We are not ignorant, we are not arrogant. We are parents looking for answers. Us and our children are the stakeholders in any autistic research that is done, not the government and not the pharmaceutical companies. If parents are to stop screaming and yelling then the researchers have got to work WITH families of autistic parents because you don't have to prove anything to your peers you have to prove it to us. and that means that the science has to make sense to us.
We find out what we can, we research what we can and work full time and work our butts off to care for our children. This also means that while we work hard to understand the science we do not have the time to learn a science degree. This does not make us any less able to understand the facts, it only means they need to be explained to us in a different manner.
We are a far tougher audience then any peer review group and we are the only ones that matter.
When it comes to autism research parents and autistics themselves are the only ones that matter. Because if you cannot prove to us in a way we understand exactly what is the cause, if you cannot show us exactly why vaccines, etc. are not the cause, if you cant show us the data after working with us to come up with an effective research model to look at each specific case then your biggest and loudest group of critics will not go away.
We want answers. Not platitudes, not excuses and most certainly not condescension because while we may not understand science as well as the researchers, we understand autism far better then the researchers. We understand autism so well because we live with it on a daily basis. So if you tell us certain things are not relevant, we can say yes it is, we say this because we can point to our children and say look, here, this one and that one also have to deal with these specific issues. Changing the criteria to include more and more different groups does muddy the waters, and while I don’t deny the right of those newly included, it does make the research more difficult because it minimizes issues, like cognitive difficulties that used to affect a large portion of the autistic group and now in the upcoming version of the DSM it does not even appear to be recognized as part of the autistic issues.
We need to perhaps look at it slightly differently. 20 years ago autism was recognized by the rocking and almost total exclusion of any social type of activity, the exception being for some classed as savants or extremely high functioning (Rainman and Einstein types). Now my son is towards the more extreme range though he could functions on a physical and interaction level the way savants are portrayed, though we have nothing by which to measure his potential to fit into the savant category at this point. Today autistics are more commonly thought of as those like Ari Ne’eman or on the more aggressive side with regular tantrums or meltdowns. Those with cognitive difficulties and true savants are an ignored sections of the autism spectrum. The result in this is that searching for various causes of autism are focusing more on those in the newer categories (as are treatments and care options) with little or no research and treatment being done on the other end of the spectrum.
As parent’s we have all become activists. We are constantly working within the school system (whether cooperatively or antagonistically) to get the best care and education possible for our children. This activism is carried over into the research area, where many parents are calling for specific types of research to look into common theories (whether valid or invalid) to come up with some answers. The issue becomes that at 1 in 110 children born presently being expected to develop some level of autism and the appearing to be rising regularly more and more parents are getting involved and the more that get involved and the more that start looking for answers our requests are going to get difficult to ignore.
Researchers need to involve parents in the research process because as the stakeholders of all autism research we are the ones who need to be convinced that any given results of any given research is the best possible answer. Without working with parents you will find that the noise calling for more and better testing (and calling for certain types of testing) will not go away but just get constantly louder.
I know researchers may not be comfortable involving those who are not scientists in the research but this is the best way to get the message and the resultant answers to those who are most concerned with the research.
28 comments:
"Without working with parents you will find that the noise calling for more and better testing (and calling for certain types of testing) will not go away but just get constantly louder."
I get how writing things like that can be therapeutic but get over yourself. Nobody I know of is talking about "not working with parents" in the normal sense of the term. However to you it appears that I am only working "with" you if I accept your opinion on what is the best research (and therefore the best path to take with research). For example right now you are entirely unwilling to accept the possibility your value of vac/unvac studies is far too high. Or at least you've said nothing implying that vac/unvac studies could be radically overvalued by you.
In doing so, you and you alone have ironically made it impossible in this respect for researchers to work "with" you (in the more conventional sense of the term). Since their beliefs in this area - which in their credit is supported by the body of science right now - are immediately considered dismissed and must be replaced with your beliefs which are not up for discussion. It's "the shouty peoples way or the highway". I can't speak for all people involved in autism research but if you really are being ignored. That might be part of the reason. Just sayin'
"I know researchers may not be comfortable involving those who are not scientists in the research"
Absolutely untrue. It's entirely normal to have people who aren't scientists involved in research (not just as subjects either). However again it's your desire to believe that you are only "involved" when you get to drive the bus. Which I agree is exceptional and probably unwise. The closest thing to an modern exception would be the Odone's. I say "closets" because they were almost entirely wrong about Lorenzo's Oil. Ironically it was Moser the doctor who worked with them that contributed the test that made the oil useful and even so it's effects are sadly not very dramatic.
"but this is the best way to get the message and the resultant answers to those who are most concerned with the research."
I'm not sure who elects people to the council of "those most concerned with autism research" but I'm sure it isn't you. If I was, for the sake of argument involved with autism research. My chief concern would be advancing the body of knowledge on the subject and while I would be the first to agree that you are the primary stakeholder in the health of your child. You would be mistaken if you think that I would consider you the primary stakeholder in the evaluation and direction of all autism research. I sympathize - as much as I am able - that this must be immensely frustrating for you but if you can not question your assertion that vac/unvac studies are valuable. Then you would have given me a simple choice. Do expensive, poor quality and likely fruitless research because you want it...or do something else where evidence shows a better chance of a positive outcome. Hopefully you can't fault me for not going with you.
And if you can find fault there...as I said, shouting while covering your ears probably doesn't leave a good impression with many folk scientists or otherwise...again...just sayin'
"We are not ignorant, we are not arrogant. We are parents looking for answers."
It's probably worth reiterating that it takes an admission of ignorance to actually look for answers. Given that you can't admit you are ignorant (your words) what does that say about where you are in your search for answers (or for that matter...whether or not you are arrogant?)
"We are a far tougher audience then any peer review group"
Ok but why does that matter? For example people who deeply believe anything are a tougher audience to convince against their lines of faith than those who are willing to objectively weigh the evidence. Did that become a positive trait? I must have missed the memo. I mean is it good that moon-landing deniers are really hard to convince?
"biggest and loudest group of critics will not go away."
There's absolutely no guarantee that you (plural) would go away even if we did the study you (singular) originally conceived. It isn't like everyone at SafeMinds is going to sign a document saying "Do this and we will shut up now". The point I don't think you are getting is the evidence renders your position to be irrational. You have, in essence already excluded yourself from useful discussion.
"we understand autism far better then the researchers. We understand autism so well because we live with it on a daily basis."
The problem is that you've mistaken understanding *your autistic child* in many respects better than a researcher for understanding *autism* in general. One does not grant you the other any more than me taking care of my grandmother with dementia implies that I can start diagnosing it or prescribing drugs or directing research in that subject.
actually your bottom point is the point most at issue.
it is a parent's understanding of autism in their own child that can be used to give a far better understanding of autism in general.
one individually may not be sufficient but by researchers not realizing that when we are pressing so hard because we are concerned about things like vaccines that perhaps we as parents are seeing something they dont.
i will go back to a previous arguement you made against dr wakefield
you said he was comparing an uncommon disease and the occurence of a very common issue surrounding the digestive system.
perhaps you might want to ask a few autistic parents just how common this issue is.
it is not something commonly talked about and so i dont have the answers on it but when i think on it i question whether on that particular issue he may not have been on to something.
i will also suggest perhaps that you might look at this from a different perspective.
parents of autistic children fighting to have their concerns addressed are being ignored.
i asked you on the other thread to show me the research that shows vaccines are not responsible for causing autism. and i ask you again let us see the links so we can evaluate the research in full.
"it is a parent's understanding of autism in their own child that can be used to give a far better understanding of autism in general."
Likewise it can be used to produce a catastrophically worse understanding of the disease in general - autism in particular. So that's not a very good argument.
"one individually may not be sufficient but by researchers not realizing that when we are pressing so hard"
Which is likely a false assumption. I very much doubt that any researcher in the autism field hasn't heard of the kerfufffle surrounding vaccines.
"because we are concerned about things like vaccines that perhaps we as parents are seeing something they dont."
...and conversely that you might be seeing something that really isn't there. Specifically about vaccines considering that a) There has been research on autism and vaccines. b) Your sample has at least three kinds of bias in it which make it unfit for analysis. c) Researchers already work with samples at least an order of magnitude larger than your direct experience. I'd simply say the odds aren't in your favor.
If you are an indication of the kind of information I'd get as a researcher I'd also add some other difficulties. You seem blissfully unaware of why basic science is important to a theory, how to actually construct a usefully falsifiable hypothesis and the feasibility constraints on research.
"i will go back to a previous arguement you made against dr wakefield"
My opinion of Wakefield is limited to his belief in a causative correlation between MMR and autism. At best he made an error based on a small sub-sample (six of eight cases) pre-selected for developmental disorders using data self-reported four years after the fact. Given the small size of the sample, the lack of information about variance in the report dates, lack of information about variance in onset. There is absolutely nothing of statistical note can be derived from the values he records.
"perhaps you might want to ask a few autistic parents just how common this issue is."
How many would be adequate? How do you elimnate all the biases? What would be the predictive power of the result?
Fact of the matter is Wakefield made his name and his theory not on gastroenterology but on six observational samples with no information as to how to evaluate them. Studies with much larger sample sizes and much better randomization (one just came out this year in May's Ped. Inf. Dis. using a sample 15x larger than Wakefield) show no correlation between MMR and autism onset. It's very difficult in light of studies like these to take Wakefield very seriously.
"parents of autistic children fighting to have their concerns addressed are being ignored."
A concern - to me would be something like "Is there reason to believe vaccines cause autism?". Which considering how many studies are done about those two things in various respects. You would have to be a little thick to believe the concern is getting ignored. If you are instead referring your statements about how your ideas about the research that needs to be done are the only ones that count. You have given no reason other than that you'll shout and complain - and you seem oblivious as to why that isn't responded to - as to why, and I apologize that this is ungentle anyone at all should listen to your ideas.
Considering that you didn't appear know how or the importance of doing a test of statistical power before determining your sample size. I think you'll agree that it's a good thing you aren't driving the research bus.
"i asked you on the other thread to show me the research that shows vaccines are not responsible for causing autism. and i ask you again let us see the links so we can evaluate the research in full."
I pointed you to one in this thread but man...your arrogance. You crack me up!
"it is a parent's understanding of autism in their own child that can be used to give a far better understanding of autism in general."
Likewise it can be used to produce a catastrophically worse understanding of the disease in general - autism in particular. So that's not a very good argument.
"one individually may not be sufficient but by researchers not realizing that when we are pressing so hard"
Which is likely a false assumption. I very much doubt that any researcher in the autism field hasn't heard of the kerfufffle surrounding vaccines.
"because we are concerned about things like vaccines that perhaps we as parents are seeing something they dont."
...and conversely that you might be seeing something that really isn't there. Specifically about vaccines considering that a) There has been research on autism and vaccines. b) Your sample has at least three kinds of bias in it which make it unfit for analysis. c) Researchers already work with samples at least an order of magnitude larger than your direct experience. I'd simply say the odds aren't in your favor.
If you are an indication of the kind of information I'd get as a researcher I'd also add some other difficulties. You seem blissfully unaware of why basic science is important to a theory, how to actually construct a usefully falsifiable hypothesis and the feasibility constraints on research.
"i will go back to a previous arguement you made against dr wakefield"
My opinion of Wakefield is limited to his belief in a causative correlation between MMR and autism. At best he made an error based on a small sub-sample (six of eight cases) pre-selected for developmental disorders using data self-reported four years after the fact. Given the small size of the sample, the lack of information about variance in the report dates, lack of information about variance in onset. There is absolutely nothing of statistical note can be derived from the values he records.
"perhaps you might want to ask a few autistic parents just how common this issue is."
How many would be adequate? How do you elimnate all the biases? What would be the predictive power of the result?
Fact of the matter is Wakefield made his name and his theory not on gastroenterology but on six observational samples with no information as to how to evaluate them. Studies with much larger sample sizes and much better randomization (one just came out this year in May's Ped. Inf. Dis. using a sample 15x larger than Wakefield) show no correlation between MMR and autism onset. It's very difficult in light of studies like these to take Wakefield very seriously.
"parents of autistic children fighting to have their concerns addressed are being ignored."
A concern - to me would be something like "Is there reason to believe vaccines cause autism?". Which considering how many studies are done about those two things in various respects. You would have to be a little thick to believe the concern is getting ignored. If you are instead referring your statements about how your ideas about the research that needs to be done are the only ones that count. You have given no reason other than that you'll shout and complain - and you seem oblivious as to why that isn't responded to - as to why, and I apologize that this is ungentle anyone at all should listen to your ideas.
Considering that you didn't appear know how or the importance of doing a test of statistical power before determining your sample size. I think you'll agree that it's a good thing you aren't driving the research bus.
"i asked you on the other thread to show me the research that shows vaccines are not responsible for causing autism. and i ask you again let us see the links so we can evaluate the research in full."
I pointed you to one in this thread but man...your arrogance. You crack me up!
the only one i can find mentioned in this thread i find totally amusing (also the same one mentioned in this post so no not being arrogant)
METHODS: Data on autism diagnosis and vaccination history were from physicians. Data on the other probable autism risk factors were collected from mothers. Logistic conditional regression was used to assess the risk of autism resulting from vaccination. Assessment was made for children vaccinated (1) Before diagnosis of autism, and (2) Before first symptoms of autism onset. Odds ratios were adjusted to mother's age, medication during pregnancy, gestation time, perinatal injury and Apgar score.
this study was weighted by age, medication mother took and length of pregnancy as well as perinatal injury and apgar score.
which means that the relevance of it as just looking at vaccines as related to autism is moot.
i am not saying that these factors in and of themselves cannot influence or even potentially be the actual cause of autism however when data specifically relevant to other causes is factored in and used to weight the results any specific desired outcome can be claimed depending on the amount of weight put on any individual factor.
if you were instead say grouping individuals regarding those factors and then calling both groups equal it could be relative but to use these factors to increase or decrease the weight of the outcome does nothing but muddy the waters and posits false conclusions that are not actually in evidence.
"so no not being arrogant"
Seriously? I think you are the most arrogant person I've talked to this month. You repeatedly assert knowledge you either don't have (like how to design a study, even a feeble understanding of statistics) or can't possibly have (like knowledge of all chemistry or all genetic disorders). You dismiss studies you haven't even read at all. Come on. Really? In this particular case you didn't even get WHAT was arrogant about your statement. That doesn't actually win any points on the humility scale.
"which means that the relevance of it as just looking at vaccines as related to autism is moot."
Which wasn't what was being talked about at the time...
"when data specifically relevant to other causes is factored in and used to weight the results any specific desired outcome can be claimed depending on the amount of weight put on any individual factor"
Which factor(s) are you complaining about inclusion here?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
this 2010 study links Hep and autism
http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/articlerender.cgi?artid=129946
this one here eliminated the majority of the DSM-IV-TR autism classifications with the exception of core autism again skewing the resulsts and if some were aware they would call for the removal of the study based on this exemption alone (aspergers also is part of the autism spectrum and eliminating them actually messes up the data and eliminates a possible match for the question)
No, Carl try to focus. Which factors included in the study being discussed were you complaining about.
(That isn't to say that I'm not interested in analyzing those studies but your knowledge of statistics is pretty bad. Really bad. Horribly so and you are prone to dismiss things that you haven't even read. So it stands to reason that we need to understand precisely what you are objecting to in order to eliminate the above disorder)
this has nothing to do with science and all to do with common sense.
looking at the first study i mentioned it clearly says "this study was weighted by age, medication mother took and length of pregnancy as well as perinatal injury and apgar score."
now if you are trying to eliminate vaccines as a cause of autism then you cannot weight the significance of the autism just because the mother happened to be 40 or got sick etc..
any time a scientist "weights" data it skews it to public perception as far as we are concerned that weight could be arbitrarily designed to eliminate the possibility of vaccines causing autism.
if you are taking a study with factors of this nature then you have to choose subjects such that these factors become a non issue.
'now if you are trying to eliminate vaccines as a cause of autism then you cannot weight the significance of the autism just because the mother happened to be 40 or got sick etc..'
Prove that weighting (or normalization) can not increase result accuracy.
i am not saying weighting cant increase accuracy tho unless there is some new research i have not heard of a mothers age should not be part of the equation (a fathers age should)
however the issue is from a different perspective. in an issue this contentious (vaccines/autism) anything that is not 100% clear is not helpful (there is many parents who believe that the pharmacueticals are well aware of a link and will do anything to bury any researcher who hints at a link simply because the payouts would bankrupt them).
if you have a target audience with this level of emotion you need to do everything possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety and that means making sure no part of the study can be considered open to interpretation (weighting definitely can be considered open to interpretation)
"i am not saying weighting cant increase accuracy"
So it can then. Good. Now demonstrate that this paper used it in a way that decreases accuracy. Otherwise it stands in my original usage as reasonably objective evidence that MMR is unrelated to autism. Furthermore it is considerably better than the evidence that Wakefield presented (and I'm being kind and generous to Wakefield here) which YOU pointed out was suggestive. Ergo if you are being fair with the evidence then it not only should be stronger counter than Wakefield, et al was suggestive it also means that you shouldn't have dismissed the paper out-of-hand.
Once you admit (or refute) that we can get on to your (pretty amusing) Heb B study and your other stuff.
actually i am not looking at wakefield re: the MMR personally i am not sure linking to any specific vaccine is completely accurate at all (hep b included) what i find interesting with wakefield's study(and dont think should be discounted at all) is the link between autism and the gastronomic issues which i have seen some experience with (the levels i have seen lead me to not believe that what was seen is quite as common as you might want to believe)
my issue with weighting is not it's accuracy it is the appearance of impropriety which i think is a major issue in all autism/vaccine testing due to the highly controversial nature of a possible link. I also have a problem with any weighting based on mothers age as unless something i have not seen has shown up in the last month or two it is only the father's age that is relative to the babies development(and while i am skeptical of this i also tentatively accept it because i actually can follow the science)
"actually i am not looking at wakefield re: the MMR"
And what you actually said in a discussion about vaccines and autism was...
"Wakefield suggested that the links he saw were strong enough to merit additional study. This is the same as the link to autism (merit's additional study).
now as a parent of an autistic child i do have to agree with him on this. It does merit further study."
As shown by this study, no it doesn't ("futher" means "more research than there is". Assuming that you knew all relevant research is of course...)
"i am not sure linking to any specific vaccine is completely accurate at all"
It is certainly an outcome that you and Wakefield thought needed to be tested. We now know within a measurable certainty that Wakefield's position was incorrect (even though by his...uh...insufficient data analysis should have told you that). Nice backpedaling by-the-by.
"what i find interesting with wakefield's study(and dont think should be discounted at all) is the link between autism and the gastronomic issues"
Which has nothing to do with any subject we have talked on in any paragraph. A pretty phenomenal missing of the point.
"(the levels i have seen lead me to not believe that what was seen is quite as common as you might want to believe)"
A pretty vacuous statement. The problem with experiences is already stated. What "I might want to believe" is really of no consequence at all.
"my issue with weighting is not it's accuracy it is the appearance of impropriety which i think"
...is beside any useful point or that's what you should think. Statisticians have three mutually exclusive choices. Include risk groups, select them out or normalize for risk. Generally the right thing to do is to normalize and unarguably so in this case. The notion that it was an improper here is, quite simply ignorance of the consequence of doing so. This pretty firmly argues against your thesis that you personally or anyone that you claim to speak for can just "crack a textbook" and gain an understanding of statistics. As above ceteris paribus anything else would have reduced the quality of the study. It is irrational to do bad science because you don't understand the difference.
"I also have a problem with any weighting based on mothers age as unless something"
Since the issue at hand is "is this good evidence". This is a completely invalid criticism. Argumentum ignorantiam - the the fact that you do not know something does not cast doubt on it's truth. Considering that you promoted a weighted study linking Hep B to autism and rejected out-of-hand a study rejecting the link between MMR and autism because it had weighting. What should be dismissed here (or at least called into serious question) is your ability to fairly judge the evidence.
two problems i have with the way you interpret things
i say it merits further study does not mean i fully support it
two just because i posted a link showing hep b linked to autism does not mean i completely agree with it (in fact i said i wasnt sure a single vaccine caused autism on its own)
on its own i dont support weighted studies
and under no circumstances should a mothers age be weighted when discussion mental illnesses this is not and never has been a factor.
you are too quick to dismiss the intelligence of your opposition. The larger portion of those who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are higher wage earners which generally means university educated people. Some of your arguements are aimed specifically at denigrating my understanding of autism. Regardless of your opinion of how I came to understand autism it is the fact that I have to deal with it on a daily basis that means I do spend a good portion of my time looking into various details. You may not like my opinions and you may not like how they are formed but dismissing my opinions and those in the autism community that think like me is not helpful to improving vaccination records.
when i say i think something needs to be tested and at the same time say i dont believe any "specific" vaccine is at issue. They are not mutually exclusive positions. Wakefields conclusions have merit regardless of the ethics issues involved his opinions do need to be looked at closely because at least some of them (believable to you or not) are not completely innaccurate.
I feel he made a stretch linking the three things together. MMR/Autism/gastrointestinal issues however i do still believe that the MMR/Autism link needs to be investigated and so does the Gastrointestinal/Autism link.
"i say it merits further study does not mean i fully support it"
If Wakefield implies further study on the MMR/Autism link (and if Wakefield had nothing to do with your argument then you should have left him out) then the better designed, better analyzed study dismisses that implication - if, and only if you are weighing the evidence fairly.
"just because i posted a link showing hep b linked to autism does not mean i completely agree with it"
You don't have to completely agree with it. All you have to do to violate fair handling of the data is not completely disagree with it. As you dismissed the other study because of normalized data, you should equally have dismissed the heb B - or never mentioned it. I suspect you didn't actually read the study because there's some even worse things in there and now you are backpedaling (Why mention a study with little useful information?)
"and under no circumstances should a mothers age be weighted when discussion mental illnesses this is not and never has been a factor."
Whew! I have a bunch of comments here. One you've shifted from a position of "I've never heard of" to "this should never happen". You can't conclude the later without a study showing no correlation. To claim otherwise is arrogant bordering on solipsistic.
Secondly in doing that shift you're obviously rationalizing your flimsy belief. Rather than allow counter evidence to erode your belief you have increased the weighting on the remaining evidence.
Oh and if you actually looked you would see Multiple meta-analysis dating back at least to 2009 showing a correlation between maternal age and autism. The research itself seems to go back to at least the early 2000s.
"you are too quick to dismiss the intelligence of your opposition."
Firstly since I'm not dismissing anyone's intelligence. I'm talking about your ability to understand statistical method, your ability interpret statistics and your ability at formal logic, and possibly your knowledge of biology.
"The larger portion of those who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are higher wage earners which generally means university educated people."
*sigh* Tell you what. Let's turn this into an exercise. Why don't you get me the exact figures from a study that shows the proportion of non-vaccinating parents who have university degrees or better (or whatever your proxy is). The study *MUST* pass simple tests of representation e.g. z-score, etc...
...and I'll see if I can help you figure out why you're making a pretty dumb argument (note that I am not 'denigrating' you. Just the argument).
"Some of your arguements are aimed specifically at denigrating my understanding of autism."
No, I'm attacking your CONFIDENCE in the generality of your beliefs about autism. Different thing entirely.
"Regardless of your opinion"
If were talking about the same bit...it's not merely an opinion.
"You may not like my opinions and you may not like how they are formed but dismissing my opinions and those in the autism community that think like me is not helpful to improving vaccination records."
Firstly, I'm not being dismissive - I am not out-of-hand rejecting the possibility you are correct (like you did with studies you haven't read).
You have simply presented no reason to accept the generality you presume on some your opinions. These opinions fly in the face of much higher quality bodies of evidence.
So all I'm really doing is reiterating the obvious fact that your opinion is not so important that it gets taken above better evidence.
Also considering that you claim to vaccinate your children and assuming that you will not stop vaccinating simply out of spite. Taking that into account with the assumption that this is a pretty low-traffic blog I doubt I'm doing much harm to vaccination rates - also just a word - You know how many of your arguments are thuggish appeals to how many people you claim to represent? You have also provided little in the way of evidence that you represent anyone other than yourself. So I take that with a grain of salt too.
"You may not like my opinions and you may not like how they are formed but dismissing my opinions and those in the autism community that think like me is not helpful to improving vaccination records."
Firstly, I'm not being dismissive - I am not out-of-hand rejecting the possibility you are correct (like you did with studies you haven't read).
You have simply presented no reason to accept the generality you presume on some your opinions. These opinions fly in the face of much higher quality bodies of evidence.
So all I'm really doing is reiterating the obvious fact that your opinion is not so important that it gets taken above better evidence.
Also considering that you claim to vaccinate your children and assuming that you will not stop vaccinating simply out of spite. Taking that into account with the assumption that this is a pretty low-traffic blog I doubt I'm doing much harm to vaccination rates - also just a word - You know how many of your arguments are thuggish appeals to how many people you claim to represent? You have also provided little in the way of evidence that you represent anyone other than yourself. So I take that with a grain of salt too.
'when i say i think something needs to be tested and at the same time say i dont believe any "specific" vaccine is at issue. They are not mutually exclusive positions.'
Good. Never said they were.
"I feel he made a stretch linking the three things together. MMR/Autism/gastrointestinal issues however i do still believe that the MMR/Autism link needs to be investigated"
Oh that's quaint. A "stretch" is it? Just as how 12 Head CT's might "stretch" ethics? Do you ever listen to yourself? You attenuate criticism to opinions you hold and over emphasize criticism to positions you don't. It's like watching someone brainwash themselves.
Anyway so I take it you didn't understand anything about what I said about Wakefield linking MMR and autism did you? If you did, you should be able to say where I was wrong but you probably can not. I gave you an argument based on how Wakefield couldn't have the information he needed to make that conclusion. You...you just have a "feeling" or an "opinion".
So considering that I've already provided you with evidence "de-linking" autism and MMR and I've dealt with your prejudice considering risk normalization and specifically your ignorance of the correlation concerning maternal age and atusim...How did the study I presented not test that specific hypothesis? Hmmm?
"You may not like my opinions and you may not like how they are formed but dismissing my opinions and those in the autism community that think like me is not helpful to improving vaccination records."
Firstly, I'm not being dismissive - I am not out-of-hand rejecting the possibility you are correct (like you did with studies you haven't read).
You have simply presented no reason to accept the generality you presume on some your opinions. These opinions fly in the face of much higher quality bodies of evidence.
So all I'm really doing is reiterating the obvious fact that your opinion is not so important that it gets taken above better evidence.
Also considering that you claim to vaccinate your children and assuming that you will not stop vaccinating simply out of spite. Taking that into account with the assumption that this is a pretty low-traffic blog I doubt I'm doing much harm to vaccination rates - also just a word - You know how many of your arguments are thuggish appeals to how many people you claim to represent? You have also provided little in the way of evidence that you represent anyone other than yourself. So I take that with a grain of salt too.
'when i say i think something needs to be tested and at the same time say i dont believe any "specific" vaccine is at issue. They are not mutually exclusive positions.'
Good. Never said they were.
"I feel he made a stretch linking the three things together. MMR/Autism/gastrointestinal issues however i do still believe that the MMR/Autism link needs to be investigated"
Oh that's quaint. A "stretch" is it? Just as how 12 Head CT's might "stretch" ethics? Do you ever listen to yourself? You attenuate criticism to opinions you hold and over emphasize criticism to positions you don't. It's like watching someone brainwash themselves.
Anyway so I take it you didn't understand anything about what I said about Wakefield linking MMR and autism did you? If you did, you should be able to say where I was wrong but you probably can not. I gave you an argument based on how Wakefield couldn't have the information he needed to make that conclusion. You...you just have a "feeling" or an "opinion".
So considering that I've already provided you with evidence "de-linking" autism and MMR and I've dealt with your prejudice considering risk normalization and specifically your ignorance of the correlation concerning maternal age and atusim...How did the study I presented not test that specific hypothesis? Hmmm?
I do apologize for my my frequent double posts. There are several length filters in place on your blog. Some on the authentication mechanisms which varies with the mechanism used. They report errors sometimes and succeed and report errors and fail on others they also incorrectly - or inaccurately report length violations. Also there seems to be a length component to the "Spam" filter. Which cause some postings to appear for a very brief time and then disappear. I'm going to try (like I did at the end there) to make the chunks as small as possible.
as far as the spam filter i look for your comments there and put them on the board
as for the duplicates i will erase the duplicates like i did up above but if one has more information i will keep that one
as for the rest i will work on explaining my position further in a few minutes
Ohhhhhkay...let me see if I understand things here. You don't believe that "weighting" as wrong in and of itself and you seem open to the idea that it is potentially good. However we should avoid using it because some group of parents of autistic children mistrust it.
Now take that sentence and replace the noun "weighting" and it's pronouns with "black doctors". Now perhaps you can explain why the people you are referring to aren't just hopelessly prejudiced.
The idea that people who use "weighting" are part of the secret order of evil autism researchers and it's likely that they will use these elements to shift data to get a desired outcome.
Knowing something of the peer review process I find it hard to believe that no reviewer would require or ask for reference material regarding weighting values and since a little googling reveals research showing each one of those to be risk factors. It seems a pretty reasonable assumption. Even if the evil researcher could pick and choose between multiple weighting values. It's pretty normal from what I see for there to be questions if a lower quality element was chosen over a higher quality one. Even so given that all of these are not large in effect compared to the alleged increase in autism prevalence. The result still relegates the involvement of MMR to virtually nothing.
I dunno what's going on in your head man but this is pretty weak sauce. Are you sure you're not rationalizing things here?
basically put i dont like weighting because it reduces transparency
now linking weighting and black doctors is just about enough to make me laugh
i do find it interesting tho that larry at least has the balls to stand behind his decisions with his full name you cant even bring yourself to acknowledge who you are.
if you believe in your position at least have the balls to put your name to it.
i believe in mine and i do.
Well that explanation leaves out everything important. To wit: What is transparency?, To whom is it being reduced? By how much is it being reduced and why is that threshold relevant when compared with the loss of precision.
Might have well said "Reduces philogistine".
You're not being terribly honest about your prejudices either. I'm not linking "weighting" to "black doctors" I'm taking the arguments you made about "weighting" and showed how they were prejudicial. If those are no longer your arguments - fine. But for someone who went on and on about their balls you'd think you would have enough to recant your earlier statements.
Real names? So you think "Larry"'s last name is "Boberry" do you?
Post a Comment