Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Stamuel]

Clayton,

Did you actually read the study? It's free on the Internet- you can easily download it. If you do, you will see one glaring problem: the number of hospitalizations for 1 vaccination was greater than for 6, and therefore they decided the single vaccination datum was an outlier that needed to be ignored when performing the rest of their analysis. Somehow that important piece of information was not in the abstract quoted by naturenews.com. Further, due to their database, they had no control for unvaccinated children

If all the data was included in this analysis, it looks to me as if there would be no significant statistical correlation between vaccinations and hospitalizations. Or, if we accept their data at face value, it would be better to get 6 vaccinations at one time rather than 1.

I read the study. I am trying to understand the methodology. They calculated hospitalization and mortality rate thus:

The hospitalization rate corresponding to each dose was computed by dividing the number of reported hospitalizations among infants for a given dose by the total number of VAERS reports received having that same given dose. The mortality rate was similarly computed, and both hospitalization and mortality rates were multiplied by a factor of 100 to yield a percentage figure.

Does this mean that they are not asking how likely kids are to be hospitalized? It looks like they are asking the question, "Assume you do have a reaction reported to VAERS. How likely is that it was a reaction that required hospitalization?" So, if you are one fourth as likely to have an adverse reaction if you get more vaccines, but you are one half as likely to be hospitalized, the hospitalization rate given in the paper will be twice as high for more vaccines even though the chance of hospitalization is lower?

Is this right? Why should we care about these stats about fractions of VAERS reports rather than risks? Or am I reading it wrong?

 

[Giordano]

I read the study. I am trying to understand the methodology. They calculated hospitalization and mortality rate thus:



Does this mean that they are not asking how likely kids are to be hospitalized? It looks like they are asking the question, "Assume you do have a reaction reported to VAERS. How likely is that it was a reaction that required hospitalization?" So, if you are one fourth as likely to have an adverse reaction if you get more vaccines, but you are one half as likely to be hospitalized, the hospitalization rate given in the paper will be twice as high for more vaccines even though the chance of hospitalization is lower?

Is this right? Why should we care about these stats about fractions of VAERS reports rather than risks? Or am I reading it wrong?

I missed that! I think you are right in your interpretation, which strongly questions what the authors' results really mean. For me, their throwing out the single vaccination datum was what invalidated the study in my eyes. I guess that the quality of peer review depends on who are your peers.

 

[Giordano]

Think about it and you may understand.

I read it, thought about it, understood it, and I provided my conclusions for your consideration. Which of those steps did you get through?

Do you think a demeaning comment that clearly doesn't relate to my post is an effective response?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,
Perhaps you overlooked this link in one of my recent posts:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx.

So it appears that the safety of the current vaccine schedule has been tested! That makes nature news.com (choose one) (a) a trustworthy scientific organization or (b) an untrustworthy location from which to get your information?

I doubt that.

 

[ehcks]

I doubt that.

You doubt what? That (a) is true, or that (b) is true?

You obfuscate your points enough as it is, but when you fail to answer what is effectively a true or false question, it starts to seem like you're not serious at all.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,

Did you actually read the study? It's free on the Internet- you can easily download it. If you do, you will see one glaring problem: the number of hospitalizations for 1 vaccination was greater than for 6, and therefore they decided the single vaccination datum was an outlier that needed to be ignored when performing the rest of their analysis. Somehow that important piece of information was not in the abstract quoted by naturenews.com. Further, due to their database, they had no control for unvaccinated children

If all the data was included in this analysis, it looks to me as if there would be no significant statistical correlation between vaccinations and hospitalizations. Or, if we accept their data at face value, it would be better to get 6 vaccinations at one time rather than 1.

Truth be told I take your input, as well meaning as it may be, with a few grains of salt.

http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.full

Conclusion

VAERS is one of the largest databases containing adverse reactions reported in temporal association with vaccination. While some adverse events that are reported to VAERS may be unrelated to the recent vaccination, the VAERS database is an important postmarketing safety surveillance tool that is periodically analyzed by the CDC, FDA, and other vaccine researchers to discover potentially adverse vaccination trends. Using linear regression, several statistically significant trends were derived from the VAERS database: (a) a positive correlation between hospitalization rates and the number of vaccine doses (r 2 = 0.91); (b) a negative correlation between hospitalization rates and age (r 2 = 0.95); (c) an increased mortality rate associated with 5–8 vaccines relative to 1–4 vaccines; (d) a decreased mortality rate associated with children aged 0.5 to <1 year relative to those aged <0.5 year; and (e) a 1.4 male-to-female infant mortality ratio. These trends not only have a biological plausibility but are supported by evidence from case reports, case series, and other studies using entirely different methodologies and specific population cohorts.

Studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of administering multiple vaccine doses in a variety of combinations as recommended by CDC guidelines. Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to VAERS. In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. Since vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive; universal vaccine recommendations must be supported by such studies.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You doubt what? That (a) is true, or that (b) is true?

You obfuscate your points enough as it is, but when you fail to answer what is effectively a true or false question, it starts to seem like you're not serious at all.

I didn't see a report. I didn't see any facts about the safety of the pre 2 year old vaccine schedule.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies

Report at a Glance
Press Release (HTML)
Report Brief (PDF, HTML)

 

[Giordano]

I doubt that.

Do you doubt that you overlooked my prior post, doubt that the safety of the current vaccination schedule has been tested, or doubt both choices in the binary question I asked you?

(Sorry, ehcks's post appeared while I was composing this post. I guess we both were confused by Clayton's response)

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder

Quote:
Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies

You gotta love the word stakeholder. I wonder how long that will be used by the stakeholders?

Really! It screams and reeks SPECIAL INTERESTS.

 

[Giordano]

I didn't see a report. I didn't see any facts about the safety of the pre 2 year old vaccine schedule.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/The-Childhood-Immunization-Schedule-and-Safety.aspx

Click on the link, look on the right side of the page where it says, "Get this report." Then click on "Read report on line for free."

It's hundreds of pages, so there are lots of facts and data- you will enjoy it.

By the way, does this mean that you rejected this report ("I doubt it") before even reading it?

 

[Giordano]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder




You gotta love the word stakeholder. I wonder how long that will be used by the stakeholders?

Really! It screams and reeks SPECIAL INTERESTS.

It was performed by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, a independent USA organization of the top scientists and doctors in the country. It is not funded by drug companies. Their reports are extremely well respected for their accuracy and fairness.

I have a suggestion- perhaps your opinion would be more respected (yes one can use that word as a verb, in contrast to your view in another thread) if you read the report before posting a dismissal of it, and if you researched the organization responsible for the report before attempting to smear them.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Pages 8-9 and 69 pretty much say that no Vaccine Schedule study was done before the Vaccine Schedules were put into effect/recommended. They also pretty much say that the studies that they considered valid for THEIR study were FEW and far between.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=8

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=69

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=2

Page 2 spoke volumes.

 

[Giordano]

Truth be told I take your input, as well meaning as it may be, with a few grains of salt.

http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012.full

Did you read the entire publication? Do you see where they deleted the data for the single vaccination reports when plotting their graph and performing their statistical analysis? Its hard to miss- it's in red. Do you understand that if the data for single vaccinations was included, it would invalidate their statistics and their conclusions (yes, the conclusions you blithely cite in your post). Do you see from the same figure that if one takes their data at face value it says that 6 vaccines at one time cause less hospitalizations than one vaccination? It is an inescapable conclusion from their own data.

If you have a specific scientific reason to dispute any of what I am stating here, please provide it. I am also happy to explain any part that might be unclear or confusing.

Added to my own concerns, you really should.read and think about ehcks's objections to the authors' conclusions.

 

[Giordano]

Pages 8-9 and 69 pretty much say that no Vaccine Schedule study was done before the Vaccine Schedules were put into effect/recommended. They also pretty much say that the studies that they considered valid for THEIR study were FEW and far between.


http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=8

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=69

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=2

Page 2 spoke volumes.

So you dismiss a report written by the top doctors and epidemiologists in the country, a 285 page fairly technical report that you apparently read in less that 37 minutes ( that's more than a page every ten seconds), because they left page 2 blank? And you expect me to take your conclusions seriously?

You should at least have waited overnight before posting, so you could pretend to actually have read the report and thought about it, rather than frantically skimming it for a few minutes looking for a typo. Finally, the actual report does not "pretty much say" what you think it says. It describes the limitations of the various approaches and why they chose the analysis they performed. In fact, what you point out as weaknesses are illustrations of the report s balance and fairness, in contrast to your earlier claim of bias.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So you dismiss a report written by the top doctors and epidemiologists in the country, a 285 page fairly technical report that you apparently read in less that 37 minutes ( that's more than a page every ten seconds), because they left page 2 blank? And you expect me to take your conclusions seriously?

You should at least have waited overnight before posting, so you could pretend to actually have read the report and thought about it, rather than frantically skimming it for a few minutes looking for a typo. Finally, the actual report does not "pretty much say" what you think it says. It describes the limitations of the various approaches and why they chose the analysis they performed. In fact, what you point out as weaknesses are illustrations of the report s balance and fairness, in contrast to your earlier claim of bias.

I read 10 pages in about 10 minutes and jumped around a bit.

This was interesting.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13563&page=15

Page 1-1 "Children may.................. receive up to 5 injections in a single visit.

Prompting me to google around. I spotted the most frightening vaccine insanity I've ever read. Other than those who considered a study that gave AVA to babies.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm

Depending on which vaccines are administered during the first year of life, a child might receive up to nine injections at the 12- through 15-month visit (MMR, varicella, Hib, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine [PCV], pediatric diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis [DTaP], inactivated poliovirus [IPV], hepatitis A, hepatitis B, and influenza vaccines). Although there is no exact limit on the number of injections, with a little flexibility, a provider can ensure that the primary series doses are given without administering too many injections at each visit. To reduce the number of injections at the 12- through 15-month visit, the hepatitis B series and 3 doses of IPV (20) can be administered before the child's first birthday.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes they may. Is that a problem?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yes they may. Is that a problem?

I know healthy adults 21-50 who get thrown for a loop by a LONE flu shot.

 

[dafydd]

I read 10 pages in about 10 minutes and jumped around a bit.

So you gave it your usual thorough perusal. Now I know why you link to sites that disagree with you.

 

[dafydd]

I know healthy adults 21-50 who get thrown for a loop by a LONE flu shot.

I know many who don't. Would it be possible for you to drop the juvenile emoticons?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I also think it's odd that Clayton would ask "tough" questions, but then settle for the easy (satisfying) answers, when we all know that the real answers are usually not satisfying, and not easy either.

For someone who doesn't accept the "official story", he sure does go for the ones that are most often given as alternatives.

Say Clayton, why don't you look for the answers yourself, in stead of repeating other conspiracy theorists.

Here's an idea for you to try: Maybe the conspiracy theories that are most common are actually thought up by the government to keep people from making up even more absurd ones.


Ever thought of that?

On topic though:

Of all the people with autism that I've met, I couldn't say that any of them would be better off dead.

Care to contradict me on that, only to ignore the rest of my post?

I'd love to hear your input on my bolded statement, Clayton.