Joanna wrote,
"If the methods by which Wakefield detected the measles virus were wrong, then they should be asking him to repeat using different methods".
Many, many other studies with thousands of subjects have looked for a link between MMR and autism and have failed to find said link.
Why would anybody fund a study to look for an imaginary connection?
Why waste limited resources for autism research on a failed hypothesis?
The Autism Omnibus Proceedings, which had a very low standard of proof ("50% +a feather") failed to find convincing evidence for MMR + thimerosal, MMR, or thimerosal alone.
There's no causal connection between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. There's no causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. There's no causal connection between thimerosal + MMR and autism.
There's no real reason to hypothesize that anything having to do with vaccines is causal in autism.
Joanna's demand for Wakefield's study to be repeated is in effect a demand to rob the slender coffers of autism research. The need is so great -- to mention just a few: are there sound methods of early identification? What are they? What are good avenues for early intervention? What is it about autism that so severely affects receptive and expressive language? What can be done to ameliorate these barriers to communication? What about effective supports for people with autism across the lifetime?
Joanna, please answer why repeating studies for failed hypotheses should have research funding when these other needs are unmet.
Comment Reply
Joanna wrote,
"If the methods by which Wakefield detected the measles virus were wrong, then they should be asking him to repeat using different methods".
Many, many other studies with thousands of subjects have looked for a link between MMR and autism and have failed to find said link.
Why would anybody fund a study to look for an imaginary connection?
Why waste limited resources for autism research on a failed hypothesis?
The Autism Omnibus Proceedings, which had a very low standard of proof ("50% +a feather") failed to find convincing evidence for MMR + thimerosal, MMR, or thimerosal alone.
There's no causal connection between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. There's no causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. There's no causal connection between thimerosal + MMR and autism.
There's no real reason to hypothesize that anything having to do with vaccines is causal in autism.
Joanna's demand for Wakefield's study to be repeated is in effect a demand to rob the slender coffers of autism research. The need is so great -- to mention just a few: are there sound methods of early identification? What are they? What are good avenues for early intervention? What is it about autism that so severely affects receptive and expressive language? What can be done to ameliorate these barriers to communication? What about effective supports for people with autism across the lifetime?
Joanna, please answer why repeating studies for failed hypotheses should have research funding when these other needs are unmet.
September 11, 2011 - 5:56pmThis Comment
Reply