Autism News on the Internet: Let the Reader Be Aware
In Kirby's original article, the suggestion was that the VSD was a fatally flawed "ecological" (meaning statistically-based) study. Gerberding's statements appeared to be saying that this groundbreaking ecological study was poorly done... and since so much later research was based on the VSD, Gerberding's comments seemed to call into question many later statements by the CDC about vaccine safety.
As soon as Kirby's article came out, several bloggers with scientific backgrounds hurried to publish articles showing where Kirby was wrong. Evidently the VSD was not an "ecological study" to begin with, but rather a collection of detailed information about individual children and their health and vaccine histories. As a result, the fact that the study was found to be less than useful as an epidemiological tool was not so much startling as self-evident. Bloggers have raised other issues as well.
Mr. Kirby has corrected his original article, though he continues to point to what he feels are problems in research protocols by the CDC and other groups (other bloggers continue to disagree on this point):
My original post on this topic mischaracterized the 2003 CDC vaccine investigation as an "Ecological Study," which it was not. I am reposting this piece to reflect that information accurately... I regret and apologize for the error.David Kirby has been immersed in these studies and in the vaccine debate for years, and is a bona fide investigative journalist. Yet even for him, finding and describing problems and inaccuracies in studies can be very difficult indeed.
It seems to me that this is a terrific example of how incredibly complicated the autism world can be - and how tough to decipher. At the same time, though, it highlights the efficiency of the process by which, in just 24 hours, an error can be found, analyzed, and corrected.
The key for parents and activists, it seems to me, is to keep your eyes on the blogs - and not to respond too quickly to any one piece of news and analysis. In just a few moments, you may discover a different and more accurate perspective.
Comments
I think you’re missing the bigger point. Gerberding finally admitted that the studies that they all use to say ‘no link between autism and vaccines’ are useless.
Anne
the studies that show evidence that vaccines do not cause autism do not come from the CDC.
While the CDC do put out their own studies the big study wasn’t even done by the US but by Canada.
The CDC can’t disavow all the studies not put out by them.
The point is Kirby doesn’t understand studies. What he called wasn’t a study at all. Gerberding if said what is being said fed Kriby incorrect information. It wasn’t a study and it was only one.
I meant they can’t disavow correctly done studies
So why do you suppose it is that Mr. Kirby is keeping the original, uncorrected article online and continuing to acquire new comments?
Nothing in vaccines is good for our kids, period, how about that? Anything new they come up with will be neurotoxic and immune altering (for the worsee)…and with all this talk of ingreidents, whatever happened to viral encephalopathy or molecular mimicry, or the unstudied affects of three viruses combined together? This is my argument, take mercury out, there is something added in, and yet, there is still opportunity of pathogens unkonwn, mycoplasma, pestiviruses, etc. Not to mention, the very viruses that are seen in the gut and CSF of these kids? Get off the bandwagon these things are for the betterment of mankind, they are IMHO, the worse scientific quackery of our day…money making propositions abound in unwell children and adults. There is NO GREEN VACCINE, never can be, or will be, the safest vaccine is no vaccine FOR THE PREDISPOSED (and probalby the rest of the population. For instance, news came out yesterday that BI POLAR is the result of mitochondrial brain cell problems, same as autism…so the increase in BP, Depression and the less affected so called who live day to day, are in fact living in nightmares more than we know…could this be why we are all suffering with violence at some levels? Forget about just autism, see the bigger picture….
I think it’s also important for a reader to think of pieces like Kirby’s most recent not so much as “news,” but as opinion pieces.
David is a nice guy and we remain on polite email terms (and long may that continue) but I don’t think of him as a bona fide investigative journalist. He now blogs for the Age of Autism which is owned by Generation Rescue. His website was designed by Wendy Fournier of the NAA. It is claimed that the URL was bought by Sallie Bernard. David’s recent trip to the UK was funded by Generation Rescue and others.
I have no doubt that David is a gifted and effective writer but I don’t think he has the impartiality necessary for a bona fide investigative journalist.
The errors he made in that piece could easily have been avoided had he talked to an epidemiologist. David has listened for too long to the wrong people.
I always read Kirby’s posts with interest, but when he (or anyone on any side of the issue) uses unnamed sources (as Kirby did in the original blog entry) it drives me nuts. I feel far more comfortable when an actual source can be cited.
Val, You are incorrect. The ‘best studies’ were based on VSD data analyzed by the CDC.
All of this attention to this ‘error’ is rather ridiculous. The VSD is the database, not the the study. SO?
Yes, this article misses the point. The point is that data used to exonerate vaccines in CDC studies was useless, as anyone with an undergraduate understanding of statistics would obviously see.
THE POINT, VAL, is that the CDC cannot be trusted to produce high-quality research on this issue, and has avoided studying a potential connection with high quality science, DESPITE going to great lengths to convince the American Academy of Pediatricians and the American Public that all of the necessary science has been done.
This author edited David’s full comment on his “regretable error”. His full comment was:
My original post on this topic mischaracterized the 2003 CDC vaccine investigation as an “Ecological Study,” which it was not. I am reposting this piece to reflect that information accurately, but also to point out that many of the weaknesses identified in the CDC’s data and methods apply to the published 2003 “retrospective cohort” study, as much as they do to any future “ecological” ones. I regret and apologize for the error.
Nice going, Lisa. Way to let us know where you stand on the issue.
“At the same time, though, it highlights the efficiency of the process by which, in just 24 hours, an error can be found, analyzed, and corrected.”
You do miss the point of Mr. Kirby’s article - Ms. Gerberding not only allowed a study based on the VSD that she knew to have severe weaknesses to be used as evidence to exonerate Thimerosal by the CDC and all the States Health Departments for the past 5 years, but she probably would not have come out and admitted it if she was not compelled to answer the NIEHS report.
Did the CDC publicly tell the doctors and Health Departments not to quote this study as evidence against a link after the NIEHS report came out? Naother question is, if they are so good at epidemiology, they should have known the weaknesses of the VSD and the Verstraaten report and never even used it in the first place.
Mr. Kirby’s piece took 24 hours to correct. Why did the CDC take 5 years and all the taxpayers money and only own up to the issue after being compelled to do so by Congress?
actually, my own point in writing this blog was not to comment on the content of Kirby’s article; others with significant credentials have done so from various perspectives, and About.com readers will make their feelings known on all sides.
Instead, my point was to note that analyzing the quality of biological studies is complex, even for someone who has been in the business for a long time, and who has a good deal of professional experience in writing for the major press.
It’s tempting to jump on each piece of “headline news” as if it were a nugget of truth (and sometimes it is) - but in general, I recommend waiting and researching further before taking any kind of real-world action based on blogs - even well-known, well-respected blogs like HuffPost.
Hence the title: Let the Reader Be Aware. The blogosphere is tough to navigate, and it won’t get easier anytime soon.
On a related note, there’s no doubt that the CDC and other government agencies are secretive; I’m guessing that there are many secrets out there yet to be uncovered. And I’m sure the CDC is not alone in hiding what it knows. The problem is that the reality that the CDC is secretive is not, in itself, proof of anything at all - except that government agencies have secrets.
Lisa (autism guide)
St Catherine you missed my point but you are entitled to your opinon on my correctness.
There are other studies outside the US not every study used that data base. To only go by US studies would for me sounds like a “Where number one bragging”
Most of the studies that how that vaccines cause autism harm have been invalidated as rather worthless. But then the anti vaxers claim oh they were forced to hide the truth. Truth and evidence that only works when it suits you isn’t truth. I have changed my mind on many different medical issues because I have been shown real evidence that I was wrong. Show me real evidence, not just something David Kirby and one doctor says.
Kirby might be a well meaning person but he has trouble with investigating and who he trusts.
I am not saying all vaccines are safe no one should give their child a small pox vaccine. The only people who need a small vaccine are animal doctors and small pox response teams. Small pox vaccine is more dangerous. I would get a measles vaccine because measles are more of danger to children than the vaccine. Measles can cause serious disabilities and even death.
I think they need to restart over. Find out whom really as autism and who has just been assessed.
Part of the autism upswing is misdiagnoses from disorders such as dyspraxia. Was the person originally from the state they live in?
What chemicals surrounded the aria of pregnancy?
What foods did parents eat? Many of the autism rates data have been wrong for years. They never calculated who moved from another state.
gawd, lisa. just when i think you can’t get any more pathetic and you can’t stoop any lower, you prove me wrong. why can’t you find the courage to just say what you really mean? do you think you have anyone fooled with your veiled bias? your articles are so incredibly useless. mr. kirby may have written an article that had an error, but at least it was interesting to read. you tried to put your spin on a hot topic, and you made it as boring as soggy toast. yawn…
“mr. kirby may have written an article that had an error, but at least it was interesting to read”
And that sums up what is wrong about an awful lot of the people David has regrettably given credence to: accuracy is second to a thrilling story.
St. Catherine -
if you’re looking for a blog that offers high drama you’re right: this is not it. that’s largely because in addition to being a blog, autism.about.com is also a resource for information about autism, and an HonCode site (there are actually over 300 articles on this site so far - I invite you to take a look if you’re curious).
Quite a few people come to the site (and happen to see the blog) on a general search for information about, say, “early signs of autism.” They’re not here for a debate, but rather for information and support. As a result, I try to keep the blog relatively low-key (compared to some of the more passionate blogs out there).
I’m more than sure, though, that you’ll find all the interesting conversations you could possibly want around and about the blogosphere!
Lisa (autism guide)
I would have to agree with the title of this topic “Let the Reader Be Aware” and what better site to profile for it. Mr. Kirby is not a expert, other than to keep his idea’s going in relation to the book he’s selling. To me, he is a bona fide biased person.
Regardless of that site, any site is reader beware and not everything you read is true. Many sites relating to autism and vaccines print inaccurate info for shock value.
I also have to agree with Val- where’s the study of who had what vaccine and at what age? of whch actually has a medical diagnosis or an educational label? Which has had genetic testing? At the same time, bio warfare threatens to release these such diseases as small pox. Think about it. Some of these diseases are so dangerous to human beings they’ve come up with bio warfare using it and the only defense against it isn’t your own immune system for that wont fight off these diseases. Only a vaccine can help build those immunities.
The key message of this blog topic is don’t rely on any one site to be unbiased or completely truthful. There are many other sources than the net to obtain quality information. At the same time, my risk factors may not be the same as another 10 people’s, nor would my genetic makeup be the same.
The VSD dataset, with all of the original datapoints intact, is a nice thing to use in real research.
Gerberding has no choice but to admit that using it for ecological studies is pointless, since all ecological studies will be pointless when there are subsets of the population with higher susceptability. You can’t lump people together and expect to tease out a small group of individuals. So she says that the CDC will not do this with the VSD. Great!
Now the bigger problem, one that you are obviously snowed by, is that all of the older “autism is not related to mercury exposure” studies are not better than what Gerberding says the CDC will not do any more. This was the jump in logic that David Kirby made, that the older studies would be considered worthless - which they rightly should be.
The VSD dataset has a wealth of individual information and could have been properly analyzed to determine which population subsets were actually in danger from mercury, but the CDC did a cursory analysis so they did not have to open that can of worms.
You can bet that they are doing this work now, since they finally are getting some pressure to look at subsets.
Lisa Jo, you have continued to fall into the trap laid by those bloggers with “scientific backgrounds” whose names are well known by now. You had better learn that their analysis of the situation is not entirely unbiased.
The simple fact of the matter is that only individual-level and subset-level analysis is going to tell anything about autism, just like it is needed for any other disease. The CDC has the data for this but they have not done the work. Looking over 1% of the individual data is not considered doing the work.
A week later, and Mr. Kirby has still yet to pull the original blog post down.
People jump so quickly without doing a little critical analysis. It has been amusing to watch people try to cling to the “generation zero” or whatever data from Verstraeten’s analysis being useful, while claiming that the final output is useless (neither being the case).
The most amusing tidbit out of this is the idea that the CDC has now let us all know the results of the upcoming thimerosal/autism study. As discussed here:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=891
Of course, it’s a blog–reader beware!
(But, the logical steps are so easy to follow.)