An acquaintance of mine posted a link to this and I wanted to see what y'all though. (I'm particularly interested in CT's take and the viewpoint of Hatrackers on both sides of the vaccination issue.)
(Yes, you'll need to change the 0 to an o in .com)
I haven't had time to look at it closely yet (tougher than they thought summer class = lots of students asking for help). A quick browse catches the emotional undertone more than any serious analysis of the data. Also, using weasel words like "official data" and "unscientific and untrue" suggests that the author doesn't know the first thing about approaching things "scientifically". (And the comparison of the vaccine industry to Bill Gates/Microsoft is a little bizarre).
It's obvious that I'm skeptical of their claims, but I have no way of looking critically at the data they present. I though that some Hatrackateers might be able to elucidate or otherwise wax eloquent on the data. Once again, I welcome viewpoints from both sides of the issue.
[ June 26, 2009, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh god. That is the sort of thing that deserves to be savaged with surgical accuracy.
It looks on initial viewing to be a bunch of spurious correlations being theorycrafted into decisive proof of the pointlessness of vaccines and herd immunity. I can't offer a comprehensive analysis of it or even say for sure that it's crap because I totally don't have the time to go into it, but, to the people who shall no doubt savage this in time, I want to note how reliant this is on the concept of a bunch of profiteering drug companies gouging us on vaccines whose actual costs are absolutely minimal and often provided at cost by public care services.
quote:Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No.
Yeah wow great way to desperately misappropriate graph comparisons there, guys.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, that analysis is one of the most moronic I've seen in a while. I love how they assume trendlines always continue, and think that vaccine researchers somehow have denied that anything else can reduce disease occurrence (never mind the huge literature on the vast improvements due to sanitation).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Without even looking, I can tell you that one of the key problems with these sorts of claims is that the graphs are read [incorrectly]. Specifically, the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating, and cross-comparisons are often made amongst "mortality rate" and "number of deaths," or "incidence" and "prevalence," etc.
Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
As far as I can tell, all the author is saying is that overall, mortality rates are going down but is then jumping to the conclusion that it must be completely unrelated to vaccination, therefor vaccinations are unnecessary.
For some reason, they ignore the possibility that vaccinations are a contributing factor to the overall better health of the population.
They also use trend lines to make predictions, which leads me to believe that if we stop vaccinating people, by 2020 we'll actually have a negative death rate due to disease, and having measles or mumps will bring people back from the dead! Graphs don't lie!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I will go peruse later. It has just been too long a day already, so I'm off to go cheer on some Vor games.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
"Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it."
You are one sad dude. In your face is hard info and you don't like it.
Tough life.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Wonder Dog, I think your linkage has served as a bridge back to this site. It may or may not mean a lot of fallout for Papa Janitor, but I think that the horses have left the barn already, so not too much to do about it.
spambuster, you are welcome to Hatrack. I am sorry to have caused offense, particularly if you are the host or writer of the article at that site. I do disagree with you -- in several languages, based on (correctly interpreted) hard data, and, yes, from the perspective of one very tough life, albeit richly rewarding. But that is no excuse for discourtesy.
So, welcome to Hatrack.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
CT isn't a dude. Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Spambuster, I'd like to welcome you to Hatrack. You've certainly jumped right into the deep water.
I'd ask that you watch your tone a bit, though. We endeavor to treat one another with respect here, even (or especially) when we disagree.
Thanks, PJ
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Er... oops. Sorry if I've inadvertently attracted new posters who aren't interested in civil discussion.
I know a lot of people who are very emotional about this issue, and I've heard a lot of talk about various medical or scientific linkages between vaccination and... lots of stuff, especially autism. (My nephew is autistic, but I've yet to hear my sister express an opinion on vaccinations either way...)
[ June 26, 2009, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
I love this line!
I debate this, considering my experiences in the Army (You know, working at USAMRIID and helping train researchers from the CDC), but I doubt I could and remain civil.
I wonder if he knows where Hoffa is buried......Geraldo still wants to know.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Anyone that can't play Beethoven on a bike tired-SUV is a wuss.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hobbes, we are going to need a digital recording from you ASAP.
CT, very well put. (Also sigged. )
spambuster, you are outclassed. You are also wrong. But feel free to continue being entertaining.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: spambuster, you are outclassed. You are also wrong. But feel free to continue being entertaining.
Though for the sake of PJ's sanity, reasonably civil entertainment would be preferable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: You are one sad dude. In your face is hard info and you don't like it.
Don't like it? Hell, I love it. I love finding out about pages like these so I can distribute them to epidemiologists and medical researchers and they laugh so hard they take me out for drinks later
(NOTE: THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. drinks at 8)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That was reasonably civil. I also suspect Mr. buster has left whence he came.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Sooooo funny. It is impossible to engage in informed discourse with those unencumbered by the facts.
eg.
quote: weasel words like "official data" and "unscientific and untrue"
Weasel words? So what other words do you use to describe "official data"?
And if something is unscientific and untrue, what words would you use to say so?
Truly wonderful to see how people react when their world view is challenged with new information.
Freud - yo baby, where's your Mama.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As far as I can tell, all the author is saying is that overall, mortality rates are going down but is then jumping to the conclusion that it must be completely unrelated to vaccination, therefor vaccinations are unnecessary.
For some reason, they ignore the possibility that vaccinations are a contributing factor to the overall better health of the population.
They also use trend lines to make predictions, which leads me to believe that if we stop vaccinating people, by 2020 we'll actually have a negative death rate due to disease, and having measles or mumps will bring people back from the dead! Graphs don't lie!
QFT
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Sooooo funny. It is impossible to engage in informed discourse with those unencumbered by the facts.
... Truly wonderful to see how people react when their world view is challenged with new information.
I'm sorry, you're acting as if nobody on this forum has encountered anti-vaccination arguments before.
The thing is, is that if you want to strut around like this, you should make your own claims.
So inbetween these deriding sessions, spambuster, how about you, you know, make some claims here. Tell someone "Oh, I don't think you're right about your interpretation of this website, because ________________________"
Fill in the blank, boyo. Do something. Don't just primp uninformatively and congratulate yourself on how much you're not like the ig'nant forumgoers.
Or, if you feel like it, continue acting just the way you are now and save pretty much everyone here the need to deal with any ambiguity pertaining to whether or not you are at all worth any time or effort!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
eveyone knows vaccines are the work of satan!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: "Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it."
You are one sad dude. In your face is hard info and you don't like it.
Tough life.
She's female automatically failing your argument.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Death rates from, say, measles have gone down because general health care has improve.
But when I was young virtually every kid got measles at one time or another. It was just a fact of life. A few died but most lived. Personally, I had most of the common childhood diseases but somehow managed to avoid mumps.
Now, virtually no one gets measles, and of the very few who do get it, a tiny percent die. But, if only a microscopic few get it, and an even more microscopic few die from it, where is the problem.
Perhaps we should go back to the good old day and let every kid get measles, them God can sort out who lives and who dies.
One look at the charts shows that around 1965 there was a massive down turn in both the number of cases and the number of deaths from measles. What do you suppose the odds are that 1965 was right around the time that vaccinations were required?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: One look at the charts shows that around 1965 there was a massive down turn in both the number of cases and the number of deaths from measles. What do you suppose the odds are that 1965 was right around the time that vaccinations were required?
Now that's just crazy talk.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The thing is, is that if you want to strut around like this, you should make your own claims.
You are the people not coming up with the goods. If you think around 200 years of data are wrong explain yourself.
quote: So inbetween these deriding sessions
Ha. Looks like you have not read all your buddies' comments. Who is deriding who?
Instead of dealing with the facts, it is abuse derision personal attack as per usual.
If you don't like the data explain yourselves.
quote: continue acting just the way you are now and save ... the need to deal with .... whether or not you are ... worth any time or effort!
Looked in the mirror recently? There is nothing here to deal with except the usual abuse and derision folk like yourself respond with.
Let me see - no facts but instead we see:-
quote: emotional undertone
quote:weasel words
quote:bizarre
quote:That is the sort of thing that deserves to be savaged with surgical accuracy
quote:spurious correlations
quote:it's crap
quote:the most moronic
quote:I wonder if he knows where Hoffa is buried
quote:anti-vaccination arguments
quote:primp uninformatively
And this beats it all:-
quote:We endeavor to treat one another with respect here
Really? I was so busy falling over the abuse etc I must have missed it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You are the people not coming up with the goods.
You haven't done anything but (1) sign up, and (2) criticize posters here, so you're hardly in a position to suggest that we do anything you have not done.
You haven't even explained why you decided to engage in this behavior. Who are you, what are you doing here, and do you honestly hope to do anything here or did you just sign up to finger-wag at clueless plebeians, or what. what is going on, what are you doing, do you have anything to add, or is this basically all we get.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
Okay, I'll give you that all of the graphs reference official-sounding data sources. I don't have the resources or background to refute those claims. However, there are numerous statements like
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
... which are based on subjective interpretations of the references by the author, then used to support conclusions that suit the author's claims. This approach to supporting an argument isn't scientific, objective or trustworthy.
Which is why it's ironic to accuse other researchers of claims that are "Unscientific" and "Untrue". Scientific research has nothing to do with "truth"; it examines fact and draws tentative conclusions that seem fit the data, but is prepared to reconsider everything as new data comes along. The author is being as "unscientific" as the people he accuses of "unscientific" claims.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 01:38am].
Who is criticising whom? You folk are the ones posting the attacks on an open public forum.
When someone responds you complain.
And so far I have not seen anything of substance - just derision and abuse.
You then complain you have nothing to respond to.
Truly the logic is tortuous. As I said earlier:-
quote: If you think around 200 years of data are wrong explain yourself.
If you have anything of substance on the facts to say then say it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well the two things I am most interested in are:
1. The data all seems to be compilations extracted from slipshod anthroposohic books, and they are often used to make spurious claims. The quote I already provided is a good example of very poor and inferred association. The fact that many nations have a wide disparity in the productivity and efficiency of their individual health care systems turns into "Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No." — statistically, this is a causal kind of error. It ignores the likely real associations (for instance, it is probable that the non-linear correlation is the result of variance within the programs countries use to manage their healthcare internally!) to come down to conclusions that they want, but which aren't true.
In this example, they came down to the conclusion that paying for healthcare does not bring you better health or a longer life. This is more or less patently false results misappropriated from data associations, and study of national sub-populations, similarly, patently disprove the notion. For instance, there is a statistically significant improvement in both quality of life and life expectancy between people who do not pay for healthcare and people that do. There is also an even wider gulf — monumental, even — between citizens of countries that effectively have no health care, and citizens of countries that do have health care. There are gulfs between the life expectancies of citizens before and after the collapse of functioning medical systems. In all of these cases while there are issues of comorbidity, there is plenty of causal extrapolation as well.
So, bam. A minor example of a false statement in that article. I say minor because while normally an error like that is pretty huge and discrediting, it's only a drop in the bucket to everything that appears to be wrong with that article.
2. The sidebar of that particular page is loaded with links to stories, evidently from the same data aggregate / blog / whatev, about how vaccines cause autism. See, when the site you're looking at is still tied up in the Thimerosal scare, it automatically raises some flags.
Edit: just in case there was any confusion, this is not, of course, a response to spam guy.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Thank you Wonder Dog [June 26, 2009 01:48 AM] for addressing something specific.
You say:
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
is subjective interpretations ....
It is well-known doctors are poor at diagnosis. The page you refer to for example cites the example of over-diagnosis of measles by ten times the actual rate.
You then complain that having cited evidence in addition to it being well-known you say this is
quote: used to support conclusions that suit the author's claims.
But the "claim" is a conclusion based on clear evidence and a well-known issue over accuracy of diagnosis.
So how can citing evidence which fully backs a conclusion [which is also well-known] be an "approach to supporting an argument" which "isn't scientific, objective or trustworthy"?
That cannot be the case. What is the case is you do not like where the evidence takes you so you do not want to go there. All is rhetoric and no substance.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
(My next post after this one is my response with spambuster's post above. Sorry for the confusion.)
Look, it's not our job as casual readers and non-experts to pick apart the data - it's our job to read critically and decide for ourselves. As for determining the veracity of the data and the analysis given, that's why I asked ClaudiaTherese, who is a professional medical researcher, to give her expert opinion.
The article's author says that the data (which may or may not be accurate; I can't say one way or the other) supports his/her claims about vaccinations. To get the data to support these claims, the author engages in intellectually dishonest and unscientific rhetoric, which doesn't encourage me to take them or their claims or those who vehemently defend these claims seriously.
If this data truly supports the conclusions that
a) Vaccines are ineffective. and b) Vaccines cause more harm (physically, social economically) than good.
then a reasoned debate and calm presentation is going to help convince readers and the community at large, not name calling, fighting, or pseudo-scientific biased writing. I'm all for underdogs to introduce ideas and information that the establishment doesn't agree with, but the onus is still on the underdogs to give a convincing, rational argument.
[ June 26, 2009, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Samprimary [June 26, 2009 01:38am].
Who is criticising whom? You folk are the ones posting the attacks on an open public forum.
When someone responds you complain.
This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique.
You just issued some derisive commentary and did not offer what is known as 'substantive critique.'
This is how you hopped on to the forum. If you don't understand why that kind of tone matters, you are doomed to never successfully advocate your point of view because you start off by being rude.
It's the ultimate bad-faith argumentation. You definitely don't help that by moving straight to obliquely dismissing wonderdog's post by labeling it 'all rhetoric and no substance.'
Yeap, I can see where this is going.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
spambuster: Look friend, you want to spin your graphs your own way, and nothing we say is going to sway your opinion.
It's questionable whether your graphs are an accurate representation of data, but even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they're 100% accurate, they still don't tell the story you want them to tell.
Do you know that during the summer, incidents of drowning skyrocket? Also during summer, ice cream sales are much higher than during the winter. I think we can clearly see that drowning victims must eat a lot of ice cream.
Throwing two lines on a graph doesn't tell you much. Especially when you interpret them by ignoring other important data. Especially when you add a lot of personal anecdotes and "well-known" issues like inaccurate diagnosis or OMG-vaccines-cause-autism which has been repeatedly debunked.
We don't trust your data, and your lack of explanation and attitude doesn't help your case any.
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
I want a t-shirt that says
quote: All is rhetoric and no substance.
I understand that the CDR Weekly reference is meant to support the "well-known"* idea that
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
But going claim that
quote: Correspondingly, when vaccination was introduced, they will tend to follow the fashion of not diagnosing measles, where they believe it controlled by vaccination. This following of fashions has been seen in other areas, including Coroner diagnoses of causes of death.
...is a subjective interpretation without any external support other than a non-specific reference to the behavior of Coroners. It also happens to conveniently support the author's claims. Flipping a supported claim into a subjective claim on the sneak isn't scientific, although it can be quasi-effective rhetoric.
(*In this case, "well-known" doesn't mean squat to the average reader like me, other than that you think I'm dumb. If you or the author want to convince me to take another look at these claims, emotionally-charged bias should be kept to a minimum.)
On a personal note - I'm sorry I stirred the hornet's nest. I was looking for rational discussion, and maybe a chance to have my skepticism tempered by people who know more about this than I do. Name calling and emotional arguing isn't my thing and wasn't my intention.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just caught up to where Claudia was on this article and I do indeed see that the author of the wordpress site has indeed on multiple occasions actually read the graphs entirely incorrectly. Oh dear.
edit --
quote:On a personal note - I'm sorry I stirred the hornet's nest. I was looking for rational discussion, and maybe a chance to have my skepticism tempered by people who know more about this than I do.
look man, I don't think you did anything wrong. Your initial post was appropriately and even respectfully skeptical.
[ June 26, 2009, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:11 AM] sidesteps the main issues of what the official mortality statistics show.
And says:
"The data all seems to be compilations extracted from slipshod anthroposohic books"
Incorrect. All data is from official government records.
"they are often used to make spurious claims."
Inapplicable for reason stated.
"The quote I already provided is a good example of very poor and inferred association."
How so? Specific data shows for example the US pays substantially more for healthcare than other comparable first world nations but has poorer outcomes. If you have specific data showing the contrary, where is it?
The same drugs cost less outside the US such as in Canada so paying more does not get any better outcome there either.
The statement "The fact that many nations have a wide disparity in the productivity and efficiency of their individual health care systems" is erroneous because comparable first world nations are compared side-by-side.
And this criticism does not stand up:- ' "Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No." — statistically, this is a causal kind of error.
It ignores the likely real associations'
And to support that argument a saddle-back hypothesis is put forward:-
"... (for instance, it is probable that the non-linear correlation is the result of variance within the programs countries use to manage their healthcare internally!) to come down to conclusions that they want, but which aren't true."
How can higher rates of US infant mortality than other first world countries result from "variance within the programs" the US uses compared to other countries? It cannot.
And what is also being ignored are the substantial declines in mortality which took place before any national healthcare programs were introduced.
The official UK data shows clearly that the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 made no difference to the steady and substantial decline in mortality which continued after the NHS was introduced as before.
So to argue against this is clearly inappropriate.
Similarly to claim "study of national sub-populations" assists and that there is "statistically significant improvement in both quality of life and life expectancy between people who do not pay for healthcare and people that do" is comparing apples with concrete.
The data being inappropriately criticised in this way was comparing first world nations.
It is like saying people who eat will live longer than people who are starving. And people who can afford healthcare will likely have a far better living conditions than those who cannot - which is what the data show - as living conditions improve, so does health and life-expectancy.
"So, bam."
Collapse of argument.
And here is more of the same - if you cannot argue with the facts you divert onto ad hominem without any consideration of the facts provided like:-
"The sidebar of that particular page is loaded with links to stories, evidently from the same data aggregate / blog / whatev, about how vaccines cause autism .... it automatically raises some flags."
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:17 AM]
Says: "This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique."
But if you look back you will see that I was responding to what you folks were saying which cannot be called "good critique".
If you also look back you will see that when "critique" is provided [good or bad] it gets "good critique".
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:37 AM]
Provides an example of poor "critique".
"I do indeed see that the author of the wordpress site has indeed on multiple occasions actually read the graphs entirely incorrectly. Oh dear."
Really? Graph after graph shows mortality steadily declining before any vaccines and continuing to decline steadily after.
It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not.
So claims like "vaccines have saved millions of lives" do not stack up such as shown by the UK data. They have not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:17 AM]
Says: "This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique."
But if you look back you will see that I was responding to what you folks were saying which cannot be called "good critique".
If you also look back you will see that when "critique" is provided [good or bad] it gets "good critique".
So people on this site made unkind references to the site, and you responded with unkind and direct personal attacks, and you are excusing your behavior on others?
Weak logic. Hypocritical, too, but there you go.
quote:It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not.
Why, whatever am I to say in the face of such an unspecific and ironclad assertion?
quote:he more people immunized, the more lives saved. Immunization saves the lives of more than 3 million people worldwide each year, and prevents illness and lifelong disability in millions more.
The introduction of a new vaccine leads to an often dramatic fall in the number of people infected. When immunization coverage drops, diseases reappear.
Analysis has shown that vaccinations are among the safest of injections and serious reactions are very rare. Comparing the risk of disease with the risk of vaccine shows that 1000 out of every 1 million people infected with measles will contract encephalitis, while only 1 person out of every 1 million vaccinated with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) will do so.
In addition, immunization can protect the unimmunized by preventing the spread of certain infectious diseases through so-called herd immunity. When enough people in a community are immunized, diseases do not spread.
hmmmmmmmmmm.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 03:19 AM]
Cites WHO as evidence but where is the reliable data?
And where is it for kids in the UK, USA and Australia? They don't live in the third world. Again, comparing apples with concrete.
The UK, US and Australian data does not support WHO's claims for first world kids.
And whenever WHO cites data like this it is almost invariably from "estimates" and they never produce the data or calculations upon which those "estimates" are based, nor do they say who made them nor the assumptions involved.
These kinds of claims are constantly made by health officials across the world but when data like that shown in the graphs you do not like is produced to show their claims are invalid you complain but fail to produce relevant data to refute it.
And if you want to look at the third world, where are the independent reliable objective studies to back these claims up?
Where are the independent objective unbiased studies showing the rates of adverse reactions?
That is really helpful
Kalokerinos showed that one in every two aboriginal children died as a result of vaccination and published a book on this.
Not only did health officials and medical professionals not act on that we see him being criticised as if committing some major crime.
And then in the same couple of lines from you we see personal attacks immediately following claims of "unkind and direct personal attacks". Here we go:-
"Weak logic. Hypocritical, too, but there you go."
Where is the hypocrisy? It is not from me.
Can't you engage in any form of discourse without resorting to this kind of behaviour?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 03:19 AM]
Who criticises this statement: "It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not."
And says:-
"Why, whatever am I to say in the face of such an unspecific and ironclad assertion?"
How unspecific? It is backed up by the data which you avoid addressing:-
quote: Specific data shows for example the US pays substantially more for healthcare than other comparable first world nations but has poorer outcomes. If you have specific data showing the contrary, where is it?
I had always heard it's because we're paying for the R&D costs of new drugs and treatments. (Though a Google search turned up several pages claiming that, none of them were big names I recognized, so take it with a grain of salt. I doubt Africa is footing an equal piece of the bill, but I can't verify it.) They don't get passed on to other countries that can't afford it, so our bills go up. You'd have to figure out who we're subsidizing, average out all our costs, and divide by the average results to see what the real cost/benefit comes out to.
Plus, there's the difference in collective bargaining in nations with socialized medicine versus our "get what the market will bear" approach. I love the free market, but it's not terribly efficient in cases where you have to have something not easily produced. Let's face it, I can't just fake years of school and go start my own drug company tomorrow to correct market problems. There probably needs to be some price regulation here - taking into account how much profit must be added to make investors bother with lawsuit prone industries.
At the same time, collective bargaining only gives you a great price on certain drugs. My step dad is allergic to the base used in many generic medicines and has to use the name brand stuff. Does he get a better price in Canada? Are there enough versions of the same pill for him to even be able to buy what he needs in Canada? So collective bargaining ain't perfect, either - supposedly free or not.
Drugs are only cheap if someone else is paying is basically what my argument comes down to. We're that someone else.
All of that will drive up the price without improving our results. So while paying for healthcare might not give us longer, better lives, it might very well be giving other people longer, better lives.
Whether you find that worthwhile is, of course, an entirely different point. Personally, I'm ok with it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Obvious Troll is Obvious?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, I think it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data.
Spambuster, I would be happy to walk you through the problems with this data, if you're willing to be patient and not lash out at me with insults every time the analysis is conclusively shown to be bad. Are you willing to sit through a brief education?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
This started out with a really simple point - that vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality and the official mortality statistics show that in the clearest of terms. And the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing.
TomDavidson wishes to contest that. So in a nutshell what is your point?
You say the data is wrong. Like the statistics from the UK's Office for National Statistics shown in the UK graphs?
_____________________________ ON BEHAVIOUR
I previously asked of another poster on this page Samprimary:-
"Can't you engage in any form of discourse without resorting to this kind of behaviour?"
And look who takes over the job. Nice. Personal attacks instead of dealing with the facts:-
Raymond Arnold [June 26, 2009 06:47 AM] who says
"Obvious Troll"
And TomDavidson [June 26, 2009 06:51 AM] who says
"it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data."
And:-
"if you're willing to be patient and not lash out at me with insults every time"
That is what you people are doing constantly here and you appear to choose not to see it. Classic projection.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I applaud spambuster for going against the grain.
Not for his argument, but for his blatant rejection of an easily readable forum format.
But on a more serious note, this is the sort of posting history that gets you put onto a remote island and filled with hallucinogenic drugs.
Swing by and pick me up.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
spambuster, to many of us who are regulars here you fit the description of a troll pretty darn well. You've posted one link, and haven't really given any defense for the criticisms that have been brought up. What Tom is asking, I believe, is for you to calm down a little and join him (and others) is a closer look at the points, why he thinks they're faulty, and why you think they are valid.
I, for one, hope to be able to partake. I'm too busy to read through much of your link, but I hope to learn something from the discussion here.
From the graphs I have looked at and the conclusions that are drawn in the link, I need more analysis to believe what you are saying. The graphs seem very simplistic, and the conclusions seem, IMO, to be making claims that are not justified.
Just as an example, towards the bottom of the page:
quote:This graph demonstrates that the administration of tetanus vaccine is likely to be pointless and puts children especially at risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
I look at the graph, and just do not see how that conclusion can be drawn. It seems WAY too simplistic. I look at graphs for a living, and I believe that the simpler the graphs are, the more they are omitting. I like really complicated graphs.
ETA: WonderDog posted the link, not you.
[ June 26, 2009, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Spambuster,
TomDavidson wasn't making a personal attack when he said "it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data.", he was simply stating a conclusion that I'm sure many of us have come to.
There is a right way to analyze data and a wrong way. Several people here have pointed out major problems in the analysis of the data ("drowning victims must each ice cream" and "measles will bring people back from the dead in 2020" are excellent examples).
I have no background in medicine but I don't need one to see the obvious errors in analysis made here. If you can't see these analysis errors then there are only 2 reasons: 1) you don't know enough about data analysis to recognize them
2) you don't *want* to know about analysis errors since you've already made up your mind based on *something* and aren't willing to be swayed by facts.
So, if it's option 1 then there are a lot of people here who can help you out. If it's option 2 then I suggest everyone else just start ignoring you now since we all know it's futile to do anything else... maybe if we ignore you long enough you'll go away and let us "be wrong" in peace... (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It is worth noting that whenever you join a community and go against the grain, the burden of proof is on you. That may seem unfair, but it's true. I've frequented other messages boards, to my dismay mostly mommy message boards, in which this particular debate is not nearly so one-sided. A lot of moms out there are taking this stuff seriously and are failing to vaccinate their children. One outspoken woman I finally stopped arguing with a few months ago was absolutely certain that vaccinating against diseases has made them deadlier because we no longer have natural immunities to them.
I'm not as good at explaining data analysis as others on this board. Actually, I'm pretty bad at it -- I can read the charts myself and form a picture in my own mind about what is wrong, but I'm terrible at relaying that to others. So I'm not going to try here.
But Spambuster, if you really want to learn, it's not going to be quick. Tom can't tell you anything "in a nutshell."
Another thing worth noting, Spambuster, is that public though this forum may be, we are also a community. Over the course of many conversations, most of us have learned a thing or two about the others. So while on other more anonymous forums your style of barging in here and throwing your weight around would be perfectly acceptable, here it is considered troll behavior. If you're interested in joining the community, the best idea is to sit back and lurk for a bit.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Tom I think Spam-Buster has the background necessary to understand our criticism of the arguments and data that he's using.
I'm not sure if he has the desire to do so.
Spambuster you seem to be very well martyred for your bright and ground-breaking use of scientific data to disprove science.
Every attack on that data seems to be a personal assault on you, or at least you are taking it as such, for your quick defensive answers are that we are too stupid to understand what your graphs show.
And hey, its graphed, it must be true.
I have not read the article, but your arguments here have shown a lack of honesty and a self-narrowing view on the data.
You can't understand how we can spend more for medicine's in the US than other countries, but not have better results, so you posit that spending any money on health-care is a waste. I go to the gas station and fill up my car. It costs twice as much to do so this year as it did just a couple of years ago, but I only go the same distance. Yet I don't think anyone would argue that money spent on gas is wasted and I should spend none and expect my car to still go as far.
Times, locations, and how health care is implemented vary costs, but you are positing that all health care is some universal equal entity. Health Care based on the Insurance Company model as used in the US has a lot of costs, both in money and in the health of the participants. That has little to do with vaccines.
But, because I argued against one point of your thesis, I am expecting you will take it as a personal attack against you. I am expecting that you will respond with either martyred angst of "Oh why does everybody hate the truth bearer" or a personal attack on me.
I hope you disappoint me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, spambuster, I'm willing to help you understand the criticisms of this analysis, but I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so. If you're interested, please let me know.
One example of the conversation I might have with you, taking just one of the more obviously ridiculous "points" from the middle of the list: the author attempts to argue that vaccines in general are not useful by noting that incidents of scarlet fever and scurvy dramatically declined without vaccination. But while the author is not ignorant of the vectors involved -- he discusses the importance of diet in controlling scurvy, and of cleanliness and insect control in controlling scarlet fever -- he somehow does not seem to realize that these things distinguish scarlet fever and scurvy from other diseases that might well be best treated through vaccination. Scurvy, for example, is not technically a communicable disease (i.e. you can't "catch" scurvy from someone else); it's caused by not having enough Vitamin C in your diet. It's no surprise, then, that diet is a better cure for scurvy than vaccination. But it doesn't logically follow that diet is a better cure for all diseases; consider, for example, the limited benefit of a diet high in Vitamin C in avoiding scarlet fever. By the same token, mosquito netting will not protect you from scurvy.
In this case, the point the author is trying to make by bringing up these graphs -- an attempt to show that some diseases can be cured without vaccination -- is undermined substantially by his relatively shallow understanding of disease in general.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
The White Whale [June 26, 2009 08:23 AM]
"you fit the description of a troll pretty darn well."
Nice. You folks published information on a public forum open to anyone to post to and your next comment is incorrect also.
"You've posted one link, and haven't really given any defense for the criticisms that have been brought up."
You have launched an incorrect personal attack. You have done so notwithstanding I have provided specific answers to specific points.
But hey, lets not worry about facts.
"What Tom is asking, I believe, is for you to calm down a little"
There you go again. All personal stuff and incorrect as well. Why not address the facts? Of do you just want to spend the time attacking other people?
"join him (and others) is a closer look at the points, why he thinks they're faulty"
Still waiting for that.
"I'm too busy to read through much of your link"
It would help if you read just a little of the posts and then you would see how inappropriate your mischaracterisations are are.
"making claims that are not justified"
"quote:This graph demonstrates that the administration of tetanus vaccine is likely to be pointless and puts children especially at risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines."
Really? With mortality fallen to less than 1 in million by the 1950's and continuing to fall.
Those at risk being mainly agricultural workers not children. And the risk can be avoided completely by ensuring deep wounds are properly cleansed?
No justification for universal vaccination and risking adverse reactions.
"I look at the graph, and just do not see how that conclusion can be drawn."
You have already demonstrated that you will not agree with anything. You have adopted a personally attacking approach from the outset.
"It seems WAY too simplistic."
Really? Just because the data is too clear you reject it. Thanks for making my point.
"I look at graphs for a living, and I believe that the simpler the graphs are, the more they are omitting."
Hmmm. Really? How fascinating it must be to avoid having to draw clear conclusions from clear data.
"I like really complicated graphs. [Big Grin]"
That last comment is such a relevant contribution to the discourse.
Overall you seem to have added nothing.
If you have a point to make how about you just make it?
As I have shown above there is nothing of substance in what you have posted.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: You have launched an incorrect personal attack.
Which I realized and edited my post accordingly. sorry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let me also suggest, spambuster, that rather than trying to reply to individual sentences, you quote significant chunks of dialogue -- ideally using the UBB quote function -- and reply to them en masse. It will both reduce the incidence of snark and make your posts significantly easier to read and parse.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: As I have shown above there is nothing of substance in what you have posted.
Even if I grant that for the sake of argument, there's also nothing of substance in what you've posted. Some people have posted specific criticisms of the graphs, for instance that the variables on the axes of graphs being compared are not the same, which completely invalidates the comparisons. You've either ignored those criticisms and focused on criticizing people's posting styles -- ironic considering your opening post was a personal attack, "you are one sad dude" -- or you've replied to them with a blanket "you're all wrong."
Where's the substance?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
just_me [June 26, 2009 08:23 AM]
Who said
"TomDavidson wasn't making a personal attack when he said "it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data." "
Of course he was. If he had a specific point he could make it without making incorrect hostile personal comments.
It is soooo unnecessary. And in doing so he mades not one factual point to advance any dialogue.
"he was simply stating a conclusion that I'm sure many of us have come to."
Sure - instead of engaging on the facts it is all more personal stuff.
Maybe if you kept off the personal stuff and stuck to the facts this might go somewhere.
"There is a right way to analyze data and a wrong way."
Really? Like all disease mortality had been falling rapidly regardless and that is the wrong way to view the official data.
"Several people here have pointed out major problems in the analysis of the data ("drowning victims must each ice cream" and "measles will bring people back from the dead in 2020" are excellent examples).
Not really. Clearly inappropriate - no one is saying drowning people must eat icecream - a thoroughly poor non point. No one is saying measles would "bring people back from the dead" - except of course you folks.
Making bad points does nothing to advance your arguments.
Are there no good points?
"I have no background in medicine but I don't need one to see the obvious errors in analysis made here."
Strange how no one is bothering to point them out. Having difficulty with that?
And having not made any useful contribution here you are back with the personal attacks:-
"If you can't see these analysis errors then there are only 2 reasons: 1) you don't know enough about data analysis to recognize them
2) you don't *want* to know about analysis errors since you've already made up your mind based on *something* and aren't willing to be swayed by facts."
Why not cut the padding out and start dealing with the facts? Here you suggest that might happen but it is still not:-
"So, if it's option 1 then there are a lot of people here who can help you out."
And if you folk are going to carry on as before the only thing you have said which suits me fine is the following. You folk just attack and add nothing of relevance:-
"I suggest everyone else just start ignoring you now since we all know it's futile to do anything else... maybe if we ignore you long enough you'll go away and let us "be wrong" in peace..."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he had a specific point he could make it without making incorrect hostile personal comments.
I maintain that my "personal comments" quoted here are absolutely correct.
If you disagree, please demonstrate to my satisfaction your ability to do basic statistical analysis. A layman's understanding is fine; you don't need to show any of the math, or even do any of the math, just so long as you make it clear that you know what the math would normally be. You can analyze one of the graphs on that site, since it's convenient. Pick your favorite, and tell me what it actually says (as opposed to what the author seems to think it says.)
If you'd like, you could also reply to my criticism of the scurvy/scarlet fever comparison (above) with an attempt to explain why either of those two diseases might be relevant to a discussion about vaccination. I'm willing to be convinced by someone capable.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Darth_Mauve [June 26, 2009 08:39 AM] who yet again adds nothing of any relevance - all just personal attack.
Why not take the advice of just_me [June 26, 2009 08:23 AM] who said:-
"I suggest everyone else just start ignoring you now since we all know it's futile to do anything else... maybe if we ignore you long enough you'll go away and let us "be wrong" in peace..."
Superb example:-
"I have not read the article, but your arguments here have shown a lack of honesty and a self-narrowing view on the data."
And then go on to mischaracterise the position. Why bother. It is pointless for you, me and everyone else.
If you had something of substance to say it has not been said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, spambuster, I am perfectly willing to teach you how to read those graphs correctly. Is this something you're interested in doing?
I notice you've avoided addressing me directly. Why is that?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, spambuster.
What you need to understand is that I do not see those graphs as "clear data." I see them as simplifications. There is a lot that goes into reducing mortality rates, and while I am not a doctor or epidemiologist, I can think of many things that would also influence these trends besides just vaccination. Nutrition, lifestyle, availability of medical treatment, and reduced exposure to known disease vectors to name just some off of the top of my head.
For those graphs to be convincing, they need to include more data. There needs to be more graphs, more analysis of causation/correlation. This graph in particular seems me to be downright laughable. Trends hardly ever continue at a constant rate. So this added trendline that reaches zero at 2010 just seems ridiculous. It seems like a dramatic and naive oversimplification. If I did that with my academic work, I'd be laughed out of town.
quote:"I like really complicated graphs. [Big Grin]"
That last comment is such a relevant contribution to the discourse.
Goodness. This was a lighthearted comment, intended to say something about my self and be somewhat humorous.
Some of the graphs that I see everyday are mindboggling at first, but become very enlightening and education with a little bit of effort. The graphs that are presented in the link are educational, but they leave many answers unaddressed. How did medical treatment develop during the same time period? How did lifestyle changes develop? Or how did better/worse nutrition develop during the same time? When were the vaccines administered? How did the vaccines themselves develop? How were these data collected? Did they omit anything?
So when I see a graph like this, I an skeptical. Things are not often one-to-one correlated. There are compounding factors. There is noise. There is often non-linearity. There are bumps and anomalies. I need some form of explanation or discussion addressing these issues before I accept a graph and the given conclusions as true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even though he won't listen, I thought I might comment on why the graphs look like they do.
There are many ways to fight disease. Often, simple sanitation approaches will drastically reduce diseases of almost all kinds in a population previously without them. As societies have modernized, they have applied a broad array of disease-mitigating effects, resulting in a great decrease in the prevalence of disease. As our understanding advances, those approaches become more and more sophisticated. One of the most modern advances we have to deploy against disease is vaccination, and this can be seen by how with many diseases it has reduced their prevalence far more rapidly than any other effect.
I would be fascinated in hearing spambuster's explanation for the eradication of smallpox, especially how it only disappeared in areas after people there were thoroughly vaccinated, and not in all the similar areas where people hadn't yet been thoroughly vaccinated.
Additionally, even the site linked gives up on the idea that vaccines are ineffective -- notice on several of the graphs, even at such a gross scale, vaccines resulted in a much steeper drop than any previously. The site goes on to assert that a lower point of disease would have happened anyways, but that's just wishful thinking. I wonder if spambuster would like to proffer an explanation explaining how the diseases would mystically disappear without any intervention.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
TomDavidson [June 26, 2009 08:59 AM]
"I'm willing to help you understand the criticisms of this analysis"
Where? You have said this many times but done nothing.
"I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so."
You have not endured any but I have had unnecessary personal remarks from you. Why not do to others as you wish others might do to you?
"If you're interested, please let me know."
I'm bored waiting. Which is why I suggest following the advice of just_me [June 26, 2009 08:23 AM] who said:-
"I suggest everyone else just start ignoring you now since we all know it's futile to do anything else... maybe if we ignore you long enough you'll go away and let us "be wrong" in peace..."
In fact I will take it myself as this is all going nowhere pretty and tediously slowly too.
If you and your friends wanted to bait me you have lost your opportunity. And if you wanted to show me how right you all are you have all just blown that too.
Bye.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
*wakes up from a dream*
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster:
Bye.
spambuster, while the last thing I want to do is convince you to stay, TomD has been more than courteous to you, posted a well reasoned post about flaws in that data, and asked for your response. In return you attacked him. for reference:
quote:One example of the conversation I might have with you, taking just one of the more obviously ridiculous "points" from the middle of the list: the author attempts to argue that vaccines in general are not useful by noting that incidents of scarlet fever and scurvy dramatically declined without vaccination. But while the author is not ignorant of the vectors involved -- he discusses the importance of diet in controlling scurvy, and of cleanliness and insect control in controlling scarlet fever -- he somehow does not seem to realize that these things distinguish scarlet fever and scurvy from other diseases that might well be best treated through vaccination. Scurvy, for example, is not technically a communicable disease (i.e. you can't "catch" scurvy from someone else); it's caused by not having enough Vitamin C in your diet. It's no surprise, then, that diet is a better cure for scurvy than vaccination. But it doesn't logically follow that diet is a better cure for all diseases; consider, for example, the limited benefit of a diet high in Vitamin C in avoiding scarlet fever. By the same token, mosquito netting will not protect you from scurvy.
In this case, the point the author is trying to make by bringing up these graphs -- an attempt to show that some diseases can be cured without vaccination -- is undermined substantially by his relatively shallow understanding of disease in general.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
To be fair, the scurvy and scarlet fever examples are at worst irrelevant, not fatal to the overall analysis. No one has yet proferred any really conclusive criticism, as far as I can see. (Not that I'm defending the analysis).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was deliberately not producing criticism germane to the overall topic until I heard back from him that he wanted it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
scifibum: there have been several conclusive points of criticism to the point that the analysis is useless for showing what he is interested in showing. And the WHO is pretty authoritative for speaking to the opposite point, though I suppose one could always search for "vaccine effectiveness" on medline and dump the results in the thread. There's little reason, though, this is one of the most settled points in medicine.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tom, fair enough.
fugu13, I suppose you're right, but spambuster has had an easier time ignoring all the points made because there hasn't been any particularly detailed or pointed deconstruction of any particular claim.
But, since I was trying to be fair, let me continue to try: it would probably be pointless. I don't think anyone here bears the onus.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'd appreciate it if someone would, as clearly as they can to a layman like me, explain why the analysis is faulty. I have no axe to grind.
I have not read carefully through the entire article (too long for me to focus on with three kids, one sick, running around the house), but it seems to me (again, as an underinformed layman) that the thrust of the article is that general health and conditions have improved over the past however many years, and that this general health condition (clean water, nutrition, etc.) has more effect on the persistence of diseases than the vaccinations. In fact, the diseases die out at a fairly predictable rate, and the advent of the vaccinations didn't change that rate in any meaningful manner. (I've already read the argument here why a disease like scurvy shouldn't be in the same category as measles, but I'm sure there are more.)
My gut instinct response is in several parts. One, I don't believe that mortality should be the sole indicator of a disease's severity, and the graphs seem only to measure that aspect. Two, different graphs seem to measure different things, and I'm not always clear on what they're measuring. And sometimes it seems like they're measuring the same thing but doing it again for emphasis, or on a different (non-logarithmic, but per capita which becomes very similar with population growth) scale.
The claim in the article: "Official UK records for 2006 show that when doctors are looking for a disease, they overdiagnose suspected measles cases by ten times higher than are confirmed by laboratory testing." I totally see this one, but I think it's at least as readily applied to things like ADD/ADHD and mild autism (both in that they're overdiagnosed now, and were un/underdiagnosed before, especially when nobody had identified them yet. It seems a non-starter to me, but I could certainly be wrong.
Maybe more, but I gotta get back to kids. And laundry. And packing. And I should really eat some breakfast.
For reference, spambuster, in case you're still around -- I'm also Papa Janitor, when I'm in my moderating uniform. As Papa Moose I'm a regular guy. And at the beginning, the "attacks" were on the logic/illogic of the article in question, not personal attacks on another person (one could argue that attacking the author was a personal attack, but it was in an impersonal way). Your post changed that. Unfortunately, many people (not CT, of course, who is the most gracious person at this place) then responded in kind. I'm sorry for that.
--Pop
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And whenever WHO cites data like this it is almost invariably from "estimates" and they never produce the data or calculations upon which those "estimates" are based, nor do they say who made them nor the assumptions involved.
So I'm taking it you didn't, you know, check out the link I provided too hard.
Hey spambuster, let me ask you a little more directly: who are you, how are you associated with this subject, and why did you choose to sign up to start battling the forum over the subject of vaccine science related to this thread. Is that your wordpress site? Do you frequently battle over this subject? What?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: I'd appreciate it if someone would, as clearly as they can to a layman like me, explain why the analysis is faulty. I have no axe to grind.
We don't take kindly to your type 'round these parts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Spambuster may have returned to his home planet, but searches for his handle show the extensive degree to which he has acted like this on countless other forums. He's just a pretty dedicated subject troll. In fact, he's even a Reddit subject troll. Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
Papa Moose,
I don't have lots of time, but I'll start us off on addressing your questions by mentioning one thing that jumped out at me right away, and was mentioned before by MightCow on page 1 of this topic.
(I should note I know nothing about medicine, but as an engineer I feel qualified to comment on the analysis itself)
In the "Measles Mortality In The US" graph, the author drew a linear regression line based on the data from 1912-1965(ish) and then used it to extrapolate a value out in 2010. This is bad for several reasons: 1) He clearly didn't include the data from 1965 to 1975 - where both curves took a drastic drop. This means he only looked at *some* of the available data and not all of it.
2) He excuses not including data from 1965-1975 by saying that the drop in reported cases was due to a correction of previous over-diagnosing and/or under-diagnosing after 1965. He provides no justification (documentation) for this claim and further he makes no effort to correct for over-diagnosing. (For that matter the downward trend could just be a matter of reduced over-diagnosing...) He does nothing to directly dispute that this sharp drop could have anything to do with the introduction of the measles vaccine in the 1960s (1963 and an improved one in 1968 - http://www.vaccineinformation.org/measles/qandavax.asp)
3) He extends the trendline well beyond the data used to generate it. While this isn't always forbidden you have to be *very careful* when you do this. In this case it's obvious to someone who has experience in the use of trendlines that this is a poor application of one, as it ignores the obvious drop around 1965 and it extends the trend out almost 50 years - when there is only 50 years of data to base it on initially. As MightyCow pointed out if you extend the trendline a little more an you get a negative deathtoll, which is obviously impossible.
There's likely more that can be said about this graph, but I hope the above is compelling enough to let you see why so many quickly dismissed the analysis of this graph.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Yes, vaccines are highly effective and responsible for huge health benefits. But our current system for reporting and analyzing negative reactions to vaccines has some serious flaws.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Papa Moose: take a look at my post just after the White Whale for addressing a number of your points.
I'd like to emphasize that, in many of his graphs, the vaccines clearly did change the rate disease decreased. I would also like to emphasize that it is unsurprising the rates of non-vaccine treatment is quite good; cleanliness is one of the best ways to combat disease. Simply put, though, extrapolating trend lines never shows much of anything, especially for something as complicated as the question. The post I refer to gives some good explanatory reasoning.
Also, we have another big source of evidence: randomized trials. We can show, with a very high certainty (well over 99.99%) that, for people belonging to the same sort of population, that many vaccines reduce the incidence of disease (and death due to that disease). That disproves the idea that vaccines aren't contributing to the overall drop in infections conclusively, as we know that if we removed the vaccines, the number of people affected would go up.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen." -Benjamin Franklin
I try to avoid extremes in either direction. I don't forward emails that claim I'll prosper if I do or suffer if I don't. I don't believe that vaccinations (or any other medical treatment) are the cause of all problems or the cure of all problems, but somewhere in between. But I believe that it's my job as a parent to do the best I can to protect my kids from whatever harm I can and teach them to protect themselves as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CaySedai, that was an excellent post. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The first measles graph, the logarithmic one sowing the UK deaths/55 million, is hard to draw conclusions from; there's a flat rate to ~1916, then a steady exponental-ish drop to the present day, with perhaps some variations in the rate of decline; it's hard to say what's the brain picking out a line in the noise and what's a genuine change in the rate of decline. On the face of it, though, that graph does support the author's argument; if a measles vaccine made a huge difference, you would expect to be able to pick it out by the naked eye. But the US one, the second graph linked, is much clearer, and totally destroys the case that vaccination is not important. The death rate drops like a rock around 1965, at a much faster rate than it had been going down. More importantly, the number of cases per cap, which was not given in the UK data, had been steady up until then - unlike the death rate, which was declining - and around 1965, this too goes down like a lead zeppelin. Checking back using Google, the measles vaccine was apparently introduced to the US in 1963.
Now it's clear what is going on: Up until the vaccine is introduced, there is a constant rate of measles cases, around 400 / 100k - perhaps this is the rate which means everyone gets it at some point during their childhood? At any rate, as treatment and nutrition get better, the death rate drops steadily - more people survive their brush with measles. (Conceivably this does actually support the argument that vaccines are not required, although the 0.2/100k at the end of the trend would be 600 deaths yearly in the US today - not nice, and consider also that there might be side effects on the survivors.) Then the vaccine is introduced, and boom, the cases drop by an order of magnitude. So does the death rate, naturally enough. (Notice that the spike around 1970 is only about 20 cases - maybe a small epidemic in some rural backwater, say among the older children who hadn't got the shot yet?)
With this interpretation in hand, I make the following postdiction for the UK data: The number of cases (note we haven't seen this graph for the UK) will remain constant until sometime in the sixties or early seventies, then it'll drop by an order of magnitude. The date of the drop will be when the vaccine was introduced on a wide scale.
I would also not be surprised if a linear plot of the UK death rate showed a similar drastic change in the rate of decline; sometimes it's hard to make out a change from one regime to another on a semilog plot, especially when the event rate is not so high anyway. It's almost always useful to plot data both ways, they show different features.
Posted by Catseye1979 (Member # 5560) on :
The data I would be really interested in would be the percentage of people have out breaks after vaccines are administered and that of people (under same living condition) who weren't.
Mostly I'd like to see data on repeat outbreaks and affects of Vaccination on that. For example I had chicken pox twice as a child and my brother had it 3 times. Most people only have it once. I would be interested to know if Vaccination for Chicken Pox had been available what effect would it have had on our outbreaks if it had been available to us. Would it have prevented all our out breaks? Or just the first one?
In my case if it only prevented the first one it could've caused my parents and others to think that the Vaccination had no effect, not knowing that my immune system needed more experience than one outbreak or one Vaccination could provide.
I guess what I'd like to know how many people still get still sick after getting Vaccinated for it and how many of those cases are slow learning immune systems like my brother's and mine.
Come to think of it....since my brother had Chicken Pox three times and I only had it twice....maybe I should keep my distance from kids with Chicken Pox.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: even if a decrease followed largely the same trend, it does not follow that it came from largely the same reasons. The latter part of a trend could be from vaccinations even if the first part was from improved sanitation. So no, a consistent trend line wouldn't support the assertions. And as you note, many of the trends do show drastic improvements from vaccination.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Thank you for the responses.
As a side note, a logarithmic scale of this type is not going to result in a negative value -- just one below the x-axis, indicating a value less than one. It only approaches zero asymptotically.
[meta] I wonder where the line gets drawn when something becomes so laughable that it invites derision/scorn. I didn't think this was, but again I don't have the background many of you do. (Regardless, I would view the article with skepticism.) I don't think I'd argue that there is no such point, mainly because I don't think it's a fruitful argument, but I think we seem to arrive there, as a forum, far more often than is needed.
I wonder if this thread would have gone very differently if the original poster had been an advocate of the findings of the article rather than a questioner. I'm not sure it would have been (actually, based on past issues, I think it might have gotten to personal attacks sooner), which I think is a little bit sad. [/meta]
[Edit on the meta] There are a number of issues that would affect the "personal attacks" thing, and I think I'm probably generalizing unfairly -- hope nobody took offense. Besides, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about, you know, other people. [/Edit]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: KoM: even if a decrease followed largely the same trend, it does not follow that it came from largely the same reasons. The latter part of a trend could be from vaccinations even if the first part was from improved sanitation. So no, a consistent trend line wouldn't support the assertions.
A consistent trend line does fail to falsify the hypothesis "Vaccines are useless". It's at least sufficiently convincing that you'd want to look at the data with some other methods, such as cases per cap, deaths per case, trend lines in other countries with different introduction dates, and so on. I do think that's support. When you look at the number of cases the hypothesis collapses like a balloon, but that's quite a different problem.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I have time this afternoon and wanted to go through the article in detail for Papa Moose. Either the link isn't working for me because of something I am doing or the site is down.
If the host of the article doesn't want it up, I don't have any desire to override his or her wishes and repost that article in particular. There are other such articles online, and I'm happy to go through one of those, as the problems are similar (if not identical). It will just take a bit to dig something up that is appropriate. However, if it's just a matter of my computer being wonky, let me know how to get back to that site.
I want to explain about what I meant about bike tires and whatnot -- I meant very specifically that something of the wrong size (but proper general type) was being used in the right place but for the wrong reason.
---
Wonder Dog, I think your original post was great, and I feel bad that you seem to think you have to apologize for bringing it up. These are the sorts of discussions we need to have: interesting, relevant, topical issues about which we can come to a better understanding, at the very least about the assumptions and beliefs other people have.
Papa, I understand and echo your comment about our general trend towards early polarization on topics that get treated with derision and scorn. Like you, I don't think the idea of that is beyond the pale, but like you, I wonder how the conversation would have gone if the OP were the same person who hosted the site. Maybe it would have been the same. And I do also understand the frustration about certain topics like this as time goes on and the same discussions keep coming in this area of our culture. There is something about the repetition -- coupled at times with the strong flavour of derisive scorn in the first presentation itself -- that may numb us to charitable impulses.
I don't know what to do about that. I see it in myself often, and I know those are generally good times for me to spend some time thinking about my endgame. Generally there is no way to engage which gets me closer to my true goal, and so the only non-Pyrrhic strategy is to turn my attention elsewhere.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
CT, the .com in the link is a .c0m (see zero em), and needs to be changed to .com in order to work. I think Wonder Dog is trying to prevent people from tracking back to this site.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, great. Thanks!
Wonder Dog is a sharp cookie. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm curious. When you guys go to the zoo, do you ignore the "Do not feed the animals" sign and throw hot dogs into the cages?
Because you sure do seem to enjoy feeding spambuster.
"Vaccines are teh suck! If you disagree you're a poopy-head!"
I bet his parents promised he wasn't going to get a shot at the doctor's when he was a kid, and he wound up getting one. And he's been working out his trauma ever since.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
[Still meta] Something I find incredibly frustrating (both as mod and as a member-at-large) is bringing up an issue that has mostly burned itself out to get one's own words into the mix. (I'm sorry this post comes right after yours, Lisa -- I don't think you're the worst offender, but you caught me at an active moment, and it fits the pattern.) As mod, there have been many threads I would lock, but for the "I must look at the thread because it has been locked" issue. But when I don't, often someone will bring it back to life just so they can add something someone else has already said, but in their own words. But then even commenting on that can be considered the same thing, though I don't think it is. *sigh again* [/meta]
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
@CT: Have you ever tried eating a sharp cookie? Not fun. I have no idea why people consider that a compliment, unless you happen to be some sort of pastry-chef/assassin.
I'm only sorry I brought this up because of the quasi-flame war it almost started. I guess I don't have any control over other poster's attitudes, though. I'm very interested in trying to understand this critically, mostly to get a handle on why there's such controversy over vaccination in the first place. My acquaintance who posted this seemed to take it a face value, and I wouldn't consider them an un-intelligent person (emotional, yes, but not dumb).
In any case - I'm still interested in y'all weighing in.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: why there's such controversy over vaccination in the first place.
It involves the following, each of which alone would probably be enough to make it touchy:
Money. Quite a bit of it at a national level, and a not insignificant amount at the personal level (most especially if you are uninsured or underinsured).
Infants and children (among the most vulnerable members of society), and judgments regarding what is the best care for them, and who should be making those decisions.
Decisions made by one person that can have serious and far-reaching effects on others. On both sides -- the pro-vaccine side pushing requirements on everyone, and the anti-side compromising herd immunity (which then particularly affects those with compromised immune systems, who are also among the most vulnerable).
Authority and expertise: the average layperson doesn't really understand how vaccination works, let alone concepts like herd immunity. But they also don't like being told that it's their ignorance that is the problem, and that they ought to listen to experts. Even if they try, there are supposed experts on the anti side too.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Sooooo funny. It is impossible to engage in informed discourse with those unencumbered by the facts.
eg.
quote: weasel words like "official data" and "unscientific and untrue"
Weasel words? So what other words do you use to describe "official data"?
And if something is unscientific and untrue, what words would you use to say so?
Truly wonderful to see how people react when their world view is challenged with new information.
Freud - yo baby, where's your Mama.
Well, I would start with facts. That means you'd have to understand why false comparisons lead to false conclusions, about controlled studies, repeatable experiments, observer bias, control groups.
It would mean you'd have to understand why control groups are important, why anecdotal experiences are less reliable than observed, repeatable data. You'd have to learn how controlled data from studies is extrapolated to real world situations, and what the actual limitations built into each study mean, and why they are important.
You'd also need to learn how to READ studies, so that you'd understand the actual claims they are making, and if the data bears out the hypothesis. If you rely on AP blurbs from people who have no scientific background to summarize things for you you will end up making a lot of mistakes and false assumptions.
Most of all, you'd have to understand that in a lot of ways, failing to prove a hypothesis is a lot of times just as important (if not MORE so) to finding the truth than proving one. It's sort of like life...I know that I learn just as much from my failures as I do my successes, and tend to remember those lessons longer.
While doing all of this, you'd probably learn that is you mash data together that is as different as apples and oranges oranges, all you get is a mean fruit punch.
By the time you were done, you'd understand that the site you just linked to is a crock. It's so bad that you can hardly refute it because it is like refuting a knock knock joke.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: [*]Authority and expertise: the average layperson doesn't really understand how vaccination works, let alone concepts like herd immunity. But they also don't like being told that it's their ignorance that is the problem, and that they ought to listen to experts. Even if they try, there are supposed experts on the anti side too. [/list]
Yes. Those "supposed experts" are a major stumbling block for me personally. I have no training in data analysis, and no formal science beyond the Biology for Dummies course that my major required. I do want to make good decisions based on up-to-date information, but it makes it difficult when the conclusion that I would prefer, but may not be the best, can still be backed up by a lot of people with a lot of letters coming after their names. Until I better educate myself, I sometimes have to make decisions based on faith even after I've done days of research.
To add complication to the question at hand, vaccines are very counter-intuitive. Parenting brings out the primal in people, I think, and it just doesn't make sense to take a child who is not sick and put him through a painful procedure. The now where he is obviously hurting is much more real than the future where he isn't going to catch the West Nile Virus.
I went through something similar when my daughter went through chemotherapy treatment. There was a part of me that was screaming that it was insane to take my daughter, who was happy and looked healthy, to the hospital where they would attach her to a bag chemicals so toxic it would eat the linoleum if it spilled and would make her miserable for weeks afterward. I'd get her home, get her back to normal, only to turn around and go back for another round. I would have loved to be told there was a better way that didn't involve so much pain. Luckily for my daughter, I am not that persuadable, but I sympathize with parents who are, and I see similarities in the mothers I talk to who are so against vaccinations.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: just_me [June 26, 2009 08:23 AM]
"Several people here have pointed out major problems in the analysis of the data ("drowning victims must each ice cream" and "measles will bring people back from the dead in 2020" are excellent examples).
Not really. Clearly inappropriate - no one is saying drowning people must eat icecream - a thoroughly poor non point. No one is saying measles would "bring people back from the dead" - except of course you folks.
Making bad points does nothing to advance your arguments.
It's every bit a valid contribution as using scurvy as an example of why vaccines don't work. Scurvy is a nutritional deficiency, not a communicable disease. No vector, no host, no reservoir, no mode of transmission.
Not a virus.
I bet that 20 person spike was in a community where there was a significant resistance to immunization, and the people in the area lost their Herd Immunity
[ June 26, 2009, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Wonder Dog: why there's such controversy over vaccination in the first place.
It involves the following, each of which alone would probably be enough to make it touchy:
Money. Quite a bit of it at a national level, and a not insignificant amount at the personal level (most especially if you are uninsured or underinsured).
Infants and children (among the most vulnerable members of society), and judgments regarding what is the best care for them, and who should be making those decisions.
Decisions made by one person that can have serious and far-reaching effects on others. On both sides -- the pro-vaccine side pushing requirements on everyone, and the anti-side compromising herd immunity (which then particularly affects those with compromised immune systems, who are also among the most vulnerable).
Authority and expertise: the average layperson doesn't really understand how vaccination works, let alone concepts like herd immunity. But they also don't like being told that it's their ignorance that is the problem, and that they ought to listen to experts. Even if they try, there are supposed experts on the anti side too.
I would also add that vaccines are an easy target because they do cause reactions and because moms hate to see their babies in pain. So when something goes wrong, ie autism, they look back and think about the shot their baby got, that made him cry and spike a fever. This is a really common thing I hear from moms on my mommy boards whenever vaccine time comes around. Once, about 8 months ago, when I was describing some of the speech problems my son was having I made the mistake of saying that he seemed advanced on all of his milestones up until he was about one. I instantly got jumped on by an anti-vaccine advocate insisting that the MMR vaccine had probably caused this.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Catseye, I'm not sure if this helps, but I am one person who got measles as a child after being vaccinated*. I can't answer your question about how many times you would have gotten chicken pox had you been vaccinated for it, though.
*Not as a direct result of being vaccinated, though. I just got it despite having been vaccinated.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I would also add that vaccines are an easy target because they do cause reactions and because moms hate to see their babies in pain. So when something goes wrong, ie autism, they look back and think about the shot their baby got, that made him cry and spike a fever.
My third thought when my daughter (same one who went through chemo) was diagnosed with down syndrome: "It's because I didn't take my vitamins every day."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Jamio, I'm so sorry to learn of your daughter's cancer. I have watched that, but from the outside only, and that was more agonizing than I could ever express. I can't imagine how it is for the parent.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Thank you, rivka.
My younger daughter got chicken pox a couple of years ago (age 11) after being vaccinated as a baby. It wasn't mitigated by the vaccination, either - it was a full-blown case. I'm not sorry I vaccinated her, though, because how do you know?
When my older daughter was born, one of my co-workers, Vanessa, (there were five of us pregnant on the same floor, having our babies in a 2-month period) returned to work and contracted whooping cough from another co-worker. I believe that neither Vanessa nor the other co-worker grew up in the U.S. and probably hadn't been vaccinated. Vanessa's daughter got whooping cough - she was just a little too young to be vaccinated - and ended up in the hospital, costing them $5,000 in medical fees.
So, yeah, I vaccinate my kids. And it's probably time for me to get a tetanus booster, as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm gonna do what most of us (those without the knowledge, patience, and courtesy of a gal like CT) ought to be doing, and ignore spambuster and instead ask an entirely different, unrelated question:
CT, when you said you were going to 'cheer on some Vor games', were you obliquely mentioning you were going to read some stuff by Bujold, or are there actually some wacky Canadian sports called Vor games? Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Rakeesh [June 27, 2009 01:23 AM] said
"I'm gonna .... ask an entirely different, unrelated question"
I have watched quietly having dropped out and seeing each in turn avoiding addressing a main point I made way back.
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
I have also watched the psychology of producing all manner of reasons for not answering and for ignoring data which shows this in clear and unequivocal terms:-
eg. an illustrative line added to a graph showing the trend does not stop dead on the x-axis so all the official data can be safely ignored.
Not logical.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Again, spambuster, I'm willing to help you understand the criticisms of this analysis, but I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so. If you're interested, please let me know.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Samprimary [June 27, 2009 02:47 AM]
Said: "I'm not willing to endure insults or hostility to do so."
Ditto.
So you and your colleagues should stop doing it.
What is your answer to a main point I made way back:-
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing".
It is a simple point. The data are clear.
It is no answer to claim an illustrative line added to a graph from a peer reviewed paper cutting the axes is justification for ignoring the clear trend.
The data tell us something to assist when judging the risk of disease against the risk of vaccines so it is wholly invalid to dismiss it for spurious reasons which do not stand up.
And to argue against is applying exactly the false logic and denial those who raise the issue are constantly and wrongfully accused of doing.
Look in the mirror.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Spambuster: Cars are much safer now than they were 50 years ago, with better impact zones, more air bags, daytime running lights, and so on. I'm sure that even without wearing safety belts, people are safer unrestrained in a modern car than they would be unrestrained in a 50 year old car.
Does that mean that safety belts don't provide protection?
Obviously not. Just because cars are safer due to other factors, and we could make a graph with the line going steadily downward in car impact injuries and deaths due to airbags and crumple zones, we cannot simply ignore the OTHER data, which tells us that safety belts ALSO contribute to the overall safety of modern automobiles.
The same is true for your studies. It's true that general health is becoming better, as sanitation and food safety, among other things, becomes better.
It is ALSO true though, from DIFFERENT studies, that Vaccines DO provide protection against disease, and prevent illness and death.
You cannot look at a few graphs and logically jump to the conclusion that you have made. The graphs don't tell the whole story, and if you ignore the other data, you cannot find the truth.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
MightyCow [27, 2009 03:51 AM] Said:
"Cars are much safer now than they were 50 years ago ..... Does that mean that safety belts don't provide protection?"
Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.
"... we could make a graph with the line going steadily downward ... we cannot simply ignore the OTHER data"
Agreed. Just as one cannot simply ignore essential data necessary in assessing the risks of disease against the risks of vaccines.
So to establish common ground and before one can get past first base, we have to look at the role vaccines are claimed to play compared to the role other factors play.
In a further endeavour to establish common ground I reiterate a main point I made way back and again ask do you all agree or disagree:-
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
For any dialogue to progress that hurdle must be passed. To ignore it is denying it.
The single most important contributing factor in combating death and injury from disease is clean water. Ensuring every child in the world has access to clean water should be WHO's highest priority above all others but it is not.
Running around ignoring the bigger issues and taking away a major cause of the problem is lacking in sense. "Hey, let's give them vaccines instead of fixing the bigger problem" is not an adequate response.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Spambuster, it's pretty clear that you can't learn how to not be a troll, but please learn to use the quote function.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Rappin' Ronnie Reagan [June 27, 2009 04:30 AM]
Thank you for the personal abuse:-
"it's pretty clear that you can't learn how to not be a troll"
As others have already indicated several times they would appreciate further discourse your hostile and inflammatory remarks are a tad out of place. I previously dropped out of the dialogue for exactly the reason you have provided now.
I have better things to do so I will revert to them now.
I find the "quote" function awkward, its formatting onscreen disruptive to the flow of the text. I have not complained about others' use of it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's very difficult to see which thoughts are your own and which are quoted from before.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Let me begin by saying that since his reemergence into the conversation, I have seen nothing wrong with Spambuster's posts except, perhaps, that he continues to make quotes difficult to read.
FYI: Above each post is a row of pictures, including a set of quotation marks. If you click on the quotation marks, you don't even ened to know the proper URL, it will simple do this for you:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: ".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
For any dialogue to progress that hurdle must be passed. To ignore it is denying it.
No one has been ignoring this. In fact, MightyCow addressed it head on. The data does not show this. All the data shows is a downward trend of mortality. The data itself does not inherently suggest WHY mortality rates were decreasing. The data itself does not inherently suggest that were one factor or another not introduced that the data would have continued to follow the path it did. This data shows results, not causes.
Why would you think that without vaccinations, the mortality rate would continue to decrease? What in the data suggests this at all? Graphs don't work on principles of momentum and inertia.
To show that vaccines have not done anything to help fight infectious diseases, you would need to do a controlled study showing them to be ineffective. But controlled studies show just the opposite.
What would be more compelling from a graph of general sickness and mortality rate trends over the past century would be a steady decline that leveled off and did not continue to decrease after the introduction of vaccines. But that's not what I see. All I can logically extrapolate from those graphs, assuming the data is correct, is that medical science has gradually improved our health and mortality rates over the past century. There is no why or how in it.
quote:The single most important contributing factor in combating death and injury from disease is clean water. Ensuring every child in the world has access to clean water should be WHO's highest priority above all others but it is not.
Running around ignoring the bigger issues and taking away a major cause of the problem is lacking in sense. "Hey, let's give them vaccines instead of fixing the bigger problem" is not an adequate response.
I'm not convinced that the WHO is ignoring anything. I can't imagine that the effects of dirty water has escaped their attention. I don't have insight into their reasoning processes, but I would imagine that they are interested in improving quality of life in as many ways as they can, and that it is very difficult to bring these changes to the third world.
But we weren't talking about third world data. Most of what you've been saying suggests (or implies) that you believe vaccinations in the UK, US, and Australia to be useless.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, the WHO is entirely aware of that. For each disease and area, diseases are targeted with a variety of techniques, and vaccines are only one of many things that might be involved. Other times it is netting to keep mosquitoes away, or various sanitation procedures. It is a situational thing.
And, as Christine and many others, including myself, have mentioned, where do you prove that the downward trend would have been there without the vaccine? You show the downward trends before the vaccines, and the downward trends after the vaccines (which are often much steeper), but where do you prove that the downward trend from before would have continued without the vaccine in place? After all, the downward trend from before was not from one effect, but many -- and vaccines are yet another thing we have employed against disease.
Furthermore, you have not addressed the point that numerous studies have found holding all else equal, vaccines prevent disease (using randomized trials). That is direct proof that if we were to remove vaccines from the current population, more people would have disease.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Really, why appeal to studies outside the present data set when the graphs already shown demonstrate the efficiency of vaccines perfectly well? Just look at the measles cases per cap in the US! Drops like a rock when vaccines are introduced.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*grin
Yes, Rakeesh, Bujold. I'm going to re-enter a supervisory position, and I'd like to channel a little Miles. (So to speak.) The honor part, not so much the maniacal fits of suicidal brilliance.
---
spambuster, I don't think you and I are going to find much satisfaction in direct conversation, so I'm going to direct my conversation to Papa Moose and others. I haven't any desire to make things more confusing than they are for any of us -- or try your patience directly any further, for that matter -- and heaven knows, my own fuse is pretty short these days. So I will be focused on other people's posts, not yours, and I apologize in advance for any discourtesy that comes with that.
---
King of Men, you are in my mind absolutely correct. However, I think people get kind of glazed over about these things -- I do, in reading them, and I think it's partly because someone new to the area may not know really what question it is that nags at the back of his or her mind, so it's hard for any party to tell when the question gets answered.
I've been mulling over the best way to do this. I have long intended to set up a side website for gathering together information that I want to keep handy, but I'm afraid that just shuttling people off to read another set of paragraphs is going to get us nowhere as far as answering the niggling questions.
Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Thank you for the offer, CT -- I'm on my way out this morning for a week or so of vacation, and my time at computer will be limited. If such a dialogue occurs (with Wonder Dog, perhaps), I'll probably try to read it when I get back, and see if I still have any questions lurking in the recesses of my mind.
Spambuster, I'm glad you returned, and hope that the discussion here can continue unfettered by attack from any side (though I'd remind that attacking a person is different from attacking his argument).
I will say, though, that I'm curious on this point: Assuming continuing the graph would have worked without the advent of vaccinations (not granting it, but assuming it for argument's sake), could we then conclude that removing vaccinations now would return things to the predicted line as before? Or have we messed everything up already? It seems like we couldn't be sure that things would return to their original trajectory (a la Seldon's plan post-mule). Who is our Second Foundation and/or R. Daneel Olivaw? Would we need one?
[Janitor] Behave while I'm gone, folks, and recognize that response to whistles will likely be delayed. [/Janitor]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Have fun, Moose!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yes, Rakeesh, Bujold. I'm going to re-enter a supervisory position, and I'd like to channel a little Miles. (So to speak.) The honor part, not so much the maniacal fits of suicidal brilliance.
Goodness! You're re-entering supervisory work and for inspiration you're reading Miles Vorkosigan stuff? I know you're emphasizing the honor part, but man, that's playing with fire;)
I love all her stuff. Porter turned me on to it awhile back.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I love this kind of troll. They bust in here out of nowhere to show us all the errors of our ways. Then they get overwhelmed with arguments they have no responses for, so they make a grand show of leaving because we're beyond saving and not worth their valuable time.
Then, after they leave, they spend all of that valuable time lurking around the very same forum obsessively scanning and seething over all the responses from this group of idiots until they can't take any more and have to re-join the debate.
I wonder how much longer until Spambuster pitches another fit and storms back off into OCD lurker-land.
Classic behavior, dude. Don't give up--stomp out 3-4 more times and I'm sure we'll all join your anti-immunization cult. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Look in the mirror.
Just did. Staring back at me was a handsome, sexy dude, who has a more accurate view of vaccines and herd immunity than you do.
More importantly, the person staring me back in the mirror knows how, at least to some degree, to fight for his cause on an internet forum in a way which is not completely counter-effectual.
You have not yet mastered this art. Some would say you have not even begun to learn it at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh god, can't stop staring at mirror
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
By the way, I made my last post in hopes that it would be quoted in some bizarre, unreadable format. Please don't let me down, Spambuster.
I'll be hitting F5 every 15 seconds until it comes up. I'm sure you can relate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. [Smile] Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
I am assuming you saw plenty of straightforwardly blatant errors when reading the site. You probably spent more time than me digesting it. Which graphs present untenable conclusions based on bad comparisons between graphs, and which graphs are outright read incorrectly?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.
I find this particularly interestgin, spambuster. You see, my wife is currently pregnant, so we've researched this issue a bit, and every bit of medical advice I can find recommends that pregnant women do wear seatbelts when riding in cars.
So if it is actually much safer for pregnant women to wear a seatbelt, as reported by the American Academy of Family Physicians and backed by several medical school studies, crash test studies, and so on, there is no good reason for pregnant women NOT to wear seatbelts. Any desire to do so is based on ignorance or misguided fear, unless there is a specific, diagnosed, extenuating circumstance for a particular woman.
I'm going to make the obvious parallel to vaccines. The graphs certainly don't show that vaccines are not effective. In fact, as King of Men pointed out, the graph suggests a strong correlation between vaccination and health.
Further, other studies HAVE shown the efficacy and safety of vaccines. You've mentioned vaccine risks a couple times, but it's certainly unclear what you believe those might be.
In your above statement, there turns out not to a real risk in pregnant women wearing seat belts properly - in fact, the risk is NOT wearing seat belts. I would argue that the same is true for vaccines. The fear of risk is not based in facts, but in emotion, and upon considering the reality of the situation, we can see that the REAL risk is not to vaccinate.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
I am interested in this. How do I start?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am assuming you saw plenty of straightforwardly blatant errors when reading the site. You probably spent more time than me digesting it. Which graphs present untenable conclusions based on bad comparisons between graphs, and which graphs are outright read incorrectly?
I'm hesitant to go about this by stating specific conclusions, not because that's bad, but because I think it only serves to entrench polarization of views in this particular setting. I'm also shy on energy for doing the detailed analysis, and I want to use the time & energy I do have effectively. Curiously, that means doing it inefficiently, in my book.
But I promise you the end summary will include the details you ask for. And, of course, other people are free to carry on their own conversations around me.
quote:Originally posted by Jamio:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wonder Dog, Papa Moose, anyone else interested in probing through the sticky parts: Anyone interested in doing this as a dialogue? I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap. Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.
BTW, I'm happy to do this over an extended period, as I think the topic is a very important one worth making good sense of, and I expect to learn as we go, too. So I'd be fine if we kind of moseyed along, taking whatever time away life demanded until we got back to it.
I am interested in this. How do I start?
Fabulous!
A primary insight is that the answer is in the question. That is to say, the way the question is set up does about as much work as the facts of the topic in determining the answer. So, let's figure out the question(s) that are of concern here.
As a general dialogue -- not as anything you are committed to and cannot change, just feeling through the territory -- what is the big question (or questions) you have about the article or the topic in general?
At this point, vague is fine, as we can narrow down to key points by dialogue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I'm hesitant to go about this by stating specific conclusions, not because that's bad, but because I think it only serves to entrench polarization of views in this particular setting.
Well if you do provide views (and don't feel compelled to if it isn't fun and interesting for you!) go ahead and consider it polarized. I want as much information thrown out involving this; the more credibly they can be asserted and referenced, the better.
Things I like to say involving even those debates which have sailed south are things like "While i think that these people are wrong and ridiculous, here's the points they make which are valid and need to be taken into consideration."
In this case, "these people" being vaccine denial folk. I'm ready and rearin' to see that some of their arguments hold validity, even if their most vocal advocates are unwilling/unable to see that any of their arguments aren't as rock solid as they were previously convinced of.
I live in Boulder, Colorado. I live in the heart of vaccine denial for the united states. I am confronted with the latest salvos about why Vaccines Are Bad And Evil And You Should Not Vaccinate Your Child Why Would You Do That.
I need to know as much as is possible how valid their arguments are. They come out with new ones every year. This seems to be the new tack.
This is pretty much an open challenge to the plenty of people here on this forum who can post coherently. What, if anything, on that site is a valid argument against vaccines. Spambuster if you learn to post coherently I'll even give you equal time as well!
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
ClaudiaTherese endeavours to present the appearance of a mature and calm approach to rational discourse.
My apologies to her for a diversion below.
Some of you folk just cannot control yourselves.
All designed to reduce any discourse to the level of the kindergarten schoolyard and put anyone who wants sensible debate off contributing.
Baron Samedi [June 27, 2009 01:29 PM] demonstrates derision and personal abuse which is fairly typical of the kind seen routinely - and in the line of personal baiting too - just too perfect - thanks Baron:-
quote: I love this kind of troll ..... I wonder how much longer until Spambuster pitches another fit and storms back off into OCD lurker-land.
Classic behavior, dude. Don't give up--stomp out 3-4 more times and I'm sure we'll all join your anti-immunization cult.
Completely pointless comments which add nothing of merit but much which is not.
And again "Baron Samedi" [June 27, 2009 02:01 PM]:-
quote:By the way, I made my last post in hopes that it would be quoted in some bizarre, unreadable format. Please don't let me down, Spambuster.
I'll be hitting F5 every 15 seconds until it comes up. I'm sure you can relate.
Baron Samedi - you seem to know how to use your fingers for more pleasurable methods of self-abuse. How about reverting to what you know better and leave the smarter stuff to the grown-ups?
If the obliquity is a smidge intellectual for you you could always come to Santa Barbara and try watching the grass grow. The fire department has been watering it a lot recently.
If that is too taxing there should soon be plenty of paint to watch drying too.
And these are the kinds of people we should listen to when deciding whether to vaccinate our kids - something which can end in death or permanent disability?
Hmmmm I see. Intellectual rigour? [mortis].
Then we have Samprimary who operates in a similar vein with wholly pointless personal attacks.
Not much of an advertisement for their contributions - a fairly hostile and hysterical approach instead it would seem.
Love it - keep it up folks.
Samprimary [June 27, 2009 01:39 PM]
quote:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Look in the mirror.
Just did .... the person staring me back ... knows how ... to fight for his cause ... in a way which is not completely counter-effectual.
You have not yet mastered this art. Some would say you have not even begun to learn it at all.
And more tosh and personally directed derision - which appears to be an attempt at simply baiting - nothing factual or any contribution of merit to informed discourse:-
Samprimary [June 27, 2009 01:42 PM]
quote:oh god, can't stop staring at mirror
Samprimary [June 27, 2009 01:43 PM]
quote:IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
[ June 27, 2009, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: spambuster ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Good to see you, spambuster. Would you be interested in having a discussion now?
If so, I left a request on the table for you a few posts back; I'd appreciate it if you fulfilled it.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
TomDavidson [June 27, 2009 10:33 PM]
Thanks Tom for your comment but as you can see I am a little busy with the children at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Good to see you, spambuster. Would you be interested in having a discussion now?
If so, I left a request on the table for you a few posts back; I'd appreciate it if you fulfilled it.
But there is no reason why you cannot respond whilst waiting to address a main point I made way back.
".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
You seem shy of tackling this. I cannot imagine why?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's been tackled repeatedly and conclusively. Pay attention.
Posted by Catalyst (Member # 12119) on :
This thread reads like a broken record
reads like a broken record
reads like a broken record
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Sorry spambuster, I've given up on you. I had hoped you'd be interested in discussion, but you ignore all the real discussions to pick fights and call names.
That's exactly why people are calling you a troll, because you are behaving poorly. Goodbye.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Unbelievable. Debate is demanded but its repeated personal attack instead. I point it out [with examples] and the response:-
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow [June 27, 2009 11:23 PM]: ..... you ..... pick fights and call names.
That's exactly why people are calling you a troll, because you are behaving poorly. Goodbye.
Thanks "MightyCow" for the illustration.
If you folk want debate then debate and keep the kids under control.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13 [June 27, 2009 11:10 PM]: That's been tackled repeatedly and conclusively. Pay attention.
Really? I'd love to deal with that but am a little busy dealing with the children at the moment.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:.. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
1. Please provide evidence that anyone, either here or elsewhere, has claimed that vaccines alone are responsible for the steady decrease in disease mortality. Without such evidence, the statement above is a strawman argument. (From what I can ascertain, the position of medical professionals is that vaccines have played a large role in the reduction of disease, but it was only a piece of the puzzle. To claim that "Others say" vaccines were the sole cause is to misrepresent their position.)
2. Please describe how mortality statistics alone demonstrate the inefficacy of vaccines. (Note: my specific concern here is that such statistics do not take into account unvaccinated persons who survive an infectious disease, but not without major aftereffects. For example, Queen Elizabeth I of England survived smallpox, but she was left badly scarred; similarly, President F. Roosevelt survived polio but was paralyzed for the rest of his life. Neither of these cases would appear on a mortality graph.)
3. Using the data and graphs from the article and given that the trend was already moving downward, can you explain the point, put forth earlier by King of Men, that the introduction of vaccines produces a much sharper downward plunge than the trend would feasibly generate, indicating that vaccines are in fact having an effect on mortality rates (For example, on the graph 'United States Mortality Rates -- Measles, Scarlet Fever, Typhoid, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria' the line for Diphtheria begins with a large plunge following the introduction of the first antitoxin. This line continues downward, but the rate of change becomes smaller as time passes and the curve of the line begins to flatten. However, the line begins a much more rapid plunge, equivalent to the opening plunge, following the introduction of the Diphtheria vaccine in the early 1920s).
4. Although not part of the quote above, could you provide similar graphs detailing how the introduction of major advances in sanitation/general cleanliness (for example, water chlorination and fluoridation) coincides with disease reduction? I agree with you that they do, but I think your point--namely, that such advances did the real gruntwork of disease reduction--would be better made if you had evidence supporting it. The article seems primarily concerned with negating an opposing position, paying little attention to the promotion of its own position; both are necessary for a convincing argument.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I love all her stuff. Porter turned me on to it awhile back.
Me too, although I stuck with her fantasy stuff. More my style...but I might be ready to try the Miles stuff again. I tried it a long time ago, and didn't like the first one so I stopped, but I really liked Paladin of Souls and Curse of Chalion, and all of her Lakewalker stuff....
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If vaccinations don't work, why did these occur? Why only in populations what refused vaccinations?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: TomDavidson [June 27, 2009 10:33 PM]
Thanks Tom for your comment but as you can see I am a little busy with the children at the moment.
See? He doesn't want to take tom up on a discussion. He just ain't here for it.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx [June 27, 2009 11:54 PM]: [QB]
quote:.. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing"
1. Please provide evidence that anyone, either here or elsewhere, has claimed that vaccines alone are responsible for the steady decrease in disease mortality.
First thank you for focussing on issues.
The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.
To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.
A major claim made to parents of benefit is avoiding the risk of death. [That has certainly been my experience as a parent albeit the approach is being modified. Health officials seem to be coming to realise people are finding out more for themselves - in part because reliable information from official sources is denied them].
Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
And if it is agreed, can we then endeavour to agree estimates of the extent to which on the most and least optimistic measures any of these vaccines are considered to save lives in a first world economy?
We do not have to agree on the final conclusions and we can agree to differ on various aspects. Dialogue should provide light and illustrate where differences of view lie.
But please do not expect me to respond instantly to everything. There is only one of me and I have other obligations. Do also excuse my not dealing immediately with all the points you raise in full.
I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.
You ask also:
quote:2. Please describe how mortality statistics alone demonstrate the inefficacy of vaccines.
The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.
If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.
When approaching such a point risk of the vaccines also becomes a more substantial consideration when comparing risk of the disease.
If you do not need to travel to China, that you can get there efficiently or at all is not a matter of practical relevance.
quote:3. .... can you explain the point .... that the introduction of vaccines produces a much sharper downward plunge than the trend would feasibly generate, indicating that vaccines are in fact having an effect on mortality rates
I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.
It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
We also need to ensure that what we are looking at is a real effect. When reported cases are relied on for example, changing fashions of diagnosis and physician belief can influence reporting considerably.
quote:the graph 'United States Mortality Rates -- Measles, Scarlet Fever, Typhoid, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria' the line for Diphtheria begins with a large plunge following the introduction of the first antitoxin.
At the present time I cannot undertake the degree of research to address this.
What I can say is that the corresponding picture for the UK where a large plunge is seen following what is commonly claimed to have been the introduction of the diphtheria vaccine cannot have been attributable to the vaccine for the reasons stated at the link here - and reliable references are provided there:- DIPHTHERIA MORTALITY England, USA & Australia
4. Although not part of the quote above, could you provide similar graphs detailing how the introduction of major advances in sanitation/general cleanliness (for example, water chlorination and fluoridation) coincides with disease reduction?
quote:Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
That ties in with better living conditions, which will include drinking water, sanitation and nutrition. Vitamin A for example is well-known to reduce mortality and morbidity from disease.
The example previously provided [albeit unreferenced] of clean drinking water being the primary factor in reducing mortality and morbidity from disease should not be ignored. I am sure references to this should be relatively readily available - it is well-accepted.
_____________________________ A prior post by ClaudiaTherese carried the admonition "I'd be asking questions to clarify your concerns and, occasionally, what conclusions you draw, but I can guarantee it isn't a trap."
Similarly, I trust we can engage in dialogue without this being a "trap" either way but a genuine attempt to understand the issues even if we end by agreeing to differ.
And again, please do not expect instant responses. As you can see, if there is dialogue it may need time to frame requests as well as replies.
[ June 28, 2009, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: spambuster ]
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
I see this forum is still operating on two very different levels intellectually.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary [June 28, 2009 12:40 AM]:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: TomDavidson [June 27, 2009 10:33 PM]
Thanks Tom for your comment but as you can see I am a little busy with the children at the moment.
See? He doesn't want to take tom up on a discussion. He just ain't here for it.
And Tom has still not responded to the original point. He wishes to draw me on something he does not appear to wish to respond to first.
It this a kind of "trap" to which ClaudiaTherese was averting to in a prior post?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
Prometheus?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
Prometheus?
I think many of us were feeling like Sisyphus trying to get an honest conversation going. One step forward, crap, a bolder rolled on my head.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Prometheus has the whole getting-nowhere Sisyphean thing, but with a regenerating liver.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
I see most choose not to address the issues or engage in dialogue but to disrupt it.
Dialogue is met with hostile responses and personal abuse. Very helpful illustration.
Thanks guys.
MightyCow, rivka, [as exemplified below], Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, Baron Samedi, Samprimary, Catalyst among others have shown this.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow [June 28, 2009 02:55 AM]:
quote:[QUOTE]I think many of us were feeling like Sisyphus trying to get an honest conversation going. One step forward, crap, a bolder rolled on my head. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by rivka [June 28, 2009 02:34 AM]: IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A GREEK MYTH
quote:Prometheus?
[ June 28, 2009, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: spambuster ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, spambuster, your stature would be enhanced, not harmed, if you would just ignore or address once and then ignore, those you feel are engaging in hostile responses or personal abuse, in favor of engaging with those you feel are being serious and sincere.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: And Tom has still not responded to the original point. He wishes to draw me on something he does not appear to wish to respond to first.
It this a kind of "trap" to which ClaudiaTherese was averting to in a prior post?
What are you talking about? What do you mean?
"Averting?"
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh [June 28, 2009 03:44 AM]: You know, spambuster, your stature would be enhanced, not harmed, if you would just ignore or address once and then ignore, those you feel are engaging in hostile responses or personal abuse, in favor of engaging with those you feel are being serious and sincere.
Many thanks Rakeesh.
There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.
If spelt out those who quietly read and not post can see for themselves who behaves in a rational reasoned manner and who does not.
There are also those who may wish to contribute in a calm and reasoned manner but choose not to when they see this kind of approach by others.
Those of us who are prepared to enter the fray do a service for those who prefer not to and provide an education as to the mentality of those who follow the majority line without questioning it.
Blair's and Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" claims illustrated how dangerous it can be to not question the majority consensus view.
And in science it is the minority - sometimes only one person - who shows the majority "consensus" is invalid - such as Barry Marshall over helicobacter pylori and ulcers.
I know it can be tedious to follow [but then I am not the one doing the disrupting and that aspect could end pretty quickly if others chose to make it so].
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: [qb] [QUOTE]What are you talking about? What do you mean?
"Averting?"
"deliberately avoiding"; "keeping away from" or "preventing from happening"
Sorry, if it was a little too intellectual.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I find it hilarious that you're crying about personal attacks while dishing out quite a few insults yourself. Hypocritical much?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Dear Ronnie,
It is a bit late for you to try to put the genie back in the bottle.
I see you take exception to the implication childish behaviour is childish via use of indirect reference to the "children"?
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan [posted June 28, 2009 04:22 AM]: I find it hilarious that you're crying about personal attacks while dishing out quite a few insults yourself. Hypocritical much?
And I am not "crying about personal attacks" but utilising them to benefit myself and others. Hence the numerous times I have given thanks for them.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Wow, Kwea. Great links.
I really liked the second one with specific numbers. If 16,400 people got the measles and 75 of them died, that's .45% of people who caught the measles that died. That sounds little - until you do the math with 300 million Americans.
Granted, we'd only lose that 1.35 million if we only had access to the same level of heathcare as poor, possibly illegal Latinos, but it puts the measles in developing countries scenerio in a new light. For me, anyway. (I like big pictures better when they come with numbers. )
This is one of the areas where medicine gets weird for me. How do we keep people from dying of viruses, anyway? We can't fix it. Do we just keep the symptoms from killing people until the disease has run its course? Why does treating the measles make people less likely to die, anyway?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
spambuster: you used the word incorrectly, so it was confusing. Even if you wanted to use it in that context, you should have left off the "to" after it. Please refrain from saying you were too intellectual in posts where you have made a grammar error.
I also notice you still haven't responded to any of the numerous points I've made in this thread.
Your choice of papers is extraordinarily funny. First, did you notice that the huge drop in mortality was not associated with a large increase in median family income? If there was no big change in median family income, what lead to the big decrease in deaths? Don't worry, the paper has an answer.
quote:The licensure and widespread use of live measles vaccine has led to a decrease of greater than 90 per cent in both the incidence of reported measles cases and in reported measles death rates.
Your other link is full of lies and ridiculous statements that are contradicted by things it quotes. For instance:
quote:It is certain beyond doubt that diphtheria vaccine played no part in the sudden fall in diphtheria mortality from 1941 to 1946
Really? Certain to whom? Over a third of school-age children were immunized in 1941 alone, by a paper quoted in the very same link. You think a third of school-age children being immunized wouldn't prevent any deaths, if the vaccine were effective? No, it would be expected to prevent some large proportion of a third of deaths in that population -- strangely, we see a large drop in deaths immediately thereafter! Furthermore, we can identify the groups among which it would cause drastic drops in death, and I'll bet you good money that the drastic drops in death occurred among people who had been immunized, mostly. I haven't looked yet
There's another very amusing thing going on here. You assert all the drastic drops in deaths shortly after vaccines were introduced are due to improvements in the standard of living. However, this doesn't fit the facts. All those drastic drops in death occur at different times. Strangely, there is no set of incredible improvements in standard of living that occurred separately at all those disparate times that didn't occur at other times (when the death rates of various diseases were the same). And even if there were, that wouldn't tackle why the drastic drops in deaths occur only in diseases being vaccinated against, and not in all the other diseases that vaccines haven't been developed for at the time.
Let me know if you're interested in the bet. Feel free to propose stricter terms. Then we can go looking for papers.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Forgive me, but why are we even discussing this? It's like somebody posting "pink elephants can fly and I can prove it with four hundred years of editing photos and paintings of regular elephants". We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Forgive me, but why are we even discussing this? It's like somebody posting "pink elephants can fly and I can prove it with four hundred years of editing photos and paintings of regular elephants". We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?
As much as it pains me to say it, I have an answer for this. It is precisely because more and more people are believing in the pink elephants and in this case, the pink elephants can hurt people.
I had a few other things I wanted to address, but I've got some plans so I'm going to stick with just one for now:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.
If spelt out those who quietly read and not post can see for themselves who behaves in a rational reasoned manner and who does not.
There are also those who may wish to contribute in a calm and reasoned manner but choose not to when they see this kind of approach by others.
Those of us who are prepared to enter the fray do a service for those who prefer not to and provide an education as to the mentality of those who follow the majority line without questioning it.
You fail to understand what people will take out of your highlighting others' personal attacks. You see, the statements were already made and visible on the message board. So assuming anyone will agree with you that those people were out of line, all they will see by you echoing their comments is a bruised ego and a willingness to let others egg you on.
If you are the sole voice of reason diving into the fray at your own personal expense in order to help others see the light then the way to manage this image is by ignoring the personal attacks and maintaining a calm, reasoned front at all times. You need to specifically ignore the "children" and specifically address the innumerable posts, including one I wrote a while back, that have attempted to address your concerns.
When you refuse to do that, the only conclusion the lurkers will be able to reach is that those reasoned people have made such good points that you are unable or unwilling to respond.
ETA: Also, while I do think that some of the people who are cracking jokes instead of taking you seriously are accepting the majority line without question, I believe most of them are well informed on the subject and are simply exasperated. I, too, am exasperated, so I understand. I have not joined in because I agree that there are people who agree with you out there who need to be put right and so I'd like to see a point by point refutation of your position. Also, I've been the minority voice before and it sucks. I hope you'll take my advice in the spirit in which it is given and stop rising to the bait and stop ignoring the reasonable arguments being made here.
Posted by Catalyst (Member # 12119) on :
Spambuster, I suggest you read fugu's post above, as it was well reasoned and logically argued. I would be interested to know what you believe is an explanation for his questions. They seem to delve straight to the crux of the issue - Do vaccines help to prevent the diseases they are designed to fight?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I do think that spambuster's right about looking at the cost/benefit ratio for vaccines versus the diseases they treat. We've talked a lot about measles, so I'll start there.
quote: Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from relatively mild and less serious diarrhea, to pneumonia and encephalitis (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring.[2] Complications are usually more severe amongst adults who catch the virus.
On death, is says:
quote: The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases.[3] In underdeveloped nations with high rates of malnutrition and poor healthcare, fatality rates have been as high as 28%.[3] In immunocompromised patients (e.g. people with AIDS) the fatality rate is approximately 30 percent.[4]
quote: Adverse reactions, rarely serious, may occur from each component of the MMR vaccine. 10% of children develop fever, malaise and a rash 5–21 days after the first vaccination; 5% develop temporary joint pain.[17] Anaphylaxis is an extremely rare but serious allergic reaction to the vaccine.[19] One cause can be egg allergy.[20]
They also list the risk of fever-induced seizure at 4 per 10,000 vaccinations.
In the effectiveness section, this claim was made:
quote: The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.[4]
If find that interesting since claims of brain damage aren't made as a complication of measles. Anyone know if it's a complication of the encephalitis?
Either way, I'd say the data is pretty clear that measles is really bad, even if it doesn't kill you. We might be able to keep the deaths low, but how good are we at keeping small children from going blind? Also, with the number of people we have running around with compromised immune systems, would it not be irresponsible of us as a society to risk their health from a disease we can all but eliminate with minimal risk?
I will freely admit that I had trouble finding numbers on deaths from the MMR. On the one hand, you'd think they'd be proud to show off the numbers for how safe it is. On the other, perhaps reminding parents that someday their child will die and maybe a simple shot could do it is considered a bad marketing strategy.
So I'm at least convinced that getting the MMR is safer than risking a kid getting measles. Now to move on to the question I'm really curious about: how safe are these 25 or so recommended vacines with each other? I'm sure they all passed individual safety trials, but were they tested in conjunction with all the other shots we put in kids these days? How about with the preservatives and chemicals in our food? Or the antibacterial cleaning supplies we're encouraged to drench everything in to keep our families healthy?
I'm betting there are bigger things to worry about than an MMR, myself.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I grew up in the '60s. I don't think I ever wore a seatbelt as a kid. Car seats hadn't been invented yet. I remember my mom holding my little sister as an infant in a plastic baby carrier on her lap in the car. (something like this) It was just how things were.
But times have changed, laws have been enacted and I'm more informed now. I wouldn't dream of not having my kids properly restrained in the car in a manner appropriate to their ages/sizes. I put on a seatbelt to drive 1 block (sometimes more to avoid a ticket than for fear of being in an accident, but still).
Are there some cases where a seatbelt causes a problem in an accident? Sure. But those cases are so rare that it's better to take the precaution to wear a seatbelt every time. Letter to the editor on this subject
Are there some cases where a vaccination causes a problem? Sure. But I believe it's better to take the precaution of vaccinating.
BTW, I don't recall ... did anyone point out that that first graph in the website from the OP is measles deaths per 55,000,000? Has the population of England and Wales remained static for a century? How does that effect the graph? I'm not a mathematician/statisician, but it seems that should be a factor. Do deaths from measles count if the person was serving in the armed forces and away from home at the time?
This chart from this article seems to say that the population of England and Wales was around 35 million in 1901, when the measles deaths chart begins. The measles deaths chart seems to say there were more than 10,000 deaths per 55 million population. If the population was actually closer to 35 million, would that work out to around 20,000 per 55 million if the percents were figured?
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: This chart from this article seems to say that the population of England and Wales was around 35 million in 1901, when the measles deaths chart begins. The measles deaths chart seems to say there were more than 10,000 deaths per 55 million population. If the population was actually closer to 35 million, would that work out to around 20,000 per 55 million if the percents were figured?
No. Think about it. This is not complicated.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: not everyone is at home with proportions.
CaySedai: it is because the numbers don't fluctuate with population that they are more useful. Taking population into account would only muddy the real effect, which is what proportion are affected -- the only way the numbers can be effectively applied to other populations.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Are you saying that if the population of England and Wales had been 55 million in 1901, the number of deaths from measles would still have been a little more than 10,000?
KoM: your comment is not helpful. I'm 48, have not studied math since high school and work in journalism (Newsroom saying: Journalists suck at math.) That's why I used questions instead of making a statement - I don't know. It seems to me that if a graph says that the population is 55 million and measles deaths are 10,000+, then the fact that the population is really 32 million+ from this site should make a difference.
If I'm wrong, that's fine. I just posed a question, wondering about another aspect of the original graphs.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If find that interesting since claims of brain damage aren't made as a complication of measles. Anyone know if it's a complication of the encephalitis?
As far as I know, it is a complication of encephalitis.
Presuming this is talking about the MMR, which is Measles, Mumps and Rubella, Rubella (German Measles) although usually mild to both adults and children, cause mental retardation in the babies of pregnant mothers who contract it in the first 20 months of their pregnancy. Worth avoiding.
quote:Infection of the mother by Rubella virus during pregnancy can be serious; if the mother is infected within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, the child may be born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), which entails a range of serious incurable illnesses. Spontaneous abortion occurs in up to 20% of cases.
...
The syndrome (CRS) follows intrauterine infection by Rubella virus and comprises cardiac, cerebral, ophthalmic and auditory defects.[4] It may also cause prematurity, low birth weight, and neonatal thrombocytopenia, anaemia and hepatitis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There is a purpose to highlighting the abuse and personal attacks. Please bear with me on this.
No, I don't think I will.
You're using a lot of high-blown rhetoric here, but when I read your responses to the people who are making personal attacks, they smell rather strongly of personal attacks in response to personal attacks.
And even if I didn't think that, your approach is flawed when dealing with online discussion forums. Do that on the Internet, and (as is plain to see) you end up spending much more time on that little 'project' than you do on the issue you initially wanted to discuss.
Or, put another way, the lone voice in the wilderness - as you sort of hint at being - doesn't waste his time shouting back at the naysayers and insult-slingers. Instead, he (wisely) seeks out specifically those who are inclined to listen and discuss calmly and courteously, and changes their minds. And then over a period of time, he's suddenly not so lone a voice in the wilderness, and he and his comrades cannot be shouted down so easily.
But if you'd prefer to just keep shouting back, that's your business. I'm just commenting on how your approach to this discussion appears to a disinterested* observer.
*Note I'm not saying 'neutral', because frankly I think your idea is pretty dang out-there, and I wouldn't have been likely to engage with you on it anyway. Your approach to people, though, makes it even less likely that I would.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Where safety belts are obligatory some are entitled not to wear them, such as pregnant women. It is an issue of balancing risks.
I find this particularly interestgin, spambuster. You see, my wife is currently pregnant, so we've researched this issue a bit, and every bit of medical advice I can find recommends that pregnant women do wear seatbelts when riding in cars.
So if it is actually much safer for pregnant women to wear a seatbelt, as reported by the American Academy of Family Physicians and backed by several medical school studies, crash test studies, and so on, there is no good reason for pregnant women NOT to wear seatbelts. Any desire to do so is based on ignorance or misguided fear, unless there is a specific, diagnosed, extenuating circumstance for a particular woman.
I'm going to make the obvious parallel to vaccines. The graphs certainly don't show that vaccines are not effective. In fact, as King of Men pointed out, the graph suggests a strong correlation between vaccination and health.
Further, other studies HAVE shown the efficacy and safety of vaccines. You've mentioned vaccine risks a couple times, but it's certainly unclear what you believe those might be.
In your above statement, there turns out not to a real risk in pregnant women wearing seat belts properly - in fact, the risk is NOT wearing seat belts. I would argue that the same is true for vaccines. The fear of risk is not based in facts, but in emotion, and upon considering the reality of the situation, we can see that the REAL risk is not to vaccinate.
This might be the best post in the thread so far, from a non-scientific (but well reasoned) viewpoint.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: KoM: your comment is not helpful. I'm 48, have not studied math since high school and work in journalism (Newsroom saying: Journalists suck at math.) That's why I used questions instead of making a statement - I don't know. It seems to me that if a graph says that the population is 55 million and measles deaths are 10,000+, then the fact that the population is really 32 million+ from this site should make a difference.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes, it means the actual number of deaths that year was not 10k, it was more like 6k. It's no different from giving a number in percent. And "I'm a journalist" is not an excuse; this sort of thing is why the media can't cover any story with even a smidgen of statistics in it correctly. If you can't do this, learn, or you are not going to do your job right.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
KoM -- it is an interesting truth of the human race that we each have our strengths and weaknesses. We are not all programmed with either the ability or inclination to learn all that there is to know in the world. When the news incorrectly interprets statistics, this doesn't tell me that every reporter and journalist needs to take a refresher course in statistics, it tells me they need to HIRE someone who knows these things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And Tom has still not responded to the original point.
Frankly, this is because I think others in this thread have already done an excellent job of dissecting that point. Which of their arguments do you think are insufficient?
I would be happy to provide additional arguments, but I think the ones already given do a perfectly adequate job.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: KoM -- it is an interesting truth of the human race that we each have our strengths and weaknesses. We are not all programmed with either the ability or inclination to learn all that there is to know in the world. When the news incorrectly interprets statistics, this doesn't tell me that every reporter and journalist needs to take a refresher course in statistics, it tells me they need to HIRE someone who knows these things.
The ability to understand fractions does not require "all there is to know in the world". In fact, we teach it to third-graders. As for hiring someone who knows how, somehow this has not been done in the past fifty years of badly-interpreted statistics; forgive me for doubting it will happen in the next. And it certainly won't happen if the importance and lack of the skill is not pointed out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
CaySedai: While KoM is being abrasive, this will be a very useful thing to know, and a very important thing if you want to write about even the most basic statistics. You might already know it in certain contexts.
For instance, if a store offers Buy 2 Get 1 Free, and you buy 4 (getting 2 additional free), the deal does not become Buy 2 Get 2 Free -- it is still Buy 2 Get 1 Free, but because you bought 4 (2 times 2), you get 2 free (2 times 1).
Similarly, if you get a ten percent discount, this just means your discount is ten out of every hundred (in whatever units) of stuff purchased. So, if you buy $100 worth of something, you only pay $90. If you buy $200 worth of something and pay just $180, the discount is still 10 out of 100 -- it doesn't become 20 out of 100, which would lead you to only pay $160.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KOM, showing respect to others is a very useful skill, as is conversing without giving offense to people who have not offended you deliberatly.
We teach it in kindergarten here, but obviously not everyone gets it. I'll see if I can find it expressed as a fraction so it makes more sense to you.
Seriously, knowing your strengths and weaknesses is a god thing, so Cai ASKED a question to clarify. If more journalists did that we would be able to eliminate a lot of errors, right? Particularily of they went to people who know a lot about the subject.
You know, just like Cai Sedi did here. Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
To CT,
I did have several questions when I first read the article, but now that I have reread it again carefully, and also people's responses to it here, most of the big ones have been answered.
Here one that's left, though:
quote: And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.
I'm not sure why the author uses this as an argument against the MMR vaccine. Isn't it a more compelling argument for continuing booster shots?
Most my remaining questions are along the same vein. I'm not having any more trouble looking at those particular graphs and studies and seeing what is wrong with them. Perhaps it would be more educational for me to find another paper to discuss with you.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: As far as I know, it is a complication of encephalitis.
Thanks, Teshi! I figured that had to be it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: Here one that's left, though:
quote: And one consequence of this unnecessary measure is that we are now putting young male adults at risk of orchitis and sterility because they did not catch natural mumps harmlessly when children and because MMR vaccination is not effective in conferring full or lasting immunity across an entire population.
I'm not sure why the author uses this as an argument against the MMR vaccine. Isn't it a more compelling argument for continuing booster shots?
I would certainly agree with you if it weren't for this: the article is simply wrong on this point anyway.
Orchitis from mumps is associated with prepubertal contraction of mumps (i.e., the period of prime protection under the current vaccination schedule recommendations), as it is rare for it to happen when mumps is contracted after puberty. ("Approximately 20% of prepubertal patients with mumps develop orchitis. This condition rarely occurs in postpubertal males with mumps." -- from eMedicine on Mumps) Moreover, sterility is a rare result from orchitis anyway. Most cases have normal fertility on followup.
The spectre of a significant risk of sterility from orchitis after mumps is contracted because of waning immunity is just a non-starter. I can see why someone without a medical background or a solid understanding of the numbers might jump to that assumption, but there is a reason why it isn't such a concern for those setting medical policy: namely, it isn't a significant risk in truth, and they know this because of their own training or the training of those advising them. What miniscule (and I do mean miniscule) risk there is for post-pubertal post-vaccination mumps-induced sterility has been far outweighed by the risks many orders of magnitude more likely, such as death from SSPE (see below) in the unvaccinated and undervaccinated.
There are many other illusory bugaboos that fade out when the numbers are run. Again, I think it is a matter of people not knowing how much they do not know. Unfortunately, it takes rigorous training to get even the first handle on how much there is that one doesn't know. Everyone starts out as an expert with, as J McCarthy says, a "PhD in Google."
The questions are good to ask, mind, just not the jumping to the conclusion that these questions haven't already been asked, mulled over, dissected out, and laid to rest. Better to ask and get answered than to ask to prove a point which you don't realize has already been addressed -- even if it is a good question.
quote:Most my remaining questions are along the same vein. I'm not having any more trouble looking at those particular graphs and studies and seeing what is wrong with them. Perhaps it would be more educational for me to find another paper to discuss with you.
As regards cognitive impairment with measles, it isn't just standard meningitis/encephalitis complications to worry about. There is also a longterm complication of measles (not associated with the vaccine, BTW) called "Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis" (SSPE), which is like a super-revved form of encephalitis that shows up 5-15 years after someone recovers from a measles episode. Scarily, you look completely normal between the period where you recover from the acute episode of measles and then develop SSPE many years later.
Symptoms start as personality changes and deteriorating cognitive function, progress through seizures, and then culminate in almost complete neurological dysfunction and death within a few years, in most cases. There is no known cure.
SSPE is currently very rare in the US (1 case per 1 million people) at this point, attributable to the effectiveness of the 3-dose MMR vaccine schedule. In places such as Pakistan, which has a less developed vaccination program and thus many more unvaccinated or single-vaccinated people, the rate is more like 1 in every 10,000 people.
I expect that with more international adoptions and decreasing vaccination rates in the US, we are going to see more cases of SSPE in the US.
quote:What is Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis?
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a progressive neurological disorder of children and young adults that affects the central nervous system (CNS). ... The incidence of SSPE declined by at least 90 percent in countries that have practiced widespread immunization with measles vaccine. ... In advanced stages of the disease, individuals may lose the ability to walk, as their muscles stiffen or spasm. There is progressive deterioration to a comatose state, and then to a persistent vegetative state. Death is usually the result of fever, heart failure, or the brain's inability to continue controlling the autonomic nervous system.
Is there any treatment?
Currently, there is no cure for SSPE. Clinical trials of antiviral (isoprinosine and ribavirin) and immunomodulatory (interferon alpha) drugs have suggested that these types of therapies given alone or in combination halt the progression of the disease and can prolong life, but their long-term effects on individuals, and eventual outcome, are unknown. Good nursing care is the most important aspect of treatment for SSPE, along with anticonvulsant and antispasmodic drugs when needed.
What is the prognosis?
Most individuals with SSPE will die within 1 to 3 years of diagnosis. In a small percentage of people, the disease will progress rapidly, leading to death over a short course within three months of diagnosis. Another small group will have a chronic, slowly progressive form, some with relapses and remissions. A very small number (approximately 5 percent) may experience spontaneous long term improvement and regain lost function. Prevention, in the form of measles vaccination, is the only real "cure" for SSPE. [emphasis added]
[ June 28, 2009, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
CT: Do you happen to have any information on current vaccination trends in first world countries, especially the US? I've run into so many who are opting out of vaccinations or who are delaying vaccinations (sometimes on a delayed schedule and sometimes just not giving the vaccines until school age) that it's hard to get perspective on it. How many people aren't vaccinating and are there any projections as to when this trend would become a real threat?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The CDC is tracking this, although it's hard to stay abreast when we seem to be on an upward slope. The numbers you get are almost immediately obsolete.
I'll dig up what I can for you later today. I know there is at least one webpage that updates frequently.
I expect there soon will be an update to this 2006 Mortality & Morbidity Weekly Report on the vaccination coverage of children entering school across the US. It's a general summary, but there are some more recent articles on specific disease vaccinations accessible at that site.
---
In follow-up to my long post above, I'd like to underscore that the primary risk to young men's fertility is the risk of contracting mumps before puberty. Not being vaccinated puts them more at risk, not less, and this is in particular because of the nature of the relationship between timing and that possible complication.
Similarly, being unvaccinated while young is what places all people at greatest risk for SSPE. Those who contract measles when <2 years of age are at greatest risk, not those whose immunity might theoretically wane as they age.
Serious and lifelong complications from measles are most likely in the youngest. That is why we try to get them vaccinated earlier rather than later, and that is why a delayed vaccination schedule is not recommended as a standard course.
[ June 28, 2009, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Wow, Kwea. Great links.
I really liked the second one with specific numbers. If 16,400 people got the measles and 75 of them died, that's .45% of people who caught the measles that died. That sounds little - until you do the math with 300 million Americans.
Granted, we'd only lose that 1.35 million if we only had access to the same level of heathcare as poor, possibly illegal Latinos, but it puts the measles in developing countries scenerio in a new light. For me, anyway. (I like big pictures better when they come with numbers. )
This is one of the areas where medicine gets weird for me. How do we keep people from dying of viruses, anyway? We can't fix it. Do we just keep the symptoms from killing people until the disease has run its course? Why does treating the measles make people less likely to die, anyway?
Thanks. It took all of 10 min searching Google for them, although I have an advantage...I knew the right terms to search for, and how to read most of the data.
As far as viruses...sometimes we don't kill the virus. Often we can't, so palliative treatments after being infected is the only thing you can do. Treating the symptoms can decrease mortality in some diseases, but often at that point you just have to let it run it's course.
Measles kills most often by dehydration, so you have to treat it by giving lots of fluids, giving antipyrestics to treat the fevers, and by using good general precautions to prevent spreading it to other people.
I am in nursing school, so CT is by far the expert on these issues, but when it comes to vaccinations and the FDA approval requirements I have a little insight. I worked at USAMRIID for years, and I worked in the safety office teaching people how to safely work with viruses while researching vaccinations and effective treatments. I also participated in clinical trials for 14 drug protocols (some oral, some vaccinations), and wrote a proposal for the Congressional Oversight Committee which was later adopted unanimously.
It was interesting (but scary) work, and I am glad I did it. I am just as glad that I got out of it when I did.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That SSPE is terrifying. I hope too many kids don't have to suffer it before people decide maybe the vaccine isn't so bad after all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yessss. You win the Greek Mythology gold star.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I thought that was a tad on the obvious side. I want points for creativity! And the medical connection.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He was talking Medusa, right? Paralyzed while looking into the mirror? Wait.......nevermind. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I can't even read this...
Spambuster's posts are way too hard on my eyes...
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
fugu: when I first looked at the numbers, I was thinking it meant actual numbers of deaths.
KoM: apparently you missed the joke in my post. Part of it was within parentheses.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: I can't even read this...
Spambuster's posts are way too hard on my eyes...
Well, it does seem like english is not his native tongue. But there's also the flippant, rambling logical incoherency, so it's kinda a mixed bag.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
I was thinking it kind of reads like the timecube website.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
really, for serious, like a day earlier I was mulling over whether or not I should post 'so what if people are prodding him, do you honestly expect real dialogue? you might as well try to debate with the timecube guy.'
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I just googled "time cube" and Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I just googled "time cube" and
Well, you see, it's very simple. Vaccines don't work because Simple Cube Divinity is the most perfect and life supporting form existing in the universe and on Earth - including Earth itself. Do you realize that a 4 corner square rotating 1/4 turn creates a full circle? A full rotated square will create 16 corners, 96 hours and 4 simultaneous 24 hour Day circles within only a single imaginary cubed Earth roation. This amounts to a spiraling quad helix of Earth as it revolves around the Sun - rotating as it revolves around the Sun, to induce the value of the Sun revolving about the Earth. This act demonstrates that both Sun and Earth rotate around each other simultaneously - thus creating Opposites existing only as Opposites with a zero value existence between the binary and cancelling to nothing as One or God theism.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
That was interesting. I also found www.thymecube.com - but there are no recipes. Hmmm. I'm sure that's due to a conspiracy or something.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thyme Cube! Love it!
I'm seriously tempted to ask my dad's crazy weirdo friend who's obssessed with conspiracy theories what he thinks of the Time Cube guy next time I see him.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
You all seem now to have set out your position. I would like to progress.
In summary, I note the original proposition still stands.
quote:Originally posted by spambuster [June 26, 2009 07:25 AM]: ".. vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality ... the official mortality statistics show that .... the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing" [/QB]
And a main proposition also stands
quote: “… statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies ….
Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:-
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese [June 25, 2009 04:27 PM]: ….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..
Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
This is much like most of what has been posted so far. I will endeavour to deal with comments now you all seem to suggest your position is complete.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Both of your "propositions" have been thoroughly dealt with. Saying they have not does not mean they have not. Try responding to the arguments that have been made, not asserting they don't exist.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: In summary, I note the original proposition still stands.
And a main proposition also stands
I'm confused... I didn't think either of these still stood. I was pretty sure there was a big dog-pile on them that crushed them completely.
quote: Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:
.
Sure there was a non-sequitur of saying "Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it." in ClaudiaTherese's post, but the main point she was making wasn't that, it was:
quote: ….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..
.
Why not address this... she and others (including myself) have indicated that the analysis of the graph is faulty. You haven't addressed this in any way - you haven't countered to say that the analysis is correct because ________ or anything. Please respond specifically and directly to the meat of ClaudiaTherese's (and others) post that the graph is read incorrectly.
It really seems like you are coming in here with a pretty specific patter: 1) you reiterate that of course you are right 2) you claim to be a victim 3) you don't address any of the points made about the article or your own claims, you just resort to rule 1 and rule 2...
This is not the way to have a debate or a discussion. At least not in a civilized way.
I think you'll find that if you go one post, just ONE SINGLE POST without claiming anyone has insulted you, insulting anyone else or claiming that your position is accepted or patently obvious then many here would respond in kind. Sure, some won't but here's the trick for them: IGNORE THEM. You've gotten this same/similar advice from others before now... all I'm doing is suggesting that you follow it.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
Edit -- Sorry, long post.
quote: The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.
To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.
No offense intended, but you realize that you didn’t answer the question I asked, correct? Put a slightly different way than originally stated, here is my problem with the statement initially quoted. It implies first that vaccines have had no effect, positive or negative, on disease mortality and second that proponents of vaccination believe vaccines to be the only cause for the downward trend in disease mortality.
The first of those implications is an arguable point from a scientific perspective, in that it is possible to design an experiment that would test the situation. I’m not a scientist or medical professional, but it seems like the simplest test design—though one I’d never hope to see put into practice, as it is all too reminiscent of the Tuskeegee syphilis study—would be to have four similar communities exposed to the same virus. One would be a control, one would be vaccinated, one would be given environmental controls to help fight the disease (e.g. mosquito netting for yellow fever), and one would be given both the vaccination and the environmental controls. Hypothetically, no matter what the group with both variables should result in the least number of cases/deaths from the disease. If what you’re arguing is correct, the vaccination group should have similar results to the control group, while the environmental group should have similar results to the group with both variables, with those groups have the least cases/deaths. However, if the vaccinated group and group with both variables perform similarly, then it must be concluded that vaccination is have a beneficial effect, refuting your argument.
The second of the statement’s implications, however, is what I was really driving at with my question. The statement implies that the entirety of its opposition’s position rests on vaccination, with no credit being by them given to environmental controls. This seems to be a clear distortion of their position, as put by posters like fugu13 and others in this thread. As such, refuting it and claiming the argument won seems to be a clear case of a strawman fallacy.
Note that I’m not asking about the cost/benefit of using vaccines – that’s an entirely different, though closely related, train of thought to what I asked. If you want to have that discussion we can; I find the topic interesting, and somewhat ironic, given that vaccination replaced variolation because the risks of vaccination were so much fewer.
quote: Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
No, that’s an assumption. Given that all environmental improvements have occurred either in conjunction with or following the advent of vaccination, it is impossible to say which is responsible for lives saved, or what percentage of the lives saved each should be credited with.
While better understanding and control of our environment have greatly reduced most diseases and better nutrition has increased our bodies’ abilities to ward off disease, some diseases simply cannot be controlled in these fashions. Tetanus, for example, is the result of a fairly common bacterium (found often in soil) entering the body through a cut or puncture wound. Eliminating tetanus without vaccination would require that we either destroy all specimens of this (common) bacterium or that we prevent all people from ever receiving a wound while outdoors–hopefully you can see how futile either of these would be.
quote: I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.
Though I agree that we should have a discussion, risk vs. benefit is not the argument of either the statement I originally quoted or of the article quoted by the original poster. Here are the arguments, as I understand them:
Argument A: Vaccines are ineffective at eliminating disease. (This is the argument of the statement I originally quoted – note that it does not imply what is effective at eliminating disease) Argument B: Vaccination is not responsible for the historical decline of diseases. (This is the argument of the original article – note that it is a historical argument, above all) Argument C: The risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. (This is the argument you are promoting above)
While all three points are related, I think you would be much better off picking one and sticking to it, rather than jumping from one to another.
quote: The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.
If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.
Again, this does not address the question asked. The article purports to show that vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics – it never mentions either the risks of vaccination or the need for vaccination.
quote: I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.
Yet again, this statement does not address the question, which is focused wholly on the data provided in the original article.
quote: It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child. Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.
quote: Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
Although King of Men has already pointed out that the paper you referenced in fact supports the use of vaccines, I think another quote is useful: “Measles death rates were three times higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas. A similar observation was made by Puffer and Serrano in a review of measles-related deaths in Latin America. They speculated that the difference might be due to poorer nutritional status in children living in rural areas. In the United states, it is not known what factors are responsible for this differential, although decreased access to or acceptance of preventive medical services may play a role.” (Emphasis mine)
In other words, a rise in measles mortality can to some degree be correlated to a patient’s unwillingness to accept preventative services, like vaccination.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The graphs don't show what you say they do, and in several cases prove the opposite.
No none here, or even at the WHO or the CDC, has ever claimed that Vaccinations were the ONLY cause of mortality rates dropping.
Do you have any actual studies on vaccines themselves showing they are ineffective? Do you have any actual research done by anyone with over a high school diploma showing that modern medicine doesn't work? Particularily since modern science and medicine is what TAUGHT is about clean water, cramped living quarters, and disease infested vermin can do to us? Why do you not believe science when it shows vaccinations work, but do believe it when it says that little invisible parasites cause disease?
Why are you still making absurd claims that no one has addressed your claims when they have been refuted multiple times by multiple posters?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way...
It seems to me that CT's observation that the graph has been read incorrectly is a substantial (and, as far as I can tell, entirely accurate) criticism of the proposition.
Why do you disagree?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13 [June 29, 2009 12:54 PM]: Try responding to the arguments that have been made, not asserting they don't exist.
I am. See last post. A claim was made without substance or substantiation - now dealt with.
I was about to move on to the next and see there are now 5 posts - some very lengthy.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
Originally posted by just_me [June 29, 2009 01:09 PM]:
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Early comments like this non sequitur add nothing nor have detracted from the propositions in any way:-
quote: ….. the graphs are read [incorrectly]. … the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating …..
.
quote:Why not address this... she and others (including myself) have indicated that the analysis of the graph is faulty. You haven't addressed this in any way
How? ClaudiaTherese made a claim without substantiating it. There is nothing to address nothing to answer.
If she posted "God does not exist". What do you say in reply? "Oh yes he does"?
quote:I think you'll find that if you go one post, just ONE SINGLE POST without claiming anyone has insulted you, insulting anyone else or claiming that your position is accepted or patently obvious then many here would respond in kind.
I just did - see above [and other times no doubt]. I look forward to seeing the new attitude you say will now appear.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Would not the following conclusion be equally as valid....
200 years of data indicate that vaccines and modern medicine have not resulted in the increased mortality that vaccine-deniers fear.
One basic rule of debate is that the defenders of the status quo do not have to prove the need to remain the same, those who seek to change it must prove the need for change.
Hence, the "We are doing well and there is no proof that X helps, so lets stop X" needs to meet one simple criteria. X costs more than Not-X. At best the graph shows that X does not cost.
I know there are costs associated with vaccinations. Most of them are debatable. But the only cost associated with this graph is Mortality, so the only argument this graph can tell us is that "with vaccinations mortality continues to decline". Hence the conclusion that Vaccinations do not increase mortality, so stopping them would do no good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:ClaudiaTherese made a claim without substantiating it.
Okay. So your response to her claim is "I don't understand why that's your reaction to this analysis?" I'm asking this to ensure clarity.
Would you like me to explain why I agree with her on that point?
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
spambuster,
You're new here so none of us knows you or your background. To aid us in the upcoming discourse, could you tell us a little about yourself. We don't need many details, but a few items that might help us understand your background would be helpful. For example, are you a doctor or other medical practitioner? A philosopher? Are you a scientist or engineer? A writer? A mathematician? An artist?
If you have a technical background then we can talk about different regressions and goodness of fit and correlation coefficients and be sure you know what we're saying. If you're not then we need to use different language...
To be fair, I'll tell you about me. I'm a mechanical engineer (well, my master's in in "general engineering" but I still consider myself a mechanical engineer). In addition to the "usual" training MEs get in data analysis I've taken courses in quality engineering (lots of statistics and data analysis involved) and decision analysis.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx:
quote: It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child. Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.
Not only is such an attitude morally reprehensible, many parents have more than one child. (Leaving aside the fact that the math doesn't work anyway.)
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sphinx [June 29, 2009 01:13 PM]: Edit -- Sorry, long post.
I will endeavour to extend to you the courtesy of answering your queries politely put as best I can.
quote:
quote: The principal issue is balancing risk with benefit.
To get past first base it is necessary to know to what extent vaccines like measles or mumps or rubella vaccines for example are providing benefit and what the extent of need is.
quote:No offense intended ... you didn’t answer the question I asked, correct?
None taken. I was about to try to address those I may not have. There are many posts and many raise numerous and different issues.
quote: .... here is my problem with the statement initially quoted. It implies first that vaccines have had no effect, positive or negative, on disease mortality
Not the intent. To get off first base we need to measure the effectiveness to be in a position to judge need and risk.
quote:second that proponents of vaccination believe vaccines to be the only cause for the downward trend in disease mortality.
Again not the intent. The propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines whatever your view.
quote:The first of those implications is an arguable point from a scientific perspective
The implication you suggest is not intended but that does not detract from your next point which asks to what extent the issue can be tested.
quote:it is possible to design an experiment that would test the situation
Agreed. It should be. [Others may take issue with you over adopting the specific example you suggest but that is a matter of comparative detail.]
quote:If what you’re arguing is correct
The premise on which you are working is not in fact my position but again, regardless I agree with your suggestions in principle.
quote:.... if the vaccinated group and group with both variables perform similarly, then it must be concluded that vaccination is have a beneficial effect, refuting your argument.
If that were the argument.
Does this assist?
The kinds of studies needed in broad principle are of total health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
For example, if one accepts for the moment the proposition that risks of disease have diminished as the years pass in any event [albeit some difficulty exists for some here with that proposition] then once the risks of the disease and the risks of adverse effects come into the same order of magnitude, one must take care.
The consequence of not doing so may be to cause many more children to suffer other health problems if we focus too hard on what we thought the problem was we were meant to be fixing.
These are not done. There are many other issues but that in broad principle is the main one.
quote:The second of the statement’s implications, ... The statement implies that the entirety of its opposition’s position rests on vaccination, with no credit being by them given to environmental controls.
It is very often presented that way. But that is not in my view a natural implication in the proposition you quoted originally, which is directed to a factual issue of testing benefit and need.
So we can safely put to one side whether or not that position is being put univerally by proponents.
It is sometimes claimed for example that vaccines are the greatest medical breakthrough ever made. That is a proposition which can be tested.
quote:This seems to be a clear distortion of their position, as put by posters like fugu13 and others in this thread. As such, refuting it and claiming the argument won seems to be a clear case of a strawman fallacy.
We have no need to engage on whether that position is one being put univerally by proponents. The original proposition you quote does not seem naturally to bear the implications suggested.
quote: Note that I’m not asking about the cost/benefit of using vaccines – that’s an entirely different, though closely related, train of thought to what I asked. If you want to have that discussion we can; I find the topic interesting, and somewhat ironic, given that vaccination replaced variolation because the risks of vaccination were so much fewer.
There is only so much time and many aspects to the debate. Let us hope progress can be made with the earlier issues?
quote:
quote: Can we agree that vaccines like these have not been responsible for saving millions of lives in first world economies?
No, that’s an assumption.
We can in fact attempt a best and worst case analysis. For the UK the best case can be estimated assuming mortality would not have continued to fall without vaccines [background reduction] in 1968 when measles vaccine was introduced.
At that time the 10 year average mortality was 80 deaths per annum. So for the UK the total number of lives assumed to be saved could over 40 years not exceed 80 x 40 = 3200.
If we assume the background reduction would have followed the trendline the number over 40 years would fall between zero and 1600.
Against that should be balanced the risks of adverse reactions.
quote:Given that all environmental improvements have occurred either in conjunction with or following the advent of vaccination, it is impossible to say which is responsible for lives saved, or what percentage of the lives saved each should be credited with.
The historical data do not appear to support the first proposition you put here.
And we can estimate as indicated above.
quote:While better understanding and control of our environment have greatly reduced most diseases and better nutrition has increased our bodies’ abilities to ward off disease, some diseases simply cannot be controlled in these fashions.
Why not take nature's lead and find out how and why, say, better nutrition works as it does then one could develop more effective treatments?
Is the proposition of say a "measles pill" too far into science fiction to "swallow"? It must be possible but no one seems interested in trying it. And it would screw up "anti-vaccinationists".
quote:....Eliminating tetanus without vaccination would require that we either destroy all specimens of this (common) bacterium or that we prevent all people from ever receiving a wound while outdoors–hopefully you can see how futile either of these would be.
Tetanus is a particularly interesting example but that is starting another line of issues. As you have already noted, there are so many already.
quote:
quote: I focus on risk versus benefit first. It is the primary issue and the mode of dialogue is amenable to taking this one point at a time.
quote:Though I agree that we should have a discussion, risk vs. benefit is not the argument of either the statement I originally quoted or of the article quoted by the original poster.
In fact it is not an argument being put. The propositions you originally quote are directed to obtaining information pertinent to assessment of risk v benefit.
quote:Here are the arguments, as I understand them:
Argument A: Vaccines are ineffective at eliminating disease. (This is the argument of the statement I originally quoted – note that it does not imply what is effective at eliminating disease)
Not the proposition being put. The proposition being put relates to knowing to what extent they are effective and needed.
quote:Argument B: Vaccination is not responsible for the historical decline of diseases. (This is the argument of the original article – note that it is a historical argument, above all)
That appears to be what the historical data tell us. If other approaches can be more effective can we use them to greater effect? That is a public health issue.
quote:Argument C: The risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits. (This is the argument you are promoting above)
The quoted propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines regardless of starting position in any debate.
quote:While all three points are related, I think you would be much better off picking one and sticking to it, rather than jumping from one to another.
If that appearance has been given, it might be helpful to look back on how many post here, how many points and arguments are put and how many posts there are. Whilst one can endeavour to address issues one at a time, look how many arise in just this post.
quote:
quote: The mortality statistics provide a measure of risk and need in the context of assessing benefit.
If need is limited then efficacy becomes less relevant as need tends to zero.
quote:Again, this does not address the question asked. The article purports to show that vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics – it never mentions either the risks of vaccination or the need for vaccination.
Not what it says on the tin.
The article starts with the proposition that "official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"
quote:
quote: I would not dispute that the possibility of inducing immunity to any disease is a highly attractive proposition. That is a major attraction of vaccination which I would happily endorse provided the risk and benefit equation were satisfied, it was justified on need and that so far as possible those at risk of serious vaccine adverse reactions were screened.
quote:Yet again, this statement does not address the question, which is focused wholly on the data provided in the original article.
Nor do many of the posts by others here. When responding to other issues other issues may arise in response.
quote:
quote: It is a serious thing to risk the health of what would otherwise be a healthy child on the basis of an argument we were thereby saving another.
quote:With all due respect to you as a parent, it seems somewhat selfish to say that the health of one’s own child is worth more than the health of someone else’s child.
The point was not put from a personal perspective.
That issue is one which was part of the considerations health officials and others responsible for deciding on risks and benefits took into account a decades or three ago.
quote:Perhaps all parents feel that way and nothing will be changed about that, but to risk the lives/health of others in order to spare your own child a potential problem seems a particularly risky game of chance.
As you can see, the point is not one I have been making from a personal perspective.
I ask you, how many children with say, severe asthma should we risk to save the life of one child from measles? If deciding the matter for your nation's children one would want to be sure.
quote:[QUOTE] Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income.
quote:
[QUOTE]Although King of Men has already pointed out that the paper you referenced in fact supports the use of vaccines
I have not seen where it contains an assessment of risk versus benefit applicable in 2009?
quote:I think another quote is useful: “Measles death rates were three times higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in metropolitan areas.
Why does that lead you to conclude nonmetropolitan parents do not vaccinate? Vaccines are not claimed to be 100% effective by even the most enthusiastic proponents.
quote:A similar observation was made by Puffer and Serrano in a review of measles-related deaths in Latin America. They speculated that the difference might be due to poorer nutritional status in children living in rural areas. In the United states, it is not known what factors are responsible for this differential, although decreased access to or acceptance of preventive medical services may play a role.” (Emphasis mine)
The US is a region with considerable poverty in many areas alongside areas of great wealth.
It used to be commonly said among physicians that "healthy well-fed children do not die from measles".
quote:In other words, a rise in measles mortality can to some degree be correlated to a patient’s unwillingness to accept preventative services, like vaccination.
That is an hypothesis. In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Wow. And not in a good way.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?
Yes we ought to. Yes we do. The SCIENTIFICALLY tested/determined answer (which just to happens to be the commonly accepted one) is that YES, the benefit outweighs the risk.
If you want to prove otherwise then you need to PROVE IT. Don't just assert it. And don't use a graph that specifically shows a decline in mortality at the time the vaccine was introduced as evidence that the vaccine isn't worthwhile - and especially don't use such a graph with an incorrectly drawn trendline.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: And don't use a graph that specifically shows a decline in mortality at the time the vaccine was introduced as evidence that the vaccine isn't worthwhile
I don't know if the site has done this in a way which is wholly classifiable as a post hoc, but it seems like it so far.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"
I am very interested in hearing what you consider "substantial." If the incidence of per capita disease falls 80% thanks to basic hygiene and lifestyle changes, and vaccination drops it a further 50% (to a grand total of a 90% reduction), would you say that the vaccination -- which after all only had a 10% effect when compared to the pre-hygiene total -- was insubstantially effective?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson [June 29, 2009 09:44 PM]: I am very interested in hearing what you consider "substantial." If the incidence of per capita disease falls 80% thanks to basic hygiene and lifestyle changes, and vaccination drops it a further 50% (to a grand total of a 90% reduction), would you say that the vaccination -- which after all only had a 10% effect when compared to the pre-hygiene total -- was insubstantially effective?
Tom,
UK Measles mortality fell from a high of about 22000 per 55 million population [1902] to about 60 per 55 million [1968] before the vaccine was introduced.
That represents a drop of 99.8 %. So there could have been no 50% improvement in mortality from the vaccine.
also show that for about the next 20 years to 1987 the rate of decline of mortality continued at the same rate before the vaccine was introduced as after to about 7 per 55 million.
That is a total decline of 99.97% since 1922.
So the decline in measles mortality during these long periods appears unaffected by the introduction of the vaccine.
Do you agree that both those declines are substantial?
And if we can reduce disease mortality by nutritional means in such a manner then don't you think there must be alternatives to vaccination so that we do not have to put entire populations at risk of adverse vaccine reactions?
And measles is a "worst case".
For mumps, rubella, chickenpox, tetanus and more the public have to be told different stories to "sell" the proposition that it is so essential to have their child put at risk of adverse reactions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(A side note: I said a further 50%. Fifty percent of the remaining 20% would represent a 10% decline.)
quote:Do you agree that both those declines are substantial?
Oh, absolutely.
quote:And if we can reduce disease mortality by nutritional means in such a manner then don't you think there must be alternatives to vaccination so that we do not have to put entire populations at risk of adverse vaccine reactions?
No.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What are these "adverse vaccine reactions", and what are the statistics that back them up?
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What are these "adverse vaccine reactions", and what are the statistics that back them up?
That is a good question. It is particularly pertinent because since the late 1980s we have moved into an era of a vastly increased schedule of multiple vaccinations particularly for children.
This is an issue which some professionals are quietly concerned about and dare not risk voicing their concerns publicly [and some of the posts on this forum alone show the kinds of hostility anyone risks by doing so].
There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
We have no "science" on this. At the same time the public is constantly being assured it is all fine whilst studies such as exist are misrepresented and some wholly misleading.
There are no placebo controlled randomised clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of any paediatric vaccines.
The trials carried out are ones testing a new vaccine against an existing vaccine for which similarly no such trials exist - in effect testing the new for safety against something of scientifically unknown safety profile. That is inappropriate.
Additionally, the trials which are carried out appear to be on healthy individuals whereas after marketing approval the vaccines are applied to all in a "one size fits all approach" in practice with little regard in general to individual circumstances.
For an indication of what kinds of adverse reactions might be involved one can turn to Merck's data sheet for MMR II [see below] - but note that no data on the extent of adverse reactions are given.
It is interesting that whilst the potential adverse reactions are meant to be listed "in decreasing order of severity", death is listed last.
And note also that the evidence relied on for saying a causal relationship has not been established is based on data on "healthy individuals" [whatever that term is meant to mean].
It is also of interest to note that diabetes mellitus is included. Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
ADVERSE REACTIONS The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality, within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
Body as a Whole Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
Cardiovascular System Vasculitis.
Digestive System Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
Endocrine System Diabetes mellitus.
Hemic and Lymphatic System Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; leukocytosis.
Immune System Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or without an allergic history.
Musculoskeletal System Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia. Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also been reported following administration of MERUVAX II. Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed chronic joint symptoms.
Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),17,52,53 and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls, the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women. Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with normal activities.
Nervous System Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
Experience from more than 80 million doses of all live measles vaccines given in the U.S. through 1975 indicates that significant central nervous system reactions such as encephalitis and encephalopathy, occurring within 30 days after vaccination, have been temporally associated with measles vaccine very rarely.54 In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by vaccine. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pointed out that "a certain number of cases of encephalitis may be expected to occur in a large childhood population in a defined period of time even when no vaccines are administered". However, the data suggest the possibility that some of these cases M-M-R® II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) 97393048 may have been caused by measles vaccines. The risk of such serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains far less than that for encephalitis and encephalopathy with wild-type measles (one per two thousand reported cases).
Post-marketing surveillance of the more than 200 million doses of M-M-R and M-M-R II that have been distributed worldwide over 25 years (1971 to 1996) indicates that serious adverse events such as encephalitis and encephalopathy continue to be rarely reported.17 There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its inherent higher risk of SSPE.55
Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic meningitis.
Respiratory System Pneumonia, pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
Skin Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis. Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema); swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site.
Special Senses — Ear Nerve deafness; otitis media.
Other Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.56
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, health-care providers and manufacturers are required to record and report certain suspected adverse events occurring within specific time periods after vaccination. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which will accept all reports of suspected events.47
A VAERS report form as well as information regarding reporting requirements can be obtained by calling VAERS 1-800-822-7967.
Posted by spambuster (Member # 12113) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson [June 29, 2009 01:15 PM]: It seems to me that CT's observation that the graph has been read incorrectly is a substantial (and, as far as I can tell, entirely accurate) criticism of the proposition.
Why do you disagree? [/QB]
It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. CT has provided nothing to agree or disagree with - merely a bald proposition - like "God does not exist".
She appears to refer to all the graphs and has provided no example to back up what is a bald assertion which appears lacking in substance. Nor does she explain what she means.
It is entirely opaque.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by spambuster:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: What are these "adverse vaccine reactions", and what are the statistics that back them up?
There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
We have no "science" on this.
We have no studies that show any dangers from multiple vaccines, so why should I be worried about those? What reason DO we have to worry?
If you want to do a risk analysis, we have to know what the risks actually are. We already know what the risks of the diseases are - we have seen those for hundreds of years.
If you want to argue that the risks we don't know are greater than the risks we do know, isn't the first step measuring the risks you believe come from vaccines?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you have any data on vaccine risks. A list of possible side effects and complications may sound worrisome, but if we don't know how frequently these occur, we have no way of accurately judging the risk.
Here are some interesting quotes from your own document, which I presume you intend to show the risks of vaccination:
"In no case has it been shown that reactions were actually caused by vaccine."
"Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic meningitis."
"No deaths or permanent sequelae were reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.56"
I bolded the last one, since I think it's the most important. In a study of 1.5 million MMR two vaccination recipients, over a period of 11 years, NOT ONE death or permanent sequelae (after effect) was reported.
I feel like you're providing evidence against your case. If there are no studies that show serious risk, and at least one huge study that shows no serious risk, how can we possibly argue that it's better not to vaccinate?
(edited to look up the definition of sequelae )
[ June 30, 2009, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
This is contrary to my understanding of the situation. What's your source on this?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There appear to be no published studies on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on overall adverse reactions - "total health outcome" studies.
This is contrary to my understanding of the situation. What's your source on this?
In fairness, on this particular point, you're asking him to prove a negative. (That said, all it'd take is one citation on the other side to refute it.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Double-blind studies are not required for FDA approval, and they shouldn't be. Yet the claim that no one has done any is patently false.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That makes a lot of sense, Kwea.
On a related note, can you find anything saying if the 25 or so vaccines in current use are tested for interactions with each other? Googling got me a lot of junk and an anti-vaccine message board.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That [Edit: the first study)] looks like a study on the ethics of how to experiment on children, Kwea, not a "study on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on on overall adverse reactions."
And the second study you linked doesn't answer the challenge either-- it concerns a single vaccination for a select group of children.
This is assuming I understand the challenge, of course...
quote:Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
And no one knows why. Do you have any reason to point the finger at vaccination programs?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you have any reason to point the finger at vaccination programs?
...as opposed to genetic or environmental factors, I mean.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: That makes a lot of sense, Kwea.
On a related note, can you find anything saying if the 25 or so vaccines in current use are tested for interactions with each other? Googling got me a lot of junk and an anti-vaccine message board.
I'm in class right now, so I don't have the time to look it up. I can tell you that there are a number of studies done comparing infection rates, side effects, asymptomatic side effects....but most of them are data collection studies. It isn't considered a good idea to TEST for those interactions on children, but data is collected each year on the total health of children who receive these vaccinations.
No link has ever been proven, or even hinted at, between these vaccinations and autism, or any other childhood disease. Not by any credible source, with anything resembling proof.
For example, autism is one of the main issues raised by vaccine protesters, but it isn't even clear why autism happens. There are several leading candidates, such as environmentala pollution (which has risen the past 50 years), particularily heavy metal toxins.
But the most likely cause for the rise of cases in autism is that in the past it was highly underreported and underdiagnosed. Look at past rates of mental retardation....how many of those were really autistic? If it wasn't even a diagnosis until 1943, and wasn't accepted as one by most doctors until the late 60's.
During the 1940's through the 60's the medical community felt that children who had autism were schizophrenic. This lack of understanding of the disorder lead many parents to believe that they were at fault...so how COULD there have been any cases diagnosed? We didn't even have the current definition of Autism!
Juvenile Diabetes....hmmm....most of our increase in Diabetes is type II, actually, and it has exploded recently. So much so that they have stopped calling type I juvenile diabetes because type II is now showing up at a higher rate than type I in young people.
I am sure that it has nothing to do with our modern eating habits. LOL MUST be those pesky vaccinations. It is well known, and has been for decades, that as weight increases the rate of diabetes rises. With our sedentary lifestyles and super-sized meals, we don't NEED another reason for the rise in diabetes. We already know, and have done multiple studies proving it, what causes diabetes type II. We also know how to control it...lose the weight.
We know, beyond a doubt, that weight increases are one cause insulin resistance, because fat cells have fewer insulin receptors than muscles do....and that is ONE cause of diabetes type II.
The actual mechanism of harm is still being studied....in hopes of developing a vaccine.
[ June 30, 2009, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From looking it up quickly on line, Type 1 diabetes (juvenile diabetes) actually incurs weight loss-- the two kids I grew up with who had it, neither of them had weight problems.
Type 2 diabetes, according to what I found online, normally occurs in adults, and can be controlled by diet and exercise.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From looking it up quickly on line, Type 1 diabetes (juvenile diabetes) actually incurs weight loss-- the two kids I grew up with who had it, neither of them had weight problems.
Type 2 diabetes, according to what I found online, normally occurs in adults, and can be controlled by diet and exercise.
Type I used to be called juvenile diabetes, but they are moving away from that.
Type I is insulin dependent, and those people will be on insulin for the rest of their life. Diet and activity levels are important for BOTH types of diabetes, but for several diffreent reasons.
Type II CAN require insulin, but doesn't always, and can be controlled by losing weight and diet. Often when a person loses the excess weight, the diabetes goes away. If they can't control their weight/diet, they MAY need insulin.
Type I is usually caused by beta cells in the pancreas failing....could be due to disease, or unknown reasons....and the body stops making insulin.
Type II is caused by the cells themselves becoming insulin-resistant. The amount of insulin doesn't necessarily change, but the body requires more and more of it to get results. This is caused at least in part because fat cells have fewer insulin receptors than muscle cells, so they can access less insulin at one time than other cells.
The reason type I was called juvenile is that that type use to show up commonly in juveniles. Even if you are born with a condition that kills the beta cells in the pancreas it takes a long time for the effects to be seen. Over 80% of your beta cells have to be killed (usually) for it to start to show up.
[ June 30, 2009, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks for the clarification, Kwea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sits and twiddles thumbs while waiting for a single one of his points to be responded to*
Others have already noted that the very document you copy/pasted says risks from vaccines are so low as to be nearly nonexistent in relation to the risks from the diseases involved.
Btw, were you aware that there's been an increase in the occurrence of certain diseases recently among people in the US who have been not vaccinating their kids and the people near them (herd immunity being compromised)? In other words, whatever you think should have occurred with other effects reaching the same level of protection, it did not happen. The vaccines provides a level of protection greater than the levels of protection available under the same conditions. Furthermore, a large proportion of those avoiding vaccines are in the middle class, so it doesn't seem likely that even a massive campaign to increase standards of living amongst the poor would make it unnecessary for children to be vaccinated.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I had to edit it....it's hard posting in class while still taking notes.
It's right now...it was at first, except in one spot, but I changed it all, then reread it only to find out I had changed the wrong spot.
Edited to add: This was one of the things I was going to discuss with Jamio, but we never talked much. It is something worth making note of in this context, and I remember well the day this was pointed out to me. Eye-opening.
On the other hand, my interest in this particular line of discussion is waning as my upcoming move is waxing, and I am on short enough fuse. So I'll leave this with the hope it may be useful and head out for some non-forum time. I will see y'all sometime after July 9, posting from a new coast on a new country.
---
Of note, "main causes of morbidity (disease) and mortality (death)" is a moving target. Once you tackle one fairly successfully, there is always something else to get sick and/or die from.
For example, a relatively successful program at treating heart and blood vessel disease means more people are dying of cancer these days. Why? They live longer, and cancer is more common in the elderly.
Yep, treating heart disease in a sense causes cancer.***
So before we had anti-cholesterol and high blood pressure medications, and before heart vessel bypass and stents and all that surgical jazz, you could say that cancer was a relatively unimportant cause of ill health and death because not that many people suffered from it. And you would be right! Cancer wasn't the issue, not then. But it would be a mistake from that to extrapolate that cancer would never be worth a major investment of time and money, because as we do effectively take care of heart disease (which has dropped something like 30% over the last few years), cancer raises in importance.
The critical period in US history for health management was getting clean water and other sanitary/hygiene improvements, along with a stable and diverse food supply. That's the first priority in a developing area, and it returns frankly enormous benefits. But -- that being intact -- as more people survive and do so longer, other disorders (such as SSPE) rear their heads and need to be dealt with.
There is always a cause of death. Always a cause of illness. It's like the many-headed hydra: chop one off, and two spring up in its place.
Unless you don't want progress, you cannot stop at just taking care of the one or two big things that have the most bang for the buck. Great. Then you are stuck in 1800s healthcare forever, and if people aren't dying of lack of access to a healthy living space with food and clean water, well, they are surviving to suffer from other things.
And you can tackle those other things with a new set of priorities, or you can just congratulate yourself that you made a big step way back when and to hell with the rest.
---
*** Just as being able to deal with trauma yields people who survive to face other health challenges. Survival through the childbirth arena means women face a whole new host of problems. But it wouldn't make sense to say to US women in her forties that "Yeah, sure, you're most likely to die of a heart attack which could be prevented, and there is that whole breast cancer thing, but quit whining. We took care of the death in labor issue pretty well, didn't we? So suck it up. The rest is gravy."
[ June 30, 2009, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Good points, CT!
I've often wondered if the increase in certain health problems, especially allergies and asthma, are related to the fact that relatively unhealthy babies (who would have died years ago) are actually living to become children and adults.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think your insight has weight. There is a name for the general phenomenon (when one cause of morbidity and mortality seems to increase just because another was effectively treated, and now we see that other issue uncovered), but I don't remember it.
As a footnote, in a post-apocalyptic early government scenario, I'd be lobbying for clean water and a stable food supply, not vaccinations, too. The priorities would be different. But thankfully this isn't the Thunderdome, and we don't have to act like it is. Time to move on to the biggest problems of today, given where we are today.
---
*grin
Such as motor vehicle accidents. There are a lot more of them than there used to be, too. Good thing we aren't stuck with (/without) the plan we had for dealing with them a hundred years ago. But yes, it would be true that -- back then -- motor vehicle accidents represented an infinitesimal burden on the health of the nation.
[ June 30, 2009, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Isn't there the same conflict between deaths from malaria and deaths from DDT used to fight malaria?
quote:The World Health Organization on Friday forcefully endorsed wider use of the insecticide DDT across Africa to exterminate and repel the mosquitoes that cause malaria. The disease kills more than a million people a year, 800,000 of them young children in Africa.
I'm not sure how many would later die from DDT-related illness. In fact, I'm not even sure how one could reasonably determine what that number may be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If the mosquitos in the area aren't DDT resistant, then spraying it will save around a million deaths a year (based on previous applications, it almost entirely eliminates malaria deaths compared to levels before application). It will harm many, many fewer people, even at the more outrageous estimates of how harmful DDT is to people.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote: Not the intent. To get off first base we need to measure the effectiveness to be in a position to judge need and risk.
Whether or not the implication I described was the intent of the quote’s author, it is present within the quote. If you wish to continue presenting that quote to all and sundry, you must deal with what it implies, not simply push those implications aside as ‘unintended.’
If the author intends to say one thing but actually say another, I hope he is not surprised if people react to what heactually said – as far as I know, no one can read minds, especially over the Internet.
quote: The propositions put above are a starting point to addressing the issue of whether risks of disease outweigh risks of vaccines whatever your view.
While you may see that statement as a starting point, I see it rather as the final conclusion of one side of the argument. This may be why we seem to be talking past one another.
quote: If that were the argument.
Does this assist?
Not really, no – because now I have absolutely no idea what your argument actually is.
The experiment I designed would, in a fairly simple way, test whether environmental controls or vaccination would prove more effective at preventing death (and though I didn’t state it clearly, assume that the disease is one that could be controlled by either environmental controls or vaccination). If the vaccinated group performed as well as the group given both remedies—even if the environmental controls group also saw as few cases—then it must be concluded that vaccination prevents disease. Thus, this part of the statement quoted—“vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality”—could be seen as at best inaccurate for the experiment, and at worst as maliciously false, given that the vaccine did provide just such a decrease in the group to which it was given.
quote: That appears to be what the historical data tell us.
Only if that is what you want it to tell you. I ask you this, as a comparative question: why does so much of the data regarding smallpox in the article deal with the disease toward the end of the 19th / beginning of the 20th century?
Let’s do a brief overview of smallpox before getting to my answer to that question. Smallpox likely emerged in human prehistory, and has been part of recorded history in places like China and India since before the birth of Christ. It is also a very nasty disease; according to Behbehani (1983), during the 18th century (the century in which a vaccine was discovered) smallpox killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans a year, for a total of 40 million dead in Europe in that century alone. That is not counting those who survived with debilitating results; approximately one-third of all blindness was the result of smallpox. It also, to this day, has no known cure. However, in 1796 Edward Jenner, noticing that the milkmaids of England almost never suffered from smallpox, experimented with the much less lethal cowpox virus and proved that variolation with cowpox would prevent the patient from catching smallpox. That is why the process is called vaccination—‘vacca’ is Latin for ‘cow.’
While I don’t know the actual answer to the question posed above—I’m still not a mind-reader, after all—I have a guess. Well, two guesses, but the first is that the data doesn't exist, which isn't helpful to either side. For my second guess, though, I’d guess that it has to do with the fact that Louis Pasteur’s work on germ theory did not become available until 1862, and Joseph Lister’s article on the uses of carbolic acid (the world’s first intended antiseptic and a precursor to all modern antiseptics and disinfectants) was not published until 1867. Since the use of disinfectants and an understanding of germ theory were the only major advances that could help control the environmental factors associated with smallpox, only after approximately 1870 could environmental controls be considered a factor in the reduction of smallpox—all reduction prior to that came as a result of vaccination. Other than the hand of God, nothing else could possibly have caused a drop in the mortality rates.
There is one smallpox graph, entitled “UK Smallpox Mortality Rates Compared to Scarlet Fever 1838 to 1890,” which contains earlier data. Not coincidentally, it shows a massive drop in smallpox mortality in the early part of the century—from 1838 to 1844 the mortality rate fell from about 110 deaths per 100,000 to less than 20, a drop of approximately 85%. If we take the arrow marking vaccination on the graph as indicative of the rate in 1798, then the fall was from about 145 to less than 20, a drop of approximately 90%. There were upward spikes, most notably during the great epidemic of the 1870s following the Franco-Prussian war (and believe it or not, England had one of the lowest death rates during that epidemic, a fact which is generally attributed to mandatory vaccination), but the trend of the graph is inexorably downward.
The data in the article may tell you that the risks of vaccination are not worth the rewards, but it tells me that smallpox mortality in England decreased 85% in six years following the introduction of vaccination, thirty years before any kind of environmental controls were available.
quote: Not what it says on the tin.
The article starts with the proposition that "official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies"
Aside from the fact that, in at least the case of smallpox, this statement is incredibly wrong, how is that statement any different from “vaccines have been ineffective at combating disease using mortality statistics,” which I wrote?
Unless you’re pointing out the author’s condemnation of all of modern medicine, which, ironically, includes the major advances in hygiene, environment, etc. that the author argues are in fact responsible for the drop in mortality. The author may have shot himself in the foot with that statement, but happily modern medicine does a pretty good job with bullet wounds to extremities, so he’ll probably keep the foot and be up and about in no time.
quote: I ask you, how many children with say, severe asthma should we risk to save the life of one child from measles?
You’ll need to provide some evidence that the asthma of a statistically significant group of children was the direct result of vaccination before I’ll even grant the premise of that question.
Speaking for myself, though, I will say this: if I knew that I could save myself from immediate and unavoidable death from measles by giving myself a severe case of asthma for the rest of my life, I wouldn’t hesitate to do so. I might have asthma for the rest of my life, but I’d also have a life.
What you’re gambling with is the hope that the unvaccinated child won’t catch the disease, which can’t always be controlled with anything other than a vaccine. If the dice roll your way, the kid is never exposed and never suffers any kind of effect, from either the disease or the vaccine (if the vaccine has side-effects). If the dice turn up snake-eyes, though, the kid has a full-blown case of a disease known to kill children very quickly and which even modern medicine can’t always stop. You can roll those dice if you want, but I think I’ll pass.
quote: I have not seen where it contains an assessment of risk versus benefit applicable in 2009?
Nor does the article quoted by the original poster, whose data almost always stops at 1970 and who, for the most part, never concerns himself with risks vs. benefits (as the article deals entirely with vaccination as ineffective). Given that you quoted the article and that it covers the same time period at which most of the article’s data ends, its conclusions seem highly relevant to the discussion.
quote: Why does that lead you to conclude nonmetropolitan parents do not vaccinate? Vaccines are not claimed to be 100% effective by even the most enthusiastic proponents.
I quoted the paragraph in full—the important point is at the end. However, if vaccination is the best control of a particular disease and one definable population is experiencing many more incidences of that disease, it seems safe to conclude that they are not vaccinating at the same rate as other populations. There may be reasons for this—availability of the vaccine would likely be lower in rural areas of Latin America, for example—but the conclusion seems unavoidable.
quote: That is an hypothesis. In 2009 in developed economies perhaps we ought to know the answer in some more detail so we can be sure the risk benefit ratio believed to apply does?
True, it is a hypothesis. However, at this point so is the idea that vaccination poses a greater risk than its reward.
I would love to see data from this year, especially given that most of the article’s data stops 40 years ago. However, as CT pointed out, it’s incredibly difficult to track who is not giving vaccinations, so I won’t be surprised if you don’t find anything.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That [Edit: the first study)] looks like a study on the ethics of how to experiment on children, Kwea, not a "study on the issue of multiple vaccinations and their overall effect on on overall adverse reactions."
And the second study you linked doesn't answer the challenge either-- it concerns a single vaccination for a select group of children.
This is assuming I understand the challenge, of course...
quote:Conditions like childhood diabetes [amongst other conditions] have increased substantially since the expanded paediatric programmes have been introduced since the 1980s.
And no one knows why. Do you have any reason to point the finger at vaccination programs?
The first study explains, in part, WHY there aren't such studies.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I know you're emphasizing the honor part, but man, that's playing with fire;)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Good faith all around, but some slow and steady and clear tramping.![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)