Forum:I trust these "studies" have been disproven? (Vaccine related)

< Index | General discussion

I posted in defiance of anti-vaxxer crap the other day and one of them tried to use this as "proof" of them causing Autism:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/86-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

My instincts tell me these have all been disproven; are there some good links to countermanding studies?Super Saiyan Musashi (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god, what a Gish Gallop. I looked up #1. Here's the author of the paper that followed that abstract after completing his research

“”This is the result for autism, in which we don’t see much of a trend except for a slight, but not significant, increase for the highest exposure. The overall test for trend is statistically not significant.

—Thomas Verstraeten

Their headliner study is statistical noise.

Their second study doesn't fair much better, with p values for their one conclusion hovering at 0.038, discounting that the paper says "As with all cross-sectional secondary data analyses, causality cannot be determined, and this study is subject to bias from unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding factors." Some of those confounding factors are really important as well, like the diagnosis bias, that the paper just up and doesn't address.

Getting through all 100 is a monumental chore, but the chances of there being a randomized study in that list is about zero. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. I might point that out to them, but probably not; there's a lot of things I'd rather worry about than someone being wrong on the internet. Thanks ikanreed! Super Saiyan Musashi (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)