Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

I would like you to substantiate your claim by finding an environmental case with a mortality of 30,000 people a year in the United States that had eluded discovery for multiple decades in the modern era.

That's backward. How could I possibly provide evidence of something that has eluded detection? If it had eluded detection, there wouldn't be a citation for it.

The way I arrived at that estimate was by looking at the size of the datasets that don't show deaths from MMR. The size of the clinical trials for MMR is ~5,000 (the largest I can find), which is only mathematically capable of ruling out a death rate as small a 1/1,100 or larger (using binomial probability and a p = 0.05 alpha).  Then I just fudged it 10x higher sensitivity to be generous and account for things like several brands having trials, etc.

Note, by the way, that the best clinical trial I found:
* Only included super healthy babies (actually, not only that but ones with healthy geneologies too!), beyond the standards suggested by the CDC for actual vaccinations, thus would be under-representing complications in less robust babies in actual usage.
* Only included babies getting that one single vaccine in 30 days, thus under-representing complications from multiple vaccinations synergizing and possible compounding one another. ideally, you'd want to test both isolated AND typical practice multiple vaccinations.
* Has un-explained, un-documented "discretion of the researcher" exemptions of unknown numbers.

But I'm also generously ignoring all of those.

So yeah, 1/10,000 is a quite strong estimate of what causal data supports.



Also, regarding the HPV vaccine study (other conversation),
here's the table from that actual study:

For anaphylaxis, they didn't actually use any comparison group at all, they just counted.
For other allergic reactions, they used as a comparison group other people who came into participating hospitals/offices during the period of the study for other vaccines. And sorry, I think technically they gathered data for 2 days after for the comparison vaccine receivers, and 42 for the HPV (which is also weird and unexplained, but whatever, most probably happen within 2 days anyway)? If not, it's 42 for both. Poorly explained in the article (i.e. not explained at all)

This is not a full population general background rate, this is an "immediately after vaccine A versus immediately after vaccine B" comparison.

As for the other types of complications that mention "VSD background rate" they don't explain and I am not actually sure whether this refers to rate of those complications 42 days after other vaccines in the database, or whether it means any 42 day period of all people in the database, vaccine or not.  The wording implies the former, since the column is titled "post-vaccination observation window"

However, to be sure, I already emailed the CDC an hour ago asking for clarification, since I couldn't find the first author's contact info online anywhere.  Frankly I don't really trust a researcher anyway who uses concurrent vaccination anywhere and bills it as a general safety study, but all the same, I'll let you all know when I hear back, for funsies.

[Reelya]

If they just measured anaphylaxis without any base-line comparison, then that just means they haven't ruled out any other causes of anaphylaxis that could be unrelated to the vaccine itself. so it puts the measurement of anaphylaxis found in the study 100% in doubt: the background rate of anaphylaxis could be identical to that after the vaccine.

[GavJ]

For anaphylaxis, later in the document, they attempt to explain what each individual case was, but it's pretty unclear. They say 1 case was definitely "confirmed by medical charts" from the vaccine, and 23 other cases were from food allergies or "routine refill of epinephrine pens." (No mention of what the person had USED their epinephrine pen for such that it needed refilling... vaccine-induced attacks? Honey bees? No way to know. Or do they mean refilling expired epinephrine? Who knows.)

And then there are 2 other cases that are left over if you do the arithmetic that they don't even acknowledge the existence of?

Yeah, pretty useless, might as well have not run that at all IMO if that's how you're gonna report it.

[Neonivek]

Don't forget that time period is also very important.

Since remember Babies generally get vaccines at a specific age.

One of the reason why the HP4 vaccine gave people Autism, for example, wasn't because it actually gave them autism but because they got the vaccine around the same period that people start seeing symptoms.

* Only included super healthy babies (actually, not only that but ones with healthy geneologies too!), beyond the standards suggested by the CDC for actual vaccinations, thus would be under-representing complications in less robust babies in actual usage.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Isn't that not how you do science?

* Has un-explained, un-documented "discretion of the researcher" exemptions of unknown numbers

Ok now I know this wasn't real science.

[Shinotsa]

Anaphylaxis is an acute symptom brought on by very specific triggers. They would have noted people with severe allergies or anaphylaxis from other sources (Ninja - they did). It's a non-issue regardless, as it occurs rarely enough to know the rate and acutely enough to easily identify the cause and take care of it in the office (treatments with high rates of allergic reaction generally require you to stay in the clinic for 15-30 minutes after administration). Additionally, if you have ever done research you know that you have to disclude a handful of cases from the data for miscellaneous reasons, many of which from people who lied on the initial entry requirements, did not follow directions, or had their case misplaced by a careless research assistant. If it were a large enough number to statistically matter the data would not be published.

Finally the 1/1,100 rate is not taking into account A) Repetition of studies or B) Discovery of complications in the clinical setting. Large scale studies on vaccines are done not once, but multiple times, and thus are able to capture a wider net of possibility. Additionally, a full medical history is required for patients and illnesses of unknown etiology are routinely analyzed for trends. Thus 30,000 cases a year of kidney failure of unknown origin 6 months after a vaccination would be all but guaranteed to be identified over the course of several decades.

Anyhow, could you address the herd immunity argument before? It seems you classified risk on a linear scale rather than by risk of spread - which is all but eliminated at 80% immunity. Or the issue with vaccines that have been used for three quarters of a century for purely individual protection, such as the tetanus vaccine? It seems we've fixated on individual studies (of which there are thousands) rather than the big picture.

Jesus Ninja:

Don't forget that time period is also very important.

Since remember Babies generally get vaccines at a specific age.

One of the reason why the HP4 vaccine gave people Autism, for example, wasn't because it actually gave them autism but because they got the vaccine around the same period that people start seeing symptoms.

* Only included super healthy babies (actually, not only that but ones with healthy geneologies too!), beyond the standards suggested by the CDC for actual vaccinations, thus would be under-representing complications in less robust babies in actual usage.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Isn't that not how you do science?

Actually that's pretty sound science. Immunological responses to a vaccine would be STRONGER in babies with healthy immune systems, plus the data itself would not be confounded by unrelated illnesses. Screening out genetic disorders and babies who aren't developing normally/are sick often is a great way to standardize results. Otherwise we'd be complaining about all of the cases they had to exclude to get any meaningful data, rather than just displaying a spread of problems all caused by external factors.

Edit: (For instance in my research on CO2 induced anxiety response we screened out individuals with asthma/respiratory disease and/or history of psychopathology. This isn't bad science, as people with altered respiration or who already had an elevated/depressed anxiety response would simply become confounding outliers without contributing any useful data.)

[Neonivek]

That is why you get a lot of babies and have a control group.

As well the selection needs to be a blind selection process otherwise you end up opening yourself up to selector bias.

We are talking about babies with "good genes" after all.

[hops]

The act of castration is generally seen as self harm, and people who are willing to remove their testicles or their gonads generally have mental illnesses. However, by removing one's genitals they are removing themselves from the gene pool which may sometimes benefit others in the long run. Because castration is generally frowned upon, it is difficult to find professional surgeons.

To remove one's testicles with a saw would be considered brutal, but it could be seen as an act of repentance of some sort. Using a rusty saw may cause infections as well.

But you should still remove your testicles with a rusty saw.

[Neonivek]

The big reason you don't castrate yourself is because your testes do more then just pass on your genes. Without them it is easy enough to suffer from hormonal problems.

people who are willing to remove their testicles or their gonads generally have mental illnesses.

I'd like to see the statistic work on that. That seems like an assumption.

[hops]

Hormones are poison anyways. I mean, looking at it in the mathematical viewpoint, people who are exposed to hormones die at some point in their life.

[Shinotsa]

*watches the point soar over Neonivek's head*

[hops]

How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Statistically Proven.

[Putnam]

A clinical trial of 2000 showing no negative reactions means that the overall risk is less than 1/2000 anyway...

[hops]

It should also be put into consideration that vaccine is the debbil and that there is a chance your child will get corrupted by Satan if you get them vaccinated.

[10ebbor10]

A clinical trial of 2000 showing no negative reactions means that the overall risk is less than 1/2000 anyway...

Probably less than 1/2000. A 1/2000 risk spread over 2000 people has a 36% chance of showing no infected.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Oh.
This conversation.
Well, I can't enter this conversation without sounding like both a biased asshole and an unknowledgeable asshole, but do know I shall be watching.