What exactly is peer review

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
LittleManzParents
Posts: 2317
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:27 am

Re: Ah well ...

Postby LittleManzParents » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:43 pm

srinath wrote:So a peer review should be done by a group of "non mad in the specific slant of study but be in the same field" scientists ...
Isn't that rather microscopic ...
As in we should find a group of metal toxicologists not slanted to autism causation one way or another to review one man's work on metal toxicology and autism causation ... How is that example ...
Of course ... say 5 out of 10 of the peer's agree on it ... and they get shunned and suffer from career anaemia ... we have effectively eliminated 1/2 our panel for the next study that comes along ... and say these 5 get together and form themselves a support group and say that this Idea deserves further investigation :lol: :lol: :lol:
... and say they are from Danmark, Australia, and North america ... and they decide to start a multi national organisation ... and say they call it The DAN (for you know danmark Australia and North america) scientists research group ... What would that be like ... (son of the beach type bikini clad bimbo's with big ... eyes ... in cheesy dream sequence) :lol:
How would that be guys ... :lol:
Cool.
Srinath.


Whenever I think I'm beginning to make sense of what you're trying to say, I get worried! LOL

Seriously though, I understand what you're trying to convey here (prior to the part where your beach fantasy took over)...

But what is most important is that you seem to be having a good time over there. :lol:

littlebopeep
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:33 pm

Postby littlebopeep » Fri Jun 09, 2006 6:29 am

Well, Winnie explained peer review in her post and why it is necessary. Any new medical idea is required to pass the scrutiny test of peers in order to gain common acceptance. Peer review is not a concept cooked up just to keep DAN docs out of the clubhouse. Everyone has to go through the spanking machine.
Fred, 7, NT
Barney, 5, autism

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

It does ...

Postby srinath » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:47 am

Yes it is neccesary and yes she said it ... however you support the mercury autism causation study and your future as a doctor is dead ... How is that.
Its not designed to keep the DAN out, its designed to keep Big pharma and doctors profiting from each other.
Lets say I invent this car and I am going to sell it, and it flies, you put in the address and it flies there while you sleep, and it uses geothermal energy ... no dealerships needed, you buy it, and send me your address, and I'll punch it into the car, and it will fly itself there ... and I ask dealerships to review it. How many of them are going to say its going to run out of geothermal BS whatever ...
Cool.
Srinath.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:21 am

Is it just possible that there isn't a big conspiracy going on, but that the mercury hypothesis just doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. And that the current epidemilogical research doesn't support it. It will be interesting to see what Dr. Adams research shows, providing his study is methodologically sound, and undergoes peer review. :wink:

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Conspiracy

Postby srinath » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:37 am

We'll only know that the mercury causation theory doesn't hold up if they start doing tests on children ... as in ...
Inject some kids with thimerosal, and inject some others with a placebo ... and do it in a large random group (1 in 166 ... so each group needs to have a few thousand) ... and make sure neither group has had mercury in-utero. Then we will see if in a few years one group has more autism than the other. Now do we have volunteers ...
BTW they (pharma, CDC, IOM, AAP etc ... ) would have a shred more credibility if they were to stop blocking all efforts using lobbyists and trying to wiggle out of their responsibility.
Cool.
Srinath.

Mary
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:28 am

Peer Review

Postby Mary » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:49 am

Don't get me wrong: I firmly believe in peer review. However, history has shown that sometimes it takes a long time to establish links between environmental agents and human health effects. Time will tell about mercury and autism, one way or another. I thought it interesting to see the scientific history of research into smoking and cancer.

1858 Fears about the effects on smoking on health first raised in The Lancet (a medical journal).

1950 Evidence of a link between lung cancer and smoking published in the British Medical Journal. Research by Professor (now Sir) Richard Doll and A Bradford Hill.

1964 US Surgeon General Luther Terry announces that smoking causes lung cancer.

1965 Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act requires US Surgeon General's warnings on cigarette packs.

1973 First US federal restriction on smoking. Officials rule all airlines must create non-smoking sections.

1997 Federal judge rules that US Government can regulate tobacco as a drug.

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Good post

Postby srinath » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:14 am

That was good ... aka ... I wont wait for a perfect chelator, and some snooty doctors to say yea it may be used to remove mercury from an autistic child ... the kid may be 45 years old at that time and in diapers still ...
I will use the best available at this time. if improvements happen as we are working on it, I will switch ... and so on till we are not going to have to do this any more.
Cool.
Srinath.

respect
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:52 am

Postby respect » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:28 am

except that autism is NOT just about mercury! Its the whole shebang which doesnt get funding for research, except for the drugs.

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Prove that

Postby srinath » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:33 am

respect wrote:except that autism is NOT just about mercury! Its the whole shebang which doesnt get funding for research, except for the drugs.


The genetic cases we cant do much about of course ... yea ABA and whatever ... (though personal opinion ... there is no non mercury autism ... just that we are unable to detect the levels of mercury or chelate it out, or its been excreted but damage is permanent ... as in ... no mercury ... ever and autistic does not exist ... Just IMNSHO )
The mercury cases are what we need to deal with in research. The genetic angle has been well researched ... since they said it was all genetic. Its just the mercury angle that needs to be researched ...
Cool.
Srinath.

Winnie
Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:41 am

I'm all for more funding for the autism cause...but to assume that there is very little research being done on the topic is not accurate either. Have a look at the abstracts presented at the IMFAR 2006 conference -- keep scrolling -- and scrolling -- and scrolling -- you will surely find something that interests you.

http://www.cevs.ucdavis.edu/Cofred/Publ ... webid=1245
Winnie
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

livsparents
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:29 pm

Postby livsparents » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:13 pm

Sounds like the keynote address expresses my frustrations too:

Since the first IMFAR meeting in 2001, autism has received increased commitment from the research community, increased cooperation among advocacy groups, and increased awareness in the public. Nevertheless, we still know very little about the pathophysiology of this illness. Autism is a developmental brain disease, but we do not know what the lesion looks like. Autism is a genetic disorder, but we have not identified genes of major effect nor have we found many of the associated alleles. Recent reports document increased prevalence (not incidence) for autism, but we have yet to identify a single environmental risk factor to explain this increase. And finally, autism is considered by many experts to be a cluster of disorders, but we have no consistent approach for sub-typing the various autisms into valid syndromes.
While advances are being made on all of these fronts, to maximize progress we will need a coordinated, strategic effort. In spite of flat budgets at NIH, the research community will need (a) to expand to include developmental neurobiologists and others who can bring powerful new tools to autism research, (b) to build cooperative research networks that can share protocols and data across labs via a common database, and (c) to partner with advocacy groups and families to ensure that research is relevant and results are disseminated. We There is also an urgent need for studies to delineate the biological and behavioral subtypes of this complicated disorder so that we can identify the genetic, environmental, and interactive etiologies of autism, and develop new treatments and preventive strategies.


What's the NIH and why is it FLAT? So's the world to them?

Bill

srinath
Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

I know I know ...

Postby srinath » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:41 pm

Winnie wrote:I'm all for more funding for the autism cause...but to assume that there is very little research being done on the topic is not accurate either. Have a look at the abstracts presented at the IMFAR 2006 conference -- keep scrolling -- and scrolling -- and scrolling -- you will surely find something that interests you.

http://www.cevs.ucdavis.edu/Cofred/Publ ... webid=1245


Yea I know research is being done, if the new raft of reports comming out is any indication.
So I eagerly await it ... in the mean time, I do the best I can with the research that is available as of right now.
Cool.
Srinath.


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”