Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Eos of the Eons]

overblow... overbloww..... we like to speculate and overblow... even though we don't knowwww a thing about microooobes...

 

[JJM]

Yes, I understand that there are confounding variables, but the fact that the correlations DO exist imply that there IS a relationship there {snip}

I remember paying $0.28 per gallon (and receiving a gift) for gasoline purchases. At the same time, the cost of computer power has plunged. What is that "relationship"?

Average life-expectancy has been increasing while the distance between the North American and European tectonic plates has increased. What is that "relationship"?

You do not (despite your claim) understand what is meant by correlation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, I understand that there are confounding variables, but the fact that the correlations DO exist imply that there IS a relationship there, ...

No it does not imply a relationship. And I'm not trying to insult you but you have the scientific concept here completely wrong and there is no other way to put it.

And Thank you, JJM.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your analogy isn't valid. Reducing heart attacks doesn't cause suicides and homicides.
And I was talking about mortality from invasive pneumococcal disease or bacterial meningitis...not all cause mortality.

I guess the real questions are:
1) How effective is PCV at preventing bacterial meningitis, pneumococcal and otherwise
2) What impact has it had on death from bacterial infections, pneumococcal and otherwise.
If it reduces the vaccine serotypes so well, but the overall trend is not affected, that implies a huge problem with replacement disease.

The analogy is not wrong and this discussion is suffering from losing track of the original discussion.

You claim fatalities from pneumococcal infections did not go down with vaccine use but the data CLEARLY showed the incidence of those infections went down. Then you claimed the fatalities stayed the same. I don't believe you had a clear reference for that but assuming it was the case, you have not shown the fatalities didn't go up for other causes but instead were replaced by the vaccine fatalities. Given the rise in antibiotic resistance, you have not proved the rate of death wouldn't have gone up and the vaccine held those rates down. You only offer one explanation for the data but other explanations have not been ruled out.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What a wonderful example of selective quoting to attempt to look smart by making someone else look dumb, JJM.

How about quoting everything Beth wrote on correlation:

Yes, I understand that there are confounding variables, but the fact that the correlations DO exist imply that there IS a relationship there, one strong enough to show up over time when I looked for it. However, it's perfectly reasonable to claim that vaccines are not the cause of the reduction in child mortality, but something else, such as a general improvement in health services, that is causing both effects. Correlation does not imply causation, only a relationship.

The ironic thing that all of you have not noticed is that most of the correlations Beth highlighted supported your point of view. I.e., vaccination appears to be related to a drop in child mortality.

But hey, Ivor, Beth and KellyB are the enemy, so let's ridicule them. How very...Human.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No it does not imply a relationship. And I'm not trying to insult you but you have the scientific concept here completely wrong and there is no other way to put it.

And Thank you, JJM.

Yes, it does imply a relationship. It just may not be a causal relationship.

 

[Acleron]

Many problems are amenable to different types of solutions. Ivor has a valid point regarding the bias different types of experts have towards particular methods of solving problems.
No. I don't think Ivor is suggesting this. I certainly am not when I try to discuss my concerns with bias on the part of the committee that makes recommendations for vaccines. This is basically what is called a 'straw man' argument.

Ivor's point about different types of backgrounds leading experts to different types of solutions is not only a valid point, but a solid argument for discounting (not ignoring) the policy recommendations of the ACIP committee here in the U.S. (I don't know about the U.K.) when they add a new vaccine to the schedule. If the risk of the disease is low for my child, then I am inclined to wait 10 years or more before getting my child the vaccine. That allows additional time for problems to surface and be corrected.

What???? Who do you want to advise you, uneducated idiots?

Also please state the precise difference between "discounting" and "ignoring".

I thought Skeptigirl was a little harsh on you, obviously I'm a bit naive in this forum.

Your logic about waiting 10 years could apply providing you will not complain if your child suffers severe morbidity or mortality in that period. See the problem?

 

[Beth]

I remember paying $0.28 per gallon (and receiving a gift) for gasoline purchases. At the same time, the cost of computer power has plunged. What is that "relationship"?

Average life-expectancy has been increasing while the distance between the North American and European tectonic plates has increased. What is that "relationship"?

You do not (despite your claim) understand what is meant by correlation.

Show me the actual data and prove your claimed correlations actually exist and I'll speculate on what their relationship is. Correlation does imply a relationship, just not a causal one. For example, drownings increase with ice cream sales. The correlation is quite strong. The relationship is that both increase with temperature. They have a common causal factor.

 

[Beth]

No it does not imply a relationship. And I'm not trying to insult you but you have the scientific concept here completely wrong and there is no other way to put it.

And Thank you, JJM.

I think you are the one who is mistaken, and I'm not trying to insult you either. Think about it. If a strong correlation does not imply a relationship, then what use is it? Why do we bother computing the numbers and testing whether a correlation exists?

In fact, any non-zero correlation implies that the two variables are not independent (i.e. they are related in some way) but in practice, small correlations are to be expected due to random chance alone. We can test correlations to see whether or not the meet the criteria to be considered statistically significant, but a general rule of thumb is a correlation of over .80 (or under -.80) is considered significant even for small sample sizes. There were strong inverse correlations between the measles vaccine and child mortality rates, though not for every country I tested. Why are you arguing that there is no relationship between the two.

 

[T.A.M.]

How about developing a safer delivery system for nicotine which still gives the instant 'hit' smoking does?

its called Nicoderm.

TAM

 

[Beth]

What???? Who do you want to advise you, uneducated idiots?

Are those my only choices? Am I not allowed to read the studies, the reasoning behind policy recommendations and make my own decisions?

Also please state the precise difference between "discounting" and "ignoring".

Discounting means giving the advice less weight and considering other sources of information. Ignoring means giving the advice a weight of zero.

I thought Skeptigirl was a little harsh on you, obviously I'm a bit naive in this forum.

Your logic about waiting 10 years could apply providing you will not complain if your child suffers severe morbidity or mortality in that period. See the problem?

No. My 10 year wait rule would be waived for a new vaccine that came out for a deadly contagious disease that was sweeping my local area. Different risk levels would mean making different choices. But when the risk of the disease is low, I'm more comfortable waiting than I am jumping on the vaccine bandwagon. For example, the rotovirus vaccine was withdrawn from the market (I think it was reformulated but I don't recall now) and the Hepatitus B vaccine was reformulated to make it safer. So far, I've been pleased with the results of my decisions.

 

[T.A.M.]

How about Measles, Mumps, Rubella, etc...any speculation as to WHY the risk of getting these diseases is low??

TAM

 

[Beth]

How about Measles, Mumps, Rubella, etc...any speculation as to WHY the risk of getting these diseases is low??

TAM

While some may disagree, personally I think a large part of the reason the risk of those diseases is low is due to widespread vaccination.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How about Measles, Mumps, Rubella, etc...any speculation as to WHY the risk of getting these diseases is low??

TAM

It's because MMR vaccine coverage in the West is 80-90%+, thus, if one individual does become infected, susceptibles do not interact with each other often enough to spread the disease.

That doesn't apply for diseases such as Meningitis C or Hepatitis B though, which are pretty rare in the first place and usually require close contact with an infected individual to stand a reasonable chance of being passed on.

Then you have the highly contagious but (in the vast majority of cases) mild diseases such as chickenpox. I doubt mass infant vaccination against it makes a blip in a graph of child mortality or morbidity.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it does imply a relationship. It just may not be a causal relationship.

If by "relationship" you mean "happened at the same time or one after another", then sure. Otherwise, wrong.

 

[Belz...]

In fact, any non-zero correlation implies that the two variables are not independent (i.e. they are related in some way) but in practice, small correlations are to be expected due to random chance alone.

Woah. So if crime increases in Gabon, and then the number of arrests increase in NYC, it implies a relationship ?

 

[JJM]

Show me the actual data and prove your claimed correlations actually exist and I'll speculate on what their relationship is. Correlation does imply a relationship, just not a causal one. For example, drownings increase with ice cream sales. The correlation is quite strong. The relationship is that both increase with temperature. They have a common causal factor.

Let me get this straight, you don't know that the price of gasoline has increased while the price of computer power has declined since gas cost $0.28, around 40 years ago? You don't know that the continents have been drifting apart, concomitant with life expectancy that has been increasing in the last 100-150 years??

Wow! It beggars belief. Those facts are common knowledge, like "if your heart stops you die" (without medical intervention). (There is a relationship, there.) I don't keep citations to common knowledge.

For the sake of argument, assume that my claims are factual (as you must know they are); what are the relationships?

 

[robinson]

Off topic conversations will be moved to AAH. Start a new topic or else.

 

[robinson]

I remember paying $0.28 per gallon (and receiving a gift) for gasoline purchases. At the same time, the cost of computer power has plunged. What is that "relationship"?

Your mind? That would be the only thing I can think of that connects the two. 28 cents a gallon and computer power increasing don't go together in time at all.

Average life-expectancy has been increasing while the distance between the North American and European tectonic plates has increased. What is that "relationship"?

They are occurring at the same time? What does this have to do with vaccinations?

 

[Beth]

Let me get this straight, you don't know that the price of gasoline has increased while the price of computer power has declined since gas cost $0.28, around 40 years ago? You don't know that the continents have been drifting apart, concomitant with life expectancy that has been increasing in the last 100-150 years??

Wow! It beggars belief. Those facts are common knowledge, like "if your heart stops you die" (without medical intervention). (There is a relationship, there.) I don't keep citations to common knowledge.

For the sake of argument, assume that my claims are factual (as you must know they are); what are the relationships?

Those facts are common knowledge. You are claiming correlations exist. That's a very specific mathematical relationship. Get the data, compute the correlation coefficient and show that it's value is statistically significantly different from zero. Then I'll comment on the relationships.

Oh, and you should probably start a new thread for it as it's off topic for this one.