Replies

The one scientific maxim that lazy scientific researchers, psuedo-scientists, crackpots and conspiracy buffs fail to remember is that correlation is not causation. Simply connecting people and events together with a condition does not provide evidence that the events are related to the cause of the condition.

For instance, a noted researcher once claimed that caucasion people had a genetic predisposition to cocaine. Her evidence? Cocaine addicts were more frequently found to be caucasion while crack addicts were more frequently found to be African-American. Of course, her simplistic analysis ignored the economics of both cocaine and crack as well as cultural and social distinctions that affect those economics. Her thesis failed because - correlation is not causation.

Anyone can put a bunch of facts on a board and draw lines connecting the facts. It is not science, but supposition, until hard science determines if any of those lines exist anywhere besides someone's imagination.

I am not trying to debunk the concept that childhood vaccinations now, or ever, play(ed) a role in people developing autism. It's just that, at this point, it is a concept trying to correlate the two but it has not proven or found a causitive factor that actually links them.

So, people should avoid making declaritive statements about that unproven link; at least for now.

We should bottom out this Amish thing. If it turns out that Amish really do have low incidence of Autism - and they also avoid jab mercury, then its a correlation that may lead to a breakthrough

Correlation is indeed not causation, but it IS a scientific observable. As long as it is not abused correlation is a vital datum. For instance: Jenner's observation of correlation between employment and immunity to smallpox (being a dairymaid = immunity) eventually led to the destruction of smallpox.

I am not trying to debunk the concept that childhood vaccinations now, or ever, play(ed) a role in people developing autism. It's just that, at this point, it is a concept trying to correlate the two but it has not proven or found a causitive factor that actually links them. So, people should avoid making declaritive statements about that unproven link; at least for now.

You make what appears to be a valid point; I think another poster challenges it elsewhere, somewhat successfully from what I read.

I've learned that it helps a lot to have actual hands-on or other vested experience in a topic; not having that doesn't invalidate your input, but it can somewhat hamper your actual perceptions or even the amount of time you've spent thinking about it specifically (in this case, autism per se).

As I've indicated elsewhere in this thread (I'm reading through slowly and posting as I go), virtually all empirical studies are based on observation and it's hard to observe what you aren't literally exposed to.

I thought your input was valuable but I'm glad I've read the response to it and I hope you will respond to that.

I'm sorry, I don't wait for science to make a statement in order to take common sense seriously.

For example, doctors are still telling people to limit their calcium intake when they get kidney stones, even though this has been shown to cause more kidney stones. I knew this before the doctors. Why? Because everyone I ever knew who said they had a kidney stone said to me "it's funny, because the doctor said I should start drinking less milk, and I had already cut down on the amount I drink recently." Did I know the causitive factor? No. However, I did have enough common sense to see the pattern.

Of course, today, even after the studies have shown the _lack_ of calcium to be a prime factor in kidney stones, doctors _still_ recommend patients reduce their calcium intake to avoid stones.

Grrrrr....

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/12/833