Sometimes it is really exciting when a new study comes out, and you think that some conclusions have finally been made. In the case of Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth an opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study there is a limit to the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from the study, due to the size of the study groups (in the study's own discussion).
The autism community has pointed to some problems with the study which include conflicting or wrong analysis as far as conclusions drawn from the recorded measurements of the amygdala in the subjects of the study, when compared to scientific data already available on the matter. Also mentioned is the need for a larger and better matched control group since there were only four controls and two were removed from the study, with no results recorded for those two.
In my previous writing, The Amygdala, Pediatric Vaccines & Autism Implications, the focus was on the conclusions of the study which said that there were differing patterns of maturational changes in amygdala volume and differences in amygdala-binding of ["C]DPN.
However, my most recent inspection of differing conclusions of previous research throughout the past fifteen years, with regard to the amygdala, shows me how very difficult it is to come to any concrete conclusions - especially from a pilot study that lacked in important areas. Research into the amygdala is important, but time and patience is required.
Just keep trying, right?