Except that what they were lying about, and its relevance to the crediblity of their research, are completely different between the two cases. That's my point. You talk as though the moral character of the scientists is the issue here, and not the validity of their science.
It's not pure speculation, that's how much the case report rate changed by. You just don't want to believe that the case report rate is a reasonable measure for reasons that you refuse to substantiate.
Hollywood's been banging the "flop" gong for Pacific Rim since before it came out. When it had a strong Thursday opening, Variety spun it as evidence of a big "fanboy" turnout and a sure sign that its take would plunge. (It didn't.) I don't know what Guillermo Del Toro did, but he pissed somebody off.
I mean, why do you think that so many of these studies have been ended prematurely on ethics grounds? Total - TOTAL - mortality is elevated in the study group. 'Nuff said.
Of course. However they're stable enough that doing what they've done here, stating the number case reports in the early stages of the disease - especially when they've jumped by an order of magnitude - is perfectly OK.
If you don't believe that the chlorine in salt is the kind that's harmful, I invite you to stick live wires into a tank of concentrated brine and breathe deeply. Mercury in thimerosal is as safe as the chlorine in salt.
The over-reporting error in case reports is consistent enough that you can use it to make these comparisons. It's totally uncontroversial in actual epidemiological work so I'm not sure why you don't think it's OK here. The fact is that we won't know the total confirmed number of cases until after the outbreak is over; it's not a useful figure in this situation.
Wakefield was discredited by his peers in medicine and is held up as a hero by goons on the internet. Phil Jones was discredited by a bunch of goons on the internet and is held up as a hero by his peers. I'm not sure that the two are comparable.
You can do what you want at home, but if your kid's going to be sharing a space with others then you've got to respect those others' basic right to health.
It's not like there's some ultimate number here that they're choosing not to use. Case report figures are consistent, easy to investigate and variously over- and under-estimate (false alarms vs. infected people not going to the doctor); lab-confirmed cases are more robust, slow, hard to do and consistently underestimate. Neither is a measure of the actual prevalence of the disease, which is why it's the change in the figures versus the norm that is monitored.
Why does it matter whether it's 500 people or 1000 people?* It's the change in the prevalence that matters. If one region has ten times the case reports normally seen in the entire country then that suggests an enormous increase in the rate of the disease.
*Consider that if the region we are talking about is 1m people, then neither is significant; if the region is 1000 people, then both figures are enormous.
I need to emphasise how extraordinarily unlikely it is for a measles outbreak to occur in a vaccinated population. Unless a new strain of measles has arisen that the vaccine is not effective against - and as far as I know measles is incredibly stable - then the only way that an outbreak can occur is in the unvaccinated population.
It's more common than you think, especially in misconduct cases. Almost all of the authors did retract the paper's findings; Wakefield wasn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that what they were lying about, and its relevance to the crediblity of their research, are completely different between the two cases. That's my point. You talk as though the moral character of the scientists is the issue here, and not the validity of their science.
It says a lot about the commoditisation of the laptop market that Lenovo's edge is an unpopular but efficient pointing device.
It's not pure speculation, that's how much the case report rate changed by. You just don't want to believe that the case report rate is a reasonable measure for reasons that you refuse to substantiate.
If sea level rise was the only outcome, and a 1m rise wouldn't require many ports and industrial cities to be hoisted up on jacks, you'd have a point.
Heaven forfend is a pretty classy idiom for making sarcastic remarks, you should keep it handy for special occasions. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heaven_forfend
Hollywood's been banging the "flop" gong for Pacific Rim since before it came out. When it had a strong Thursday opening, Variety spun it as evidence of a big "fanboy" turnout and a sure sign that its take would plunge. (It didn't.) I don't know what Guillermo Del Toro did, but he pissed somebody off.
I mean, why do you think that so many of these studies have been ended prematurely on ethics grounds? Total - TOTAL - mortality is elevated in the study group. 'Nuff said.
If that were true you would've observed reduced mortality from X. There was not such reduction.
You're confusing autism spectrum disorders and autism. Unqualified, capital-A autism, which can vary quite widely in severity, is pretty unambiguous.
Of course. However they're stable enough that doing what they've done here, stating the number case reports in the early stages of the disease - especially when they've jumped by an order of magnitude - is perfectly OK.
If you don't believe that the chlorine in salt is the kind that's harmful, I invite you to stick live wires into a tank of concentrated brine and breathe deeply. Mercury in thimerosal is as safe as the chlorine in salt.
It was kickstarted by the antivaccination movement; lawyers for vaccine-autism cases were courting Wakefield before he did the research.
The over-reporting error in case reports is consistent enough that you can use it to make these comparisons. It's totally uncontroversial in actual epidemiological work so I'm not sure why you don't think it's OK here. The fact is that we won't know the total confirmed number of cases until after the outbreak is over; it's not a useful figure in this situation.
Who are ATOS? The lizard people, or the greys?
Wakefield was discredited by his peers in medicine and is held up as a hero by goons on the internet. Phil Jones was discredited by a bunch of goons on the internet and is held up as a hero by his peers. I'm not sure that the two are comparable.
The newspapers facilitated him for their own self-interest. So they're all just awful, awful people, Wakefield and press alike.
You can do what you want at home, but if your kid's going to be sharing a space with others then you've got to respect those others' basic right to health.
My point is that your child's development was going to be normal up to 24 months whether he was autistic or not.
The bit in italics is my signature, it's a feature of the discussion system you're currently operating.
It's not like there's some ultimate number here that they're choosing not to use. Case report figures are consistent, easy to investigate and variously over- and under-estimate (false alarms vs. infected people not going to the doctor); lab-confirmed cases are more robust, slow, hard to do and consistently underestimate. Neither is a measure of the actual prevalence of the disease, which is why it's the change in the figures versus the norm that is monitored.
Why does it matter whether it's 500 people or 1000 people?* It's the change in the prevalence that matters. If one region has ten times the case reports normally seen in the entire country then that suggests an enormous increase in the rate of the disease.
*Consider that if the region we are talking about is 1m people, then neither is significant; if the region is 1000 people, then both figures are enormous.
I need to emphasise how extraordinarily unlikely it is for a measles outbreak to occur in a vaccinated population. Unless a new strain of measles has arisen that the vaccine is not effective against - and as far as I know measles is incredibly stable - then the only way that an outbreak can occur is in the unvaccinated population.
It's more common than you think, especially in misconduct cases. Almost all of the authors did retract the paper's findings; Wakefield wasn't one of them.
Yes, it was. And?
According to Archive.org that page went up in 2011 and was only taken down this week.
So your son was completely verbal and socially proficient before he was 2 years old?