Vaccines and Autism: Looking for the Truth? Study the Amish

"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:


Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.

Jeff

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers
before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients. But from 1995
on,
they counted everybody. Since only a small fraction of autistics requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't
it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine
manufacturer.
As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.
When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does
not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.

And safe minds is not a disinterested party.

Safeminds did NOT do the research.

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:


Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.

Jeff

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers
before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients. But from 1995
on,
they counted everybody. Since only a small fraction of autistics requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't
it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine
manufacturer.
As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.
When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does
not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.

And safe minds is not a disinterested party.

Safeminds did NOT do the research.

Damn right.

mike wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:


Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.

Jeff

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients.

Not so. Read the study.

In Denmark, regular outpatients, i.e., those who attended for daily
therapy were also counted as hospitalised.

But from 1995 on,
they counted everybody.

Indeed. As clearly acknowledged by the study. They also suggested that
the increase after the withdrawal of thimerosal could be in part due to
this factor, and in part due to increased awareness and therefore
diagnosis of the condition.

Since only a small fraction of autistics requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine manufacturer.

No, it was not. As clearly stated in the Acknowledgements:

"The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the
National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from
the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by
the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were
involved in the study design."

The only information garnered from the Statens Serum Institut was about
vaccine coverage:

"In March 1992 the last batch of thimerosal-containing vaccine was
released and distributed from Statens Serum Institut in Denmark. All
vaccinations were given free of charge and acceptance of vaccinations
in Denmark has always been very high; from 1979 onward data on
vaccination coverage was available and coverage rates of 90% were
found (information was obtained from the State Serum Institute)."


As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.
When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.

And it wasn't done here.

But that didn't stop Safeminds from implying it had been.

Cathy

"LadyLollipop" wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message
link.net...

"mike" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:


Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.

Jeff

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers
before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients. But from 1995
on,
they counted everybody. Since only a small fraction of autistics requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't
it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine
manufacturer.
As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.
When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does
not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.

And safe minds is not a disinterested party.

Safeminds did NOT do the research.



The putrid Safe Minds doesn't do research, because they already know
the answers.

By the way, I don't know if it's still there, because I can only read
so much emetic material in a week, but Safe Minds once had a web page
which mentioned the mercury in MMR. Still, why should I expect liars
to not tell lies?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"LadyLollipop" wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"mike" wrote in message
news On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:05:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:


Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.

Jeff

Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers
before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients. But from 1995
on,
they counted everybody. Since only a small fraction of autistics
requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously
aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't
it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine
manufacturer.
As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.
When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does
not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by
a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.

And safe minds is not a disinterested party.

Safeminds did NOT do the research.



The putrid Safe Minds doesn't do research, because they already know
the answers.

Incorrect, snide remark.

remainder snipped
--
Peter Bowditch

Jeff wrote:

Just ask yourself: Where did you read about the Danish study?

The journal Pediatrics.

Where did you read about objections to it?

I read objections to the study in sites by people who are against the use of
vaccines or against the use of mercury in vaccines. Hardly disinterested
parties.

So you never asked yourself -- why are the journals
and media presenting only one side of the argument?

Why are you being given only one side of a controversy?

If the other side of this controversy had no worthy
arguments, then why would anyone bother to refute them?

If the other side's papers are so full of errors,
why not publicize them widely in major journals
and media, then shoot them full of holes?

Would you trust a judicial process that only
allows one side's lawyers to present the case,
saying the other side is "obviously" wrong?

Jeff wrote:

Sad, isn't it? People who have disabled kids wasting their time looking for
a cause that isn't there.

What's really sad is people making up their minds without being
able to objectively study all the facts, and thereby
actively refusing to help those they may have accidentally
damaged. While the accidental damage may reasonably
be considered a "mistake", the closed-mindendness following
it is nothing less than a crime.

Honest pediatricans that have practiced for a long time
know that the rise in autism is real and was not at all
due to increased awareness and diagnosis. Yet, many of
them are perfectly willing to be dishonest about it, even
to themselves.

Jeff wrote:

http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

Can you use your head even a tiny bit?

If there was something to refute about these accusations,
you would have been reading the refutation not only
in Pediatrics, but in your local newspapers.

wrote:
Jeff wrote:

http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...Pediatrics.pdf

Interesting accusations. Have they backed them up?

Can you use your head even a tiny bit?

If there was something to refute about these accusations,
you would have been reading the refutation not only
in Pediatrics, but in your local newspapers.

Is this person a halfwit? People make ridiculous accusations all the
time that are ignored.

The accusations weren't in Pediatrics, since they aren't peer-reviewed,
and nor would any refutation be. Nor have I noticed them in my local
rag. Has this person actually read the study, or just the Safeminds
rubbish?

Besides:

Please provide evidence that the Danish study is crooked.


Jeff


Simple. The Danish study counted autistics before and after 1992 when
thimerosal was removed from the vaccines. When counting the numbers before
1992 the researchers counted only hospitalized patients.



Not so. Read the study.

In Denmark, regular outpatients, i.e., those who attended for daily
therapy were also counted as hospitalised.



But from 1995 on,
they counted everybody.


Indeed. As clearly acknowledged by the study. They also suggested that
the increase after the withdrawal of thimerosal could be in part due to

this factor, and in part due to increased awareness and therefore
diagnosis of the condition.


Since only a small fraction of autistics requires
hospitalization (I imagine they must be involved in seriously aggressive
or self-destructive behavior) the result was that the number of
autistics increased after withdrawal of thimerosal. A neat trick, isn't it?
And there are more. See
http://www.safeminds.org/research/do...utismThimerosa...

The study has been done by Statens Serum Institut, a vaccine manufacturer.



No, it was not. As clearly stated in the Acknowledgements:

"The activities of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre and the
National Centre for Register-Based Research are funded by a grant from
the Danish National Research Foundation. This study was supported by
the Stanley Medical Research Institute. No funding sources were
involved in the study design."


The only information garnered from the Statens Serum Institut was about

vaccine coverage:


"In March 1992 the last batch of thimerosal-containing vaccine was
released and distributed from Statens Serum Institut in Denmark. All
vaccinations were given free of charge and acceptance of vaccinations
in Denmark has always been very high; from 1979 onward data on
vaccination coverage was available and coverage rates of 90% were
found (information was obtained from the State Serum Institute)."


As it is not a disinterested party this crookery is not surprizing.



When the researcher a) knows which result is desired by employer and
b) wants to keep his job, then he does not even have to be told what to
do. On top of that the employer is free not to publish a study it does not
like. So, the result is predetermined. This is why no research done by a
party interested in a specific outcome can ever be trusted.


And it wasn't done here.

But that didn't stop Safeminds from implying it had been.


Cathy

cathyb wrote:

But from 1995 on,
they counted everybody.


Indeed. As clearly acknowledged by the study. They also suggested that
the increase after the withdrawal of thimerosal could be in part due to

this factor, and in part due to increased awareness and therefore
diagnosis of the condition.

I take it you don't understand the word "minimized".

Did they provide how much of the increase could be
due to this factor? Did they ever mention that their
entire paper could be worthless and incorrect,
because of this factor?

Did they mention that no honest scientist who was
smart enough to get a Ph.D., could make a stupid
mistake of this magnitude? Did they mention they
were not mistaken, but crooked criminals?