Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 127
  1. #11
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Again, the conspiracy theory quacks provide the scientific community with a good laugh. It even comes with the conspiracy quacks turning on each other!

    Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism ? Respectful Insolence

    An analysis of the...uhh..scenario.

  2. #12
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Again, the conspiracy theory quacks provide the scientific community with a good laugh. It even comes with the conspiracy quacks turning on each other!

    Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism ? Respectful Insolence

    An analysis of the...uhh..scenario.
    1. The specific results of Wakefield's research have been validated over and over again by independent researchers. You clearly have no idea what the results of his research actually showed. See my previous thread links for further information.

    2. This blogger apparently misunderstands the nature of the research. The initial CDC study wasn't a simple 'vaccinated vs. unvaccinated' comparison. It studied the significance of the age of vaccination. This should have been apparent, considering that its title began with the word "Age".

    3. Neither you, nor this particular blogger, qualify as the 'scientific community'. You're a typical psuedo-skeptic and your worship of the state-sponsored psuedo-science is noted.

  3. #13
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I realize the above post was not directed at me, but I would proudly accept the label of "skeptic." The blogger link provided a data point that, if true, guts (for me) the re-analysis in the OP:
    Hooker had a limited dataset to work with when he boiled it down to African-American baby boys. ... he tells us that he had to modify the analysis to 31 months instead of 36 because he had less than 5 children in that group.
    That is WAY too small of a sample size to get any meaningful results for that subset.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  4. #14
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    T.Lex, I am quite confused by this blogger. This is his complaint:

    The nail in the coffin for the Hooker paper is that autism is usually diagnosed by the time a child is three years old. There was no increased risk at 18 months, higher but not by a whole lot at 24, and then the three-fold increase at 36 months. Gee, was it the MMR vaccine, mister? No, the effect is being modified by age. It’s as if I asked you if your shoe size was bigger at 36 months because you drank milk vs because you were 36 months. It’s age. It’s the way that autism is diagnosed. You’re going to have more children diagnosed as autistic at 36 months than you will at 18 months or at 24 months.
    And I believe he is talking about this paragraph in Dr. Hooker's study:

    In the present study, frequencies of cases were determined for first MMR ages of less than versus greater than 18 months, 24 months and 36 months in each separate analysis. When accounting for cases in the cohort that excluded low birth weight (<2500 g) African American children, it was necessary to report results at 31 months rather than 36 months in order to avoid reporting data from age categories or "cells" that possessed less than 5 individuals.
    I don't believe that this blogger is correct. The study is clearly talking about the age at which the MMR was administered, while this blogger seems to think that it is comparing the age of the child being studied.

    As for your comments about sample size, do you know what the actual sample size of african american males was? While your point about sample size is valid and important, we would need to know the sample size that they had to work with before I could comment further.

    And finally, please don't confuse my terminology of 'skeptic' vs. 'psuedo-skeptic'. A healthy skepticism about things is certainly a good practice. Blindly rejecting every idea that runs contrary to the agenda of the 'scientific establishment' is not.

  5. #15
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    I realize the above post was not directed at me, but I would proudly accept the label of "skeptic." The blogger link provided a data point that, if true, guts (for me) the re-analysis in the OP:


    That is WAY too small of a sample size to get any meaningful results for that subset.
    You mean the exact mistake Wakefield is famous for? That would never happen in the quack conspiracy community.

    Some more analysis of this latest laugher.

    Andrew Jeremy Wakefield plays video director while African-American Babies die, or something | The Poxes Blog

  6. #16
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by level.eleven
    You mean the exact mistake Wakefield is famous for? That would never happen in the quack conspiracy community.
    Wakefield acknowledged the small sample size of his data in the study and in his comments about the study. He simply called for further research. You clearly have zero knowledge about this situation. Again, feel free to educate yourself: http://ingunowners.com/forums/genera...myth-fact.html

    Quote Originally Posted by level.eleven
    Do you even read the stuff you post? This isn't 'more' analysis, it's the same blogger that your first blogger was quoting in his own blog.

  7. #17
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Well, the fact that the re-analysis doesn't specify sample sizes, I am (wait for it) skeptical. I don't read scientific literature daily or even weekly. But over the years, I've read MANY scientific studies. It strikes me as the rare example that doesn't include sample sizes, at least in footnotes or endnotes.

    But, I believe the blogger is correct. My interpretation of the study's note is:
    - (I think this one is clear) he broke it down into the 18mo, 24mo, 36mo categories
    - (This one not completely clear, but I believe) both studies (the original and the reanalysis) excluded low birth weight babies to control for that criterion (I believe other studies have already found a correlation there)
    - (This is where it gets funky) the re-analysis had to shift the categorization down to 31mos from 36mos otherwise there would be fewer than 5 African American, male, (non-low-birthweight) cohort children.

    So, he re-tabulated the results to get a defensible (in his eyes) number of data points - that is, more than 5. I have to believe, even fudging the dates, the comparison-sample size was very small.

    I guess there are really 2 issues - he isn't really comparing the "new" results to the original ones, if he is changing the dates; and he's changing the dates to get a defensible sample size.

    For the record, let me say I'm skeptical of the CDC's conclusions, too, but that's more out of habit. Analytically, I think there is less wrong with the original analysis than the re-analysis.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  8. #18
    Grandmaster steveh_131's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex
    - (I think this one is clear) he broke it down into the 18mo, 24mo, 36mo categories
    Yes, except the blogger seems to mistakenly think that these numbers represent the ages of the children. They don't. The numbers represent the cut-off age for the age at which they received their first MMR vaccination.

    (This is where it gets funky) the re-analysis had to shift the categorization down to 31mos from 36mos otherwise there would be fewer than 5 African American, male, (non-low-birthweight) cohort children.
    It was fewer than 5 per cell, not fewer than 5 total.

    But I'll agree that a larger sample size would be helpful and that this should be a call for further research, as the study itself says if you read the conclusion.

  9. #19
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    T. Lex, this may help. It is a little heavier on the statistical jargon, but readable. Of course, Hooker is currently involved with some litigation concerning his autistic son and vaccines.

    Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn?t cause autism ? EpidemioLogical

  10. #20
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by steveh_131 View Post
    Yes, except the blogger seems to mistakenly think that these numbers represent the ages of the children. They don't. The numbers represent the cut-off age for the age at which they received their first MMR vaccination.
    I may misunderstand, but I think all the authors recognize that as the age brackets of when the children received the vaccines.

    It was fewer than 5 per cell, not fewer than 5 total.
    I believe they mean "cell" as in "group of children that fit the criteria." So, a cell of "36mo or older, African American, males" would have had less than 5 members. So, they shifted the cutoff to 31mo to reach the >5 level.

    But I'll agree that a larger sample size would be helpful and that this should be a call for further research, as the study itself says if you read the conclusion.
    I did.

    If you read the original CDC paper, you will see that they identify areas where more study may be necessary. For example:
    In the present study, we were not able to evaluate the potential association between thimerosal exposure and autism.
    Other than in the area of climate change, I think you would be hard pressed to find scientists that would discourage further study of an issue. At least, I would be (again) skeptical of any scientist that said we already know enough.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •