Time trend analyses are a virtually useless unscientific method of
assigning causation or the lack of.
To take a well-known example - that of polio. In countries where the
Salk vaccine was not used until much later on, clinical polio declined at
much the same rates as in countries where it was used. Why was this?
Could it have been the introduction of TV? That happened about the same
time? Could that perhaps have been to "blame"? I don't think so. There
are similar, though different problems with this study.
A few key possible flaws in any study like this are revealed in the
sentence:
"We initially tried to conduct a case-controlled analysis comparing
children who received the MMR vaccine and those not vaccinated in relation
to the diagnosis of autism. Only about 3% of cases and controls, however,
did not receive the vaccine and therefore there was too little information
to provide a meaningful estimate of relative odds."
There are three obvious points or exclamatory questions to be made
about this study.
1) The Boston University School of Medicine wanted to do a case-
control analysis in General practices in the United Kingdom?! So far
away?! Why not on their own back door step, where the increase of autism
is even more staggering...
2) They had no funding?! They must have REALLY wanted to do this
study. Why?
3) Their definition of a "control" is very interesting. A similarly
vaccinated, but non-autistic child? What sort aof a valid scientific
control is this?
4) To those of us interested in real science, a proper control would
be a totally unvaccinated child. Not like compared with like. In a
country the size of UK there must be a large number of children throughout
the country who are totally unvaccinated who would provide a totally
unsullied and valid comparison to problems which are being alleged to be
caused by vaccines.
I propose that the UK Health Department hand over the 3 million
pounds about to be wasted on publicity, to an unbiased UK-based group (if
such a group exists) to look for these completly unvaccinated children,
and match them with vaccinated children, and look at the rates of autism
and other conditions presently being alleged to have a link with MMR.
This, and this alone, might provide some answers. Providing the
study group, protocols and methods are not designed to prove the pre-
existing belief that the MMR vaccine is innocent at all cost. Which it
seems to me was the purpose of a Boston University, at no cost, using
dubious methods, to study figures from half-way round the world.
Rapid Response:
Was TV responsible for the decline of polio?
Dear Sir,
Time trend analyses are a virtually useless unscientific method of
assigning causation or the lack of.
To take a well-known example - that of polio. In countries where the
Salk vaccine was not used until much later on, clinical polio declined at
much the same rates as in countries where it was used. Why was this?
Could it have been the introduction of TV? That happened about the same
time? Could that perhaps have been to "blame"? I don't think so. There
are similar, though different problems with this study.
A few key possible flaws in any study like this are revealed in the
sentence:
"We initially tried to conduct a case-controlled analysis comparing
children who received the MMR vaccine and those not vaccinated in relation
to the diagnosis of autism. Only about 3% of cases and controls, however,
did not receive the vaccine and therefore there was too little information
to provide a meaningful estimate of relative odds."
There are three obvious points or exclamatory questions to be made
about this study.
1) The Boston University School of Medicine wanted to do a case-
control analysis in General practices in the United Kingdom?! So far
away?! Why not on their own back door step, where the increase of autism
is even more staggering...
2) They had no funding?! They must have REALLY wanted to do this
study. Why?
3) Their definition of a "control" is very interesting. A similarly
vaccinated, but non-autistic child? What sort aof a valid scientific
control is this?
4) To those of us interested in real science, a proper control would
be a totally unvaccinated child. Not like compared with like. In a
country the size of UK there must be a large number of children throughout
the country who are totally unvaccinated who would provide a totally
unsullied and valid comparison to problems which are being alleged to be
caused by vaccines.
I propose that the UK Health Department hand over the 3 million
pounds about to be wasted on publicity, to an unbiased UK-based group (if
such a group exists) to look for these completly unvaccinated children,
and match them with vaccinated children, and look at the rates of autism
and other conditions presently being alleged to have a link with MMR.
This, and this alone, might provide some answers. Providing the
study group, protocols and methods are not designed to prove the pre-
existing belief that the MMR vaccine is innocent at all cost. Which it
seems to me was the purpose of a Boston University, at no cost, using
dubious methods, to study figures from half-way round the world.
Hilary Butler.
Competing interests: No competing interests