Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[pakeha]

...But I like how he cites a Wikipedia article that says GSK got publicly sued and lost after he claimed that the media is in bed with Big Pharma. In fact, the source for the highlighted part is the New York Times, one of the world's most popular newspapers.

Good old Moore self-debunking.

Ouch.

A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given.

I didn't see the VAERS stats on autism. could you post them up, CM?


You can't fool the VAERS zombies.

I didn't find the VAERS stats on autism as a result of vaxx.
Could you post them up, CM?

 

[jdc324]

I didn't find the VAERS stats on autism as a result of vaxx.
Could you post them up, CM?

There's an interesting problem with the VAERS reports on autism and vaccination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System#Use_in_research_and_litigation

Litigation related to vaccines and autism has led to an increase in VAERS reports filed by plaintiff's attorneys. A 2006 article in Pediatrics found that most VAERS reports related to thimerosal, and many related to autism, were filed in connection with litigation, leading the authors to caution that inappropriate reliance on VAERS data may be a source of bias.[3] The study's lead author stated: "Lawyers are manipulating this system to show increases [in vaccine-related adverse events] that are based on litigation, not health research."[4]

 

[Clayton Moore]

Bottom line Gardasil DOESN't prevent cancer. The vaccine manufacturer of Gardasil is lying in order to make billions of $ in sales. Gardasil is vaccine for a Socially Transmitted Disease(STD). Any injury as a result of a Gardasil vaccine is one too many.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Bottom line Gardasil DOESN't prevent cancer. The vaccine manufacturer of Gardasil is lying in order to make billions of $ in sales. Gardasil is vaccine for a Socially Transmitted Disease(STD). Any injury as a result of a Gardasil vaccine is one too many.

Bottom line: That is not what the evidence, including that which you posted, says.

 

[Straw Man]

Bottom line Gardasil DOESN't prevent cancer.

Gardasil prevents certain strains of the human papillomavirus that cause cervical cancer. See? It gets there in the end.

The vaccine manufacturer of Gardasil is lying in order to make billions of $ in sales.

Are you a doctor Clayton, or head of a research lab that has carried out strenuous testing and investigations that proves this?

No.

It's all based on fantastical headlines you read and pseudo-scientific woo from the University of YouTube.

Your statement is baseless in the real world, and is the kind of thing that when listened to and believed by the similarly uninformed usually ends up with someone dying unnecessarily.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Gardasil prevents certain strains of the human papillomavirus that cause cervical cancer. See? It gets there in the end.



Are you a doctor Clayton, or head of a research lab that has carried out strenuous testing and investigations that proves this?

No.

It's all based on fantastical headlines you read and pseudo-scientific woo from the University of YouTube.

Your statement is baseless in the real world, and is the kind of thing that when listened to and believed by the similarly uninformed usually ends up with someone dying unnecessarily.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DF1F31F93AA2575BC0A96F9C8B63
Quote:

''There are not a huge number of side effects here, that's fairly certain,'' said the editorial writer, Dr. Charlotte Haug, an infectious disease expert from Norway, about the vaccine. ''But you are giving this to perfectly healthy young girls, so even a rare thing may be too much of a risk.

''I wouldn't accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she's older, she'll never get cervical cancer,'' Dr. Haug said in an interview. ''You don't have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.''

That guy is a doctor.

 

[Border Reiver]

First, Dr CHARLOTTE Haug would be female, not a guy.

Second, did you notice the part there about access to healthcare? Given the lamentable access to basic health care in the US arising from a lack of a national healthcare plan, and the high costs of getting regular checkups, let alone treatment in the US, vaccination is still likely preferable to not.

 

[Straw Man]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E2DF1F31F93AA2575BC0A96F9C8B63
Quote:



That guy is a doctor.

You are the one making the idiotic statement, Clayton. Doesn't matter that she is a doctor, you are the one who states

Bottom line Gardasil DOESN't prevent cancer. The vaccine manufacturer of Gardasil is lying in order to make billions of $ in sales. Gardasil is vaccine for a Socially Transmitted Disease(STD).

''I wouldn't accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she's older, she'll never get cervical cancer,'' Dr. Haug said in an interview. ''You don't have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.''

Did you read that quote? If she gets screened. If you have access to health care. What is the frequency of screening needed, and what happens if she ends up with the HPV virus in between?

 

[000063]

Bottom line Gardasil DOESN't prevent cancer. The vaccine manufacturer of Gardasil is lying in order to make billions of $ in sales. Gardasil is vaccine for a Socially Transmitted Disease(STD). Any injury as a result of a Gardasil vaccine is one too many.

Having realized that his usual techniques will be called out by the handsome and intelligent 000063, the wild Moore resorts to a classic tactic; ignoring all contrary information entirely to make unbacked "bottom-line" assertions. There seems to some confusion between GSK and Merck; perhaps this energetic little fellow is unable to distinguish between one company and another, or simply lumps them all under the banner "Big Pharma".

He also seems to fail to note that the exact same article he quoted clearly has a Doctor who says that no one can actually say that the vaccine caused any deaths whatsoever.

 

[dafydd]

He also seems to fail to note that the exact same article he quoted clearly has a Doctor who says that no one can actually say that the vaccine caused any deaths whatsoever.

He never does notice that kind of thing in the articles that he posts. i would recommend that he reins in a bit and actually reads all of the article before he posts it.

 

[TSR]

He never does notice that kind of thing in the articles that he posts. i would recommend that he reins in a bit and actually reads all of the article before he posts it.

"Read?"






What is this "read" thing to which you refer?







There has been no evidence whatever that CM's posts reflect any such reading, and copious evidence to show the opposite -- and that CM knows this, since very specific examples have been provided.

< edit to remove arguably a zeroeth violation involving CM's cited nine-year-old medical expert which I would appeal and while provably factually true, I simply don't have the energy right now to fight >

 

[jdc324]

''I wouldn't accept much risk of side effects at all in an 11-year-old girl, because if she gets screened when she's older, she'll never get cervical cancer,'' Dr. Haug said in an interview. ''You don't have to die from cervical cancer if you have access to health care.''

Did you read that quote? If she gets screened. If you have access to health care. What is the frequency of screening needed, and what happens if she ends up with the HPV virus in between?

You're right. That's a pretty big "if". In the UK, about 75% of those invited for a pap test in 2011-12 actually got tested: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/statistics.html and the CDC has a graph for the USA (for 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008): http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/screening.htm showing similar rates for women over 18 who've had a test in the last three years.

Here's an interesting thing about screening that Clayton might like to ponder...

I looked up the sensitivity of cervical screening. Wiki reckons it's 72% for the conventional pap test and 61-66% for the liquid-based cytology test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_screening The cancer.gov website: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/screening/cervical/HealthProfessional/page2#Section_54 says this: "In practice, ASCUS is often used as the test threshold, and CIN 1 is often used as the reference threshold. This combination gives a sensitivity of about 68% and a specificity of about 75%. A more appropriate test threshold may be LSIL, with a reference threshold of CIN 2–3. This combination gives a sensitivity of 70% to 80%, with a specificity of about 95%."

So, at best, the sensitivity of the test is 70-80%. I reckon that means that twenty to thirty percent of those tested who should test positive will actually get a false negative. This paper in Nature says that testing for HPV has been proposed: http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v7/n12/full/nrc2287.html due to the sensitivity of the Pap smear being low. The wiki page on cervical screening gives sensitivity of 88% to 91% (for detecting CIN 3 or higher) to 97% (for detecting CIN2+) for HPV testing.

I'm not sure why Professor Haug said that "if she gets screened when she's older, she'll never get cervical cancer", because those people who get false negatives won't be treated unless / until they have a subsequent positive pap test.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/ says that there has been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer thanks to pap tests and subsequent treatment. However, there were still over 12,000 cases in 2008 and 4,000 deaths.

So there are two problems with the proposal that screening offers perfect protection - there are those people who don't get screened and those people who have false negative tests.

(There's actually another problem with screening re the specificity of the test - women with false positives may be unnecessarily treated. In fact, there's another issue that isn't touched on by those who say that screening renders the vaccine unnecessary - although treatment following testing is low risk it is not entirely without risk. E.g. for cryosurgery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryosurgery#Results - "as with any medical treatment, there are risks involved, primarily that of damage to nearby healthy tissue. Damage to nerve tissue is of particular concern.")

Nothing is perfect - not the vaccine, not pap screening and not the treatments. The actual risks and actual benefits of each intervention have to be weighed up, it's no good pretending that one is perfect and that this makes another unnecessary. The vaccine (good, but imperfect protection) doesn't make pap screening redundant and nor does pap screening & treatment (both good, but neither perfect) make the vaccine redundant.

 

[000063]

...

Here's an interesting thing about screening that Clayton might like to ponder...

That seems unlikely, though I hope Clay might be able to provide a detailed response, for a change.

 

[Straw Man]

That seems unlikely, though I hope Clay might be able to provide a detailed response, for a change.

If you're lucky, you may get a Yootooob video.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why are you evading the vaxx>autism question, CM?

not sure if its been mentioned yet but there is an article on autism origins in this month's Scientific American

 

[Dcdrac]

That would involve indepth reading of some real technical medical information.....

 

[jdc324]

That would involve indepth reading of some real technical medical information.....

He's not been back to the thread for a few days. Maybe he is actually doing some in-depth reading...

[insert smiley here]

 

[Clayton Moore]

not sure if its been mentioned yet but there is an article on autism origins in this month's Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ron-cohen-autism-and-technical-mind-live-chat

Some evidence suggests that regions around the world where a lot of engineers and scientists live and marry—such as Silicon Valley in California and Eindhoven in the Netherlands—have higher than usual rates of autism.

Wow. Let's see. Whose children would be likely to receive every vaccine under the sun?

The refuse collector's children?

The day care worker's children?

The mail-person's children?

I can't figure that out.

Could it be a power couple with a plus 300k salary and mega medical benefits?

Leave it to Baron-Cohen to make up a preposterous whooper.

 

[TSR]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ron-cohen-autism-and-technical-mind-live-chat

Wow. Let's see. Whose children would be likely to receive every vaccine under the sun?

The refuse collector's children?

The day care worker's children?

The mail-person's children?

I can't figure that out.

Your posts indicate that there are many things you cannot figure out -- such as the benefits of actually reading your sources, the difference between bald assertion and proof, and the scientific method.

Could it be a power couple with a plus 300k salary and mega medical benefits?

Could it be safe shifting reptilians descended from Xenu?

If you have a point to make, make it.

Leave it to Baron-Cohen to make up a preposterous whooper.

I seem to have missed the part where you offered anything but your say-so and a sneer (which based on your posting history is because his name being vaguely Joosh) to show that anything in that article was wrong.

What's wrong -- don't like medical information from anyone who has passed puberty?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Your posts indicate that there are many things you cannot figure out -- such as the benefits of actually reading your sources, the difference between bald assertion and proof, and the scientific method.

Could it be safe shifting reptilians descended from Xenu?

If you have a point to make, make it.

I seem to have missed the part where you offered anything but your say-so and a sneer (which based on your posting history is because his name being vaguely Joosh) to show that anything in that article was wrong.

What's wrong -- don't like medical information from anyone who has passed puberty?

To help gather data to test these ideas, Baron-Cohen and his colleagues have created a Web site where parents can report what they studied in college, their occupations and whether or not their children have autism.

http://gp.cambridgepsychology.com/


Who can take part?

If you are a parent and a graduate you can take part. You will be asked questions about you, about your biological child(ren), and about the other parent of your biological child(ren). You can provide this information anonymously – we don’t need to know your names.

The study has been approved by the Psychology Research Ethics Committee at Cambridge University

This is freaking science?