A vaccinated vs unvaccinated "study" by Generation Rescue

[HuckleB]

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/06/a-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study/

"For as long as I can recall, this has been one of the clarion calls of the autism/antivaccine/pro-disease groups – that the only way to know if vaccines cause autism is to do a ‘simple’ study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. Indeed, Generation Rescue carried out an ill-fated phone survey that in reality meant absolutely nothing so badly was it put together and carried out. But even if it had been well designed and carried out the results were not good for pro-disease anti-vaccine autism believers:

Number of boys and girls with Aspergers
Unvaccinated: 1% of total
Partially vaccinated: 2% of total
Fully vaccinated: 1%
Fully and Partially combined: 2%

Conclusion: you are 1% more likely to have Aspergers if you have been partially vaccinated than unvaccinated. If you are fully vaccinated your chance of being Aspergers is no greater than if you were unvaccinated.

..."


--------------------

More at the link...

Hmmm.

:yoiks: :yoiks:

[HuckleB]

1. Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19952979

[HuckleB]

2. Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260220

[i}"Twenty five children who had undergone their full course of childhood immunization schedule were compared with 25 children who did not have any vaccinations for a period of five years. Parameters for comparison were measles, pertussis, poliomyelitis, tetanus and tuberculosis. Out of the 25 vaccinated children, only one child had mild measles at 2 1/2 years while 4 had suspected whooping cough at different points of the study period but not clinically diagnosed as pertussis. Among the unvaccinated group, 2 died of measles before the age of 3 years while 11 others went down with measles during an outbreak in 1986. An unvaccinated child also died of tetanus within the study period. In this paper we advocate the total integration of every community in the ongoing Expanded Programme for Immunization in Nigeria.

[mhatrw]

5. A two page article, two author 50 person study from Nigeria over 20 years ago.

Please get us the actual article to read so we can determine for ourselves what it actually showed.

[HuckleB]

6. I love the usual excuses.

Every time the evidence overwhelms your unsubstantiated hate of vaccines, you offer nothing but excuses.

[mhatrw]

3. LOL. You will link ANY pro-vax nonsense, not matter how absurd or inaccurate, won't you?

The real results:

http://www.generationrescue.org/phonesurvey

All vaccinated boys, compared to unvaccinated boys:
- Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.55)
- Vaccinated boys were 224% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.24)
- Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism (RR 1.61)

Older vaccinated boys, ages 11-17 (about half the boys surveyed), compared to older unvaccinated boys:
- Vaccinated boys were 158% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.58)
- Vaccinated boys were 317% more likely to have ADHD (RR 4.17)
- Vaccinated boys were 112% more likely to have autism (RR 2.12)
(Note: older children may be a more reliable indicator because many children are not diagnosed until they are 6-8 years old, and we captured data beginning at age 4.)

All vaccinated boys, removing one county with unusual results (Multnomah, OR), compared to unvaccinated boys:
- Vaccinated boys were 185% more likely to have a neurological disorder (RR 2.85)
- Vaccinated boys were 279% more likely to have ADHD (RR 3.79)
- Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism (RR 2.46)

All vaccinated boys and girls, compared to unvaccinated boys and girls:
- Vaccinated boys and girls were 120% more likely to have asthma (RR 2.20)
- No correlation established for juvenile diabetes

All vaccinated girls, compared to unvaccinated girls:
- No meaningful differences in prevalence were noted for NDs (which may be due to the smaller sample size of the study because girls represent about 20% of cases.)

Is this hard science? No

Do I think these results are particularly meaningful? No.

Does this excuse your favorite blogs of idiots misrepresenting the actual results? Of course not. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, and you should be ashamed of yourself for linking such tripe.

[HuckleB]

4. I linked to the reality of Generation Rescue's ridiculous "study."

Thanks for providing everyone at DU a firsthand look at GR's anti-vax propaganda!

That is much appreciated!

:rofl:

PS: For more on the reality of Generation Rescue's failed attempt to make data fit its preconceived notions, see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=939

And for more: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/06/fun_with_phone_surveys.php

Oh, and referring to left brain/right brain as "idiots" leaves you with no way to save face. All any DUer has to do is spend some time at LB/RB to know that such a claim is ludicrous.

Also, why did J.B. "I Love Disease" Handley pay so much for something so ridiculous?

:rofl:

[laconicsax]

7. Hmm...those figures aren't supported by the data.

What's funny is how blatantly dishonest their interpretation of the data is. Read the data for yourself: http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/survey.pdf (They needs a better quality scanner.)

Here's a wonderful example of just how dishonest they're being:

Boys, aggregated data, all 9 counties
Number with ASD:
Unvaccinated: 4%
Vaccinated: 5%

What do the "real results" say?
"Vaccinated boys were 61% more likely to have autism"

When they tossed out the most populous county in Oregon, they claim that:
"Vaccinated boys were 146% more likely to have autism"

What do the survey data say again?

Boys, aggregated data, all 9 counties
Number with ASD:
Unvaccinated: 4%
Vaccinated: 5%

You might ask, "How on Earth did Generation Rescue come up with 61% and 146% from a one percent difference?"

Well, it seems they used the difference in the relative risk, though it looks like they pulled a Wakefield on those numbers because I can't figure out how to get an RR of 1.61 for that data. ((403/8642)/(21/533)=1.18, not 1.61)

[mhatrw]

8. 5% is 25% higher than 4%, not 1% higher.

[laconicsax]

9. :facepalm: