Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic Amish

[Guest guest]

And even more scared to take it to a lab and get an intelligent authority's point of view (i.e., toxicologist) rather than some bean counter with an agenda (think Fromme). And do not forget, we already have one subset of unvaccinated children in the Amish population -- no autism there, except for the few who vaccinated their children or adopted pre-vaccinated children. We also have a growing number of unvaccinated younger siblings (whose older siblings have regressive autism) and the rate of autism in these young children, from what I understand, is zero. How many younger unvaccinated siblings do we have on this list where the older child has regressive (after age 1) autism? We must have 20-30 by now. How many have autism? It should be 20% but the number is zero, unless anyone knows of one. Veraceliacdaughter

<suemisiaszek@...> wrote: We can figure out how to get a man to the moon, we can certainly figure out how to adequately do a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. To say otherwise is a cop-out. Again, in my opinion, anyone against a study like that is scared of what the outcome may show. Period. Sue M. > >> > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > Sue M. > > Sue,> > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective (rather> than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some> reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither> parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> something from children that is considered part of basic medical care. > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate in a> study where

you would not know whether your child is going to be in> the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk their> child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them has> looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, since> they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size> may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair number> of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their children.> However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:> the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> youngest

and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my older> child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I would> not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of the> physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family tends> to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> share their bias.> > >

[Guest guest]

and remember this?

But thousands of children cared for by Homefirst Health Services in

metropolitan Chicago have at least two things in common with thousands

of Amish children in rural Lancaster: They have never been vaccinated.

And they don't have autism.

http://aboutautism.blogspot.com/2005/12/age-of-autism-pretty-big-secret.html

> > >

> > >

> > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > >

> > > Sue M.

> >

> > Sue,

> >

> > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> (rather

> > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> care.

> >

> > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> in a

> > study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> their

> > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> >

> > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them

> has

> > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> since

> > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size

> > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> number

> > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> children.

> > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:

> > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> older

> > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> would

> > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> the

> > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> tends

> > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > share their bias.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, are you an actual idiot or do you just play one on this list?

Why would you need a double blind study for this? In the paper every day there are many studies that look at the risk of male vs. female , varying ethnic groups, etc. I'm quite certain they are not blind studies.

I've never met anyone who has questioned which one of my three children has autism, whether or not they have seen their vaccination records.

I have not heard the clammoring for a " more healthy" versus "less healthy" study amongst the unvaccinated versus vaccinated groups. I imagine that is because it is just another red herring that you are throwing out there.

But, I am fairly certain parents, doctors and educators know which children have autism and which children don't. Believe me, just look at the memo line on all the checks we write out.

I'm fairly certain if my bank teller and my insurance company can figure it out, someone else should be able to design a study.

> > > >> > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > > > Sue M. > > > > Sue,> > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective > (rather> > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some> > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither> > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> > something from children that is considered part of basic medical > care. > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > in a> > study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in> > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > their> > child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them > has> > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, > since> > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size> > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair > number> > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their > children.> > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> > "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:> > the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my > older> > child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I > would> > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of > the> > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family > tends> > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> > share their bias.> > > > > >>

[Guest guest]

I don't have much time - however:

there is no study on autism among the Amish - just a reporter's write

up. Amish are a genetically very isolated community. Great for studies

on the neurological problems that they *do* have more often than the

average American.

As for the Homefirst patients: again, there is no systematic study of

those children. Would be great if there was, but there isn't.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > >

> > > > Sue M.

> > >

> > > Sue,

> > >

> > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> > (rather

> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> > care.

> > >

> > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> > in a

> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> > their

> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > >

> > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them

> > has

> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> > since

> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size

> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> > number

> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > children.

> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:

> > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> > older

> > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> > would

> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> > the

> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> > tends

> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > > share their bias.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know the

child's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnose

whether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.

However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctor

should be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > >

> > > > Sue M.

> > >

> > > Sue,

> > >

> > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> > (rather

> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for

some

> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with

neither

> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> > care.

> > >

> > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> > in a

> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going to

be in

> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> > their

> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > >

> > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of

them

> > has

> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> > since

> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample

size

> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> > number

> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > children.

> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either

way:

> > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> > older

> > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> > would

> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> > the

> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> > tends

> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > > share their bias.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know the

child's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnose

whether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.

However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctor

should be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > >

> > > > Sue M.

> > >

> > > Sue,

> > >

> > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> > (rather

> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for

some

> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with

neither

> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> > care.

> > >

> > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> > in a

> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going to

be in

> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> > their

> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > >

> > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of

them

> > has

> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> > since

> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample

size

> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> > number

> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > children.

> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either

way:

> > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> > older

> > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> > would

> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> > the

> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> > tends

> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > > share their bias.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

I am going to see Dr. Eisenstein this evening at a presentation. He

is the founder of HomeFirst. I'd be happy to ask him if he thinks

there are any other variables in his practice that would account for

his lack of patients with autism. Please suggest some questions for

him. I'd be happy to ask him and post his responses tomorrow.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated

vs.

> > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sue M.

> > > >

> > > > Sue,

> > > >

> > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be

prospective

> > > (rather

> > > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated

for some

> > > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with

neither

> > > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review

board

> > > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly

withholding

> > > > something from children that is considered part of basic

medical

> > > care.

> > > >

> > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child

participate

> > > in a

> > > > study where you would not know whether your child is going

to be in

> > > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent

risk

> > > their

> > > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > > >

> > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate

very

> > > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any

of them

> > > has

> > > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the

authors,

> > > since

> > > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and

sample size

> > > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a

fair

> > > number

> > > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > > children.

> > > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by

a

> > > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go

either way:

> > > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early

with my

> > > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than

my

> > > older

> > > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health

problems " ). I

> > > would

> > > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the

assessment of

> > > the

> > > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a

family

> > > tends

> > > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views

and may

> > > > share their bias.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

No one ever said there was a scientific study. Those examples are used

to disprove the gov's argument that there aren't enough unvaccinated

children. In fact, there are quite a few at my church alone, not to

mention the town, the state, and across the nation.

So again, why are these studies not carried out? It's clear the reason

cited is not the reason.

Debi

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sue M.

> > > >

> > > > Sue,

> > > >

> > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> > > (rather

> > > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for

some

> > > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with

neither

> > > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> > > care.

> > > >

> > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> > > in a

> > > > study where you would not know whether your child is going to

be in

> > > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> > > their

> > > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > > >

> > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of

them

> > > has

> > > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> > > since

> > > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample

size

> > > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> > > number

> > > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > > children.

> > > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either

way:

> > > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> > > older

> > > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> > > would

> > > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> > > the

> > > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> > > tends

> > > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > > > share their bias.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Yes because who would fund it? More importantly who would publish it? Not

any of the Establishment peer reviewed scientific journals. We dont want

any untoward evidence screwing up the status quo now do we?

Who would risk their career to do it?

Ange

Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic

Amish

> I don't have much time - however:

>

> there is no study on autism among the Amish - just a reporter's write

> up. Amish are a genetically very isolated community. Great for studies

> on the neurological problems that they *do* have more often than the

> average American.

>

> As for the Homefirst patients: again, there is no systematic study of

> those children. Would be great if there was, but there isn't.

>

>

>

>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs.

> > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sue M.

> > > >

> > > > Sue,

> > > >

> > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective

> > > (rather

> > > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated for some

> > > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (with neither

> > > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was

> > > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board

> > > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding

> > > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical

> > > care.

> > > >

> > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate

> > > in a

> > > > study where you would not know whether your child is going to be in

> > > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk

> > > their

> > > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > > >

> > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very

> > > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any of them

> > > has

> > > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors,

> > > since

> > > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and sample size

> > > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,

> > > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair

> > > number

> > > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their

> > > children.

> > > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a

> > > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could go either way:

> > > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines early with my

> > > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my

> > > older

> > > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child is not

> > > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems " ). I

> > > would

> > > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of

> > > the

> > > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family

> > > tends

> > > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may

> > > > share their bias.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Nothing is difficult to understand about that. However, that is not what you stated.

You stated that both the parents and the physician should be blinded as to the child's vaccination status. Then you went on to say Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

This would seem to imply that you would want to start with infants and break into two blinded groups one with vaccinations one with placebo. This of course ins ludicrous. It would be feasible to design a study that would allow one to look at vaccinated and unvaccinated subsets and look at the number of ASD children in each subset.

While I would agree comparing "more vs. less" healthy would certainly be open for bias, looking for "Autism versus neurotypical" is not that hard to ascertain. Especially since the diagnosis is rarely made by the family physician.

Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic Amish

,no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know thechild's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnosewhether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctorshould be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.What is so difficult to understand about that?> > > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > > > > > Sue M. > > > > > > Sue,> > > > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective > > (rather> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated forsome> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (withneither> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical > > care. > > > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > > > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any ofthem > > has> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, > > since> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and samplesize> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair > > number> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their > > children.> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> > > "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go eitherway:> > > the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my > > older> > > child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I > > would> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of > > the> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family > > tends> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> > > share their bias.> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Don't you think it makes sense that the physician should be blinded?

Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic Amish

,no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know thechild's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnosewhether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctorshould be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.What is so difficult to understand about that?> > > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > > > > > Sue M. > > > > > > Sue,> > > > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective > > (rather> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated forsome> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (withneither> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical > > care. > > > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > > > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any ofthem > > has> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, > > since> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and samplesize> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair > > number> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their > > children.> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> > > "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go eitherway:> > > the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my > > older> > > child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I > > would> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of > > the> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family > > tends> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> > > share their bias.> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Don't you think it makes sense that the physician should be blinded?

Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic Amish

,no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know thechild's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnosewhether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctorshould be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.What is so difficult to understand about that?> > > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > > > > > Sue M. > > > > > > Sue,> > > > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective > > (rather> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated forsome> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (withneither> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical > > care. > > > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > > > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any ofthem > > has> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, > > since> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and samplesize> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair > > number> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their > > children.> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> > > "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go eitherway:> > > the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my > > older> > > child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I > > would> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of > > the> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family > > tends> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> > > share their bias.> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

In a formalized study, having a secondary Dr. unaware of vaccination status look at immunized versus non vaccinated children and ASD rates would make sense. However, what was saying was that ideally parents should also be blinded to their child's vaccination status.

I'm saying that typically the dr. making the diagnosis isn't the family physician. That dr. making the diagnosis rarely gets full medical and vaccination records prior to diagnosis and therefore is already blinded.

The idea that a parent wouldn't get a diagnosis for a child that hasn't been immunized because of their preconceived notions is insulting and ridiculous.

Re: twoweasleys; and even more scared...; no autistic Amish

,no reason to be unfriendly. Of course the doctors will know thechild's diagnosis - that is what they are expected to do: diagnosewhether a child has a neurodevelopmental problem or not.However - in order for this study to be valid, the diagnosing doctorshould be blinded towards the vaccination status of that particular child.What is so difficult to understand about that?> > > >> > > > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not? > > > > > > > > Sue M. > > > > > > Sue,> > > > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be prospective > > (rather> > > than looking at the children after they weren't vaccinated forsome> > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded (withneither> > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the child was> > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical review board> > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly withholding> > > something from children that is considered part of basic medical > > care. > > > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child participate > > in a> > > study where you would not know whether your child is going tobe in> > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating parent risk > > their> > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?> > > > > > There are a number of studies on communities that vaccinate very> > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that any ofthem > > has> > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the authors, > > since> > > they already have a large cohort they have studied (and samplesize> > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I guess,> > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there are a fair > > number> > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate their > > children.> > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked at by a> > > "blinded" physician to exclude any bias (which could go eitherway:> > > the parental bias is often "oh, I stopped vaccines early with my> > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical than my > > older> > > child" - the physician's bias may be "oh, this child is not> > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health problems"). I > > would> > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the assessment of > > the> > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually, a family > > tends> > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their views and may> > > share their bias.> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Another way to control the study on the subject side is to have the

parents blinded to the specific purpose of the study, if done

ethically. Parents do not have to know they have been selected for

study because they did or didn't vaccinate their children, or because

the kids did or didn't become autistic. Those elements could be

masked. Conducting good research is far from being as difficult as it

is being made out to be.

As for the dx'ing physician, for how many of them does vaccination

even show up on their radar when in come to ASDs, to add to 's

comment?

Lenny

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on

vaccinated vs.

> > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > > >

> > > > > Sue M.

> > > >

> > > > Sue,

> > > >

> > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be

prospective

> > > (rather

> > > > than looking at the children after they weren't

vaccinated for

> some

> > > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be blinded

(with

> neither

> > > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the

child was

> > > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO ethical

review board

> > > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly

withholding

> > > > something from children that is considered part of

basic medical

> > > care.

> > > >

> > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your child

participate

> > > in a

> > > > study where you would not know whether your child is

going to

> be in

> > > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a vaccinating

parent risk

> > > their

> > > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > > >

> > > > There are a number of studies on communities that

vaccinate very

> > > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware that

any of

> them

> > > has

> > > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask the

authors,

> > > since

> > > > they already have a large cohort they have studied

(and sample

> size

> > > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias). So I

guess,

> > > > eventually it is going to happen, just because there

are a fair

> > > number

> > > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully vaccinate

their

> > > children.

> > > > However, at least you'd need the children to be looked

at by a

> > > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which could

go either

> way:

> > > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines

early with my

> > > > youngest and s/he is so much more healthy/neurotypical

than my

> > > older

> > > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this child

is not

> > > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health

problems " ). I

> > > would

> > > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the

assessment of

> > > the

> > > > physician who regularly sees the child, as eventually,

a family

> > > tends

> > > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports their

views and may

> > > > share their bias.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

" Conducting good research is far from being as difficult as it

is being made out to be " .

It seems to me that the ones who are making the claims that it would

be sooooo difficult to do, are the very ones who are the most afraid

of what they will find.

Sue M.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You wouldn't endorse a comprehensive study on

> vaccinated vs.

> > > > > > unvaccinated children? Why not?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sue M.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sue,

> > > > >

> > > > > in order to do such a study properly, it should be

> prospective

> > > > (rather

> > > > > than looking at the children after they weren't

> vaccinated for

> > some

> > > > > reason or other). Ideally, the study would be

blinded

> (with

> > neither

> > > > > parents not treating physician knowing whether the

> child was

> > > > > vaccinated for the duration of the study). NO

ethical

> review board

> > > > > would agree to such a study. It would mean randomly

> withholding

> > > > > something from children that is considered part of

> basic medical

> > > > care.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also: would you , as a parent agree to let your

child

> participate

> > > > in a

> > > > > study where you would not know whether your child

is

> going to

> > be in

> > > > > the vaccine or no vaccine group? Would a

vaccinating

> parent risk

> > > > their

> > > > > child to be in the unvaccinated group?

> > > > >

> > > > > There are a number of studies on communities that

> vaccinate very

> > > > > little (like Steiner communities). I am not aware

that

> any of

> > them

> > > > has

> > > > > looked at the incidence of ASD - but one could ask

the

> authors,

> > > > since

> > > > > they already have a large cohort they have studied

> (and sample

> > size

> > > > > may in part make up for the retrospective bias).

So I

> guess,

> > > > > eventually it is going to happen, just because

there

> are a fair

> > > > number

> > > > > of parents who do not vaccinate or not fully

vaccinate

> their

> > > > children.

> > > > > However, at least you'd need the children to be

looked

> at by a

> > > > > " blinded " physician to exclude any bias (which

could

> go either

> > way:

> > > > > the parental bias is often " oh, I stopped vaccines

> early with my

> > > > > youngest and s/he is so much more

healthy/neurotypical

> than my

> > > > older

> > > > > child " - the physician's bias may be " oh, this

child

> is not

> > > > > vaccinated, surely s/he must have all those health

> problems " ). I

> > > > would

> > > > > not trust parental assessment of the child, not the

> assessment of

> > > > the

> > > > > physician who regularly sees the child, as

eventually,

> a family

> > > > tends

> > > > > to end up with a physician who shares/supports

their

> views and may

> > > > > share their bias.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >