Even in high risk populations (siblings with ASD)
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2275444
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2275444
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
jaa said:post 77462 Even in high risk populations (siblings with ASD)
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2275444
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.
My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.
jaa said:post 100153 haidut,
Thanks for posting. I'd like to think I have no dog in this fight aside from the truth, but by the nature of posting the initial article and your rebuttal, I've spent more time than I usually would trying to get to the bottom of things in a strange search for why that ireport article is wrong. So here are my biased findings:
1) ireport.cnn is a user based community. The same standards of rigor applied to CNN do not seem to be applied there.
2) That said, on of the original authors (Dr. Thompson) has admitted that study omitted data for children of African descent. Ironically, it seems the guy exposing this (Dr. Brian Hooker) and the ireport article are selectively using Dr. Thompsons statements to make the problem seem worse than it is. Here is an article on scienceblogs.com that includes a statement from Dr. Thompson.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/ ... statement/
I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.
My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.
3) There seem to be questions surrounding Thompsons interpretation of the data vs the other co-authors. Without knowing how to interpret it myself, or without seeing other experts weigh in, it's difficult for me to judge which sides interpretation is correct.
They adjusted the data for sex of the child, mother's and father's age at birth, geographic location, child birth year, age since birth, and MMR receipt as a time-varying covariate. -- Those adjustments are inscrutable. Let's look at the raw data.Even in high risk populations (siblings with ASD)
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... id=2275444
This is the first thing I don't understand. The number of autists they report in table 2 is a lot higher. Why not exclude the kids who had ASD to begin with?Overall, 994 (1.04%) children in the cohort had ASD diagnosed during follow-up. Among those who had an older sibling with ASD, 134 (6.9%) were diagnosed with ASD, compared with 860 (0.9%) diagnosed with ASD among those with siblings without ASD (P < .001)
This article is no longer on cnn, but this was 8 years ago and you have done a lot research since then and have seen your articles on estrogen, serotonin, ssri’s and the it’s role with autism. It’s a hot topic right now so you have any updated opinions, maybe talk about it on the generative energy podcast.What about this?
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164046
There is a PubMed study referenced by the CNN post. Also, why would someone who is a respected vaccine researcher and one of the original authors of the study on vaccine safety suddenly lose his cool and say there is a coverup? People don't generally do things like that unless there is a good reason or they have lost their mind.