Talk:Homefirst Health Services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if ... it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." This article is the creation of Ombudsman (talk • contribs) who recently removed a tag from Bipolar disorder claiming "rm expert tag; no point in seeking such input regarding a pseudoscience article - especially not after the AfD 'success' of pill pusher apologists in having the Expert worship article deleted". Even if a disorder listed in the DSM was "pseudoscience", even if there was any logical connection between the deletion of an essay on "expert worship" and the subject of bipolar disorder, there is still no precedent for unilaterally declaring an article unworthy of improvement. Because Ombudsman is very good at making sure his own POV is heard but notably bad at treating other POVs fairly or respectfully, this article should be checked carefully for NPOV balance. Needless to say, this tag should not be removed by Ombudsman, directly or by proxy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

These concerns have been around for a while and are spilling over to other articles. The same user also plays a dubious role in various anti-psychiatry campaigns and Sept 11 conspiracy theorism. His defence of bizarre anti-vaccine external links was addressed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

I removed:

The few autistic children Homefirst sees were vaccinated before their families became patients, said Eisenstein, who also has a bachelor's degree in statistics, a master's degree in public health and a law degree, and is the author of Don't Vaccinate Before You Educate! "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines," Eisenstein said. The same phenomenon has been reported among the mostly unvaccinated Amish population of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

As it is unreferenced. Happy to replace if properly referenced. Maustrauser 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Does The Washington Times really count as an acceptable source? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olmsted and confounding

Dan Olmsted reported about this organisation and claims that the reduced incidence of autism is a result of the non-vaccination policy. Eisenstein, as a statistician, should be ashamed for lending his name to this. There are numerous possible confounders that can be easily identified: more breastfeeding, less intrapartum drugs (presumably including pitocin), etc etc. Has anyone pointed out to Olmsted that his conjecture is a statistical fallacy? JFW | T@lk 08:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki is a reality based medium, unlike the willful state of denial that the medical establishment's pov exemplifies. Refusal to acknowledge the significance, and context, of identified unvaccinated populations --where virtually no autistic spectrum disorders can be found-- indicates a profound lack of understanding by medical authorities about the importance of said populations, both to researchers and to the families searching for answers. These identified populations demolish the ludicrous notion that vaccines are not at the root of the autism epidemic, a fact that is underscored by an avalanche of evidence; e.g., that very few cases of autism have thus far been uncovered in Amish populations, and the few exceptions either had been vaccinated or were afflicted by heavy metal poisoning (a fact not coincidentally linked to similar afflictions caused by TCVs). Researchers who have studied the effects of introducing currency into primate cultures have demonstrated that, even among presumably less evolved species, the threat of monetary loss triggers fear and denial leading to uncharacteristic irrationality; similarly, due to financial and status concerns, medical professionals are quite vulnerable to conflict of interest biases. Such fear tends to preclude objectivity, espcially given the climate of fear that has spawned reprisals such as Andrew Wakefield has weathered. Te medical establishment's intractable state of denial is typified by the 'retraction' of a recommendation to further study the obvious link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The significance, to a vast number of parents and many researchers, of Homefirst's superior health outcomes completely undermines the flimsy justifications you have offered, as is generally the case for the frequent wholesale deletions you tend to make. Please try to adopt a more reasonable approach to editing, rather than stridently defending the medical establishment's irrationally defensive pov, so that the Wiki can more accurately reflect basic facts about unvaccinated populations and the huge tragedy of vaccine injuries. Ombudsman 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the medical establishment is in a state of denial or involved in a conspiracy for that matter. The main issue is that the data with the Amish, etc. is anecdotal, and more rigor needs to be applied to it before it can be accepted. I agree, important observations have initially emerged from anecdotes, but in the end, anecdotes need to be backed by data. Quotations are not data. Otherwise we may as well be living in medieval times, as advances in medicine have been based on careful, rigorous observations, not one person's opinion. Andrew73 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You may refer to the unchecked climate of fear as a conspiracy, but that doesn't change the fact that reports have surfaced indicating GPs in the UK are too terrified of reprisals to even consider treating autistic enterocolitis patients, much less stand behind Wakefield's common sense recommendation for further studies into the MMR/autism link. The point is that the Wiki remains an alternative medium for institutional memory, one that hopefully will never succumb to the outright suppression of news typical of the corporate dominated mainstream media. Ombudsman 01:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia should contain content considered relevant by yourself but not by anyone else? JFW | T@lk 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The Amish have other features that distinguish them from the vaccinated USA population. These are very real methodological concerns that make all this research completely unsustainable. Why can't you address my points, and why do you need to resort to ad hominem? Am I allowed to have an opinion? Or is that your privilege? JFW | T@lk 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my question is, what is really being asserted? I don't agree that a sample size of 30,000 to 35,000 patients is "anecdotal." But I also agree with Jfdwolff that any conclusions must take into account all the relevant variables. If the only thing that differentiated the Amish from the general population was whether they were vaccinated, then there is pretty compelling evidence. We could only speculate what other differentiating factors exist, and they could conceivably include genetics. On the other hand, if we are to believe that not a single case of autism is recorded in this sample, it is definitely worth trying to isolate all those variables. If the Homefirst Health Services professionals suspect that no vaccinations make the key difference, then certainly that has to be one of the hypotheses. My own view is that we are on firm ground in saying that this is fertile ground for research on the etiology of autism, and mention that vaccination practice - among other things - is one differentiating factor. BTW, is there any data on the incidence, complications and mortality of the diseases that are being vaccinated against? --Leifern 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's the point, the Amish do differ from the general population in many more ways than vaccination status: significant lifestyle differences and exposures (besides vaccination), more homogeneous population, exposure to electricity, etc. Observations then would be hypothesis generating, not definitive evidence. Andrew73 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The point may be valid, as far as it goes, but that begs the essential question of whether or not the differences are really significant enough to marginalize the potential utility of epidemiological studies comparing unvaccinated children with properly selected counterparts in the general population. Such population studies can, and should, be used to draw inferences. Again, the real problem is the repeated insistence by the medical establishment on diverting research funding elsewhere. All the possible environmental and genetic differences that might be identified, sans exposure to vaccines, certainly won't add up to the huge and obvious differences in autism rates. This is especially true, given that genetic differences, among either the Homefirst or Amish populations, are likely to be minor, and easy to minimize statistically speaking, via careful selection of control sampling; the few hundred years of genetic isolation of the Amish is unlikely to have produced any real genetic distinction, and the Homefirst population is probably a rather random sub-population. That leaves environmental differences, which is exactly what vaccine injuries represent. The prima facie evidence that needs to be investigated is much more important in determining research focus (and article content) than the diversionary 'anecdotal' descriptor being bandied about. Too, Amish children poisoned by heavy metals show the same autistic symptoms as other children poisoned by TCVs, indicating the population has a similar degree of vulnerability to that type of environmental insult. Ombudsman 05:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been huge tomes written about the genetics of the Amish! Many of the classic genetic syndromes were first described because of their more restricted gene pool...InvictaHOG 10:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to marginalize the epidemiology studies, it's just that the limitations of these epidemiology studies need to be recognized. Plus, if you're willing to accept these findings in the Amish, what about the extensive epidemiology studies done in the Danish populations that did not find any connection between thimerosal and autism (and in fact, the rates of autism even went up after thimerosal was discontinued there)! Of course, I recognize that these studies also have limitations too. No study is perfect. Andrew73 14:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Imperfect? In that case, the description is an understatement. The many substantive criticisms of the study begin with the serious conflict of interest problems of the authors, which are magnified by similar qustions about the sources of funding. The litany of criticisms is long, but suffice to say that the incidence report parameters in that country changed markedly around the time of the study, the data seems to have been massaged inappropriately, and the conclusions offered by the authors have been subject to misrepresentation by both medical authorities and the media. Attempts by critics to salvage any remaining utility of the data have even led to dissenting interpretations that the study actually supports much earlier warnings (by Bernard Rimland, et al) that the introduction of MMR has caused significant spikes in autism diagnoses in other populations. Ombudsman 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But at least the data on the Danish study (with all its warts, etc.) were subject to the rigor of being published in a peer-reviewed study; the observations from the Amish and Homefirst have not. You can make similar arguments about conflict of interest with the Amish; I imagine there are vested interests in demonstrating a link between vaccinations and autism. Andrew73 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only can you make the argument, it can be backed up by peer-reviewed studies. This month's Pediatrics article detailing the increased incidence of reporting a particular disease to VAERS when that disease is subject to lawsuit/compensation is just one such article. Also, I would like to see (link or whatever) a detailed criticism of the Danish data - I have not seen anything but oblique references like that above to it's many apparently horrible flaws...InvictaHOG 12:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source facts and switch to <:references/> system

I'm going to source each fact and switch to <:references/> system. Be patient! It may take me a few days to make complete switch because I will look for sources before I remove dead links or unsourced text. FloNight ^talk 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)