I just do not understand how he can deny any wrongdoing. If I were to alter results just to fit what I wanted, I would be fired (at the very least)... and I'm just an engineer!
Honestly, as a researcher? The real question is why anyone still believes in the research. The last 10 years have done nothing but refute it.
The researcher was a surgeon, arguably unqualified to make claims regarding immunological origins of neurological diseases. The sample size was 12. 12 To give you an idea, to carry out a basic, parametric statistical test, you need at least 12 participants in both groups There are special cases where this is not necessary, but the fact of the matter is, there was no statistical analysis. No control group. It's a descriptive report. That's all.
And it gets better:
His study focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead for gastrointestinal problems.
At the same time, Dr Wakefield was paid to carry out another study to find out if parents who claim their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies.
The Lancet says it was not informed of this and that together they represent a potential conflict of interest which would have led it to reject the paper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3513365.stm
He was basically being hired to prove a lawsuit.
A better, more thorough analysis here. http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm
My brain hurts just thinking of it. I used to be a code monkey before I became a g-woman and tests of less than 1% of the population that says "oh yes, this is definitely the cause" always make me suspicious as I always got statistical errors when I was coding.
The errors that they discuss? Are not subtle. I mean, they're common, sort of, in the "they tell you not to do this in intro to research methods class in undergrad because it's really dumb" kind of way.
Hmmm, skimmed the article and granted I'm a code monkey by training so my logic is a bit more definite, but wouldn't that mean that if MMR caused autism that every child that had an MMR would have autism?
BTW, on COMPLETELY unrelated note, not sure if I've told you this but you completely rock in the writing department. I love love LOVE the raven 'verse and it's what I aspire to! Seriously!
J- I love you for spreading the word. Unfortunately, Wakefield is a very charismatic sleazoid, and my mom has utterly given up on engaging the MMR causes autism nutjobs. Why? because it's a religion. If it's not the virus component, it's the thimerosal. Since they've taken that out, it's the vaccines the moms got or it's how many vaccines kids get these days or whatever. Nevermind that from the FIRST determination of a biological cause of autism (Bauman and Kemper, 1985), we've known that the abnormalities develop in the first trimester of pregnancy and therefore cannot logically have jack or shit to do with any post-natal vaccine.
Also, bkm5191, you may be interested to know that there is a subset of people with autism (mostly higher functioning young adults and adults) who don't consider themselves "not normal", just different. Truth be told, I've never met a person with autism that I didn't like, although I admit that's a small sample size (a couple dozen maybe).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 10:57 pm (UTC)The researcher was a surgeon, arguably unqualified to make claims regarding immunological origins of neurological diseases. The sample size was 12. 12 To give you an idea, to carry out a basic, parametric statistical test, you need at least 12 participants in both groups There are special cases where this is not necessary, but the fact of the matter is, there was no statistical analysis. No control group. It's a descriptive report. That's all.
And it gets better:
His study focused on tests carried out on 12 children who had been referred to the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead for gastrointestinal problems.
At the same time, Dr Wakefield was paid to carry out another study to find out if parents who claim their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. Some children were involved in both studies.
The Lancet says it was not informed of this and that together they represent a potential conflict of interest which would have led it to reject the paper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3513365.stm
He was basically being hired to prove a lawsuit.
A better, more thorough analysis here.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-11 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 09:19 pm (UTC)BTW, on COMPLETELY unrelated note, not sure if I've told you this but you completely rock in the writing department. I love love LOVE the raven 'verse and it's what I aspire to! Seriously!
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 07:53 pm (UTC)Also,