What Drs. Geier say ... in rebuttal to Quacks Gorski & Probert

Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it. To my knowledge, most of the data
collected by the CDC is paid for with public funds. Given that, the
information should be free to anyone under the Freedom of Information
Act. I'm not sure why the CDC doesn't fall under the rules of that
Act, but it would certainly appear that they do.

If the dataset in question is something collected during the trip to
the CDC mentioned in the videos in the link above, I think that pretty
much sums up why I question opposing viewpoints. Anyone viewing those
videos should be outraged.

Max.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.

I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.

One of the datasets is the VAERS database. Here is one critic of using
that as a basis:

"In September 2004, a study from the UK showed no association between
thimerosal exposure and autism . At the same time, a review of ten
epidemiological studies of autism and thimerosal found that the few
studies that found an association between thimerosal exposure and autism
had serious methodological flaws. Chief among these flaws was using the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as a source of data.

The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by
anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years
ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The
Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of
VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its
limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I
granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing
that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous
or improbable."

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/art...elation-autism

The database has been corrupted by litigation:

http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2006/0...-distorts.html

In the study, the authors, Michael J. Goodman and James Nordin, did
something incredibly simple that no one had done before. They took data
from the VAERS database from 1990 through 2003 and imported it into SAS
data files for analysis. Then they searched the database using key words
to look for reports associated with litigation, particularly with
regards to autism. They searched for records containing "thimerosal,"
"mercury," or "autism" in their fields, especially when coupled with
terms like "lawyer," "legal," "attorney," or "litigate," while excluding
records containing "legal" coupled with the term "guardian" that did not
relate to litigation. They also excluded cases related to well
characterized allergic reactions to thimerosal. Finally, they compared
records from nonlitigation cases to those from litigation cases
regarding symptomatology reported.

Not surprisingly, beginning in 2001, they noted a dramatic increase in
the number of non-Lyme disease VAERS reports related to litigation, from
only 7 in 2000 to 213 in 2002 and 108 in 2003. (They attributed the
decline in 2003 reports to processing delays in creating public use
files.) Next, they examined symptom sets related to symptom sets. For
autism, they observed a dramatic increase in the percentage of
litigation-related reports from 0% of the reports related to litigation
in 1999 to over one-third (35%) in 2002. For records mentioning
thimerosal that weren't related to allergic reactions, the rise was even
more dramatic, from 0% of these reports related to litigation in 2000 to
87% in 2002.

This study once again hammers home the inherent unreliability of the
VAERS database as a tool for longitudinal studies of the rate of
vaccine-related complications. Not only can anyone access it and enter
reports without verification, but there is no denominator, which means
testing for causality is not even possible with VAERS. Worse, as the
authors point out, the rate of reporting of autism as a complication of
vaccines is easily influenced by numerous external factors. For example,
the authors pointed out that 75% of the autism reports in VAERS between
1990 and 2001 were received not long after the the publication of the
the now utterly and completely discredited Wakefield study that claimed
to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and that 2/3 were
received after the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that
thimerosal be removed from vaccines. And it's not just autism. For
example, in 2002, half the reports to the VAERS database about mental
retardation were related to litigation. The authors conclude:

The findings raise an important question about possible misuse of VAERS
in the litigation process. When a study is being used to influence
important public health decisions, it is important that reviewers and
editors fully understand how the data were constructed and their source.
Until now, no one has described the magnitude of litigation-related
reporting and how these reports might potentially change the results of
studies using VAERS data. Longitudinal studies using VAERS data should
explicitly take into account changes in reporting sources like the one
described in this article.

It is impossible to determine the effect of these reports on existing
analyses because the existing literature does not describe carefully
inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the conditions reviewed here, it
is apparent that a large enough percentage of reports are being made
related to litigation that failure to exclude these will seriously skew
trends. This is important for vaccines that contain thimerosal, and
specifically for the MMR vaccine because of the controversy surrounding
its relationship to autism. It therefore is incumbent on the authors who
use VAERS data to provide detailed methods sections that describe their
inclusion and exclusion criteria. To that end, we are making our SAS
code available to interested parties. It is not sufficient simply to
reference extraction of the VAERS data set.

The database is supposed to reflect US incidents only, however, it is so
sloppily set up that anyone, even Idi Amin, if he was still alive, could
submit a report:

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=342

Now, go to the VAERS website and find:

"When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any
reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established.
VAERS is interested in all potential associations between vaccines and
adverse events. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event
following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine.
The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a
vaccine caused the event.

VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines."

[...]

VAERS data have a number of limitations you should remember:
VAERS data are derived from a passive surveillance system and represent
unverified reports of health events, both minor and serious, that occur
after vaccination.
Such data are subject to limitations of under-reporting, simultaneous
administration of multiple vaccine antigens (making it difficult to know
to which of the vaccines, if any, the event might be attributed),
reporting bias, and lack of incidence rates in unvaccinated comparison
groups.
While some events reported to VAERS are truly caused by vaccines, others
may be related to an underlying disease or condition, to drugs being
taken concurrently, or may occur by chance shortly after a vaccine was
administered.

[...]


In some media reports and on some web sites on the Internet, VAERS
reports are presented as verified cases of vaccine deaths and injuries.
Statements such as these misrepresent the nature of the VAERS
surveillance system.

To get access to the data, one then clicks on:

"I have read and understand the preceding statement."

And, obviously, Geier did not understand it.

The other dataset was the records in California, which also had an
express prohibition about using it as Geier did.

That will take a wee bit more looking.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
We are not talking "viewpoints" which are merely opinions. Orac posted
links to well documented analyses of Geier's recent work which
demonstrate that he used inappropriate datasets and incorrect
statistical analysis to reach his conclusions.

Please find some rebuttal of those two well documented arguments about
Geier's work.

Opinions deleted as non-responsive to the discussion.

I just tried to post this question above, but Google gave me an error
message. I'll try it here again:

I've seen you make these claims many times. I'm curious to know which
datasets are in question and what subject you're talking about.

Was easier than I thought...it is the database maintained by the
California Department of Developmental Services. On their webpage this
warning is linked:

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStats/quarterly.cfm

http://www.dds.cahwnet.gov/FactsStat...imitations.pdf

Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations

Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to
develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may
misrepresent the quarterly figures. The following information is
provided to help users of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report
understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers
reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the
following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next
do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This
is because:
• Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.
• Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including
clinical data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net
changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in
the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals
who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no
longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
• Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
• Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the
current quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
• Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1
in the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the
prior quarter
• Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them being reported under new categories
Dropped out may include:
• Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not
included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from
active status to inactive or closed status)
• Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter
that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS
Quarterly Client Characteristics Report data for any type of trend
analysis should be informed about the causes of increased CDER
population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER
database in July 2002 due to a revision in the information system
transmission program and a change in DDS policy to include the records
of CDERs not updated within the required three years of last report
date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports" at www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/QuarterlyChanges.cfm.

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS
in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the
home of parent.

2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were
determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue
pursuing eligibility determination.

3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but
currently do not want services.

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

With this warning, Geier went right ahead and ignored it.

Simply, it suited his needs as he manipulated the numbers to prove his
point.

Max C. wrote:
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it. To my knowledge, most of the data
collected by the CDC is paid for with public funds. Given that, the
information should be free to anyone under the Freedom of Information
Act. I'm not sure why the CDC doesn't fall under the rules of that
Act, but it would certainly appear that they do.

If you read Neurodiversity, you would see that the Geiers did something
that was incorrect, and when corrected, they were given full access.

If the dataset in question is something collected during the trip to
the CDC mentioned in the videos in the link above, I think that pretty
much sums up why I question opposing viewpoints. Anyone viewing those
videos should be outraged.

It is the VAERS database.

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his
study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed
contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his
study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it.

If you had read the original study, you'd understand. If you had read any
of the numerous works contradicting his results, you'd understand.

To my knowledge, most of the data
collected by the CDC is paid for with public funds. Given that, the
information should be free to anyone under the Freedom of Information
Act. I'm not sure why the CDC doesn't fall under the rules of that
Act, but it would certainly appear that they do.

If the dataset in question is something collected during the trip to
the CDC mentioned in the videos in the link above, I think that pretty
much sums up why I question opposing viewpoints. Anyone viewing those
videos should be outraged.

Max.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:lPscg.160645$oL.13976@attbi_s71...

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his
study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed
contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere
that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his
study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it.

If you had read the original study, you'd understand. If you had read any
of the numerous works contradicting his results, you'd understand.

lol....

To my knowledge, most of the data
collected by the CDC is paid for with public funds. Given that, the
information should be free to anyone under the Freedom of Information
Act. I'm not sure why the CDC doesn't fall under the rules of that
Act, but it would certainly appear that they do.

If the dataset in question is something collected during the trip to
the CDC mentioned in the videos in the link above, I think that pretty
much sums up why I question opposing viewpoints. Anyone viewing those
videos should be outraged.

Max.

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:i7vcg.743049$084.637000@attbi_s22...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:lPscg.160645$oL.13976@attbi_s71...

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his
study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed
contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere
that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his
study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it.

If you had read the original study, you'd understand. If you had read
any of the numerous works contradicting his results, you'd understand.

lol....

Of course you're laughing... what else can you do? You can't contribute
meaningful dialogue since you haven't read the studies being discussed.
Even if you were to, you wouldn't understand them. You wouldn't be able
to evaluate them or criticize them. You don't seem capable of much at all
except posting a bunch of useless crap on the web. But keep laughing
sweetie. It gives the rest of us something to laugh at.

If you knew more.... you'd understand. If you had read the original study,
you'd understand.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:i7vcg.743049$084.637000@attbi_s22...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:lPscg.160645$oL.13976@attbi_s71...

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his
study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly
designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed
contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere
that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe his
study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such a
hard time I'd love to hear it.

If you had read the original study, you'd understand. If you had read
any of the numerous works contradicting his results, you'd understand.

lol....

Of course you're laughing... what else can you do? You can't contribute
meaningful dialogue since you haven't read the studies being discussed.
Even if you were to, you wouldn't understand them. You wouldn't be able
to evaluate them or criticize them. You don't seem capable of much at
all except posting a bunch of useless crap on the web. But keep laughing
sweetie. It gives the rest of us something to laugh at.

If you knew more.... you'd understand. If you had read the original
study,
you'd understand.

great, now you're a parrot. Do you want a cracker?

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:Wsvcg.743082$084.710282@attbi_s22...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:i7vcg.743049$084.637000@attbi_s22...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:lPscg.160645$oL.13976@attbi_s71...

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
A far more interesting question is this - for those who believe his
study,
why is that one so easy to believe even in face of the multitude of
criticisms it received for being incaccurate, flawed, poorly
designed,
etc.... all the while not believing other studies that showed
contradictory
results. I have yet to see or hear an argument from anyone anywhere
that
supports his work over others. Yet some people choose to believe
his study.
Why?

Since I don't know what datasets are in question nor which studies
you're referencing, I really don't have an answer for your question.
However, I feel strongly that the answer may lie in these videos that
went practically unnoticed when posted here a couple of weeks ago.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=112

Now, if someone could explain to me why the CDC gave the Geiers such
a
hard time I'd love to hear it.

If you had read the original study, you'd understand. If you had read
any of the numerous works contradicting his results, you'd understand.

lol....

Of course you're laughing... what else can you do? You can't contribute
meaningful dialogue since you haven't read the studies being discussed.
Even if you were to, you wouldn't understand them. You wouldn't be able
to evaluate them or criticize them. You don't seem capable of much at
all except posting a bunch of useless crap on the web. But keep
laughing sweetie. It gives the rest of us something to laugh at.

If you knew more.... you'd understand. If you had read the original
study,
you'd understand.

great, now you're a parrot. Do you want a cracker?

lol......

"Skeptic" wrote in
news:Wsvcg.743082$084.710282@attbi_s22:

great, now you're a parrot. Do you want a cracker?

It's called "echolalia." More than half of Jan's post consist of either
repetition of something she previously posted, or unmodified copies of
something someone else posted.