Comments on: New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: II. What Happened to Control for Confounding?

By: Martin

Martin — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:06:55 +0000

Oh o ho! very nice site!t

By: Jennyalice

Jennyalice — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:39:20 +0000

Thank you for your clear analysis. You can easily point out the many flaws of the ’study’,
but do so without the vitriole so often found in many discussions (mostly from the anti-vaccine folk).
A breath of fresh air for me.

By: DLC

DLC — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:50:10 +0000

I’d like to see someone actually do a study on this topic without the fudge factoring and data cooking.

By: EpiWonk

EpiWonk — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:45:20 +0000

@B. Martin, MD: In your post you say, “There are several uses of the term ‘ecological’ in the article to describe this study and others. Perhaps EpiWonk can provide some insight into the word’s meaning in this context; the distinction’s lost on me.” This is the subject of my next post, in particular the weakness of an “ecologic” analysis of the VSD. In the meantime, readers may be interested in the following document, http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism/docs/thimerosalexposureinpediatricvaccines102606.pdf, in which an expert panel convened by NIH’s National Insititute of Environmental Health Sciences concluded that “…The consensus was that such a design [an ecologic analysis] would have limited value and be potentially misleading.”

By: B. Martin, MD

B. Martin, MD — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:05:54 +0000

I’ve posted a second installment (http://bmartinmd.com/2008/05/young-geier-autism-study-2.html), reviewing the M&M of Young et al. There are a few questions to you, EpiWonk, which may be relevant and useful–or may indicate my methodologic ignorance.

By: Sander Greenland

Sander Greenland — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:37:52 +0000

The petitioners asked me what I thought of the Young et al. study, and also earlier studies by the Geiers. I told them I thought they were unreliable. Then at the trial, the government (respondent) lawyer asked what I thought of them, I replied the same, that I was willing to disregard them if everyone else agreed to. My testimony for the petitioners was restricted to a few narrow points. Chief among them: Based on the figures given by the respondent’s expert Dr. Eric Fombonne (who said clearly regressive autism accounts for no more than 6% of cases), the existing epidemiologic data could not rule out relative risks as high as 2 linking thimerosal at the US schedule dosing to clearly regressive autism. At the trial, when the government asked if I believed that thimerosal caused autism in general, I said that IF it had any effect (emphasizing the “if”), I would bet it was limited to a very small subgroup.

By: crankynick

crankynick — Tue, 27 May 2008 06:31:24 +0000

Dude, you rock - this is the most helpful, useful analysis on a study I’ve seen in ages.

And as a health and pharma journo who’s always trying to learn how to do a better job, this is enormously helpful - not just as a dissection of this study, but as a damn fine reminder of what I should be looking for every time I pick up a report on a study.

I got here via pharmagossip, but I’m staying for life…

By: Insider

Insider — Tue, 27 May 2008 06:11:26 +0000

Hi.

Have linked you to PharmaGossip and welcomed you.

Hope your traffic increases.

Regards

Jack

By: B. Martin, MD

B. Martin, MD — Mon, 26 May 2008 16:29:10 +0000

Appreciate the ongoing explanations of study methodology. I’m providing a counterpart/complementary dissection (also in installments) of the Young-Geier study at http://bmartinmd.com/2008/05/young-geier-autism-study-1.html, from the perspective of a trained neurologist (the journal’s intended audience).

By: Higgamus Hoggamus

Higgamus Hoggamus — Mon, 26 May 2008 02:20:57 +0000

Thanks for elucidating exactly why this latest Geier piece is a piece of trash. I see it as results for hire. I figure that they figured it was a smart way to self-promote some bogus “treatments”. And it was until people like you come along.