In their increasingly forlorn looking attempt to get some kind (any kind!) of connection between thiomersal and autism, the Geiers launched a new paper. Announced in the Schafer Mercury Report as follows:
The study, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a peer reviewed journal, by Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier examined two independent databases maintained by the government – one national and one state.
Oh-ho…..the infamous Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Described as:
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons seems to be little more than a conservative publication gussied up with a medical spin. A look at the references in the illegal-alien report, written by Madeleine Pelner Cosman — a “medical lawyer” whose previous claim to fame appears to be a book on medieval cooking but who has also written an article for a group called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership — is chock full of hardline conservative cites, including books by Michelle Malkin and former WND writer (and Slantie winner) Jon Dougherty and articles by Phyllis Schlafly and Tom DeWeese.
And the peer review process is commented on thusly (source as above):
The latest book by Ann Coulter is also reviewed, which claims that _”Liberalism (socialism), one of the most disastrous sets of ideas ever conceived, is at war with civilization.”_ Makes one wonder about the peer review the journal claims to have.
Not a very encouraging start.
But what about the meat of the Geiers report? Is it any good? Here’s where the Geiers get their data from:
A two-phase study was undertaken to evaluate trends in diagnosis of new NDs entered into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) databases
Oh dear. Looks like the Geiers Have gone dumpster diving again.
These sources are terrible. The VAERS is not intended for this purpose, a fact spelled out in big bold type on its page:
…..Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
Dr James Laidler has this to say about VAERS:
The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database. Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual, a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable.
He goes on to say (source as above):
Since at least 1998 (and possibly earlier), a number of autism advocacy groups have, with all the best intentions, encouraged people to report their autistic children—or autistic children of relatives and friends—to VAERS as injuries from thimerosal-containing vaccines. This has irrevocably tainted the VAERS database with duplicate and spurious reports.
.
As for the California data, the Geiers are simply reproducing the same mistake that Rick Rollens made before them. A simple question to David Kirby would’ve revealed that the California data can only be reflected accurately in cases of 3-5 year olds, whereas the Geiers state they studied:
The *total* new number of autism reports received by the CDDS
This material was covered at the start of this very year.
And these people are apparently scientists. To paraphrase a friend – ‘if they walk like ducks, sound like ducks…’
Left Brain Right Brain 
How’s this? Any identifying information on here, Kev? Actually, I know that no matter what, Kev can figure out who is posting at all times. He only reveals the ones he doesn’t like, though… par for the course.
_”so the CDDS data and the VAERS numbers BOTH went down coincidentally in 2002? I’m supposed to believe that? Are you kidding me? “_
You can believe whatever you choose to Sue. However, your beliefs don’t alter the facts, sorry. Can you debate me on the facts rather than your beliefs yet?
Oh and Sue? The reason I don’t out most anonymous posters is because a) they don’t make fools of themselves by flouncing off then coming back and b) they’re bright enough to take out their real email address hence I have no idea who they are. No danger of that from you though eh? :o)
Kev,
You out people when it is convenient for you and works in your favor. That’s ok… just acknowledge it… So, your answer is … yes, it is a COINCIDENCE that both the CDDS and VAERS numbers started going down in 2002?
_”You out people when it is convenient for you and works in your favor. That’s ok… just acknowledge it… “_
I out people when they become pompous asses, yes :o)
_”So, your answer is … yes, it is a COINCIDENCE that both the CDDS and VAERS numbers started going down in 2002?”_
I’ve spent a whole post here saying its impossible to draw any conclusions from the data that the Geiers cited. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to now start drawing conclusions of my own.
I say two possibilities exist:
1) The Geiers are right.
2) The Geiers are wrong.
There is no evidence to support either position using the data they did.
“But I made some time for you.”
Poll: is this funny or scary?
Why do I keep thinking of her when I read this?
– Certainly doesn’t explain why the numbers started to go back down in 2002… does it?
Why not? The theory itself has probably reached critical mass and is losing steam as new evidence comes in. That is, the proportion of parents who believe that theory compared to other theories will probably not go beyond a certain ratio, and may even go down as the theory is discredited, in turn bringing down the VAERS numbers.
Furthermore, as thimerosal is removed from vaccines, parents can no longer attribute adverse effects to thimerosal, and therefore can’t file a complaint.
In other words, the rate of VAERS reporting depends as much on parent beliefs as to causes as it does on actual adverse effects caused by vaccines.
There’s good peer review and there’s crappy or perfunctory peer review. JAPS clearly doesn’t do a very good job with its peer review, as is obvious just from reading the contents of its journal. Every article I’ve ever read from that journal (usually because some pseudoscientist or Geier apologist is touting the article as “proof” of whatever) has been of uniformly dismal quality.
so the CDDS data and the VAERS numbers BOTH went down coincidentally
Oh, BTW, can you show me how the CDDS (California DDS I presume) numbers have gone down? (I plan to post an entry analyzing that data. The caseload of the state continue to go up very quickly.)
Quote:
Excellent point. You judge the quality of peer review by the quality of articles a journal publishes. By that standard JAPS fails miserably. The journal even publishes ludicrous defenses of baby-killer Alan Yurko, fer cryin’ out loud!
Poll answer: Irritatingly funny AND way scary.
Kev wrote:
“I out people when they become pompous asses, yes :o)”.
– You forgot to clarify… the second half of that should be AND when they are on the “other side”. That would at least be more honest. It’s ok though Kev, it’s your blog, you can do whatever you want…
Kev wrote:
“I’ve spent a whole post here saying its impossible to draw any conclusions from the data that the Geiers cited. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to now start drawing conclusions of my own”.
– You, hypocritical? Never! On a serious note, it still looks to me like you should be able to come out and agree with the Geier’s conclusions at the end of their “study” or “bunch of words”, which calls for more research to be done. You claim that you agree with this when you say things like:
” I have absolutely no issue with more research being done Sue but thats not what the problem with this paper is”.
– but then you go on to talk about the study/data as if it warrants NO ATTENTION. You claim to want to get to the bottom of this mess but everything you say tells me otherwise. Now, I suppose the same can be said of me, however I see very little from your side which gives me any pause. Really. I don’t see valid studies which can sufficiently explain what I see… I don’t see the opening up of all the VSD data. I don’t see the clarification of the Danish studies… all that (and much more) show me a lack of transparency in all of this. I know that you lurk on EoH, take a look at Krakow’s post (in regards to the Geier study) that pretty much sums it up for me.
I don’t see valid studies which can sufficiently explain what I see…
What is it that you see?
I don’t see the opening up of all the VSD data.
The VSD sharing process is outline here: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/vsd/default.htm
I don’t see the clarification of the Danish studies…
Thimerosal was removed in Denmark. Autism prevalene continues to increase in Denmark. I don’t believe they can make up an increase in the prevalence of autism.
all that (and much more) show me a lack of transparency in all of this.
Right, they are all out to get you, aren’t they?
_”You claim that you agree with this when you say things like: *†I have absolutely no issue with more research being done Sue but thats not what the problem with this paper isâ€.*_
No, I didn’t say I agreed, I said I had no issue if people decided to perform further study.
_”but then you go on to talk about the study/data as if it warrants NO ATTENTION. You claim to want to get to the bottom of this mess but everything you say tells me otherwise.”_
I do? When did I claim that? I don’t believe there is a mess so it would be rather odd for me to claim I wanted to get to the bottom of it.
_”however I see very little from your side which gives me any pause”_
A hypothesis has been put forward that mercury causes autism. Its up to ‘your’ side to establish that connection. The Geiers tried with this study and failed. Better luck next time.
_”take a look at Krakow’s post (in regards to the Geier study) that pretty much sums it up for me.”_
I’ll have a look next time I’m there but a URL would be nice.
Joseph wrote”
“In other words, the rate of VAERS reporting depends as much on parent beliefs as to causes as it does on actual adverse effects caused by vaccines.”
– The interesting point in all of this should be that we now have 3 different databases which point to a POSSIBLE connection between thimerosal/autism. Each one may not be 100% perfect (certainly the case) but the fact that they each seem to show the same possible trends should be troubling to your side.
– Sue M.
_”he interesting point in all of this should be that we now have 3 different databases which point to a POSSIBLE connection between thimerosal/autism. Each one may not be 100% perfect (certainly the case) but the fact that they each seem to show the same possible trends should be troubling to your side.”_
3? Which is the third?
You’re attempting to paint these sources as being slightly imperfect. Thats not the case, they’re shot at.
The VAERS database is corrupted with duplicate and irrelevant data – the CDDS, when 3-5 year olds are isolated (the only proper way to measure as agreed by David Kirby), shows the rate is still increasing.
I don’t know what your third is so I can’t comment on that.
Kev wrote:
“I don’t believe there is a mess so it would be rather odd for me to claim I wanted to get to the bottom of it”.
– There are a bunch of angry parents out there who believe that a preservative in vaccines given to healthy babies may have triggered their children to become autistic? That’s not messy? Ok, we can disagree on that.
Kev wrote:
“The Geiers tried with this study and failed. Better luck next time”.
– So quick to wrap things up, aren’t we Kev? Sweep it under the rug… maybe it will go away.
Kev wrote:
“I’ll have a look next time I’m there but a URL would be nice”.
– I have faith that you can find it.
– Sue M.
Sue,
None of these database point to a link between thimersoal and autism.
VAERS doesn’t – not if the vast majority of thimerosal-related reports are coming from lawyers. (why in the world would THAT be the case?)
The CDDS doesn’t – Interverbal has shown the data is probably not particularly useful for determining autism incidence, and as Kev mentioned the 3-5 year old rate is actually increasing slightly.
I’m sure the third database you’re thinking of is the VSD. Too bad the published studies that have come out that utilize that database don’t show a link. Of course, you’d rather believe the preliminary results that used garbage data, duplicate records and faulty methodology because they bolster your position.
The interesting point in all of this should be that we now have 3 different databases which point to a POSSIBLE connection between thimerosal/autism. Each one may not be 100% perfect (certainly the case) but the fact that they each seem to show the same possible trends should be troubling to your side.
This is not true, considering that such correlations would be expected if you take into account the hype effect on the beliefs of parents. In medical science it’s commonly known that correlation does not imply causation. You have to look at alternative explanations. And then you apply Occam’s Razor. When one theory relies on conspiracies, that’s a good clue the theory is likely incorrect.
As to the parents who believe that their children were harmed by thimerosal…have you ever thought about WHY those parents think that way? Are they being convinced by the science, or by persuasive activist groups with ties to lawyers and alt-med autism treatments?
You see, Sue, that problem with you has always been that you can’t bring yourself to even consider the possibility that autism isn’t caused by mercury. You’ve already admitted you’re a true believer. So you’ve already answered the question “does mercury cause autism” even before there’s a single scientific study that says (with any degree of conclusivity) that autism and mercury have anything to do with each other.
The CDDS doesn’t – Interverbal has shown the data is probably not particularly useful for determining autism incidence, and as Kev mentioned the 3-5 year old rate is actually increasing slightly.
Incidence based on CDDS data is actually increasing rapidly (about 10% annually). But there’s a misconception created by I don’t know who that the difference between one quarter’s total caseload and the previous quarter’s may be referred to as “new cases”. They then declare that the number of “new cases” is going down from quarter to quarter. When in fact, all that’s going down is the difference in caseload from one quarter to the next. You wouldn’t expect that to continue to increase indefinitely until everyone in California is autistic, would you? At some point, the annual difference in caseload should go down to about 1-2%. If you check Epilepsy or any other condition handled by the DDS, you will find that caseload increase (“new cases”) is in this range.
Now, I’ve also heard that the “new cases” are still increasing in the 3-5 y/o range, but this is not too relevant honestly. That will too start to go down eventually.
_”There are a bunch of angry parents out there who believe that a preservative in vaccines given to healthy babies may have triggered their children to become autistic? That’s not messy? Ok, we can disagree on that.”_
I can’t help what other people believe. All they need to do is get past their beliefs and examine the evidence. Thats what I did.
_”So quick to wrap things up, aren’t we Kev? Sweep it under the rug… maybe it will go away.”_
Yeah, by blogging publicly about it I’m sweeping it right under the rug and hoping it will go away.
Whats difficult to understand here Sue? The CDDS say ‘don’t use our data as its not reliable for things like this.’ VAERS say the same – what did you _think_ the outcome would be of using data of this quality?
Kev wrote:
“3? Which is the third”
– Well, that could have been answered had you decided to read Robert Krakow’s post on EoH. Or you can read about it here (not claiming this to be “scientific”, just food for thought):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060302-14073200-bc-ageofautism.xml
– So now you have pointed me to Jonathan’s analysis/numbers of the DCCS study. I understand that Jonathan is very intelligent… but we seem to have some conflicting information from Blaxill and Jonathan. It would be really nice if someone with a bit more clout than Jonathan could speak up on the matter. I really don’t mean that as an attack on Jonathan, it just makes sense that they (CDC) would want to address the issue.
– Sue M.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060302-14073200-bc-ageofautism.xml
A main premise of this is that autism prevalence is in decline. It can easily be shown that CDDS-based prevalence (as flawed as it might be) is not going down, and the interpretation that it is going down is either malicious or simply not well thought-out.
Kev wrote:
“Whats difficult to understand here Sue? The CDDS say ‘don’t use our data as its not reliable for things like this.’ VAERS say the same – what did you think the outcome would be of using data of this quality”?
– Ok, Kev, since you seem to be having difficulty finding the Krakow post, here’s the link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/message/21760
– When you get a minute, I would be interested in your opinion about his assertion that in fact, it was ok for some studies to be done previously using 2 out of 3 of the databases in question. Is it ok for them to use data which is considered off limits for the thimerosa/autism question. Hardly seems fair now, does it? (By the way, anyone can speak up here in how Krakow is wrong in this assertion about previous studies… admittedly, I’m taking his word for it… please enlighten me on this subject).
– Sue M.
Is it ok for them to use data which is considered off limits for the thimerosa/autism question.
Why do you think it is off limits for that?
If data is publicly available, you can publish any studies you want on it. The problem is the interpretations of the data, which are terribly flawed.
_”So now you have pointed me to Jonathan’s analysis/numbers of the DCCS study. I understand that Jonathan is very intelligent… but we seem to have some conflicting information from Blaxill and Jonathan. “_
David Kirby doesn’t have enough clout for you now?
Kirby agreed with blogger Citizen Cain that changes in 3 – 5 year olds was the only true indicator. This is also the premise of Johnathons analysis.
Everything gets chucked in the CDDS figures – all new cases, whether they’re genuinely new or people who might’ve dropped out and then come back in and the raw data that both Rollens and the Geiers used encompasses *all* cases – they didn’t isolate 3 – 5 year olds.
Does that sounds even slightly reliable to you Sue? Does that sound like data you can get a firm conclusion from?
_”When you get a minute, I would be interested in your opinion about his assertion that in fact, it was ok for some studies to be done previously using 2 out of 3 of the databases in question.”_
As I haven’t seen the studies or seen how they’ve used the data I have absolutely no idea. I’m sure everyone on here would be interested in seeing those studies if you could link through to them.
Krakow also makes use of the DoE stats which are also unreliable.
So we have three sources which are now unreliable. Explain to me how thats better than two?
I must grant that the responses presented in that article as coming from the CDC are non-satisfactory. (I’m not sure if the article fairly represents the responses). It’s as if the CDC is not really aware of the methodological flaws in the VAERS and CDDS interpretations. Either that, or they don’t care. At least the flaws in the VAERS interpretation have been clearly layed out in
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16452357&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_docsum
This one is also interesting (Shows that parents who report to the VAERS are much less concerned about vaccine-preventable diseases):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15249304&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
This one explains the inherent limitations in using the VAERS data for epidemiological studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15071280&query_hl=4&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Joseph wrote:
That middle study that you posted above is pretty funny. Seems so obvious to me.
1) Parent perceives that their child was injured or became autistic due to a vaccine.
2) It is reported to VAERS.
3) Isn’t it obvious that their views about vaccines are going to be different that the general population?
You call it interesting, I call it obvious.
– Sue M.
The importance of that one study is that it shows how unsubstantiated hype can be detrimental to public health.
Joseph wrote:
“The importance of that one study is that it shows how unsubstantiated hype can be detrimental to public health”.
– It shows no such thing. It shows that parents who perceive that their child has been injured by vaccinations have different views of vaccinations as compared to the general population. Anything else that you want to make out of that study is born out of your imagination.
– Sue M.
Hi Sue,
“So now you have pointed me to Jonathan’s analysis/numbers of the DCCS study. I understand that Jonathan is very intelligent… but we seem to have some conflicting information from Blaxill and Jonathan. It would be really nice if someone with a bit more clout than Jonathan could speak up on the matter. I really don’t mean that as an attack on Jonathan, it just makes sense that they (CDC) would want to address the issue.â€
No offense taken Sue. I agree with Joseph that the CDC response is not fully satisfactory. I would like to see them attack more salient points.
Are you referring to Blaxill et al. (2003) which was commenting on Croen et al. (2002) work in the DDS data? Mr. Blaxill and I agree that it is not sufficient to say that those formerly receiving services for mental retardation now receive it for autism. I replicated that finding.
However, I do attack his use of the median age of diagnosis (the wrong stat in this case) as such will is likely to throw off the intervals they calculate. Ideally one could use the median for the purpose they selected for it. However, the high standard deviation (relative to the mean) should have been a warning to him, that this was not a smoothly distributed data set and that he should have stuck with the mean.
From Mr. Olmstead’s article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20060302-14073200-bc-ageofautism.xml
“but new cases in that database seem to be declining in tandem with new cases in California’s special education system. And those California numbers are widely regarded as the most reliable count of full-syndrome, professionally diagnosed autism cases in the United States. P.S.: The most recent figures from the U.S. Department of Education also dropped.â€
(eyes go wide) the IDEA data? No they did not drop; those are still gaining speed both in incidence and prevalence, have a look http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/346/1599/1600/wave2.jpg
The TAAP folks say the same http://www.taap.info/epidemic.asp
Who told Dan Olmstead that there is a drop in the IDEA stats? Oh man…..
Rick and those who have pushed the epidemic rhetoric are the only ones who call the DDS data the “most reliableâ€. The DDS themselves certainly do not do so. Also the the DDS does not do full syndrome autism, they are more restrictive than the DSM criteria and yet have a notably higher rate. There are very funny things with that data set that aren’t a problem with recent, controlled, descriptive autism epidemiology.
The CDC should never have used the VAERS for any study. And no one should use the IDEA stats unless they are doing study to account for where the special ed money goes.
At best, the data is inconclusive with regards to autism and a relationship with thimerosal.
As per Olmsted, it’s patently obvious that he’s angling for a book deal of some sort. I guess working for now-irrelevant UPI doesn’t pay well.
I’ve posted a non-technical interpretation of the CDDS data, which I believe anyone can follow, here:
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2006/03/cdds-data-101-recently-there-have-been.html
Fantastic Kevin. You may enjoy this post.
Even better, that blog has posted a roundup that references Kevin’s comments:
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1292
Oops… that IS you Anthony! Sorry.
Thanks for the comments and links Anthony :o)
Dr Laidler is quoted as saying,
To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk.
This is the same guy that claims he sent fake urine samples to Doctor’s Data to try and trip them up.
Can Dr. Laidler back up any of the bullshit that he spews?
Laidler sounds like a marked card, and in my opinion …he should not be dealt with.
Citizen Cain:
_”According to Figure 1 in the Geiers’ article, between 1993 and 2005 nationwide reports of autism to VAERS ranged from zero per quarter to about 78, with most quarters receiving fewer than 40 reports. Since about 1 million little Americans are born every quarter, and since an estimated 1 out of 166 people are thought to be on the autistic spectrum, something on the order of 6000 autistic Americans are coming into the world every quarter. Therefore, VAERS is finding about 2/3 of a percent of autistics. *Can you, dear reader, see it might not be a good idea to try to track trends in autism incidence through a system that can’t account for even one percent of autistic children?*”_
CC
KC says: ” Can Dr. Laidler back up any of the bullshit that he spews?”
Since he was relating a personal experience as far as his experience with VAERS, you would have to take his word for it. This also applies to his time as a DAN! advocate:
http://www.autism-watch.org/about/bio2.shtml
As far as some of his essays on http://www.autism-watch.org/ , while they do not have a bibliography… you can get the titles and find the documents yourself. Documents like the Minnesota Rules for Assessing Autism and the DSM IV that are referenced in http://www.autism-watch.org/general/edu.shtml (though he does have a direct link to the federal guidelines).
But the most important thing to take about the use of VAERS is that it is not an unbiased survey, and should not be used for data collection. As explained here:
http://www.aap.org/profed/thimaut-may03.htm
and here:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/2/387
The question should be “Can the Geiers back up anything they spew?”
Which you would know if you had actually read the full submission and the links it included.
HN,
You can’t backup Dr. Laidler’s fake urine tests and VAERS bullshit with AutismWatch!
I never said I did. You can only go by what he said in his story… which is why ANECDOTES are not data.
Remember this whenever you try to prove something with “Well, I can show that my kid recovered!”.
The plural of anecdote is NOT data.
I notice you did not comment on his essay on diagnostic standards between the federal IDEA guidelines and the states of Oregon, Washington and Minnesota.