I agree that the conclusion was accurate to the letter of the text. But that’s easy to accomplish and still mislead people.

I do feel it underplayed the weaknesses and combined with the press release, it overreached it’s implications.

The study authors should have known better IMO. But as far as bias goes, it is no where near other stuff I’ve read. We’ll see what happens to Sallie.

Unlike Isles, a blogger from another site has actually provided more specific information (Interverbal) obtained personally that the dissent was not registered until the end of the trial. Given that knowledge, I support any criticism leveled at Sally regarding the study design as she had the opportunity to comment on it.

However, I don’t see how you can blame someone for dissenting on the basis of the Concluding dialog since that would not have been known until the end. Again, a number of her criticisms revolve around the wording of the conclusions, and some of those are valid IMO.

As for this: “b) that peer review doesn’t equate to a better standard of science”

When will you stop using peer review to justify the results of a study? Do we need to review all the studies of the peer review process so see that it does not guarantee good science? I’m not advocating that peer review be scrapped because I think it’s a good thing as far as process is concerned. I also think it needs to be overhauled to make it more effective. However, when analyzing details of SPECIFIC studies and cases, the peer review is irrelevent as evidence in support of the conclusions if only because the process itself was not published or available for public review. That’s pretty fundamental.

Joseph,

You’re one of the most articulate/accurate posters here, so I am surprised at the vehemence. I come to this site to gather and understand logical well presented arguments in the Autism-Vaccination debate as well as learning more about Autism itself.

I originally got hooked into the debate many years ago, not because of Autism, but because I was doing research to help me decide whether and how to vaccinate my own children. These days, the debate mostly centers around autism (has plusses and minus’) so that is why I’m here.

What does not aid debate, are allegations, conjecture and questions of conspiracy without providing real data or even first hand personal information. The sad part is that commentary like this article tend to totally distract from some beneficial discussion of the study itself (which the author assumed was 100 correct and accurate based on peer-review mind you).

Why not discuss the actual merits of the study because all the information is available and published for us to discuss?

Since only a few people actually know the sequence of events, personal communications, the rest of us can only guess at the sequence of events and make allegations.

What I can confidently say right now, is that any comments from Sallie about the study design is not justified given she reviewed the design (unless it was modified after the review—but I have nothing to suggest that it was).

I personally find the concluding statements to be farther reaching than the evidence provided in the study. There is no earlier time to dissent to the concluding statements until after they are written.

“The Omnibus hearings should be dismissed with prejudice.”

This I find a bit shocking. Why do you feel that no one has the right to have their case heard in a scientific hearing as they are entitled to by the system and the law? And remember, if you want to win that argument, you need to provide specifics, because every case is different. From what I read of the first hearing there was more than enough evidence in the Cedillo case to justify a hearing. (PLEASE NOTE: I didn’t say find in favour of, just to justify a hearing)

Obviously, the only reason she dissented is that she didn’t like the results.

Are we to believe that if the results had shown an actual risk effect, she would’ve dissented because of potential confounds? Come on.

At this point, SafeMinds is no longer SafeMinds. It’s ClosedMinds. I’d normally try to be polite in these discussions, but in this case things have gone far enough, and I can only conclude SafeMinds is composed of a bunch of closed-minded assholes. The CDC should not even give the time of day from now on. Let them talk among themselves on EOHarm. The Omnibus hearings should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you seriously believe that:

a) Sally Bernard wouldn’t have hollered about the terrible study before now

or

b) that peer review doesn’t equate to a better standard of science

then I can only conclude that you’ve been smoking crack.

Being sceptical is one thing. Being sceptical to the point of unreality is just being silly.

You are absolutely correct. This statement does: “The issue is that Sallie, a non-scientist, is raising a hue and cry over a paper that dozens of actual scientists signed off on; some from CDC, some external.”

Again, supporting an argument about a published study based on who wrote it is pretty pointless. Why not argue the specifics of the issues raised? I think I know the answer.

Too bad you can’t tell who is saying those words. You still have a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations. You don’t know what information was provided to her. You don’t know what information she provided in return. You also don’t know when she expressed her dissenting opinion.

Who is the one smearing here?

“Ms. Bernard served on a board of consultants that helped design and oversee the study, but she withdrew her support for the published version of the study, saying its conclusions were not supported by the underlying data.”

Sallie versus a host of scientists does not invite a referendum on the value of the peer review process. It invites rotten tomatoes directed at Ms. Bernard, who deserves every last splat.