MsRobyn, Maggenpye
If you had fillings, were induced etc, and your kid isn’t autistic, that doesn’t prove that it doesn’t cause it, or isn’t a contributing factor. Again - I smoked, but don’t have lung cancer - that doesn’t mean that smoking isn’t a contributing factor.
Again, I’m not at all convinced vaccines cause, or contribute to causing autism.
But I do call into question the automatic going along with conventional wisdom that it for sure doesn’t, and thus that questioning it is ignorance or even asinine. That doesn’t mean I’m buying into the crap that a lot of anti-vaccine sites spew - far from it, and please keep in mind the difference between that straw man and my position.
As to peer-reviewed science: the study I cited “Mercury containing Vaccine Vindicated” has real problems, despite it’s peer review and supposedly solid science. As I stated earlier: the study assessed only those children who were exposed to mercury during the first 28 days to 7 months of life. So it doesn’t adress the main argument of the “other side” that autism is caused by a build up of mercury in the system as a result of multiple vaccinations over the first two years of life. So even if there were no further issues, the study doesn’t actually answer that question. Further: Only 30% of the selected families participated - the researchers say that that should make a Thimerosal-Autism link more apparent if there was one, as parents of kids damaged by Thimerosal would be more inclined to participate. That, however, is not scientific fact, it is an opinion. I have an opinion too: maybe the parents of autistic kids are too damn busy with therapy etc to participate. So, there is participation bias, but we don’t know which way it goes. How scientific is this now?
Also, these kids were not assesed on wether or not they had ASD, they performed tests. I can assure you that after all the therapy my son has had, there are a bunch of tests he can ace with ease. He’s still Autistic though. So what does the answer in this test really tell us?
And Hentor , I’m not going to dig very deep into the three studies you mention, but off the top of my head I remember that there are in fact questions to the methodology of the Danish study, but there are even more important issues with that one: The vaccination schedule is different in Denmark vs the US, (resulting in less exposure to Thimerosal and spread out over a longer period of time), Vaccination compliance in Demnark is lower than in the US, and Thimerosal was phased out almost a decade earlier than it was here. Autism rates in Denmark are also significantly lower than in the US. So what questions does that study answer? How relevant to the Timerosal exposure issue in the US is it? How relevant would a study of Norwegian inner city youth’s exposure to gang violence be to what’s going on in Compton?
On a brief read through, the Canadian study says PDD occurances went up after phase out of Thimerosal. So then, Thimerosal *prevents * Autism? Or does this maybe hit on something more relevant, that the control group (post Thimerosal-phaseout kids) isn’t really that controlled at all, could be exposed to all kind of other Hg sources?
The problem with statistical analysis is that you have to have a clear understanding of the question you are trying to answer, a solid methodology as to how to go about answering the question, and the ability to filter out all those other factors that might affect your test subjects. It is easy to statistically prove that a large number of people carrying umbrellas causes it to rain.
Again, I don’t neccesarily believe Thimerosal in Vaccines = Autism. I’m also not Jenny McCarthy, and I don’t write for anti vaccine blogs, and I thank you to keep that in mind. I merely question the “shut up, it’s peer reviewed capital S Science” reason for not questioning the research, and I dispute anyone calling that asinine.