Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
this book systematically debunks the methodologies used in each of the studies you are referencing.
|
I have now reached the point in the book where this is done for the MMR studies. It gives valid reasons why Taylor 1999 is flawed, and Madsen 2002. Then it goes (footnotes are in parens):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the-book
Other investigators have examined the MMR-autism debate.(11) Several studies compared rising prevalence of reported autism and coverage rates of MMR and found no correlation. (12)(13)(14)(15)(16) Others have failed to find a temporal association of the timing of administration of the MMR vaccination and a clustering of autism diagnoses.(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) Several studes looked for a relationship between developmental regression, GI symptoms, and MMR vaccine, and were unable to detect an association.(23)(24)(25)(26) But each of these studies has been widely criticized in the literature for incomplete case ascertainment, methodological flaws, and inherent biases.(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)
|
I like the book because it is footnoted beautifully. So far it makes a persuasive case on many things. I am particularly convinced of Clod's earlier point that there is a genetic basis that is aggravated by some other condition. "Oh yeah now I get it"
I was originally skeptical that the book addressed the majority of the studies, but in fact all but one of the MMR studies I mentioned are footnotes 12-26.
However, this is far from a "systematic debunking". And (35) is not a peer-reviewed article, and references PDD, not autism. And two of the footnotes (31 and 32) are actually the same reference. So, we have 15 footnotes referencing studies which find no MMR-autism link, and 7 footnotes that criticize the studies. So I would say he has listed strong criticisms of 2 studies, and given one unpersuasive sentence vaguely dismissing the other 15.
(I would not use the term "debunking" at all in the context of scientific investigation. It's a highly biased and imprecise word.)
So we don't know yet - to really know, what I'd need is the text of the cites. Was there someone willing to retrieve studies for us?