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 
Pleyn Delit is a much better book on medieval cookery. Should you want one :p
Read this page from the origin of this so-called “journal”. It’s short go ahead and read it. Notice the request for “stories” rather than research. It’s already evident that the editor has a sense of humor, did they need to mention that? Oh did I forget to mention the Geiers guise were the stars of the premeir issue? This is really best described as an alt-med group infomercial magazine from a small tucson business.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is also chock full of antivaccination and antifluoridation conspiracy-mongering. The very same issue in which the Geiers paper appears also contains articles that blame vaccines for many cases of shaken baby syndrome.
It’s an unscientific rag, pure and simple.
Okay, about that “journal” and its group. One of it members, Jane Orient (was an “Executive Director” … http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/admlaw.htm ) participated in the Healthfraud listserv for a while.
I spent a few minutes digging up some of her posts and responses to her in its archives:
Threads she participated in (click on the threads to read them) :
http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:aas:40162:200011#b (the healthfraud listserv archives are not user friendly)
A notice of her suspension: http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:34574:199910:ifogflmmbfgahjoippbp
And finally a notice of “Jane Orient and her Antivaccination Gang”, actually an announcement that AAPS is online:
http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:40151:200011:golhmnjdkcfgaokokcfm …
This is the entire thread:
http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:sss:40151:200011:golhmnjdkcfgaokokcfm#b (she does respond, saying she is being “gagged”).
I always tune in to acronyms. A bad or stupidly constructed (strained) acronmyn tells me a lot about the people involved.
Using the conventional way of making an acronym the
Joural of the
American
Physicians
and
Surgeons
should be
JAPS
Now how obvious is that? This is a name for a journal that you want to avoid unless it happens to promote racism.
So they managed it this way, instead of picking another word for journal (magazine would be good, rag would be good)
They insisted that their journal was
JAPandS.
That’s how it used to be written. And apparently, they used to own JAPANDS.COM
Now “Japan DS” owns JAPANDS.com and there’s no JAPANDS.org
The journal now uses. JP&S… which is Journal of Physicians and Scientistis, I guess.
What happened to “Americans”? These are not very bright people obviously with a political axe to grind, and they claim to use good data to oppose “political correctness” or whatever, well, that’s possible to do, but JAPANDS is not doing it. They are even freaked out by the acronym JAPS because it’s obviously not ‘politically correct’.
Thanks, Kevin. Thanks D o C and Orac for pointing those facts out about the JAPS.
Orac said: It’s an unscientific rag, pure and simple.
But it is entertaining.
Well, I guess we will have to wait for the science to refute this study. Until that time, it is SCIENCE. Here are a few quotes from Kev from a different blog entry on a different topic:
“Its science Sue because its been peer reviewed”.
“…if you have valid science to refute this study then cite it. Until you do, you’re simply doing what you always do – base your beliefs on the personalities and make a lot of outraged noises. It does get a bit tedious after awhile”.
(right back at you Kev in regards to this issue)
“If you disagree with the conclusion then you need to show whats scientifically wrong with either the conclusion itself or the science that underpins the conclusion”.
” Then maybe after my fifth time of asking you can tell me where the science is that contradicts the Pediatrics paper”.
“OK, good – so show me where the science is that makes what he says here bogus”
– You should get the point… You CAN’T have it both ways, Kev. You can’t call BULLSH*T on anything associated with the Geier’s just because you don’t agree with them or you think that they are “dumpster diving”. You can’t call BULLSH*T because you don’t like the source it’s been published in. So, get your stuff together and refute the science that the Geier’s have put together here. Until that time, it’s been peer-reviewed so it’s science, right?
On another note, so when exactly did the Geier’s become the anti-Christ’s again? It must have been sometime AFTER they testified and were ultimately proven correct on the whole DTP vs. DTaP saga and before they claimed that thimerosal was injuring children… Right?
– Sue M.
High Sue?
Glad to see you aren’t letting this turn in to an anonymous bitch fest. You do sound a bit bitchy here though but it’s hard to convey emotion through words.
There isn’t any science to the Geier’s latest ( I don’t know what to call it. Study? no. Paper? no. Help me out) “Bunch of words.” Show us the science part and I’ll be happy to offer my comments.
As far as the peer review part, I’m still not sure who the peers of the Geiers would be. I’m not disputing they have peers and they’ve reviewed their “bunch of words” but I’d like to know who they are.
Are you familiar with the phrase “Not Even Wrong”?
Oh, but there’s so much more to be said about the JAPS. Jane Orient, the publisher, is also in with a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (I think that’s it – OISM, anyway) which is six kinds of weird. She is also the author of a homeschooling curriculum (I can’t remember the name, but it was hilarious) and several fin-de-siecle novels.
Wasn’t the AAPS the organization that sponsored Boyd Haley to spout off about Mad Child Disease?
The Geiers work is irrelevant because they use sources that have already been illustrated to be inappropriate.
Their use of the DDS numbers and VAERS is like diagnosing cancer with reflexology – the method is inappropriate, therefore any research derived from it is invalid.
Clone wrote:
“There isn’t any science to the Geier’s latest ( I don’t know what to call it. Study? no. Paper? no. Help me out) “Bunch of words.†Show us the science part and I’ll be happy to offer my comments”.
– You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter. According to Kev, if it’s peer-reviewed than it is science unless it can refuted by another peer-reviewed scientific study. I tried that with the Offit thing, remember? Kev was all over me because I couldn’t back up my cries of BOGUS… You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game, can you??
– Sue M.
mouse wrote:
“The Geiers work is irrelevant because they use sources that have already been illustrated to be inappropriate”.
– Nope, it’s been peer reviewed.
– Sue M.
_”You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter. According to Kev, if it’s peer-reviewed than it is science unless it can refuted by another peer-reviewed scientific study. I tried that with the Offit thing, remember? Kev was all over me because I couldn’t back up my cries of BOGUS… You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game, can you??”_
Yet again Sue, you fail to understand the simplest thing. As I said over and over again – peer review means that the science that underpins the study in question is sound – i.e. the methodology. The methodology the Geiers use in this case is a combination of Microsoft Excel and a graphing package. As I use Excel frequently myself I have pleasure in informing you that the Geiers showed excellent judgement in their choce of data crunching app. Unfortunately, its not yet evolved enough to encompass a ‘make silk purse out of sows ear’ wizard just yet.
As I’ve _also_ said in the thread you quote mine from, peer review does not guarantee the paper is *right*. In this case, its quite obvious that the sources are rubbish and as any developer will tell you – GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
You also continue to misunderstand the Offit paper and why I was ‘all over you’ – the _science_ underpining the Offit paper was sound (and lets not forget – it was peer reviewed in a proper science journal – not this rag) – you are, however, perfectly free to disagree with the conclusions if you can find something to refute them. You couldn’t.
I’m sure there are plenty of homeopathic journals that are “peer-reviewed” as well, but that doesn’t make homeopathy good science either. You cannot equate the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons to any kind of legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal. It’s not even indexed on pubmed.
And the problem, Sue, is that the conclusions of Geier, et al., have been refuted by numerous other peer-reviewed papers. I know you know that, it’s just impossible for you to admit it.
Ah, the sights and sounds of Kev grasping at straws again.
Anyone have that date on when the Geiers changed from helping children (testifying about the need to change from the DTP to the DTaP) to becoming the psycho, money-hungry, lying fools that apparently they are today (in your world anyway).
– Sue M.
There is no such date, Sue.
_”Ah, the sights and sounds of Kev grasping at straws again.”_
Lets go through it once more for the patently hard of comprehension.
Peer review means that bunch of unrelated people look at a paper and say ‘yeah, the methodology is sound’ or ‘no, its crap’.
What also comes into play is the status of the publication. JAPS is quite obviously a rag. As anonimouse says, its not even indexed on Pubmed.
Even _I_ would say, ‘yeah, the Geiers are right to take numbers and analyse them in that way’.
However – the _source_ of those numbers and what the Geiers do to the numbers as well as what they do and don’t represent is also an issue. As is obvious to just about anyone on the planet with half a brain cell – VAERS and CDDS data cannot be used in the way the Geiers used it. Both VAERS _and_ CDDS say so quite categorically.
Don’t you get it Sue? This isn’t something _I’m_ saying – this is something I’m _talking_ about. The people who are saying it are the people who collate this data.
I understand that you are desperate for something Sue and I have a certain sympathy for your position if the Geiers are the best hope you have – but I’m afraid this ‘paper’ is plain old rubbish.
Such disruptions include
testosterone-mercury synergistic induced neurotoxicity, while estrogen significantly reduced mercury-induced neurotoxicity
Gee, I wonder who came up with that idea.
“Anyone have that date on when the Geiers changed from helping children (testifying about the need to change from the DTP to the DTaP) to becoming the psycho, money-hungry, lying fools that apparently they are today (in your world anyway).”
You know Sue, it may not be realistic to look for an exact date. The potential for genetic factors, combinations of those genetic factors, and the possibility of environmental influences on those multiple potential genetic combinations is complex. Factor in intellectual development and natural ageing processes and the exact date equation gets fuzzier. Then if you also factor in lifelong environmental and social influences, intervention (or lack thereof), and the likely undocumented changes in their perceptions of reality (in any direction), the equation is complex indeed. Also be aware that the standards by which they perceptively measured are not necessarily universally accepted or documented.
Regardless of the date, I think several bloggers have communicated ethics about this pretty clearly. Past good deeds do not automatically entitle one to a “free-ticket” from reality.
I would suggest that the Geiers desire for a “safer vaccine” (the DTaP) was a bit of a double-edged sword. While they might have testified that the DTP was dangerous and the DTaP was better, the reality is that they stood to personally profit from the perception DTP was dangerous.
After all, what do the Geiers do? They’re (mediocre) expert witnesses in vaccine court. The more people they could convince of the danger of DTP, the better. When the thimerosal controversy came around, the Geiers were in hog heaven.
Sue M wrote
“Anyone have that date on when the Geiers changed from helping children (testifying about the need to change from the DTP to the DTaP) to becoming the psycho, money-hungry, lying fools that apparently they are today (in your world anyway).â€
Could have started somewhere about the time they tried that little hanky panky with the VAERS database. You know, I’ve never seen anybody comment on just how serious that violation was. I’ve been in the health field all my working life and in the policy side of things these last 5 years. Keeping health databases separate is the only way to guarantee that people’s private health information remains confidential. Can you imagine the commercial worth of the information stored in VAERS if the de-identified information held in one database is linked to identifying material in another database and that’s what Papa Doc and Baby Doc Geier tried to do – link the databases and walk out with the information If we then get to the latest ‘exciting’ prospect pushed by the Geiers – the chemical catration of small children, I think we can quite safely say that they really are no longer part of homo sapiens sapiens being neither wise nor rational.
The chemical castration scene qualifies as diabolical – as BC points out – you can’t make a sheet out of testosterone – a chemical impossibility. As both Orac and DoC pointed out – chemical castration in girls lowers estrogen – not testosterone. The holes in this bogus theory are just enormous, which leads me to something I’ve found rather curious. I know that some people have very flexible minds and can carry a few conflicting thoughts simultaneously. Sue M seems to take this to a whole nother universe. I’m sort of wondering how she does it.
OOps forgot – thanks to the Diva for the Papa Doc Geier appelation – very appropriate.
Hi Al,
Autism Diva was thinking about calling junior, “Baby Not-Doc”
Autism Diva supposes he could be “Baby Bachelor” (hah!)
What ever happened to Mamma Geier? Was there a Mamma Geier?
Autism Diva thinks that both John Best Jr and Sue M are trolling. They are deliberately being obtuse to make someone explain something over and over. It’s an ugly game played by simple minded people who like to get attention and waste other’s time.
John Best Junior is suing the gov’t for money, so it seems. Maybe he’ll clarify that. Sue says she isn’t.
The mercury parents help their court case by spreading misleading garbage like this Geiers *thing*. It’s money in the mercury parents and their lawyers own pockets to pretend that the Geiers know what they are talking about. It’s a big ugly shell game. Watch the pea.
Who else has filed a case against the feds? Besides John Best Jr, that is?
Who will play “expert” witness in the case? Pappa Doc Geier will for one. What a hysterical joke.
“Was there a Mamma Geier?”
Are you accusing the younger Geier of being vat-grown? 🙂
JAPS is not the worse acronym I’ve come across. Try ‘BAPS’; the British Association of Plastic Surgeons (http://www.baps.co.uk/). Made me giggle, but I’m very low-brow.
You need to have good inputs to research to get good outputs. One of the stumbling blocks for a lot of autism research is the lack of a ‘robust diagnosis’; has every other possibility been ruled out (anything from Fragile X to attachment disorder), is there clear evidence of the diagnosis? Even if there was no suspicion of tampering, the reporting for the VAERS database does not have this assurance of a robust diagnosis. This is not just a problem with the Geiers; a lot of autism research does not have good diagnostic beginnings. And that’s even with the assumption that autism is ‘one thing’ rather than ‘lots of things’.
M: “JAPS is not the worse acronym I’ve come across. Try ‘BAPS’; the British Association of Plastic Surgeons (http://www.baps.co.uk/). Made me giggle, but I’m very low-brow.”
When Newcastle Polytechnic was about to be made into a university, I heard (this is entirely apocryphal, but funny, so I’ll tell it) that they were going to change the name to Central University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne… and it’s bad enough to have got the older university there up in arms…
“But what about the acronym?”, I thought….
The person who told me this then told me about the polytechnic in Plymouth… the engineering faculty was going to be called an Institute of Science and Technology… a little like the one in Manchester (UMIST)… University of Plymouth Institute of Science and Technology… and I had to have another pint of Directors to cope with this lot.
Then I thought… “Oh shit! What about someone who goes to Plymouth first and then the new one in Newcastle second… and they list their universities by abbreviation?!” (like University College London being UCL an’ that…)… “… what’ll that look like….?!”
At that point I nearly died laughing… two more Directors at this table please, and then I’m away outa here…..
And I kid you not… this was the sort of conversations we had at one college I went to: we used to get a bit pissed off talking about engineering all the time…. so we had to lighten the load.
Hopefully this has done the same here.
Autism Diva thinks that both John Best Jr and Sue M are trolling.
Woah, you think?
Diva wrote:
“Autism Diva thinks that both John Best Jr and Sue M are trolling”.
– Ok. That works for me. Is that better or worse that lurking on EoH and running off to your own comfort zone to report on it?
– Sue M.
_”Ok. That works for me. Is that better or worse that lurking on EoH and running off to your own comfort zone to report on it?”_
Yes, its far braver to make a post on a closed list where membership is required to access content then a publicly accessible blog where everyone is free to contribute via name or anonymously.
Another good point well put again Sue.
A few of us who continue to lurk on EoH have learnt the lesson of others – it doesn’t matter how polite you are, sooner or later your account will be denied access if you post. Again thats unlike here where with the exception of human scum like John Best, everyone is free to comment and say whatever they want as long as its not illegal or spammy.
Maybe young Jonathan can do his own “report” on the numbers from the VAERS system and the CDDS in the same manner that the Geier’s have done. They are public access databases. Now, I will agree that these are not the best ways to access this information. There are certainly better sources of information. Unfortunately (if you haven’t noticed) no one is actually allowing that information to be addressed (I wonder why). So maybe we can wrap it up by saying that this is not a perfect study BUT it deserves attention due to the fact that if the trends are similar to what the Geier’s have suggested, then we may have a problem (or possibly it is a strange coincidence)…. The Geier’s state just that at the very end of their study. In the conclusions, they call for additional research concerning the effects of thimerosal containing vaccines. What is the problem with that??
– Sue M.
Kev wrote:
“it doesn’t matter how polite you are, sooner or later your account will be denied access if you post”.
– That is a cop-out, Kev.
– Sue M.
_”So maybe we can wrap it up by saying that this is not a perfect study BUT it deserves attention due to the fact that if the trends are similar to what the Geier’s have suggested, then we may have a problem (or possibly it is a strange coincidence)…. The Geier’s state just that at the very end of their study. In the conclusions, they call for additional research concerning the effects of thimerosal containing vaccines. What is the problem with that??”_
I have absolutely no issue with more research being done Sue but thats not what the problem with this paper is. If thats what the Geiers wanted to say then they could’ve written a concerned letter to a decent publication.
However, the facts are that they are attempting to illustrate their position has merit by utilising two very badly corrupted data sources. Using VAERS and CDDS I don’t think there’s _anything_ that can be reasonably drawn as illustrating anyones position. The Geiers make no mention of the limitations of either source, they don’t quote the readily available warnings from CDDS or VAERS and they certainly don’t make any mention of how misleadingly this innaccurate data represents the true picture – that is unfortunate at best and cynically and willfully dishonest at worst.
_”That is a cop-out, Kev.”_
I’m afraid its not. I can think of 3 people off the top of my head that Lenny banned because he deemed them counterproductive.
I did used to post there at one time Sue – I’ve been a member longer than you I suspect. I stopped when I got the very strong impression I’d be banned if I didn’t shut up.
“That is a cop-out, Kev.”
No, that’s a conscious decision not to engage lemmings, some very angry lemmings.
We’re all about being open and honest but when someone gets caught saying something extreme or just plain stupid then the fingers start a-pointin’.
I understand why: a cozy list desgined to foster strict adherence to a belief (a belief that very few outside the list share) will be shaken to the core by dissenters who pose questions that aren’t very easily answered.
Remember, dissention isn’t helpful and resistance is futile.
Kev wrote:
“If thats what the Geiers wanted to say then they could’ve written a concerned letter to a decent publication”.
– Why? So that it wouldn’t be published? I’m glad that they did what they did. Isn’t freedom of the press wonderful?
– Sue M.
Groupthinka wrote:
“I understand why: a cozy list desgined to foster strict adherence to a belief”.
– Again, cop-out… Don’t be ashamed of it, just acknowledge it. Let’s see what you guys talk about for the next 3 days… I’m outta’ here. Have fun.
– Sue M.
_”Why? So that it wouldn’t be published? I’m glad that they did what they did. Isn’t freedom of the press wonderful?”_
They’ve had letters published before, there’s no reason to suppose another one wouldn’t be.
I’m glad you’re glad Sue but to paraphrase Spidey’s Uncle – with freedom comes responsibility. If the news your spreading is obviously incorrect or at least ambiguous then you need to either work harder or at least give ample warnings.
I think it speaks volumes of your mindset Sue that you’re glad to see the wilful dissemination of misinformation for the sole reason that it supports your beliefs rather than the facts at hand.
_Again, cop-out…”_
Again, its not – its just the reality of the situation. lenny doesn’t like debate, he likes propoganda.
“We’ve absorbed more damage than we took during World War II, World War I and the AIDS epidemic and 9/11, all combined,” said Mark Gier.”
Mark Blaxill on EoH:
Ettina,
We are not discussing logic or facts, we are discussing core beliefs here…
Got that right Mark.
hi clone3g…
*quote* Mark Blaxill on EoH:
Ettina,
We are not discussing logic or facts, we are discussing core beliefs here…*unquote*
Um. Yeh. Right.
So, facts out the window, and beliefs central to the purpose of their efforts…..?
That’s a cult, that is.
Mark Blaxill on EoH:
“Ettina,
We are not discussing logic or facts, we are discussing core beliefs here…”
Your Honor, I have no further questions for Mr. Blaxill.
Study Shows More Than 87 Percent of Claims Linking Thimerosol to Medical Conditions Are Made by Lawyers
Wonder how many claims to VAERS Baby Gier made?
Stack the VAERS database with injury claims and try to use the same database as evidence in a “study”.
Hahaha… yep, we believe this…we’re stupid.
Yep, some of us are stupid enough to believe that thimerosol is 49% mercury.
I’m sure HealthPartners is in the big pocket of big pharma or something. Or Pediatrics takes money and advertising from drug companies. Or that the lead author once gave a talk where Merck officials were present.
There has to be something, right? You know, it can’t be that VAERS is little more than a hodge-podgey garbage pail of unverified reports. That would be way too logical, and Occam’s Razor is just a sham anyway.
Kev wrote:
“A few of us who continue to lurk on EoH have learnt the lesson of others – it doesn’t matter how polite you are, sooner or later your account will be denied access if you post.”
Lenny wrote me to say that I’ve been ‘inane and provocative’ and if i do that again I’ll be asked to leave – sniff. This btw about the most inane and provocative thing I’ve recently seen, namely Nancy Hokkanen and her list of all the things that the NDs are supposed not to want treated. I think it’s quite a few points beyond inane – so I tried the humour route- what else can one do with a post like that but send it up? Nope – thow shalt not point out the obvious in case someone begins to look foolish and that’s how lambs are dealt with in this pack of hyenas.
The problem with the VAERS is not so much that anyone can enter data. If the reports were completely random, you could actually draw some sound conclussions comparing, say, amount of thimerosal used in vaccines and number of reports.
Studies based on the VAERS are inherently biased due to various factors; most notably, as the mercury hypothesis becomes more popular, an increasing number of such reports will be entered. Additionally, the increasing popularity of the internet necessarily must have had an effect on it as well. So you will find that the number of reports has increased over time, roughly coinciding with anything else that has increased over that time.
_”The problem with the VAERS is not so much that anyone can enter data. If the reports were completely random, you could actually draw some sound conclussions comparing, say, amount of thimerosal used in vaccines and number of reports.”_
Absolutely – however, the combination of anyone being allowed to enter data and also being allowed to enter _anything_ is a recipie for disaster.
Joseph – I’m enjoying your blog. Could you contact me kevleitch@gmail.com as I’d like to add your blog to Autism Hub if you’re agreeable.
Absolutely – however, the combination of anyone being allowed to enter data and also being allowed to enter anything is a recipie for disaster.
My argument is that if the trash entries are evenly distributed, then the data is evenly skewed. (You could argue trash entries are not evenly distributed, particularly since info to the effect that anyone can file an unsubstantiated report has been made public).
I believe it could be shown that the rate of VAER reports roughly correlates with the membership size of the EOHarm list over time 🙂
Joseph – I’m enjoying your blog. Could you contact me kevleitch@gmail.com as I’d like to add your blog to Autism Hub if you’re agreeable.
Thanks. Sure, I have no problem with you adding it.
Listening to a friend describe the insanity at her workplace, I came up with the term “Reality Deficit Disorder”. Is RDD an applicable diagnosis of anyone that anyone would care to name (or not name, as the case might be)?
Julia…. I like that…
“Is RDD an applicable diagnosis of anyone that anyone would care to name (or not name, as the case might be)?”
I’ll give you three guesses 🙂 (he posts on his own blog these days)
“Studies based on the VAERS are inherently biased due to various factors; most notably, as the mercury hypothesis becomes more popular, an increasing number of such reports will be entered”.
– Certainly doesn’t explain why the numbers started to go back down in 2002… does it?
_”Certainly doesn’t explain why the numbers started to go back down in 2002… does it?”_
What numbers are those? If you’re referring to the CDDS data then that points already been addressed – the Geiers need to isolate new cases of 3 – 5 year olds. They didn’t – they lumped in everyone.
Oh and Sue? If you want to stomp off in a huff and then come back and post anonymously thats fine but you might want to remove your email address from the appropriate field first.
Kev wrote:
“Oh and Sue? If you want to stomp off in a huff and then come back and post anonymously thats fine but you might want to remove your email address from the appropriate field first”.
– Oh boy, Kev caught me. By the way, I didn’t stomp off in a huff. I very calmly said that I would be gone for a few days. Kids vacation… But I made some time for you. Is this how Ms. Clark got caught posting as Nana? Actually, that couldn’t have been it, Kev would have had to have ratted her out. I’m sure he didn’t. Ah well, back to the point… so the CDDS data and the VAERS numbers BOTH went down coincidentally in 2002? I’m supposed to believe that? Are you kidding me? Ah, grasp… grasp… grasp… keep it up. As for posting anonymously. I sort of like it. It’s liberating… seems to be the new rage around here. I guess I’ll have to get better at it 🙂 …