Wampum

See www.samefacts.com for a couple of posts on this.

First, this study was done by the Geiers using the VAERS database--the link above shows why 1) the Geiers aren't exactly reliable, and 2) so that my objections aren't only ad hom, why VAERS isn't a very reliable measure of adverse events. Other careful epidemiological studies (of which this new paper is not--it's a database-mine) haven't shown such a trend.

I still have not had time to look at the study. Koufax awards are pretty time consuming. If it looked at only Vaers data, it is suspect as VAERS not only does not include all autistics (my son for instance, is not in the VAERS database). In addition, VAERS is also a self reporting data set. That means that public perceptions can effect the number of reports.

Finally, there are two different theories of how vaccines may relate to autism. One is the MMR vaccine which, being a live vaccine, contains no mercury. The VAERS data will not seperate out the two. Thus an increase or decrease in reported MMR adverse effects will be a confounding issue for use of VAERS data to measure any decrease in autism rates as a result of the removal of mercury from vaccines.

I still plan to look at the study once other things settle down a bit.

While you're reading the study, you may want to have a closer look at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Survey the other studies appearing in the journal. See any patterns emerging?
Note that its articles are not indexed in Medline, and ask yourself why that might be.
Think carefully about whether the description "peer-reviewed" is really appropriate in this case.
And, for a real dose of cognitive dissonance, read the book reviews. Here's a sample:

Ann Coulter, a syndicated columnist and
the legal correspondent for Human Events, is one of today’s most effective conservative pundits, though she identifies herself as a “middle-of-the-road moderate.” Her book is a delightful series of vignettes, largely taken from her columns, in which she exposes liberal ideology and the liberal mentality.

I am sure all your readers sympathize with your position as a parent and -- like you -- we would like nothing more than to understand autism and its causes, so as to prevent and cure it. Most of us can also understand the passionate desire to believe that the answer is simple, and within our grasp.
But the only thing that's important in science is the truth and how to get at it. The Geiers have proven themselves over and over again to be motivated by an agenda in which the disinterested search for truth is a fairly low priority. If you doubt that's the case, when you read the paper, do your own statistical analysis of the Geiers' numbers. You may be surprised. Now, even though the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is a travesty of a real medical journal, with shockingly low standards of scholarship and a transparent right-wing agenda, it's possible that a paper in that journal might be right about something. But based on their track record, it sure doesn't seem likely to come from the Geiers.

I hope that you will forgive me a quick follow up.
Your explanatory comment that JAPS is "the peer-reviewed quarterly journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)." led me to look up the organization and find out what I could.

It's an awfully unlikely bedfellow you've found in AAPS!

JRE: I will look at the data. In the meantime, Im pretty sure that my only bedfellow is my wife.

Dwight:
Re/ "bedfellow", I'd intended merely to invoke the familiar phrase to express my bogglement at seeing anyone of a progressive turn, let alone the organizer of the Koufaxes, quote approvingly anything published by the AAPS.
If the turn of phrase struck you as disrespectful, I apologize.
My substantive point remains this:
After you've read the paper and satisfied yourself as to the strength or weakness of its statistical argument, I'd also be interested to know what you think about the following two questions:
1) AAPS at its annual meetings has issued resolutions opposing all abortions, claimng falsely that a DDT ban has cost millions of lives, and decrying all "government-controlled or single-payer [health] plan[s] as harmful to patients".
JAPS has published a ton of dubious papers with a consistent political slant, from a study
blaming drug addiction, alcoholism and contagious diseases on illegal immigration to one by Andrew Schlafly (you've heard of his mom) promoting the throroughly discredited theory that abortion causes breast cancer.
These are just a few examples; the list goes on and on.
Please dig a little on AAPS, sample the papers in their journal, and decide for yourself if I've represented both fairly.

Doesn't the public track record of AAPS mark it in every way more as a right-wing advocacy group than an impartial physicians' organization? And if that's so, does that say anything about the group's and the journal's credibility?
2) And if this is where the Geiers chose to publish, and were able to publish, what does that say about their credibility?
Best,
Jim

I admit I don't have a science or a math background -- I'm a mother of a kid on the spectrum and a former art major. Nevertheless, it seems plausible to me that mercury could be one factor contributing to the rise in autism cases. Like Dwight, I am waiting patiently for the results of this "natural experiment."

I can't help wondering if the main problem with this study won't end up being that it is just too soon to discern any real trend. I imagine that if you drew a line graph of new autism cases over the last 10-15 years, the line would rise, but it wouldn't be straight. There would be places where it leveled off, and even headed down for a bit, even if the overall direction is up, up, up. Or, to put it another way, if you are watching a race, you can't help but cheer if your guy is ahead half-way through, but that doesn't mean you can declare him a winner just then.

It is disheartening to me that this study was published in a right-wing rag but I take this as part of a larger pattern I find inexplicable. For one small example (not the only one I could cite but this post is going to be long enough), I have noticed a subtle but persistent right-wing slant in the Schaffer newsletter -- it's not so much as what is included as much as it is what is left out. And if I remember correctly, Lenny once wrote he was proud to be a Republican. Now, another small example in a way too long post: I am anticipating that my kid might very well one day be dependent on Social Security. How can I support a party that plainly states it wants to get rid of it? How can anybody with an autistic family member?