by pedrodelavega "21/02/20, 00:18 PM
Janic wrote
to rewrite is a provaccines review and does not hide it.
pedrodelavega wrote: Neither provaccine nor antivaccine, Prescrire is a science-based and patient-oriented journal:
"Prescribing is renowned for its independence vis-à-vis pharmaceutical lobbies, but also the Ministry of Health, Health Insurance or drug agencies. It regularly denounces treatments without effect or even dangerous, or whose balance benefits / risks is unfavorable. It was thus among the first to warn against the dangerousness of the Mediator "https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescrire_(revue)
Always the word to laugh! Find a single article in this review, questioning the real dangers of vaccines, publishing scientific studies demonstrating it. Nowhere ! Its only independence is found only with regard to certain abuses
of his own allopathic medicine, which is already not bad, since intended ONLY for this part of so-called conventional medicine.
Janic wrote:
pedrodelavega wrote: 1 / It's not because 2 of Wakefield's accomplices have been whitewashed that he is innocent.
Absolutely, but its converse is also true
pedrodelavega wrote: No, Wakefield remains guilty, he was convicted as such, did not appeal, remains struck out and lost other trials as well.
One more fakenews! Being dismissed for a defamation charge, the courts are full of it (especially in the USA) and this only indicates that this charge is not admissible. It still does not cover the substance of the subject in its scientific aspect. Any lawyer will confirm this.
So
first lie on any link between the two!
pedrodelavega wrote: Example: 1 murdered man with stab in the back. 3 people on the scene, Mr. "A", "B" and "C". The imprints of "A" on the knife. The 3 are charged and convicted of murder and aiding and abetting murder. On appeal, "B" and "C" are cleared, "A" remains guilty so far.
Not rightly, his fingerprints may be there because he regularly uses this tool and the real culprit has put on gloves. No more courts are caught in this largely outdated speech. Live a little with our time!
Janic wrote
Defamation is not synonymous with guilt or innocence, but only from a social point of view!
pedrodelavega wrote Example: "I accuse you of having rigged a study for personal interests. You file a complaint for defamation: Either it is false, I lose and pay damages, or it is true and you are condemned to pay my expenses incurred in the legal proceedings. "
Wakefield lost and paid.
He lost defamation only, not for the rest
pedrodelavega wrote: Wakefield is struck off,
By a group independent of justice that is a professional ORDER only. They integrate and see
according to their own system as an association of ball players fires those who do not play according to
THEIR rules. So worthless in civil justice!
The different types of bowls
• A Provençal Game competition. Source: French Federation of Pétanque and Jeu Provençal.
• Boule Lyonnaise - Molfer.
• The wooden fort ball, surrounded by iron. source: French Federation of Boule de Fort. pedrodelavega wrote: Wakefield fled his country like a thief or a scammer would.
Faced with persecution by Catholics, the Protestants fled to the neighboring countries which welcomed them. Did that make them thieves or crooks? Anything as usual! Between being persecuted in one country or free in another, the choice is quickly made!
janic wrote: c) The Lancet only retracted this study after 10 years of publication, under pressure only, but the study is and remains in the Lancet archives and can be viewed by all. And there between Deer's fantasies and the text, there is a gap that he briskly crossed.
pedrodelavega wrote: Lancet withdrawal notice:
"Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's jurisdiction on January 28, 2010, it became clear that several elements of the 1998 Wakefield document are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the allegations in the original document that the children were "referred consecutively" and that the investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee were found to be false. Therefore, we retract this article entirely from the file. published."
The Lancet like any duck is dependent on pressures of all kinds so for them it is more prudent to step back to continue to exist. However the notions of incorrect depend on the moment when it was expressed and W specifies there that it is ONLY RISK of link between the product and its effects, not that MMR causes autism but that may have this link. The rest of the Lancet's allegations on W were also found to be incorrect in Smith's judgment. But all this has already been seen and reviewed and re-seen again. It suffices to refer to the preceding debate.
janic wrote: I admitted that I had mixed the two, but I was starting to address this subject. This is called confusion between two subjects.
pedrodelavega wrote: You did not admit to having mixed up, you turned your jacket over in front of reality.
Call it what you want, the reality is that it was a confusion!
pedrodelavega wrote: the reality: He lost twice this trial and since you recognize him, you changed your speech and you minimize / cancel the impact of it
janic wrote: I am not minimizing anything, I refuse to make your usual mixes and jumbles.
pedrodelavega wrote: I am not mixing, it was you who first cited this American trial supposed to clear Wakefield. Now that you know the verdict, you turn your jacket over.
Ah, ah, ah! Your usual traffic. No verdict was brought against W since there was no
no civil lawsuit against him. So everyone can fantasize one way or the other.
janic wrote: Now this is your only argument and which does not relate to MMR and autism!
"Almost 20 years after a small falsified study suggested a link between autism and vaccine, a new study confirms that this is only a 'myth', after analyzing the cases of 650.000 Danish children . "Science and the future a reliable source? They report what they are given as info (BP origin) but not those that indicate otherwise.
For example:
https://www.aimsib.org/2019/09/08/autis ... e-danoise/The study in question [1], published in April 2019, is free access here. This access is therefore most likely funded by a sponsor, in this case the Novo Nordisk Foundation, which is an offshoot of a vaccine manufacturer. It would have been clearer, on the part of the authors and the editors, to say it clearly. It is therefore (without it being written) a study more or less "sponsored" by the vaccine industry; it aims to clear the MMR; which is the MMR in English.
The pdf file of the article is here, to access additional data you must necessarily go through the original website and click on "Supplements" because access to this file is protected by a token expiration system.
Danish cohort
In which category should this study be placed?
This study compares an exposed (vaccinated) group and an unexposed (unvaccinated) group. We evaluate the frequency of the event of interest (here autism) in the 2 groups; and we compare these two frequencies, it is the Relative Risk (or Hazard Ratio in English). This type of study does not test for causation, and for an epidemiologist, it is the lowest level of scientific credibility.
This is not a randomized clinical trial, so there is no draw and we cannot guarantee the a priori comparability of the two groups, vaccinated and non-vaccinated. On the contrary, as the non-vaccinated have good reasons not to be in a country where vaccination is very strongly encouraged, it can be certain that the two groups are very different.
There is no personalized follow-up either, the retrospective cohorts being done on computer databases in which we are looking for records. Above all, there was no validation of the diagnoses, which would have required calling on clinicians. We are therefore in a bureaucratic context typical of observational studies of very low credibility. Another very important fact: if children have not been vaccinated, why? Were their parents just dangerous anti-vaccine specialists? Were the children in a more impaired state of health than the vaccinated (healthy user bias) which would have contraindicated their vaccination?
The objectives of the Danish study, their conclusions
The objective according to the authors is to assess whether the MMR vaccine increases the risk of autism in children, certain subgroups, or over certain time windows after vaccination.
According to these authors, everything is fine. They do not find an increased risk of autism in the vaccinated!
As already discussed above and even below, these analyzes are biased, in particular their analysis on the possible time windows associated with vaccination! In addition in the additional data there is a rather worrying but not statistically significant signal. One might think, given the objective of the study, that the authors did nothing to refine this negative signal by additional analyzes.
Results
Danish conclusion
Danish, American, French vaccination calendar
It is stated in the article that the first dose of the MMR vaccine is administered in Denmark at the age of 15 months, the second dose was administered at the age of 12 years, which fell to 4 years from 2008.
The “vaccinated group” is therefore absolutely not homogeneous, children born before 2004 received only one dose while those born after received 2 doses.
• Danish infants in the study receive at most one other vaccine: a penta- (5) -valent (diphtheria / tetanus / inactivated polio / acellular pertussis / Hib).
• Compared to the American vaccination calendar in which children take the 1st dose of HB vaccine at birth, yet the only study carried out on the subject [2] has shown a risk of autism multiplied by 3 in boys receiving their dose HB vaccine in the first month of life.
• The vaccination schedule for French infants is no more comparable to the Danish one (French babies receiving two doses of MMR before the age of 2 years, the first being at 12 months).
• We can also mention all the other vaccines that are now compulsory (Prevenar, meningo type C, hepatitis B, etc.) as well as the absence of multiple vaccinations in the Danish vaccination calendar (in any case in the cohort presented) while at home we inject ROR and meningo C at the same time (like the hexavalents at the same time as the prevenar).
The results of this Danish study are therefore absolutely not extrapolable to other populations; American or French for example.
Analysis: methodology and data from the Danish study
It is a study made from registers (these are the source data), but are these registers reliable? (the credibility of a study depends on the quality of its source data) An audit of the said registers is found in 30 seconds of research [3].
Out of a sample of 19 randomly selected medical offices representing 1712 children aged 18 to 42 months, out of the 246 children not vaccinated according to the registers, more than half were in fact vaccinated (135 or 55%)!
The authors attribute these differences to administrative data entry errors. At this point we wonder in our cohort how many “unvaccinated” children have actually been, and vice versa; since there is no reason why errors should only occur in one direction, one can imagine that children vaccinated in the register are in fact unvaccinated.
This study is therefore structurally very weak as the source of the data is problematic.
In addition, vaccination coverage is very high in Western countries, which makes the control group almost nonexistent in terms of staff. This element, in addition to the non-comparability of the two groups discussed above, further reinforces the idea that this study has very low credibility.
Numbers
Thus, the vaccinated group represents more than 95% of the workforce, the unvaccinated slightly less than 5%. If we quickly analyze the numbers of completely unvaccinated children (who received neither the MMR nor the 5-valent DTcoqPolioHib)
Staff for other vaccinations
Totally unvaccinated children represent 0,7% of the total workforce, children having received at least 1 vaccine therefore total 99,3% of the workforce and in addition, proof has been given above that some children described as not vaccinated were still.
Another important point concerns the analysis of the subgroups. The authors claim to have studied the regressive autisms occurring rapidly after vaccination, that is to say in a very close time window or immediately following vaccination. This point is doubtful because the methodology used does not allow them to study this aspect of precocity.
Emphasis on regressive autisms
The following point is also characteristic of the methodological weakness of the authors:
ICD-10 codes
In other words, the authors did not include regressive autism which corresponds to the ICD code F84.3 (as defined below in English) in their analyzes.
F84.3: Other childhood disintegrative disorder: A kind of pervasive developmental disorder That Is defined by a period of normal development Entirely before the onset of the disorder, Followed by a definite loss of Previously Acquired skills in Several areas of development over the course of a few months.
Contrary to the authors' claims, the date of the diagnosis of autism comes very late, the children are vaccinated at 15 months, and the diagnosis of autism falls between 7 and 8 years, or 5 to 6 years after:
Age data at diagnosis
This obviously calls into question the whole discourse on the analysis of “regressive” autism, especially since the authors themselves acknowledge that they did not conduct any interview or any review of medical records.
No review of medical records
Despite what they say…
Time window analysis
The pretty curves presented are not based on the actual date of the event (symptoms) but the date of diagnosis (which is done at the age of around 7 years), they are difficult to understand.
comparison vaccinated vs. unvaccinated
In addition, a fraction of the cohort was too young to receive a diagnosis (children born in 2010 left before the age of 4), this can be seen in the analysis stratified by year of birth, obviously the younger the children. at the end of the cohort, the less diagnosis there is in the age group.
Number of children diagnosed with autism by year of birth
We discover in the additional data that children vaccinated with MMR having autistic brothers and / or sisters have a risk multiplied by almost 3 to be also autistic! But as the number of cases is very small (5 against 32) the intervals are very wide and it is difficult to interpret. However, the authors do not even discuss this result, which is nevertheless presented in the additional data, and have done nothing to study this potential signal.
signal potential?
Conclusion:
There are probably many other criticisms that go beyond the scope of a general public reading, but what has been described here and in particular at the beginning of the article (unreliable registers, ICD codes not taken into account, huge imbalance in term of staffing between the 2 groups, taking into account the date of diagnosis and not symptoms when the study was supposed to analyze “regressive” autism…) seems unacceptable and allows us to measure the incredible weakness of this study .
How could responsible publishers accept publication?
Here is the obvious: anything can be published on vaccines provided that the message of the study is favorable to vaccination and does not report any adverse toxic effect.
This connivance between the vaccine industry, learned societies, publishers of medical journals (dependent on learned societies) and health authorities is caricatured by the way in which the employees of each other are transferred to each other. or the others. Thus, Julie Gerberding (the former administrator of the Atlanta CDC) left to head the Vaccines branch at Merck, as did Scott Gotlieb, the former FDA manager who landed at Pfizer, or like Anne d'Andon with us recently, former director at HAS, part of CEMKA…
there is something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark and elsewhere ...
________________________________________
Note: a kind reader has pointed out to us that the strict definition of autism is limited to the ICD-10 codes F84.0 and F84.1.
1 - note that the previous study carried out by the same team (Hviid and Melbye) had integrated all the F84.x codes
2 - we leave the complete definition of the code F84.3 available to the reader
F84.3 Other childhood disintegrative disorder
A type of pervasive developmental disorder that is defined by a period of entirely normal development before the onset of the disorder, followed by a definite loss of previously acquired skills in several areas of development over the course of a few months. Typically, this is accompanied by a general loss of interest in the environment, by stereotyped, repetitive motor mannerisms, and by autistic-like abnormalities in social interaction and communication. In some cases the disorder can be shown to be due to some associated encephalopathy but the diagnosis should be made on the behavioral features.
Everyone can go and read an official ROR notice (for example
https://www.fda.gov/media/75191/download ) and read the first occurrences of the undesirable effects listed for the SOC “Nervous System”
The reader will thus be able to judge for himself the relevance (or not) of having put aside this code with regard to its definition.
3 - we asked a child psychiatrist (not a member of the association) to obtain his opinion on the relevance of the ICD-10 codes on psychiatric disorders in childhood, here is his answer:
For your question on ICD-10 it is not consensual in fact. The cim is (in my opinion) a poor classification of mental disorders, because it mixes a lot of diagnoses under the same number. For example, for F84.3, this can be an infantile psychosis (schizophrenia of the child) as well as an autistic disorder with a disintegrative component, ie psychomotor regression. But if you look at the classification you can completely classify the two pathologies in F84.0. Conclusion the ICD is shit and it has no diagnostic interest, it is really just to standardize and rate diseases (statistical indicators).
So everyone can make their own opinion.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
