Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[r-j]

OMG I can't believe what I just read. He is saying the exact same thing I am about vaccines, in this case the Flu vaccines.

This is not to say that these and other studies, taken together, suggest that vaccines don't work for the elderly. The answer is a question mark. We don't know what protection, if any, vaccines offer. I don't think that's a bad thing. Uncertainty is the motor of science. We need large studies to find out.

OMG!!! We need studies to find out!! And then?

Why do you think such studies have not been done?
I don't know. We've known for years that we needed proof one way or the other, and governments have not taken any notice of this. It's an extraordinary situation.

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004...-its-complications-in-people-aged-65-or-older

Can you believe that? It's so, so, sensible and honest. He must be a quack.

The whole thing is long and boring but you should read it.

On Feb. 16, the Cochrane Library published your updated review of all major studies on the efficacy of flu vaccines for the elderly, some of the results of which you believe to be preposterous. Can you explain?
We looked at studies on vaccines in the elderly and in health care workers who work with the elderly, and we found an implausible sequence of results. We have studies that claim up to 90% effectiveness against death from all causes [in inoculated patients compared with the nonvaccinated]. If you were to believe that evidence, you would believe that flu vaccine is effective against death not only from influenza, but also from heart attack, stroke, hypothermia, accidents and all other common causes of death among the elderly. That is quite clearly nonsense.

This is not to say that these and other studies, taken together, suggest that vaccines don't work for the elderly. The answer is a question mark. We don't know what protection, if any, vaccines offer. I don't think that's a bad thing. Uncertainty is the motor of science. We need large studies to find out.

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004...-its-complications-in-people-aged-65-or-older

Logic and reason. Just like I have been saying. And the argument we hear all the time?

One argument I've heard is that it would be unethical to compare vaccines against a placebo because you would be withholding crucial treatment from patients. Do you agree?
No. We don't know these vaccines work, so you can't make that claim. But if you really find placebos to be unethical, then why don't you randomize against masks, hand-washing, gloves, distancing — public health measures that have proven to be effective?

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004...-its-complications-in-people-aged-65-or-older

Now you can't say we don't know the MMR works, but that doesn't mean a study can't be easily done.

 

[Dcdrac]

The Study you propose would be unethical and possibly illegal it is asking for the moon.

What you propose is "wakefiled" like study highly unethical.

We do know MMR works there is plenty of evidence that it does and plenty of evidence that when MMR uptake drops measles epidemics follow not long afterwards.

Did you choose to ignore what happened in North England as evidenced and reported?

NONE that it cuases it autism

 

[Estellea]

No, you did not. And I got the data from the BBC, as I told you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

That's not what you said though; you said this:

Oh for Pete's sake. In England they are crying about how only 60% of children have been vaccinated with the MMR. In the US there is a huge population that refuses all vaccines (religion or some other idiotic rational), just one sect alone has 20,000 unvaccinated children in the last decade.

Parts of England isn't all of England. Furthermore, you are using a seven year-old article, vaccine rates have been increasing since then and what (again) do you propose to study on some children who haven't received MMR?

There is nothing unethical about doing a study on vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations. If the only difference is refusing the MMR vaccine, it's the best evidence to show the MMR has no effect on autism (or anything else), and it would show the effectiveness of the vaccines.

What is the study design before you deem anything not unethical? The effectiveness of MMR is well-established, I gave you a link dump regarding that and you don't seem to know how to use PubMed. What are your outcomes for an unvaxx v. vaxx study? Why won't you answer this?

It's funny that we are seeing claims that no study could be done, it would be unethical, and at the same time "the studies have already been done."

The one thing we are not seeing, is any study.

Except I gave you a link for a study underway that will examine numerous factors and health outcomes from in utero to 21 years old. Why are you dodging this also?

Este

 

[Estellea]

The Study you propose would be unethical and possibly illegal it is asking for the moon.

What you propose is "wakefiled" like study highly unethical.

We do know MMR works there is plenty of evidence that it does and plenty of evidence that when MMR uptake drops measles epidemics follow not long afterwards.

Did you choose to ignore what happened in North England as evidenced and reported?

NONE that it cuases it autism

R-J refuses to outline the study design and outcomes along with sample power so we can't say whether it's unethical or not. Until he does, he's just barking at the moon with the rest of the nutter anti-vaxxers.

Este

 

[r-j]

I gave you a link for a study underway that will examine numerous factors and health outcomes from in utero to 21 years old. Why are you dodging this also?

Leave off the snark and insulting tone and we might have a conversation.

I read the link, and told you that was just the sort of thing I was asking about. That such studies have not been done up until now is a travesty.

It's probably a reason the scared people afraid of vaccines and side effects don't trust you. That you offer insults, call people crazy, and smugly insists you know things that you don't know, that makes a lot of people not trust you.

 

[r-j]

But since it keeps coming up, lets discuss. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7076-autism-rises-despite-mmr-ban-in-japan.html
Again, since 40% of children are not vaccinated in some parts of the UK, do a study and show that it didn't matter. That is the sort of real science that people can't argue with. They can ignore it, but real science is clear and shows the truth of the matter.

Your attempts at nitpicking won't change what is. I said clearly what was what, and explained that it would make it easy to do a study on just the MMR in parts of the UK.

That you can't seem to understand this is a little strange. What is your problem?

 

[Dcdrac]

R-J read this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC557899/

"Is one dose of MMR adequate for mumps prevention?

Premarketing serological response rates of 95% to mumps vaccine were reported, although estimates since have ranged from 60% to 90%.22 The discrepancy is explained by a 15% seronegativity rate after one year in children initially responding to vaccination,23 and data showing very low concentrations of mumps antibody in around a quarter of children two to four years later.24 In light of this, outbreaks in schools with high single dose MMR coveragew9 are not altogether surprising.

A second dose of MMR increases the mumps seropositivity rate to 95% and leads to higher sustained antibody concentrations.25 A second MMR dose was introduced into the routine immunisation schedule in the UK in 1996.9 Although a catch-up programme was conducted at this time, people born before 1990 may have had only one dose of MMR vaccine, therefore expanding the pool of susceptible people in the current epidemic.
Go to:
Conclusions

The initial success of MMR vaccination in controlling mumps has been compromised in recent years with sporadic outbreaks. Since 2004 the number of reported and confirmed cases of mumps has increased, culminating in the current epidemic. As a result, doctors once again need to include mumps in the differential diagnosis of a broad range of conditions in adults and children. This epidemic underlines the importance of ensuring that all children and young adults have received two doses of MMR."

 

[Dcdrac]

I am not nit pickong I am pointing out you need to read the avaialble research the answers are already there, the research you are demanding be done is pie in the sky.

maybe you should keep an eye on developments here as it come close to your fantasy research demand

http://www.msf.org.uk/DRC_measles_20121220.news

 

[r-j]

We just saw a study that is going to be done, pretty much like I was talking about.

So we have this situation where all kinds of claims are being made.

"It's impossible to do a study"
"It's already been done"
"It's not needed"
"It's going to be done"
"What kind of a study do you mean?"

I'm glad this group isn't in charge of our medical well being!

 

[Dcdrac]

And this too you need to keep tabs on this as reality has provided what you demand

http://www.msf.org.uk/DRC_measles_outbreak_20130228.news

Are you saying Medicin San Fortiers is needlessly vaccinating previously unvaccinated people needlessly?

I jsut hope they get the resources to increase this effort and save more lives.

 

[r-j]

That poor country is a good example of how science could use tragedy (and it is terrible) to both study and help people out. What is the autism rate in that country? Of course there are all kinds of factors that make it impossible to compare to a modern society. But they could certainly gather data on a large unvaccinated population, then vaccinate them. Then see what happens. That's not unethical at all.

If you have a huge population of unvaccinated people, you actually have the perfect situation to do a before and after study. of course it will cost a lot of money. But not anywhere close to what the US spends in a day on the wars.

OK that is pure speculation. But I would bet it is not far off.

 

[r-j]

Didn't the world eliminate smallpox by vaccinating pretty much everyone? Measles seems like a much easier task.

(edit)

http://zeenews.india.com/news/jharkhand/small-pox-resurfaces-in-jharkhand_695012.html

What the hell?

 

[Giordano]

Didn't the world eliminate smallpox by vaccinating pretty much everyone? Measles seems like a much easier task.

(edit)

http://zeenews.india.com/news/jharkhand/small-pox-resurfaces-in-jharkhand_695012.html

What the hell?

Did you notice the original date of that article, March 23, 2011? And that the claim was by local media and not by medical people?

And no, it was not smallpox: http://www.sify.com/news/no-small-pox-in-jharkhand-officials-news-health-ldxuknedjcc.html

 

[Estellea]

Leave off the snark and insulting tone and we might have a conversation.

I read the link, and told you that was just the sort of thing I was asking about. That such studies have not been done up until now is a travesty.

It's probably a reason the scared people afraid of vaccines and side effects don't trust you. That you offer insults, call people crazy, and smugly insists you know things that you don't know, that makes a lot of people not trust you.

It's not snark to repeatedly ask you to put some thought into what you are asking for. Only then you will see the difficulties. But it's easy to just mindlessly whinge about a vaxx v. unvaxx study isn't it? You have the benefit of hindsight and also some ignorance. It's always easy to look backwards and brazenly declare it's something we should have been looked at all along. You are also ignorant of what goes into a large study design and they just don't materialise with someone proclaiming, "Hey, this would be great to study, who's in?"

Do you have any idea how many really great study proposals get rejected just out of budgetary shortages? Why aren't you on the anti-vaxx sites challenging them to put up or shut up? They are the ones, after all who won't accept any study that exhonerates vaccines. They are the ones who repeatedly fund piddly, sneakily-designed studies and fabricated results to show what they want them to show.

Your attempts at nitpicking won't change what is. I said clearly what was what, and explained that it would make it easy to do a study on just the MMR in parts of the UK.

That you can't seem to understand this is a little strange. What is your problem?

Forty percent of part of a country as opposed to 40% of an entire country is hardly a nitpick. You won't even put a modicum of thought into what you would do with the small number of un/undervaccinated children. What are you looking for and is it a large enough sample size? Show your work and quit repeating yourself already.

Este

 

[r-j]

Vaccines have been used for a long time now, what long term side effects do you think we are seeing?

I have no idea, and nobody else does either, from a science point of view.

 

[Estellea]

That poor country is a good example of how science could use tragedy (and it is terrible) to both study and help people out. What is the autism rate in that country? Of course there are all kinds of factors that make it impossible to compare to a modern society. But they could certainly gather data on a large unvaccinated population, then vaccinate them. Then see what happens. That's not unethical at all.

If you have a huge population of unvaccinated people, you actually have the perfect situation to do a before and after study. of course it will cost a lot of money. But not anywhere close to what the US spends in a day on the wars.

OK that is pure speculation. But I would bet it is not far off.

This is why you have a lot of nerve for thinking such an undertaking is sooo easy. These are countries who don't even have enough food or water or shelter, are ravaged by infectious diseases, infant and child mortality, no infrastructure, wars and corrupt governments. People have to walk hundreds of kilometers to get some medical attention. Sure, we'll just send that team of developmental paediatricains in there to conduct evaluations on thousands of children in remote areas using impassable "roads" before and after they can be vaccinated to satisfy some ignorant laypeople. Great plan skippy.

Este

 

[Capsid]

I have no idea, and nobody else does either, from a science point of view.

Don't you think they would have been obvious by now?

Didn't the world eliminate smallpox by vaccinating pretty much everyone? Measles seems like a much easier task.

No! They only had to vaccinate the immediate vicinity of an outbreak.

Measles is very contagious and not the same at all.

 

[r-j]

Nobody said it would be easy. It wouldn't even be easy in the UK to just compare MMR vs no MMR. If it was easy, it would already be done.

 

[r-j]

What I am saying, and it is simplistic, is that when somebody is afraid of autism or side effects from vaccines, science based medicine should be able to explain why we know it isn't happening. Just saying it can't isn't science. Calling people crazy isn't science. And claiming something with no evidence isn't science.

You want to win this battle, you are going to need science, not belief.

 

[Capsid]

There have been good studies showing that vaccines don't cause autism. Maybe you'd care to discuss those in more detail?

What other long term side effects are out there? Adverse side effects are monitored and reported here

http://vaers.hhs.gov/index