posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
"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..."
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"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.
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
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).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was deliberately not producing criticism germane to the overall topic until I heard back from him that he wanted it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[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]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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? Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
