Jump to content

RFK, Jr. Reportedly Compares Vaccinations To The Holocaust


DKW 86

Recommended Posts

are you saying you can only be totally for vaccinations and not question side effects or totally against their effectiveness and blame them for every unidentified mental illness out there? Being a little skeptic is much the opposite of jerking off than standing blindly on one side of the fence or the other.

You're the one that borrowed a PowerPoint from a raging vaccine denialist website. Bet you never bothered to check the citations in those slides, huh? For another thing, didn't you note how often they cite themselves?

That says a lot about the position you claim to hold, and none of it good. I'll post my observations from the first three slides after my wife falls asleep. It's a lot of information. I'll wrap up the rest tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

$ alone is one thing driving this. hell look at cholesterol meds 26billion a year and no proof it helps.. i am not against vaccinations. i am for them. i am just not convinced they are not causing autism to get where it is.

You're committing tactic commonly employed by vaccine denialists. "I'm not against vaccinations! I think they're great! I just have questions about their safety!"

I like to refer to it as JAQing off.

are you saying you can only be totally for vaccinations and not question side effects or totally against their effectiveness and blame them for every unidentified mental illness out there? Being a little skeptic is much the opposite of jerking off than standing blindly on one side of the fence or the other.

It boils down to individual liberty. I favor the freedom of choice like you do. Like ben, they'll give you all the alarmist rhetoric about public safety health hazards and all that and even if thats true which I clearly doubt, the government does not have the authority to force people to have vaccines. Legal authority is different from political power though because it is legitimate. What makes legal authority legitimate is that it is bound by the law and ethics while political power, especially of late, sees both as secondary considerations only. What are they going to do? Throw people in jail for not taking their vaccines? Personally I dont do vaccines and haven't been sick in 25 years. The last time I got a flu shot I got the flu and that had a significant impact on my view of vaccines in general.

i get a flu shot when it is convenient at work. it is not very effective but for an adult i see no harm. the neurological system is developed between birth and 4-5 years of age. that is the time that this would be causing autism if it is. i have a good friend who is a medical professional. he asks why would you vaccinate a child for HPV when they are years shy of sexual activity? and he also asked why would you not want a child to get chicken pox? it is not dangerous and builds your immune system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you saying you can only be totally for vaccinations and not question side effects or totally against their effectiveness and blame them for every unidentified mental illness out there? Being a little skeptic is much the opposite of jerking off than standing blindly on one side of the fence or the other.

You're the one that borrowed a PowerPoint from a raging vaccine denialist website. Bet you never bothered to check the citations in those slides, huh? For another thing, didn't you note how often they cited themselves?

That says a lot about the position you claim to hold, and none of it good. I'll post my observations from the first three slides after my wife falls asleep. It's a lot of information. I'll wrap up the rest tomorrow.

i have more coming too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you saying you can only be totally for vaccinations and not question side effects or totally against their effectiveness and blame them for every unidentified mental illness out there? Being a little skeptic is much the opposite of jerking off than standing blindly on one side of the fence or the other.

You're the one that borrowed a PowerPoint from a raging vaccine denialist website. Bet you never bothered to check the citations in those slides, huh? For another thing, didn't you note how often they cited themselves?

That says a lot about the position you claim to hold, and none of it good. I'll post my observations from the first three slides after my wife falls asleep. It's a lot of information. I'll wrap up the rest tomorrow.

i have more coming too.

Of course. I always come into these conversations expecting to be Gish Galloped into oblivion. Meaning, having a number of inane points thrown out there in an effort to overwhelm me. "Since he couldn't respond to all of them, I've proven my point." :rolleyes:

It's a tactic I'm all too familiar with.

If you really wanted to impress me, question the info in my response before presenting more sources. If you're going to throw a ton of info at me, at least debate the topic in a fair manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benefits of immunization

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and prevents between 2 and 3 million deaths every year. From infants to senior citizens, immunization prevents debilitating illness, disability and death from vaccine-preventable diseases such as diphtheria, hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, pneumococcal disease, polio, rotavirus diarrhoea, tetanus and yellow fever. The benefits of immunization are increasingly being extended to adolescents and adults, providing protection against life-threatening diseases such as influenza, meningitis, and cancers (e.g. cervical and liver cancers) that occur in adulthood.

Ironically, the fact that immunization has made many infectious diseases rare or almost unheard of can lead to the opinion among parents and health professionals that immunization is no longer necessary. Due to gaps in vaccination coverage, diseases like diphtheria, measles and polio are making a comeback. Disease outbreaks affect everyone.

http://www.who.int/i...information/en/

Why should I care about vaccines?

No child should have to die. Yet each year 1.5 million children die from diseases that could have been prevented with vaccines.1 These needless deaths are a profound loss of human potential.

New vaccines have recently become available that prevent pneumonia and severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus—two of the leading killers of children under five. Together, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines can prevent almost 3.9 million child deaths by 2015.

http://www.action.or...cine-fact-sheet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, alexava. I've had chance to tear into the PP and follow its sources, what I've found is not good for your argument. Not that you should have expected it to be, given that it was yanked from a vaccine denialist loon zone. Hope you survive this. Throwing a Gish Gallop at me gets long detailed answers. :bananadance:

Slide 1:

OK, so it's the title page. No glaring errors here. :big:

Slide 2:

OK, everything is fine until they get to the final two bullet points of the slide, where they cite their own website.

For one, it immediately links to a paragraph that is premised on a strawman. That the medical community at large considers autism the "New Normal," which is not in the least bit true, and that the medical community at large is unaware of the various comorbid conditions that manifest with autism. There are also major problems with the Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review paper cited therein, which I'll be happy to detail, if you so ask. Off hand, one that sticks out is that he obviously hasn't a damn clue what he's talking about. There is no human DNA in the MMR or HEP B vaccine.

For another, they linked an entire cabinet committee meeting (338 pages) without detailing the relevant portions. Not cool. Pages 76-78, if you're looking.

Slide 3:

Everything is fine until bullet point number 4.

In bullet point number 4, they cite a HuffPo article which itself cites a 2010 paper called "Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence" McDonald and Paul, 2010. The paper has made very little, if any, impact on the scientific community. But it has become part of the stable of poor quality papers used by those claiming that vaccines caused an autism epidemic.

In 2010 a paper was published called “Timing of increased autistic disorder cumulative incidence.” The paper has made very little, if any, impact on the scientific community. But it has become part of the stable of poor quality papers used by those claiming that vaccines caused an autism epidemic.

The paper took data from other published papers and applied a “hockey-stick” analysis to try to identify change points in the administrative prevalence of autism in California, Japan and Denmark. Here’s the main figure from that paper (click to enlarge)

figure-1-from-timing-paper.png?w=372&h=300

The idea of a hockey-stick analysis is to fit the data to two lines of different slopes which meet at a change point. Those two lines look like a hockey stick, hence the name. For multiple reasons, I believe this analysis was not appropriate for these data.

The paper is being discussed in the literature. Once by Helen Ratajczak in her review paper Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes – A review. Another citation comes from a published response to that review: Coincidental associations do not provide proof for the etiology of autism. Also “Hypothesis: Conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders“.

NOTE FROM BIGBENS42: Notice the first paper in the above paragraph has come up before.

Two additional papers citing the Timing paper include “Mast cell activation and autism” (funded by the National Autism Association, an organization which promotes the vaccine-autism epidemic idea) and “Oxytocin and autism: a hypothesis to research. Can perinatal oxitocinergic manipulation facilitate autism?” (in Spanish).

In my view, much like Ms. Ratajczak’s review, the major impact of “Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence” has not been in the scientific literature. An internet search quickly shows that both papers have been quite well received by those promoting vaccines as a cause of autism, both within part of the autism/parent community and from the anti-abortion community. The “Timing” paper was immediately promoted by David Kirby in an article at the Huffington Post (Mr. Kirby was a major promoter of the idea that mercury caused an autism epidemic). The paper has since been picked up by many, including Andrew Wakefield who attempts to give his interpretation of a “hockey stick” analysis in his talks (click to enlarge):

wakefield-jamaica.png

The “Timing” paper is, quite frankly, weak at best. Weak enough that I am unsure why the authors’ superiors at the EPA chose to approve it even with the disclaimer, “Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency” (a disclaimer which Mr. Kirby ignored as he made comments like “according to the EPA” in his piece). With much better analyses of the California Data by Peter Bearman’s group at Columbia and Irva Hertz-Picciotto‘s group at U.C. Davis, the time for such simple analyses as in the MacDonald and Paul paper is past. Especially in a highly charged area such as autism.

If I had room given the word count restrictions on a reply I would have included some of these points. Instead in “Comment on Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence” I focused on three points. First, the source that MacDonald and Paul used for their California data has a very clear and explicit disclaimer about the fact that those data are not high enough quality for scientific research. Second, the data are exponential. One can fit a “hockey-stick” to exponential data but the results are meaningless. There is no change point in an exponential curve. Third, plotting the data shows that there are change points, but at 1960 and 1974, not 1988 as MacDonald and Paul claimed from fitting one of the exponential regions of data.

In their original paper, MacDonald and Paul point out: “All data were taken from the publications with no attempt to access the original data.” This, as I pointed out in my comment, was unfortunate because the CDDS makes their data available to the public. This would allow one to double check hypotheses, such as whether a “hockey-stick” analysis is appropriate. For many reasons, it is an inappropriate analysis.

First, the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) make it clear that these data are not to be used to draw scientific conclusions. From the report where the EPA authors gathered their data:

The information presented in this report is purely descriptive in nature and standing alone, should not be used to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the incidence or prevalence of ASD in California. The numbers of persons with ASD described in this report reflect point-in-time counts and do not constitute formal epidemiological measures of incidence or prevalence. The information contained in this report is limited by factors such as case finding, accuracy of diagnosis and the recording, on an individual basis, of a large array of information contained in the records of persons comprising California’s Developmental Services System. Finally, it is important to note that entry into the California Developmental Services System is voluntary. This may further alter the data presented herein relative to the actual population of persons with autism in California.

If one ignores this major point (as the EPA authors did), there are still other reasons why their analysis method is inappropriate. One big reason is that trying to look for a single “change point” year in California isn’t supported by the data. The fact that autism rates vary dramatically by geography within California (as shown by both Prof. Hertz-Picciotto’s group and Prof Bearman’s group) points away from any universal exposure (such as vaccines). The data I have from the CDDS which breaks down the counts by region only go back to the early 1990’s, so with this and space considerations I did not included these data. These geographic data make it clear that not only do the autism rates vary by region, the time trends of those rates vary a great deal from one region to another. In other words, what is a change point for one region may not be one for another. Applying a single change point to all of California is not warranted using these data.

Another reason why the hockey-stick analysis is inappropriate is the fact that it forces a functional form to the data which is plainly a bad fit. A hockey-stick analysis fits the time trend to two lines with a “change point” where the lines intersect. Unfortunately, the data are exponential. The result is quite remarkable, really, given the geographic variability and the changing social influences on autism rates.

If one takes one of the CDDS datasets (I used one from 2007) and combines it with census type data, one can produce this figure (Figure 1 from the published comment):

comment-figure.png?w=450&h=363

Graphing the data on a log-normal graph such as this shows that the data are exponential. Going all the way back to birth year 1930. It isn’t a simple exponential, though. There is a region around 1960 to 1974 where the growth stalled. It is remarkable that the same time constant fits the data all the way back to 1930, with the exception of this 1960-1974 region.

Fitting exponential data to two lines just doesn’t make sense. There is no “change point” in an exponential. One can force a fit onto exponential data, but it isn’t meaningful.

Using the log-normal plot I supplied one can see that there are change points in the trend. Obvious to any observer. But they are in 1960 and 1974, not in about 1987/88 as MacDonald and Paul calculated.

As is customary, MacDonald and Paul supplied a reply to my comment. In this they make only a very brief reference to the fact that the very document from which they pulled the California data states it is inappropriate to use it the way they did: “We agree with Carey (3) that analysis of long term epidemiological studies would be desirable and that there are a number of potential confounding issues associated with analysis of administrative databases.”

One mistake I made was in not clearly spelling out that fitting a hockey-stick to exponential data is inappropriate. It is obvious, but rather than address this problem MacDonald and Paul state:

Changepoints were determined by fitting a hockey-stick model (10) to the data for each dataset. This approach uses ordered data and piecewise linear regression to split the response variable into two groups. A linear regression line is generated for each group, and the point of intersection for these regression lines and the residual sum of squares for each line are determined. The intersection point that minimizes the residual sum of squares is the changepoint.

Carey (3) used a log transformation of the cumulative incidence to produce a log-linear relationship for the CDDS data of the form: Log (Cumulative Incidence) = B0 + B1 (Year). Subsequently, he states that he could not observe changes in the log-linear relationship of CDDS cumulative incidence at or around our changepoint year of 1989, but no other analysis was performed. Examining original CDDS data in the inset of Carey’s (3) Figure 1, it certainly seems likely that there is a changepoint in the 1985-1990 range, and being unable to observe such a change in the log-linear plot may be purely an artifact of the scaling of the plot. We conducted a changepoint analysis on transformed CDDS data from 1970 to 1997 (from (7)) and found a changepoint in 1984. The shift to an earlier changepoint using the log transformed data may result from stabilization of the variance associated with the transformation, and the resulting shift in the minimization point for the residual sum of squares for the regression line for the larger cumulative incidence values in later years.

It’s an odd response. The authors are focused on defending their original result of a change point in the 1980’s rather than considering the entire new dataset. They ignore the problems inherent in claiming a change point in exponential data, but I should have stressed that more in my comment. Even if MacDonald and Paul claim it is appropriate to make this fit, they ignore the obvious change points in the log-normal graph. Consider the change point at about 1960. It is abundantly clear in the log-normal graph. In the inset of my figure, the linear graph, that change point is still obvious to the eye.

If the real goal of their work was to identify change points there is no reason to ignore those which were (a) outside of their original time span and ( B ) obvious in a different presentation of the data. This is not just flawed, it is irresponsible. They are ignoring their own stated goal:

As we point out in the paper, while artifacts associated with observed increases in various studies cannot be ruled out, from a precautionary standpoint, it seems prudent to assume that at least some portion of the observed increases in incidence is real and results from the interaction of environmental factors with genetically susceptible populations. Since exposure to environmental factors is potentially preventable, identification of relevant candidate factors should be a research priority.

Why, I would ask, are potential environmental candidates which might involve change points in 1960 and 1974 not important, but one in the late 1980’s is?

The first comment of the article also made a point I just had to share:

Interesting stuff. But I don’t see why this hockey-stick theory, even in the original form you criticize, has been so eagerly adopted by anti-vaccine types.

One could equally well say that the late 1980s represents the start of the modern era of high awareness of autism and increased diagnosis.

Notably, the original Autism Diagnostic Interview was developed in 1989… and the late 1980s was the time of the publication of many of the classic research papers that set the groundwork for the modern understanding of autism.

Bullet point number 5 doesn't link to anything.

Bullet point number 6 is mining Dr. Francis Collins' and Tom Insel's words to support their position. They're very clear on the matter of the vaccine-autism link (on there not being one.)

Slide 4:

A nonsensical graph that even goes as far as suggesting that autism is curable. They're simply summing up the prior slides and setting up for the next section, which I'll refer to as "they're not doing it right, focus more on the vaccines" which I'll continue tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benefits of immunization

Immunization is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and prevents between 2 and 3 million deaths every year. From infants to senior citizens, immunization prevents debilitating illness, disability and death from vaccine-preventable diseases such as diphtheria, hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, pneumococcal disease, polio, rotavirus diarrhoea, tetanus and yellow fever. The benefits of immunization are increasingly being extended to adolescents and adults, providing protection against life-threatening diseases such as influenza, meningitis, and cancers (e.g. cervical and liver cancers) that occur in adulthood.

Ironically, the fact that immunization has made many infectious diseases rare or almost unheard of can lead to the opinion among parents and health professionals that immunization is no longer necessary. Due to gaps in vaccination coverage, diseases like diphtheria, measles and polio are making a comeback. Disease outbreaks affect everyone.

http://www.who.int/i...information/en/

Why should I care about vaccines?

No child should have to die. Yet each year 1.5 million children die from diseases that could have been prevented with vaccines.1 These needless deaths are a profound loss of human potential.

New vaccines have recently become available that prevent pneumonia and severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus—two of the leading killers of children under five. Together, pneumococcal and rotavirus vaccines can prevent almost 3.9 million child deaths by 2015.

http://www.action.or...cine-fact-sheet

i don't dispute any of that DKw. It still am not convinced it absolutely does not cause autism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, alexava. I've had chance to tear into the PP and follow its sources, what I've found is not good for your argument. Not that you should have expected it to be, given that it was yanked from a vaccine denialist loon zone. Hope you survive this. Throwing a Gish Gallop at me gets long detailed answers. :bananadance:

Slide 1:

OK, so it's the title page. No glaring errors here. :big:

Slide 2:

OK, everything is fine until they get to the final two bullet points of the slide, where they cite their own website.

For one, it immediately links to a paragraph that is premised on a strawman. That the medical community at large considers autism the "New Normal," which is not in the least bit true, and that the medical community at large is unaware of the various comorbid conditions that manifest with autism. There are also major problems with the Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes–A review paper cited therein, which I'll be happy to detail, if you so ask. Off hand, one that sticks out is that he obviously hasn't a damn clue what he's talking about. There is no human DNA in the MMR of HEP B vaccine.

For another, they linked an entire cabinet committee meeting (338 pages) without detailing the relevant portions. Not cool. Pages 76-78, if you're looking.

Slide 3:

Everything is fine until bullet point number 4.

In bullet point number 4, they cite a HuffPo article which itself cites a 2010 paper called "Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence" McDonald and Paul, 2010. The paper has made very little, if any, impact on the scientific community. But it has become part of the stable of poor quality papers used by those claiming that vaccines caused an autism epidemic.

In 2010 a paper was published called “Timing of increased autistic disorder cumulative incidence.” The paper has made very little, if any, impact on the scientific community. But it has become part of the stable of poor quality papers used by those claiming that vaccines caused an autism epidemic.

The paper took data from other published papers and applied a “hockey-stick” analysis to try to identify change points in the administrative prevalence of autism in California, Japan and Denmark. Here’s the main figure from that paper (click to enlarge)

figure-1-from-timing-paper.png?w=372&h=300

The idea of a hockey-stick analysis is to fit the data to two lines of different slopes which meet at a change point. Those two lines look like a hockey stick, hence the name. For multiple reasons, I believe this analysis was not appropriate for these data.

The paper is being discussed in the literature. Once by Helen Ratajczak in her review paper Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes – A review. Another citation comes from a published response to that review: Coincidental associations do not provide proof for the etiology of autism. Also “Hypothesis: Conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders“.

NOTE FROM BIGBENS42: Notice the first paper in the above paragraph has come up before.

Two additional papers citing the Timing paper include “Mast cell activation and autism” (funded by the National Autism Association, an organization which promotes the vaccine-autism epidemic idea) and “Oxytocin and autism: a hypothesis to research. Can perinatal oxitocinergic manipulation facilitate autism?” (in Spanish).

In my view, much like Ms. Ratajczak’s review, the major impact of “Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence” has not been in the scientific literature. An internet search quickly shows that both papers have been quite well received by those promoting vaccines as a cause of autism, both within part of the autism/parent community and from the anti-abortion community. The “Timing” paper was immediately promoted by David Kirby in an article at the Huffington Post (Mr. Kirby was a major promoter of the idea that mercury caused an autism epidemic). The paper has since been picked up by many, including Andrew Wakefield who attempts to give his interpretation of a “hockey stick” analysis in his talks (click to enlarge):

wakefield-jamaica.png

The “Timing” paper is, quite frankly, weak at best. Weak enough that I am unsure why the authors’ superiors at the EPA chose to approve it even with the disclaimer, “Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency” (a disclaimer which Mr. Kirby ignored as he made comments like “according to the EPA” in his piece). With much better analyses of the California Data by Peter Bearman’s group at Columbia and Irva Hertz-Picciotto‘s group at U.C. Davis, the time for such simple analyses as in the MacDonald and Paul paper is past. Especially in a highly charged area such as autism.

If I had room given the word count restrictions on a reply I would have included some of these points. Instead in “Comment on Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence” I focused on three points. First, the source that MacDonald and Paul used for their California data has a very clear and explicit disclaimer about the fact that those data are not high enough quality for scientific research. Second, the data are exponential. One can fit a “hockey-stick” to exponential data but the results are meaningless. There is no change point in an exponential curve. Third, plotting the data shows that there are change points, but at 1960 and 1974, not 1988 as MacDonald and Paul claimed from fitting one of the exponential regions of data.

In their original paper, MacDonald and Paul point out: “All data were taken from the publications with no attempt to access the original data.” This, as I pointed out in my comment, was unfortunate because the CDDS makes their data available to the public. This would allow one to double check hypotheses, such as whether a “hockey-stick” analysis is appropriate. For many reasons, it is an inappropriate analysis.

First, the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) make it clear that these data are not to be used to draw scientific conclusions. From the report where the EPA authors gathered their data:

The information presented in this report is purely descriptive in nature and standing alone, should not be used to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the incidence or prevalence of ASD in California. The numbers of persons with ASD described in this report reflect point-in-time counts and do not constitute formal epidemiological measures of incidence or prevalence. The information contained in this report is limited by factors such as case finding, accuracy of diagnosis and the recording, on an individual basis, of a large array of information contained in the records of persons comprising California’s Developmental Services System. Finally, it is important to note that entry into the California Developmental Services System is voluntary. This may further alter the data presented herein relative to the actual population of persons with autism in California.

If one ignores this major point (as the EPA authors did), there are still other reasons why their analysis method is inappropriate. One big reason is that trying to look for a single “change point” year in California isn’t supported by the data. The fact that autism rates vary dramatically by geography within California (as shown by both Prof. Hertz-Picciotto’s group and Prof Bearman’s group) points away from any universal exposure (such as vaccines). The data I have from the CDDS which breaks down the counts by region only go back to the early 1990’s, so with this and space considerations I did not included these data. These geographic data make it clear that not only do the autism rates vary by region, the time trends of those rates vary a great deal from one region to another. In other words, what is a change point for one region may not be one for another. Applying a single change point to all of California is not warranted using these data.

Another reason why the hockey-stick analysis is inappropriate is the fact that it forces a functional form to the data which is plainly a bad fit. A hockey-stick analysis fits the time trend to two lines with a “change point” where the lines intersect. Unfortunately, the data are exponential. The result is quite remarkable, really, given the geographic variability and the changing social influences on autism rates.

If one takes one of the CDDS datasets (I used one from 2007) and combines it with census type data, one can produce this figure (Figure 1 from the published comment):

comment-figure.png?w=450&h=363

Graphing the data on a log-normal graph such as this shows that the data are exponential. Going all the way back to birth year 1930. It isn’t a simple exponential, though. There is a region around 1960 to 1974 where the growth stalled. It is remarkable that the same time constant fits the data all the way back to 1930, with the exception of this 1960-1974 region.

Fitting exponential data to two lines just doesn’t make sense. There is no “change point” in an exponential. One can force a fit onto exponential data, but it isn’t meaningful.

Using the log-normal plot I supplied one can see that there are change points in the trend. Obvious to any observer. But they are in 1960 and 1974, not in about 1987/88 as MacDonald and Paul calculated.

As is customary, MacDonald and Paul supplied a reply to my comment. In this they make only a very brief reference to the fact that the very document from which they pulled the California data states it is inappropriate to use it the way they did: “We agree with Carey (3) that analysis of long term epidemiological studies would be desirable and that there are a number of potential confounding issues associated with analysis of administrative databases.”

One mistake I made was in not clearly spelling out that fitting a hockey-stick to exponential data is inappropriate. It is obvious, but rather than address this problem MacDonald and Paul state:

Changepoints were determined by fitting a hockey-stick model (10) to the data for each dataset. This approach uses ordered data and piecewise linear regression to split the response variable into two groups. A linear regression line is generated for each group, and the point of intersection for these regression lines and the residual sum of squares for each line are determined. The intersection point that minimizes the residual sum of squares is the changepoint.

Carey (3) used a log transformation of the cumulative incidence to produce a log-linear relationship for the CDDS data of the form: Log (Cumulative Incidence) = B0 + B1 (Year). Subsequently, he states that he could not observe changes in the log-linear relationship of CDDS cumulative incidence at or around our changepoint year of 1989, but no other analysis was performed. Examining original CDDS data in the inset of Carey’s (3) Figure 1, it certainly seems likely that there is a changepoint in the 1985-1990 range, and being unable to observe such a change in the log-linear plot may be purely an artifact of the scaling of the plot. We conducted a changepoint analysis on transformed CDDS data from 1970 to 1997 (from (7)) and found a changepoint in 1984. The shift to an earlier changepoint using the log transformed data may result from stabilization of the variance associated with the transformation, and the resulting shift in the minimization point for the residual sum of squares for the regression line for the larger cumulative incidence values in later years.

It’s an odd response. The authors are focused on defending their original result of a change point in the 1980’s rather than considering the entire new dataset. They ignore the problems inherent in claiming a change point in exponential data, but I should have stressed that more in my comment. Even if MacDonald and Paul claim it is appropriate to make this fit, they ignore the obvious change points in the log-normal graph. Consider the change point at about 1960. It is abundantly clear in the log-normal graph. In the inset of my figure, the linear graph, that change point is still obvious to the eye.

If the real goal of their work was to identify change points there is no reason to ignore those which were (a) outside of their original time span and ( B) obvious in a different presentation of the data. This is not just flawed, it is irresponsible. They are ignoring their own stated goal:

As we point out in the paper, while artifacts associated with observed increases in various studies cannot be ruled out, from a precautionary standpoint, it seems prudent to assume that at least some portion of the observed increases in incidence is real and results from the interaction of environmental factors with genetically susceptible populations. Since exposure to environmental factors is potentially preventable, identification of relevant candidate factors should be a research priority.

Why, I would ask, are potential environmental candidates which might involve change points in 1960 and 1974 not important, but one in the late 1980’s is?

The first comment of the article also made a point I just had to share:

Interesting stuff. But I don’t see why this hockey-stick theory, even in the original form you criticize, has been so eagerly adopted by anti-vaccine types.

One could equally well say that the late 1980s represents the start of the modern era of high awareness of autism and increased diagnosis.

Notably, the original Autism Diagnostic Interview was developed in 1989… and the late 1980s was the time of the publication of many of the classic research papers that set the groundwork for the modern understanding of autism.

Bullet point number 5 doesn't link to anything.

Bullet point number 6 is mining Dr. Francis Collins' and Tom Insel's words to support their position. They're very clear on the matter of the vaccine-autism link (on their not being one.)

Slide 4:

A nonsensical graph that even goes as far as suggesting that autism is curable. They're simply summing up the prior slides and setting up for the next section, which I'll refer to as "they're not doing it right, focus more on the vaccines" which I'll continue tomorrow.

wow. you are working hard here man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't dispute any of that DKw. It still am not convinced it absolutely does not cause autism.

Disprove my assertion that bad late 80s haircuts, Nintendo and cell phones cause autism. There's just as much info confirming those silly hypotheses as there is for vaccines. That is the rough equivalent for you argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow. you are working hard here man.

I am nothing if not thorough, bruh :cheers:

Still failed at grammar in there, though. :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't dispute any of that DKw. It still am not convinced it absolutely does not cause autism.

Disprove my assertion that bad late 80s haircuts, Nintendo and cell phones and cause autism. There's just as much info confirming those silly hypotheses as there is for vaccines. That is the rough equivalent for you argument here.

Do you believe in individual liberty or, are you in favor of locking people up who dont subscribe to your way of thinking about vaccines? Just curious. Im not disputing anything about vaccines. My question is specifically about individual liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow. you are working hard here man.

I am nothing if not thorough, bruh :cheers:

i am actually conversing with a dear friend who's son is an autistic teen on FB. He is sending me some more material. Unlike me(i dont know) he is 100% convinced vaccines caused his son's autism. by the way the link you have been tearing apart is just something i pulled up and didnt even look too hard at.

one thing i am noticing is most pro vaccinators just show the effectiveness of vaccines. the success of the vaccines are not related to the possibiltiy of side effects. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigBens, Glad you are well versed in the subject.

Serious question for you, what are the benefits for my kids getting the chicken pox vaccine compared to me getting chicken pox and thus being immune later on?

Do you think vaccines for sickneses that occur and are (by majority) overcame by the persons immune system a boon or potential bane? (IE: we wreck chickpox now without help, but will our forced evolution for it cause negatives later?)

I'm not a "vaccine denier" by any means, I and all my kids get all vaccines.... but scientifically I wonder about the above, As evolutionary bounds seem to get crossed, when they need to to survive.

(cue the Jurassic Park guy saying "life finds a way")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am actually conversing with a dear friend who's son is an autistic teen on FB. He is sending me some more material. Unlike me(i dont know) he is 100% convinced vaccines caused his son's autism.

He may be convinced, and it's easy to see why. Vaccines are an easy boogeyman, especially with so much misinformation out there directing people in an unfortunate situation to that very conclusion. To me, these people are no different from the ones that promise to cure your kid's fatal cancer with homeopathy.

by the way the link you have been tearing apart is just something i pulled up and didnt even look too hard at.

A dangerous habit that you really ought to break.

one thing i am noticing is most pro vaccinators just show the effectiveness of vaccines. the success of the vaccines are not related to the possibiltiy of side effects. Does that make sense?

It would, but without evidence to support that assertion, the argument is bunk. They may as well be focusing on bad haircuts, portable electronics, pesticides, flouridated water, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The only case I can recall off hand that went to court was the autism omnibus trial. The parents presented video of a child prior to her receiving the MMR vaccine and essentially said, "Look! Look at this healthy, normal baby! The vaccine did this!"

A child psychologist spotted early signs of autism straightaway. There have been many cases like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am actually conversing with a dear friend who's son is an autistic teen on FB. He is sending me some more material. Unlike me(i dont know) he is 100% convinced vaccines caused his son's autism.

He may be convinced, and it's easy to see why. Vaccines are an easy boogeyman, especially with so much misinformation out there directing people in an unfortunate situation to that very conclusion. To me, these people are no different from the ones that promise to cure your kid's fatal cancer with homeopathy.

by the way the link you have been tearing apart is just something i pulled up and didnt even look too hard at.

A dangerous habit that you really ought to break.

one thing i am noticing is most pro vaccinators just show the effectiveness of vaccines. the success of the vaccines are not related to the possibiltiy of side effects. Does that make sense?

It would, but without evidence to support that assertion, the argument is bunk. They may as well be focusing on bad haircuts, portable electronics, pesticides, flouridated water, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The only case I can recall off hand that went to court was the autism omnibus trial. The parents presented video of a child prior to her receiving the MMR vaccine and essentially said, "Look! Look at this healthy, normal baby! The vaccine did this!"

A child psychologist spotted early signs of autism straightaway. There have been many cases like that.

the only people i know whose children are autistic figured this out from 18 months to 4 years old. it didnt just pop up. one was 8 but he is diagnosed with aspergers but had been treated for adhd his whole life and just thought to be going through annoying stages. kid is 16 now somewhat intelligent but socially retarded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigBens, Glad you are well versed in the subject.

Thank you for the compliment. Auctoritas and Selias need to get their asses down here straightaway. They're probably more knowledgeable on the subject than me.

Serious question for you, what are the benefits for my kids getting the chicken pox vaccine compared to me getting chicken pox and thus being immune later on?

That the benefits of receiving the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching the disease itself. In all of the time the vaccine has been given, there was 1 recorded death as a result of the vaccine, to a child with leukemia that had no business receiving the vaccine anyway. 1 death in roughly 100,000,000 vaccines given.

Other side effects include maybe a slight fever and rash, but those are exceedingly rare. 675 per 100,000.

By Contrast, here are the last stats before the vaccine became widespread:

Chickenpox (varicella) used to be very common in the United States before the chickenpox vaccine became available in 1995. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. Most of the severe complications and deaths from chickenpox occurred in people who were previously healthy.

Do you think vaccines for sickneses that occur and are (by majority) overcame by the persons immune system a boon or potential bane? (IE: we wreck chickpox now without help, but will our forced evolution for it cause negatives later?)

If we vaccinate properly, the virus can be eliminated before it has a chance to do any sort of evolving.

I'm not a "vaccine denier" by any means, I and all my kids get all vaccines.... but scientifically I wonder about the above, As evolutionary bounds seem to get crossed, when they need to to survive.

(cue the Jurassic Park guy saying "life finds a way")

Viruses like these generally exclusively effect humans. Wiping them off the map is no great loss. We've eliminated viruses before and things are now better as a result. Smallpox and Polio say hi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't dispute any of that DKw. It still am not convinced it absolutely does not cause autism.

Disprove my assertion that bad late 80s haircuts, Nintendo and cell phones and cause autism. There's just as much info confirming those silly hypotheses as there is for vaccines. That is the rough equivalent for you argument here.

Do you believe in individual liberty or, are you in favor of locking people up who dont subscribe to your way of thinking about vaccines? Just curious. Im not disputing anything about vaccines. My question is specifically about individual liberty.

Room... red button....fire....crispy. >:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globalresearch.ca is subject to Scopie's Law. Citing them at all is an automatic loss in any internet debate. I hereby proclaim victory.

s***, man. I've been tearing through that PowerPoint then you're chucking all this garbage at me at once? :laugh:

I gotta sleep sometime! :roflol:

*sigh* where to begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigBens, Glad you are well versed in the subject.

Thank you for the compliment. Auctoritas and Selias need to get their asses down here straightaway. They're probably more knowledgeable on the subject than me.

Serious question for you, what are the benefits for my kids getting the chicken pox vaccine compared to me getting chicken pox and thus being immune later on?

That the benefits of receiving the vaccine outweigh the risks of catching the disease itself. In all of the time the vaccine has been given, there was 1 recorded death as a result of the vaccine, to a child with leukemia that had no business receiving the vaccine anyway. 1 death in roughly 100,000,000 vaccines given.

Other side effects include maybe a slight fever and rash, but those are exceedingly rare. 675 per 100,000.

By Contrast, here are the last stats before the vaccine became widespread:

Chickenpox (varicella) used to be very common in the United States before the chickenpox vaccine became available in 1995. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized (range, 8,000 to 18,000), and 100 to 150 died each year. Most of the severe complications and deaths from chickenpox occurred in people who were previously healthy.

Do you think vaccines for sickneses that occur and are (by majority) overcame by the persons immune system a boon or potential bane? (IE: we wreck chickpox now without help, but will our forced evolution for it cause negatives later?)

If we vaccinate properly, the virus can be eliminated before it has a chance to do any sort of evolving.

I'm not a "vaccine denier" by any means, I and all my kids get all vaccines.... but scientifically I wonder about the above, As evolutionary bounds seem to get crossed, when they need to to survive.

(cue the Jurassic Park guy saying "life finds a way")

Viruses like these generally exclusively effect humans. Wiping them off the map is no great loss. We've eliminated viruses before and things are now better as a result. Smallpox and Polio say hi.

I had chicken pox when I was 21. Almost killed me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...