADODers are saying about how should act when we find an explanation that in some cases may settle the dispute between anecdotal evidence and science. They are suggesting that such explanations — be it the ‘coincidence argument’– are applicable for all cases without exception.

Lurkers, I would gladly point out for you the fallacies in the statements Gerg is making here, except that I can't really even figure out what he thinks he's saying. He seems to have gotten himself befuddled, trying to imitate turns of English phrasing ("be it the 'coincidence argument'") that he doesn't truly understand.

My best guess to what he's trying to assert is that it's something like the following: "They will tell you that because 'coincidence' is an adequate explanation for some cases where anecdotal evidence appears to conflict with the results of careful scientific study, it's an adequate explanation for all such cases! It isn't! You shouldn't believe what they say! You should, instead, believe what I say! Because, well, because I say so!"

But why on Earth would you take Gerg's word for what the rest of us say, rather than finding out from us what we say? Certainly not because he's got any sort of a reputation for integrity! Remember that this is the same Gerg who thought it was perfectly fine that the Madsen study (which Gerg didn't even realize at first was a retrospective study, despite it studying nearly every single child born in Denmark over a period of seven years) included children from 6-12 months, when he thought that you could compare 6-month-olds to 6-year-olds and attribute any differences between the groups to vaccination status. When the explanation finally sunk into his skull that no, you can't get meaningful information on the effect of vaccines if you're not controlling for age and other confounders, he suddenly started referring to it as "a fast one" that that age group had been included.

Thank you Vicki for doing your part in exposing the ludicrousness of these arguments, and in so doing, reaffirming science.

The ludicrousness of Gerg's argument is in thinking it has any applicability to the real world.

@Kreb

Hey Kreb, did you read what I explained to MI Dawn. There I was today reviewing the Safemind link that I sent you, and it reported that the Cochrane Review had the same criticism that some subjects in the Danish study were too young for autism diagnosis. Kreb, when I gave this assessment in our discussion a few months back you told me I was grasping at straws. Yet, there is the Cochrane Review confirming the same criticism. HAAA!!!!

How awesome is that?? Damn -- maybe I will try a second career as a scientist. Seriously -- how hard could it be? All I will have to do is wait for someone to say something and then ask for citation. Kreb, even you are showing how statistics is becoming all automated.

Yes -- a second career as a scientist. But Kreb, are there any jobs outside of being a paid shill? Seriously -- I couldn't do what you guys are doing. My conscience wouldn't allow it.

@MOB#607

(hushed voice)
Thanks again dear old friend for the citation. You did cover your tracks well, so I don't think they are on to you. But MOB, please be careful! If they catch you they will do unimaginable things to you. They are absolutely ruthless.

Anyway, your friends in the rebel alliance send you kind regards. They are greatly appreciative of your espionage work. They would also like to share the good news that the tide is starting to turn in our favour on the the front lines. Already some of the enemy are starting with concessional talk, such as autism occurring postnatal. Hell -- some are even saying that vaccines can cause autism in exceptional cases! I came face to face with one of their sergeant, a fellow by the name of Krebiozen, who said this very thing.

Share the good news my friend with others like you who have infiltrated their ranks. Godspeed and stay safe!

#628 And all we ended up with was confusion!

VCADODers,

I would like to wrapthings up re this discussion of anecdotal evidence coming into conflict with science (indeed I even feel bad using the term 'science' when considering the gunk that you guys are trying to pass off as such). In way of a recap, anecdotal or directly observed evidence is a part of science. Throughout the history of science, such evidence on countless occasions have facilitated the greatest scientific discoveries. Hence, considering there importance, we should not treat it as a trifling matter when such evidence comes in conflict with science.

We must always resolve the dispute. We simply cannot accuse one of being right or wrong solely on the basis that there is a conflict. Neither should we settle on any explanation that may resolve the dispute in one case, and consider that this explanation will suffice for all other cases. We must always take things case by case.

In all folks, there are no exceptions to these guidelines. Indeed they are what the scientific process is all about.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's talk about the national autism rate. Up thread I gave a link to a Somali study reporting Somali and white kids have 1 in 32, and 1 in 36 autism rates, respectively. I also had a suspicion that the national rate was worse than the reported 1 in 50 one. Anyway guys, do you share my belief that the autism rate may actually be worse than1 in 50, and may even be closer to 1 in 35?

@635
'considering (their) importance...'

From the full text of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstr…

This is all the text found about Madsen 2002 in the systematic review. There is no other text beside a citation to the publication. Generation Rescue are LIAR

Moderate/unknown risk of bias: three studies (DeStefano 2002; Hviid 2008; Madsen 2002).

The study by Madsen 2002 was conducted in Denmark and included all Danish children born between January 1991 and December 1998. The authors linked vaccination data reported in the National Board of Health with a diagnosis of autism ( Table 9) from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. After adjustment for confounders, the RR for autism is 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.07) for other autistic spectrum disorders. No association between age at vaccination, time since vaccination or date of vaccination and development of autism was found.

Correction, Safeminds are also LIAR.

Alain

This is all the text found about Madsen 2002 in the systematic review.

Well, SafeMinds was yammering about the 2005 review, but in the one you're looking at, it's on page 57.

There I was today reviewing the Safemind link that I sent you, and it reported that the Cochrane Review had the same criticism that some subjects in the Danish study were too young for autism diagnosis.

What else were they too young for, Gerg? It's as though nothing ever penetrates your skull. Are you going to tell me what the external validity was rated as, Gerg? Gerg, you have read it, haven't you, Gerg?

@Narad,

I'm knee deep into Dr. Henry Markram's publications record because I'll be doing my master and PhD in his lab (Dr. Casanova want to introduce me to him).

I'll read the 2005 review tomorrow but in the meantime, do you have a link?

Alain

I’ll read the 2005 review tomorrow but in the meantime, do you have a link?

Somebody left the 2012 lying around here. The 2005 is available at Scudamore's joint.

@Alain:
Ah, Henry Markram. He's the PhD who came up with the "intense World" hypothesis of autism. He was born in South Africa. His son Kai is autistic. Also, I believe Henry is himself autistic.

Greg, you seem to think that parents anecdotes are being ignored. I'm puzzled (again), what do you think the Danish study IS? Do you think that all that time and money would be spent on a random study subject? This study, and others, ARE a direct result of parental anecdotes, a scientific effort to find out if what various parents have said caused autism actually does cause autism. However, no study so far has been able to corroborate any parental theories. How many more studies should be done? If you and your anti-vax colleagues are sincere in your beliefs then raise the money required and pay a reputable university or medical establishment to carry out a trial yourself. Be aware though, bias will be obvious.

Now that we have that out of the way

Nothing is "out of the way," you're trying, as usual, to change the subject.

let’s talk about the national autism rate. Up thread I gave a link to a Somali study reporting Somali and white kids have 1 in 32, and 1 in 36 autism rates, respectively.

Excellent, you already have one of the numbers wrong by virtue of relying on a wire story.

I also had a suspicion that the national rate was worse than the reported 1 in 50 one. Anyway guys, do you share my belief that the autism rate may actually be worse than1 in 50, and may even be closer to 1 in 35?

When the prevalence in Minneapolis is 1 in 48? No, not especially. First, you still need to figure out the difference between prevalence and incidence, which you have repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of awareness of.

Next, you need to describe what Utah and New Jersey have in common, and what they have in contradistinction on this front. What happens when you aggressively look for something, Gerg? I'll give you a hint: It has something to do with the previous question that you failed to answer.

Greg,
Perhaps I can help you understand.
Seriously. I am trying to help you here.

“Anecdotes” form a part of hypothesis generation.
“Science” is the process of hypothesis testing.

Greg,

Hey Kreb, did you read what I explained to MI Dawn. There I was today reviewing the Safemind link that I sent you, and it reported that the Cochrane Review had the same criticism that some subjects in the Danish study were too young for autism diagnosis. Kreb, when I gave this assessment in our discussion a few months back you told me I was grasping at straws. Yet, there is the Cochrane Review confirming the same criticism. HAAA!!!!

I saw that SafeMinds had reported that, and was puzzled because I'm very familiar with that Cochrane review, and didn't remember seeing that particular criticism. So I went back and looked through it again. It does appear in both versions of the Cochrane review as an observation in the notes section of the table giving the characteristics of the different studies, not as a criticism of the study, just an observation.

As Science Mom has pointed out, you have to end a retrospective study at some point. It doesn't in any way invalidate the study, it just means you can't use the whole cohort to calculate the statistical power of the study, as we have discussed before. In any case, Madsen carried out the relevant statistics on that study both including and omitting those younger children, as we have discussed before. As Cochrane reports:

No association between age at vaccination, time since vaccination or date of vaccination and development of autism was found.

Given the size of the study, this is an important piece of evidence that MMR has nothing whatsoever to do with autism.

How awesome is that?? Damn — maybe I will try a second career as a scientist. Seriously — how hard could it be?

Clearly you have simply regurgitated a factoid picked up by SafeMinds and imbued by both of you with a significance it does not merit. This reflects badly on both you and SafeMinds.

But Kreb, are there any jobs outside of being a paid shill? Seriously — I couldn’t do what you guys are doing. My conscience wouldn’t allow it.

You, actually seeking the truth and displaying some honesty and integrity? I can't see that happening, as you really don't seem to even understand the concept.

herr doktor bimler - according to King Crimson, Confuchsian will be my epitaph.

Let me get this straight Greg. You're saying that if careful scientific study doesn't support your idée fixe, we should throw out the scientific method and accept instead a garbled version you just pulled out of your backside?

@Kreb - no, I believe he's actually saying that we should continue to roll the scientific dice, over and over again, to see if we can get 13......

@Lawrence - maybe, though statistics tells us how often we will have to repeat an experiment before we get a particular wrong result by chance, which is what Greg appears to be pursuing.

Greg's explanation of, "what the scientific process is all about", at #635 is pretty much the opposite of what I was taught about science. Ignore the signal, pay attention to the noise and the outliers? I don't think so.

We must always resolve te dispute.

With respect to the porposed existence of a causal association between routine chipdhood immunization and dvelopment of an autism spectrum disorder the dispute has been resolved: several decades of scientific study, by mutliple independent investigators in mutiple nations, have falisifed the proposed exsitence of causal associaton which was initially suggested by the anecdotal accounts of parents of autistic children. Quite simply, their belief vaccines caused their children's autism has been shown by a large body of scientific evidence to be mistaken.

isn't it time, then, to stop wasting resources trying to find evidence for something we have already shown not to be the case, and instead invest it in research and assistance programs that might actually benefit those parents and children?

As a talented sciblogs commenter once exclaimed:
'it's beating a dead horse until only the outlines remain',
and I added:
'And then re-painting the outlines back in, after they're worn down, so that the beating can continue' ...

Perhaps our visitor only wants to be friends with such an intelligent, entertaining bunch as we are- just hang out, talk and joke- hasn't he already made overtures ( in slightly different ways) to several of Orac's prized minions? Kreb, lilady, PGP, Narad, moi?

But then he keeps on insulting us and calling us -basically- criminals who harm children for money. Without any evidence to back that up**. It's quite self-defeating to behave in such a manner. I doubt that it would be tolerated at Mark's or at Jake's place.

So why go to a place where you argue and lose?- not a good way to make friends or to feel better about yourself -btw-.There are books/ courses that teach alternative ways to accomplish these goals- try Dale Carnegie.

** oddly enough, probably very few of us have anything to do with vaccinations other than getting them ourselves or saying that they're useful.

"It only looks to skeptics like you that I'm beating nothing at all. You're denying the evidence from hundreds of parents who report their children were injured by the live horse standing here."

She's a little hyperbolic, but this is the POV of one of the unvaccinated:

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinat…

Gee, I missed all the fun of replying to Greg. Thanks, all, for saying what I would have, if I could comment from work (I can read RI but can't comment).

So Greg can't figure out why the kids too young to have a diagnosis weren't included in some of the cohorts and ratios? I thought Narad, HDB, and others did such a good job of explaining how to do statistics right and how to do a proper study.

I guess Greg would have had problems with my study, done for my M.S., since I didn't follow ALL the pregnant women until they delivered and then for years afterwards. But our end point was 6 weeks after the ultrasound. (We were studying the effect of various amounts of oral intake prior to the ultrasound, and how much was *optimum* for most women to obtain a successful view). We didn't follow all the women until delivery, or for years afterwards to see if the ultrasounds caused cancer, autism, diabetes, or anything! I guess we were in the pay of "Big Water"....)

Matt Carey has a new post up on his blog about Jenny McCarthy.

Jake Crosby wandered over to post a few b!tchy comments in defense of McCarthy and to complain that he was nominated for the IACC, but not appointed. I asked him for information about the topic of his MPH-Epidemiology thesis and his mentor Mark Geier. He hasn't replied. I wonder why.

^ Link to LB/RB post:

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/01/06/jenny-mccarthy-setting-the-…