Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So there is nothing in your life you use which has undergone a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study to see whether it causes autism. Not your other medications or supplements (if any), not your toaster, not your cell phone, not the cooking pans you use, not the water bottles in your fridge, not anything at all? Nothing you can name? You have never ever asked for anything else in your life to jump though that hoop?

Lady, this isn't about the science for you at all -- it's about conclusions you already drew about vaccines.

I accept this as a concession. My point was not about vaccines; my point was about the condescension in guffawing about parents doing their own research. There is a difference between (1) telling a parent that they are incapable of doing research and (2) telling a parent that the demand they’ve formed on the basis of their research is unreasonable.

I think we can absolutely agree on that. I suspect we can also agree that informed consent is often approached as a checklist and not actually supported with time or attention, that the ability of providers and parents or patients to actually talk to each other is horribly constrained (especially by time, but also in other ways), that parents often are feeling (justifiably) that they are not treated with respect, and many other things.

There are so many reasons for the fractures in healthcare today. Anyone laughing at anyone else with a mocking tone in this venue is making light of some very serious things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So there is nothing in your life you use which has undergone a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study to see whether it causes autism. Not your other medications or supplements (if any), not your toaster, not your cell phone, not the cooking pans you use, not the water bottles in your fridge, not anything at all? Nothing you can name? You have never ever asked for anything else in your life to jump though that hoop?

Lady, this isn't about the science for you at all -- it's about conclusions you already drew about vaccines.

I accept this as a concession. My point was not about vaccines; my point was about the condescension in guffawing about parents doing their own research. There is a difference between (1) telling a parent that they are incapable of doing research and (2) telling a parent that the demand they’ve formed on the basis of their research is unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure that taking Tylenol when you are pregnant carries risks, but I suspect that autism is a social disease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So there is nothing in your life you use which has undergone a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study to see whether it causes autism. Not your other medications or supplements (if any), not your toaster, not your cell phone, not the cooking pans you use, not the water bottles in your fridge, not anything at all? Nothing you can name? You have never ever asked for anything else in your life to jump though that hoop?

Lady, this isn't about the science for you at all -- it's about conclusions you already drew about vaccines.

I accept this as a concession. My point was not about vaccines; my point was about the condescension in guffawing about parents doing their own research. There is a difference between (1) telling a parent that they are incapable of doing research and (2) telling a parent that the demand they’ve formed on the basis of their research is unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:
Just wait for f'ing diptheria. Diptheria is the one that wakes me in a cold sweat at night.

[/pediatrician]

Anonymous wrote:
So there is nothing in your life you use which has undergone a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study to see whether it causes autism. Not your other medications or supplements (if any), not your toaster, not your cell phone, not the cooking pans you use, not the water bottles in your fridge, not anything at all? Nothing you can name? You have never ever asked for anything else in your life to jump though that hoop?

Lady, this isn't about the science for you at all -- it's about conclusions you already drew about vaccines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

Oh, you’re disputing the premise that a multi-year study where some kids are given real vaccines and others are given an inert placebo would be probative of a relationship or lack thereof between vaccination and autism? If so, can you unpack this for me? I totally get the argument that such a study could be unethical or maybe even impracticable, but I don’t know that I thought anyone seriously disputed that it would provide at least some incremental evidence of the relationship/non-relationship between vaccination and autism (or, again, the lack thereof).

I don't think that the words "erudition" and "probative" mean what you think they mean, and it is fine not to use 10 dollar words when typical language would work better. It's better to make a good argument than to just throw a thesaurus into the mix.

Again, not knowing what the appropriate study is for the context is a part of the problem. It's not just that the study would be unethical, but that it wouldn't necessarily be the right study for the question at hand, in context. This goes back to what "robust" means to this woman, and whether there is a different standard of "robust" she uses for X when she does not apply that to Y, Z, A, B, and C.

I can imagine at least few things more appealing than discussing study design in an argumentative tone with someone who likes to salt-and-pepper the discussion with unnecessarily complicated language, but so it goes. I guess this is where we are.

I don’t consider “erudite” or “probative” to be particularly sophisticated words.

They're not, but they are not being used correctly.

(Tbh, given the tenor of this discussion, it’s sort of funny that you do.)

See above.

In any event, I really am interesting to know (assuming this is indeed what you’re saying) why you consider (ethics aside) a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study of autism diagnoses in the vaccinated and unvaccinated uninformative. Again, I totally understand the arguments for why this study would be unwise from a policy perspective or harmful to public health. But you seem to be carrying it a step further and also arguing that it would shed no incremental light on the extent (or non-extent) of any association, and I’m genuinely interested to hear why that is. And if that’s not what you’re saying, that’s fine, but you should clarify.

Okay, I'll bite.

What do you use for yourself or your children, in your own everyday life, that has been passed through a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study for safety?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

Oh, you’re disputing the premise that a multi-year study where some kids are given real vaccines and others are given an inert placebo would be probative of a relationship or lack thereof between vaccination and autism? If so, can you unpack this for me? I totally get the argument that such a study could be unethical or maybe even impracticable, but I don’t know that I thought anyone seriously disputed that it would provide at least some incremental evidence of the relationship/non-relationship between vaccination and autism (or, again, the lack thereof).

I don't think that the words "erudition" and "probative" mean what you think they mean, and it is fine not to use 10 dollar words when typical language would work better. It's better to make a good argument than to just throw a thesaurus into the mix.

Again, not knowing what the appropriate study is for the context is a part of the problem. It's not just that the study would be unethical, but that it wouldn't necessarily be the right study for the question at hand, in context. This goes back to what "robust" means to this woman, and whether there is a different standard of "robust" she uses for X when she does not apply that to Y, Z, A, B, and C.

I can imagine at least few things more appealing than discussing study design in an argumentative tone with someone who likes to salt-and-pepper the discussion with unnecessarily complicated language, but so it goes. I guess this is where we are.

I don’t consider “erudite” or “probative” to be particularly sophisticated words.

(Tbh, given the tenor of this discussion, it’s sort of funny that you do.)

In any event, I really am interesting to know (assuming this is indeed what you’re saying) why you consider (ethics aside) a longitudinal double-blind placebo-controlled study of autism diagnoses in the vaccinated and unvaccinated uninformative. Again, I totally understand the arguments for why this study would be unwise from a policy perspective or harmful to public health. But you seem to be carrying it a step further and also arguing that it would shed no incremental light on the extent (or non-extent) of any association, and I’m genuinely interested to hear why that is. And if that’s not what you’re saying, that’s fine, but you should clarify.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
PS: "less robust than she assumed" is meaningless, unless what "she assumed" is meaningful in the context of what is safe.

Well, it’s common to hear that the autism-vaccination relationship has been studied into the ground. I think many parents would assume that means there are double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies. Suppose a parent whose child develops autism goes to consult those studies, is surprised to learn that they don’t exist, and concludes that she won’t vaccinate her next child unless such studies are performed. You can argue that that parent is wrong, perhaps because she’s demanding a too costly or even unethical study design, but I don’t really see any defect in erudition accounting for the parent’s perspective.

Erudition is the quality of having or showing great knowledge or learning. How would this woman thinking that the appropriate way to study the autism-vaccination relationship is a series of double-blind placebo-controlled longitudinal studies show great knowledge or learning?

I’m not saying the mom is erudite. I’m saying that the mom is making a value judgment and that it’s condescending to suggest her position is rooted in a lack of erudition.

She's making a value judgment that the most appropriate studies to assess that question were not done, but it doesn't matter that she was wrong in knowing what was and was not the best type of study in this context?

That certainly seems like an error in learning or knowledge. Not that she is a bad person, but she doesn't know what she doesn't know.

None of that means the woman should be mocked, or have her authority over making decisions for her child's care undermined, or be treated with disrespect, or any of that. But an error in knowledge is an error in knowledge.

Oh, you’re disputing the premise that a multi-year study where some kids are given real vaccines and others are given an inert placebo would be probative of a relationship or lack thereof between vaccination and autism? If so, can you unpack this for me? I totally get the argument that such a study could be unethical or maybe even impracticable, but I don’t know that I thought anyone seriously disputed that it would provide at least some incremental evidence of the relationship/non-relationship between vaccination and autism (or, again, the lack thereof).

I don't think that the words "erudition" and "probative" mean what you think they mean, and it is fine not to use 10 dollar words when typical language would work better. It's better to make a good argument than to just throw a thesaurus into the mix.

Again, not knowing what the appropriate study is for the context is a part of the problem. It's not just that the study would be unethical, but that it wouldn't necessarily be the right study for the question at hand, in context. This goes back to what "robust" means to this woman, and whether there is a different standard of "robust" she uses for X when she does not apply that to Y, Z, A, B, and C.

I can imagine at least few things more appealing than discussing study design in an argumentative tone with someone who likes to salt-and-pepper the discussion with unnecessarily complicated language, but so it goes. I guess this is where we are.

Anonymous wrote:It's a relief to see the left express concern about babies in the south.