Chemar Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 http://psychiatry.jwatch.org/cgi/content/f...?q=etoc_jwpsych Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kim Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 No mention of increased incidence of tics hummmm. I notice, in the Medline abstract cited at the bottom of that article, there is no reference to increased incidence of tics referred to three times in the abstract of the study, either. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281 I wish they would try this, for equal btwn positives and negatives. My youngest son has been reading at an advanced level for quite some time. I think this suggests that maybe I should seek out a thimerosal laced flu vaccine for him this season. Maybe I can talk someone into giving him 3 or 4. Maybe then he can jump right to the college level in reading. I guess I could overlook eyerolls/blinks, shoulder shrugs, head shakes, fist/wrist movements, lack of ability to eat normally, frequent urination, jaw snapping,a few humm humm sounds here and there, gasping at the end of sentences etc. As long as he performs well with finger tapping, grooved peg bd tests, word recognition. Hey we can't have everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chemar Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 yup Kim.........the medline abstract had me boggled and not a little irked too the reason I appreciated the critique tho was that Dr Geller clearly stated the shortfalls in the study However, the validity of this conclusion needs to be questioned because of possible confounding in the study sample. First, only 30% of cases were studied; how these cases may have differed from those who did not participate was not discussed. Second, the data were collected retrospectively. Third, the cases that were excluded — e.g., low-birth-weight babies — might be the ones most vulnerable to the effect of a neuroactive substance, but this issue was not addressed. Finally, the threshold dose for neurological impairment is unknown; therefore, to dismiss the vaccines given between ages 12 months and 7 years may be premature. Parents who ask about this issue still need to be informed of the complexities of studying this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faith Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Kim, for a second I almost thought you were serious! One thing I don't get, when referring to the amounts of thimerisol exposure -- does the different vaccines all contain the same amount or differ from one to the next. For instance, could one baby's vaccine for MMR contain a little bit more than another baby's? or is the ingredient make up exactly the same in all the batches? Also, the part about one study where they excluded children with low birth weight struck a cord in me -- you think low birth weight could be one of the vulnerabilities in these kids, in terms to being more suseptable (sp) to neuro damage from the vacs? Anyone interested in another poll? I'm wondering if most of us have smaller babies , my son was 5 lb. 14 oz., kind of small and was three weeks early. (And my doctor did not do the circumcision in the days after he was born, we came back about six weeks later because he wanted him to have a little more weight on him). I know we've already compared and some of us have said our kids are on the skinny/smaller side, but I'd be interested to know the birth weights of some of our kids (with tics). Thanks Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kim Posted October 2, 2007 Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Cheri, Yes, at least that's something. It's just so wrong, that what many people probably picked up on (as they were making their morning coffee) was " YET ANOTHER STUDY SHOULD PUT PARENTS MIND AT EASE." Faith, I think I'll respond to your question on a different thread, but I'm glad you figured out that I didn't plan on trying to get 4 flu shots for my son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chemar Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 Kim yes.......that's why I posted the link to the critique rather than directly to the study! my reason for posting was that I was pleased to see Journal Watch immediately sending out an email giving the possible bias of the study rather than just following suit with the study's hyped heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now