Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why not simply submit this to a medical journal? Do I have to do all your thinking for you?

Because it would not make any difference to you, to the correctness of my argument, or my conclusions. For example, didn't a person called Andrew Wakefield get published in a highly respected medical journal? Using your sycophantic reasoning, that would make his work of high quality and his conclusions almost certainly correct.

Besides the very poor reasoning in your thinking, I've already posted links to such studies, one for the cost-effectiveness of the Varicella vaccine in the UK, the other for an alternative schedule for the Men. C vaccination, again in the UK. Did you bother to read them, or do you know the answers already?

 

[JJM]

Why not publish in a good, medical journal?

Because it would not make any difference to you, to the correctness of my argument, or my conclusions. For example, didn't a person called Andrew Wakefield get published in a highly respected medical journal? Using your sycophantic reasoning, that would make his work of high quality and his conclusions almost certainly correct.

{snip} [Why don't I read your cites? JJM]

Generally, I leave reading the literature to health professionals. Specifically, if you cannot present your ideas to a proper journal, I will not waste my time reading them. There is just too much nonsense for me to read each person's pet ideas. Good peer review helps me budget my time.

The Wakefield example is instructive. (Wakefield published some shoddy, and wrong, research.) It illustrates that peer-review does not prove an article is correct. In science, after publication of an idea it is discussed among professionals and the results are adopted or rejected. Bad articles show up in the best journals; imagine how many more bad articles are rejected (thus, saving me from reading them).

ETA: Wow, did I screw up this post. I have heavily edited it. In the future, I will wait for the second cup of coffee to take effect. Apologies to anyone confused or offended.

 

[Capsid]

Because it would not make any difference to you, to the correctness of my argument, or my conclusions. For example, didn't a person called Andrew Wakefield get published in a highly respected medical journal? Using your sycophantic reasoning, that would make his work of high quality and his conclusions almost certainly correct.

I don't think there was too much wrong with Wakefield's paper; he only used 12 kids to base his conclusions on, but it was at the press conference where he recommended single vaccines rather than the combined MMR that the brown stuff hit the swirly thing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Generally, I leave reading the literature to health professionals. Specifically, if you cannot present your ideas to a proper journal, I will not waste my time reading them. There is just too much nonsense for me to read each person's pet ideas. Good peer review helps me budget my time.

<snip>

Then why are you here, on the JREF forum, if "there is just too much nonsense for you to read each person's pet ideas"?

BTW, there's a really easy way for you to not have to read any of my (or anyone else's) pet ideas, it's called 'ignore'. Please feel free to use it.

 

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons
I can put together data that supports the moon is made of green cheese.

No you can't. That is a dumb statement, and doesn't mean anything.

I suggest you try google moon

 

[JJM]

Then why are you here, on the JREF forum, if "there is just too much nonsense for you to read each person's pet ideas"?

There is good information posted here, by health professionals.

BTW, there's a really easy way for you to not have to read any of my (or anyone else's) pet ideas, it's called 'ignore'. Please feel free to use it.

I only stopped to post a link I thought may be relevant. I stayed a bit because you challenged it. And, I find your pleadings, here, somewhat amusing.

Perhaps you post good information in other threads.

 

[JJM]

I don't think there was too much wrong with Wakefield's paper; he only used 12 kids to base his conclusions on, {snip}

Read this, and the links embedded within, there was not too much right with the paper:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/09/send_a_message_to_andrew_wakefield.php

The author is an academic physician; but, more importantly, a molecular biologist who is well qualified to evaluate Wakefield's work in molecular biology.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

JJM's information filter:

When a doctor or nurse posts information produced by health professionals, it's good information worth reading.

When Ivor (and presumably anyone else who is not a doctor or nurse) posts information produced by health professionals, it's bad information not worth reading.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No Ivor, that is not what JJM is saying at all. He is saying your arguments are not convincing.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No Ivor, that is not what JJM is saying at all. He is saying your arguments are not convincing.

Here's what he said:

Generally, I leave reading the literature to health professionals. Specifically, if you cannot present your ideas to a proper journal, I will not waste my time reading them. There is just too much nonsense for me to read each person's pet ideas. Good peer review helps me budget my time.

So unless my comments are in a "proper" journal, JJM will not read them, which means he has managed to dismiss my arguments without reading them!

Even if I do post professionals' comments from "proper" journals, he will not read them, either.

 

[JJM]

{snip} So unless my comments are in a "proper" journal, JJM will not read them, which means he has managed to dismiss my arguments without reading them!

If you don't think they are worth publishing, you must have dismissed them (yourself) as not worth reading.

Even if I do post professionals' comments from "proper" journals, he will not read them, either.

Life is sooo unfair.

I am not prepared to evaluate medical articles. I identify health professionals who seem reliable, and I attend their opinions. Note: publication is the first step in acceptance. Evaluation by the broader group of experts is the second step; that is what I await. You should, too.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If you don't think they are worth publishing, you must have dismissed them (yourself) as not worth reading.

No, I thought my arguments were so bloody obvious anyone of average intellect and above could grasp what I was saying.

Life is sooo unfair.

I am not prepared to evaluate medical articles. I identify health professionals who seem reliable, and I attend their opinions. Note: publication is the first step in acceptance. Evaluation by the broader group of experts is the second step; that is what I await. You should, too.

Well you are a fool, then. Cost-effectiveness in health care is as much a value judgment as one of efficiency. But hey, if your happy to let a few "experts" decide for you what's an ethically right and wrong way to spend your money, that's your choice. I, on the other hand, will think for myself.

 

[JJM]

{snip} I, on the other hand, will think for myself.

We had (have?) a beloved sports figure, who did not use the best grammar; but who was (is?) famous for his insight. He said "If you don't think too good, don't think too much."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Vaccination Gestapo?

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-11-16-07.php

Washington, D.C. -- The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons today condemned the “vaccine roundup” executed in Prince George’s county Maryland this week, and promised to do everything it can to support parents who refuse to immunize their children.

“This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights,” said Kathryn Serkes, director of policy for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the few national physician groups that refuse corporate funding from pharmaceutical companies.

In a scenario reminiscent of cattle round-ups, the state’s attorney has issued summons to more than 1600 parents of children who have not provided certificates of immunization for their children. But instead of toting a cattle prod, this state’s attorney chooses to wield a syringe to keep the “herd” in line.

Parents have been told to appear in Court on Saturday, and to subject their children to on-the-spot state-mandated vaccines of up 17 vaccine doses, or face imprisonment. Parents who ignore the court’s demands could face a $50 fine for every day their child is out of compliance or up to 10 days in jail.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The AAPS also oppose abortion and over the counter access to emergency contraception.

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Will the NY Times do?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18vaccine.html

The families appeared at the request of Judge C. Philip Nichols Jr. of Prince George’s County Circuit Court, who is in charge of juvenile issues. Judge Nichols had sent letters this week to the homes of more than 800 households with children in public schools, strongly recommending that the children be immunized Saturday at the courthouse, where health department workers had set up tables to process paperwork and give shots, or that parents prove that the children had already been immunized in accordance with state law.

This year, the State of Maryland added the requirement that children have shots for hepatitis B and chickenpox in addition to other vaccinations including polio, mumps and measles.

That letter came on the heels of another sent on Nov. 1, by the Prince George’s County state’s attorney, Glenn F. Ivey, informing parents that their children would be withdrawn from school until the school received proof of vaccination. The letter also informed parents that if their children were not attending school, they might be subject to criminal charges with a maximum penalty of 10 days in jail and a fine of $50 per day of absence.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I've alreay stated that I'm not in favour of penalising children for their parent's decisions - even though it does lead to better compliance (and therefore less chance of seeing disease outbreaks due to media scares). I just thought you might like to be a bit more careful of what sources you use.

 

[Belz...]

Vaccination Gestapo?

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-11-16-07.php

 

[JJM]

The AAPS is a crackpot organization. That does not make them wrong; but one should be wary.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/11/prince_georges_county_courthouse_protest.php

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yeah, Prof. Yaffle has pointed that out. Reading some of the comments at the end of the blog you linked to JJM gives an idea of how not having all the standard vaccinations is turning children and their parents into pariahs:

Threatening to imprison parents seems like a bad idea - heavy-handed and potentially counter-productive. I don't have a problem with them excluding the little germ magnets until they get a vaccination though.

Posted by: James | November 19, 2007 11:01 PM

...

Instead of trying to coerce people to get vaccinated, how about giving them a choice between vaccination and living in a quarantined location where their non-immune status would not threaten the public health of the rest of us?

Posted by: Harriet Hall | November 20, 2007 7:39 PM

Are these comments typical of how people here feel about unvaccinated children being around them and their family?

If so, what do you think of the people from countries that do not routinely vaccinate children against such conditions as Hep. A & B, Varicella, etc.?

Who and what are driving this intolerance, and is it not similar in its irrationality (though not in degree) to the claims made by anti-vaccination groups?