You’re going to have to be more specific than that, Swartz. For example, Handley is still putting forth the notion that it was a secretive meeting and so forth, which Skeptico clearly addressed. Skeptico’s post is from 2005, so it is unlikely to be a point by point rebuttal of a post Handley wrote recently. But again, Handley is still thinking of Simpsonwood as some sort of conspiracy, when it has clearly been shown not to be.

I would note also that while Skeptico read the full Simpsonwood transcript, I don’t believe Handley has stated the same.

Interesting analysis of that data.

I think you’re being a bit misleading in your introduction though.

Handley’s article is not a discussion of these statistics, but a historical discussion about the evidence and actions of the CDC on the issue of Thimerosal. It is quite specific in it’s review of the evidence around the history.

Contrast this to the simplistic “debunking” (Skeptico) that you reference in your opening paragraph. Not only does it not address any issues raised by Handley, but it really only raises complaints about an article written by Kennedy many years ago. It doesn’t address any of the specific issues raised about Simpsonwood, especially the ones that Handley raises.

Skeptico’s critique of Kennedy is not a debunking of anything but Kennedy. It certainly can’t be used as a dismissive response to Handley’s article.

I’m glad you correctly specified at the very end (despite an earlier assertion) that the correlation you’re looking at is specific to DTP and not vaccines in general. There are far too many people on both sides of these vaccine arguments that treat all vaccines as equivalent and apply specific conclusions to all of them without the proper evidence.

It happens a lot in statistics. Small changes in analysis techniques, and/or assumptions can easily reverse the outcome of a statistical analysis. Many reviews of the numerous epidemiology studies on both sides of this argument have been used to show opposite conclusions.

The most recent peer-reviewed example was the DeSoto et al and Ip et al analyses.

I did link to your post, Jon. I’m of course working under the assumption that JB Handley didn’t fabricate that documentation. There’s probably a legitimate explanation as to the discrepancy. The coverage cut-off age might be one possibility, as I noted in your blog.

Of maybe the Illuminati produced bogus FOIA documents to fool Handley and have us find there’s no association of autism with vaccines, who knows.