ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th May 2019, 07:28 PM   #121
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If the risk hasn't been well assessed, in part due to the low VAERS reporting, then we don't really know what the ratio is. The 1% report rate indicates the people doing the math had poor data due to the small sample size.

And, no, the question in this thread is not whether the benefit is worth the risk.
That's up to the individual to decide for themselves.
It is. It can only be. You can't talk about risk in a vacuum. It's always about balancing risk with benefit.

Have you never done a course on risk management? Do you know how risk is measured? And finally, do you know the difference between risk and hazard?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 07:53 PM   #122
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It is. It can only be. You can't talk about risk in a vacuum. It's always about balancing risk with benefit.

Have you never done a course on risk management? Do you know how risk is measured? And finally, do you know the difference between risk and hazard?
You have to look at risk by itself. You have to look at benefit by itself.
Then you combine what you've learned about both to determine a risk/benefit ratio.

We can talk about benefit and risk/benefit later. Right now it's just about the risk side.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 07:57 PM   #123
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. ...
This is Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology. You need to supply a citation to the study.

My guess is that you misunderstood the study. A reporting rate of 1% would be a fairly random sample of the population of the various adverse reactions. Analysis will catch any trends, e.g. a upturn of reactions after a new vaccine is released.

ETA: The highlighted part of "Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control" is a lie.
It is 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist mostly agreeing with an attorney about the contents of a report.
An attorney in a deposition seems to ambush Dr. Stanley Plotkin with a study that he may not have read (he is leafing through it to answer questions). That "1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported" is an unreferenced statement in the study covered in a few seconds The attorney then goes onto the actual results of the paper. Plotkin answers by reading the study. Plotkin agrees with what the attorney quotes from the study. Plotkin claifiies what the VAERS database contains - the reports can be true or not, reporting is should be biased toward death then trivial events.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 08:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:13 PM   #124
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You have to look at risk by itself. You have to look at benefit by itself.
Then you combine what you've learned about both to determine a risk/benefit ratio.

We can talk about benefit and risk/benefit later. Right now it's just about the risk side.
Okay, for the moment, let's talk about risk. Do you understand how risk is calculated?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:24 PM   #125
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Right now it's just about the risk side.
But the statement, "We all want vaccines to be as safe as can be," is ambiguous with respect to whether our supposedly shared standard of safety should be reckoned in a vacuum or, alternatively, against benefit. I know what I understand by "safe as can be." I understand it to mean that every available step -- regardless of any other factor -- will have been taken to ensure against any possible adverse reaction. There will not exist a step that can improve safety that will not have been applied. It is a superlative claim. By way of similar example, I can build you a bridge that's as "strong as can be," but no one could afford it. Or I can build you a bridge that's as "strong as it needs to be," and this would be a more practical approach.

No one yet seems clear on what you mean by "as safe as can be." You haven't provided a sufficient examination of the factors you propose to include versus those you propose to leave out. Until we settle the scope of your proposal, we won't get anywhere.

Quote:
You have to look at risk by itself.
No, you really don't. The purpose for which you're looking at risk is eventually so that you can compare it to benefit and arrive at a confident enough determination of risk versus benefit that the decision that follows can be considered rational. That purpose in turn dictates the rigor according to which you examine both risk and benefit. You are proposing that insufficient rigor exists in the measurement of risk to support a rational decision regarding risk versus benefit. But that's not a bar you can set irrespective of context and purpose.

Further, you've made an argument that sounds like it wants to be statistical in nature, but you're only handwavaing past the statistics. Convolving the statistic of risk with the statistic of benefit is ultimately what you want, and you can't estimate the certainty of any such outcome from the certainty of only one leg of the problem.

Last edited by JayUtah; 30th May 2019 at 09:07 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:26 PM   #126
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Okay, for the moment, let's talk about risk. Do you understand how risk is calculated?
No. Nor am I trying to calculate anything down to a decimal point.
What's so hard to understand here?

A study has claimed a very small sample size on which ultimately part of the risk calculation will rest.

One doesn't need a degree in science or statistics to question whether enough is known about the risk.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:29 PM   #127
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Looks like Electronic Support for Public Health - Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS) (Massachusetts), a report to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in what looks like 2010. The report is about electronic support for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System!

The probably correct "less than one percent" assertion in the thread OP is in the summary and the full repot but with no supporting citations.
Quote:
Summary:
Adverse events from vaccines are common but underreported, with less than one percent reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Low reporting rates preclude or delay the identification of "problem" vaccines, potentially endangering the health of the public.
I agree - any improvement in reporting will obviously lower risks to the health of the public.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 08:45 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:31 PM   #128
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A study has claimed a very small sample size on which ultimately part of the risk calculation will rest.
What study? What risk calculation?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:31 PM   #129
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
One doesn't need a degree in science or statistics to question whether enough is known about the risk.
Yes, one really does. The whole field of statistics exists because people are notoriously bad at intuitively estimating the effects of quantitative uncertainty. If you want to make a statistical argument, use statistics. Don't make a fretful, handwaving argument and pretend it has any statistical credibility.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #130
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Itchy Boy seems to be ignoring what he already knows. That less than 1% reporting rate was good enough to detect that the RotaShield vaccine caused an increased risk for intussusception in infants. That was in 1999 when reporting was probably paper based and the rate lower that the figure in the 2010 report.

Withdrawal of Rotavirus Vaccine Recommendation based on reports of intussusception in 15 infants.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 08:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:49 PM   #131
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Itchy Boy seems to be ignoring what he already knows. That less than 1% reporting rate was good enough to detect that the RotaShield vaccine caused an increased risk for intussusception in infants.
There seems to be a number of factors that affect to what extent the purported 1% reporting rate can be generalized. It would be irresponsible to generalize it without nailing them down.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:49 PM   #132
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What study? What risk calculation?
It's the study, or report citing a study, if you prefer, that was read from in the video and that Beth posted a link to.

The risk calculation for adverse effects from vaccines is partly based on the data collected by VAERS. The study/report concludes that reportage is very low resulting in a small data set, which means less reliable results.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:52 PM   #133
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
This is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:53 PM   #134
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...less reliable results.
But still reliable enough for a rational risk-benefit analysis? You say no. I'm waiting for the statistical argument that proves this.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:53 PM   #135
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No. Nor am I trying to calculate anything down to a decimal point.
What's so hard to understand here?

A study has claimed a very small sample size on which ultimately part of the risk calculation will rest.

One doesn't need a degree in science or statistics to question whether enough is known about the risk.
No, one does not. Nor does one need a degree in science or statistics to understand what "risk" means. Also, risk is rarely expressed in numerical terms, unless you're a professional risk assessor, and those folks get paid the big bucks.

Risk is a measure of both how likely is an adverse event and what are the consequences if the adverse event happens. You absolutely cannot measure risk unless you take both of those things into account.

If the likelihood is low and the consequence is low, then the risk is low.
If the likelihood is low and the consequence is high, then the risk is moderate.
If the likelihood is high and the consequence is low, then the risk is moderate.
If the likelihood is high and the consequence is high, then the risk is high.

Following? Good. Now, let's think about the risk of vaccines. We need to know what the likelihood of an adverse event is, and what the consequences of an adverse event occurring are. Do we know that?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:04 PM   #136
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Question what risk calculation with sources

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...The study/report concludes that reportage is very low resulting in a small data set, which means less reliable results.
You have never cited a study on the reporting rates for VAERS. You mislead us about a 7 minute video of a disposition where the title of the study is in the first few seconds and did not even use Google to get the actual study.

That statement is wrong. The report concludes about their electronic translation of reports project. The report states that reportage is less than 1% to the FDA thus a need for their project on electronic reporting to VAERS.

Again: what risk calculation (with the sources supporting your assertion)?

Not what you may imagine is included. Not what you may imagine about the impact of inclusion of VAERS. The sources that you have read about risk calculation so that you could make your assertion..
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:10 PM   #137
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, one does not. Nor does one need a degree in science or statistics to understand what "risk" means. Also, risk is rarely expressed in numerical terms, unless you're a professional risk assessor, and those folks get paid the big bucks.

Risk is a measure of both how likely is an adverse event and what are the consequences if the adverse event happens. You absolutely cannot measure risk unless you take both of those things into account.

If the likelihood is low and the consequence is low, then the risk is low.
If the likelihood is low and the consequence is high, then the risk is moderate.
If the likelihood is high and the consequence is low, then the risk is moderate.
If the likelihood is high and the consequence is high, then the risk is high.

Following? Good. Now, let's think about the risk of vaccines. We need to know what the likelihood of an adverse event is, and what the consequences of an adverse event occurring are. Do we know that?
We know that to some degree. A higher sample size would improve our knowledge.

'Risk/benefit' represents a ratio, does it not?
I'm not a rocket scientist but, isn't a ratio comprised of two numbers?

Doesn't 'risk/benefit' have to boil down to numbers to have any meaning?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:15 PM   #138
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A higher sample size would improve our knowledge.
But is a greater sample size required in order to offer some determination to a prescribed degree of certainty?

Quote:
'Risk/benefit' represents a ratio, does it not?
I'm not a rocket scientist but, isn't a ratio comprised of two numbers?
I am a rocket scientist. Risk-benefit assessments can be a ratio, but in any case the numbers that go into the assessments are values with associated expressions of certainty. If one argues that the final determination is not certain enough to be trusted, one must be prepared to show how the uncertainty was quantified. Can you do that?

Quote:
Doesn't 'risk/benefit' have to boil down to numbers to have any meaning?
It does if you want it to have the kind of meaning you're trying to ascribe to it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:19 PM   #139
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You have never cited a study on the reporting rates for VAERS. You mislead us about a 7 minute video of a disposition where the title of the study is in the first few seconds and did not even use Google to get the actual study.

That statement is wrong. The report concludes about their electronic translation of reports project. The report states that reportage is less than 1% to the FDA thus a need for their project on electronic reporting to VAERS.

Again: what risk calculation (with the sources supporting your assertion)?

Not what you may imagine is included. Not what you may imagine about the impact of inclusion of VAERS. The sources that you have read about risk calculation so that you could make your assertion..
That's the number we have until someone can produce a more accurate one.

Improved reporting would yield more accurate safety data.
No risk calculation or science degrees are needed to make that assertion.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:21 PM   #140
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
There seems to be a number of factors that affect to what extent the purported 1% reporting rate can be generalized. It would be irresponsible to generalize it without nailing them down.
RotaShield is an specific example of VAERS being used to detected a vaccine causing an increase in adverse events.

There is one factor that Itchy Boy may not be considering - not all adverse events are the same. The 1% reporting would be skewed toward more serous events and new vaccines. People are unlikely to report itching after a standard shot. People are more likely to report intussusception in infants who have taken a new vaccine. People are very likely to report deaths. The analysis of the reports would also be skewed toward more serous events and new vaccines.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:23 PM   #141
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That's the number we have until someone can produce a more accurate one.
No, you have the burden to prove it's suitable for the purpose you intend to use it for. You haven't done that.

Quote:
Improved reporting would yield more accurate safety data.
Agreed, but your argument appears to be that reporting is presently insufficient to support a rational risk-benefit analysis. You allude to it being a statistical argument, but you omit the statistics.

Quote:
No risk calculation or science degrees are needed to make that assertion.
No, I'm not prepared to accept that your uninformed layman's handwaving is of any great concern.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:26 PM   #142
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,656
Question What risk calculation with sources supporting your assertion

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That's ....
No disagreement with the < 1% reporting rate to VAERS before 2010. It exists in the report! It would be nice to have actual papers supporting the number. It would be nice to have a modern number. It would be marvelous for you to answer a question .

31 May 2019 Itchy Boy: What risk calculation with sources supporting your assertion?

We agree that improving reporting to VAERS will improve the data that researchers analysis. That is a bit of a duh moment. More data means that rarer adverse events can be detected. Better data means less work sorting out the bad data and faster analysis.

The answer to "Are vaccines as safe as can be?" is it is too vague to answer as written. Vaccines are as safe as we can make them with the resources that are allocated and technologies that are available. However there can be improvements will would make vaccines even safer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 30th May 2019 at 09:43 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 09:34 PM   #143
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Here's a fun fact. I learned from the Science Vs podcast that some kinds of vaccine can actually cause seizures in infants.

About 1 in 3,000 children who receive the MMR vaccine will have a seizure, and 1 in 14,000 children who receive DTaP.

Thing is, while scary, there is no evidence of any ongoing negative effect from these seizures. No brain damage, no adverse effect on intelligence - they seize, they recover, and they're perfectly healthy again. (citations at the link)

So what does this mean about the risk? Well, the chance of a seizure from the MMR shot is known. The consequences are also known - there are no ongoing consequences. So no matter whether you think 1/3000 is high or not, the risk is still low, because anything multiplied by zero is zero.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:03 PM   #144
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
The Harvard study is just one little piece of information that relates to vaccine safety. Anyone can make of it whatever they wish.

My argument is not that reporting is insufficient to support a rational risk/benefit analysis. My assertion is that there's a lot of room for improvement.

I'm not here to argue.
I'm just presenting information and my opinion of it.

Maybe some forum readers will begin to see that 'anti-vaxxers' have some legitimate concerns and that they are not your enemy.

The study is just a dot.
There are other dots that impact safety.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:05 PM   #145
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Here's a fun fact. I learned from the Science Vs podcast that some kinds of vaccine can actually cause seizures in infants...
Thing is, while scary, there is no evidence of any ongoing negative effect from these seizures. No brain damage, no adverse effect on intelligence - they seize, they recover, and they're perfectly healthy again. (citations at the link)

....

Indeed. Plus on the other side of the coin the seizures from a full blown case of measles or mumps is much more dangerous. Those are the ones that lead to permanent neurological danger due to encephalitis or meningitis. Plus there is the whole immune suppression bit a few years after getting measles that makes a kid more susceptible to other dangerous infections.


And of course: SSPE... the slow and agonizing death years later from measles virus hanging out in the brain.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:11 PM   #146
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Here's a fun fact. I learned from the Science Vs podcast that some kinds of vaccine can actually cause seizures in infants.

About 1 in 3,000 children who receive the MMR vaccine will have a seizure, and 1 in 14,000 children who receive DTaP.

Thing is, while scary, there is no evidence of any ongoing negative effect from these seizures. No brain damage, no adverse effect on intelligence - they seize, they recover, and they're perfectly healthy again. (citations at the link)

So what does this mean about the risk? Well, the chance of a seizure from the MMR shot is known. The consequences are also known - there are no ongoing consequences. So no matter whether you think 1/3000 is high or not, the risk is still low, because anything multiplied by zero is zero.
Any given risk factor may be acceptable to one person and not another.
Where that comes into play is the drive towards mandatory vaccines.

But that aside, the lower the risk, and the more certainty about the accuracy of the risk factor, the more people will vaccinate.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:20 PM   #147
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Harvard study is just one little piece of information that relates to vaccine safety. Anyone can make of it whatever they wish.
Except that's not how science works.

Quote:
My argument is not that reporting is insufficient to support a rational risk/benefit analysis.
Um,
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
Quote:
I'm not here to argue.
I'm just presenting information and my opinion of it.
You are clearly here to argue. You just have a poor argument and aren't willing to own the consequences of it.

Quote:
Maybe some forum readers will begin to see that 'anti-vaxxers' have some legitimate concerns and that they are not your enemy.
All you've shown is that anti-vaxxers use the same shady tactics as all the other pseudo-scientific cranks.

Quote:
The study is just a dot.
There are other dots that impact safety.
If you aren't competent to evaluate them, it doesn't matter how many you think there are.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:24 PM   #148
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...

One doesn't need a degree in science or statistics to question whether enough is known about the risk.
Um, yes, you do.

Like JayUtah, I was also a rocket scientist. We both used statistics to weigh the risk benefits ratio. As a structural dynamics engineer I did this by running lots of parameter studies to see how to get away with as little weight as possible without it becoming unstable.

But those were on inanimate objects... that went very fast. That is a big difference when working with biology and epidemiology. I actually tried to change my career into bio-statistics. That is a whole other ball game.

They have this thing in their studies not required for fast flying things (unless you are talking about pilots and passengers, which is easily solved by making sure the landings are safe): ethics.

This is the very basics of the Belmont Report. Have you looked it up, yet? Have you submitted the grant proposal for your fantastical vax/unvax study? (by the way, Beth is a professional statistician, but just for fast flying things, not humans)

There are some very real reasons why you need to take a teeny tiny risk in order to prevent a very very large risk. Never ever mention the very small risk of a medical treatment without considering the risk of the consequences.

Yes, the American MMR vaccine has risks (don't know about the present Canadian MMR vaccine), but it is so much better than when measles, mumps and rubella infected just about every kid in North America. Hundreds died and thousands were permanently disabled.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Last edited by Chris Haynes; 30th May 2019 at 10:26 PM.
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:26 PM   #149
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,029
I think it's a mistake to think of vaccination as a simple risk/benefit calculation in the first place. Of course you can always eliminate a risk by simply not doing the risky thing at all. But vaccination differs in a substantive way from something like skydiving or mountain climbing. You can simply eliminate risk by not doing some things, where the benefits are abstract and subjective. But eliminating the risk of vaccination introduces a new set of concrete and measurable risks.

Sure, you can quantify risk without referring it to the benefit or the reciprocal risk, but doing so is meaningless.

Itchy Boy, "I'm not here to argue" has to go down as one of the most disingenuous statements possible.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 30th May 2019 at 10:29 PM. Reason: fixing syntax after bad edit
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:28 PM   #150
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Any given risk factor may be acceptable to one person and not another.
Then why did you claim there was a universal standard?

Quote:
Where that comes into play is the drive towards mandatory vaccines.
Mandatory vaccination has cognizable benefit. Should public policy be based on properly undertaken science, conducted by people with extensive training and experience? Or should it be based on self-appointed "advocates" with no relevant training or expertise, who claim the right to make whatever they want of published papers?

Quote:
But that aside, the lower the risk, and the more certainty about the accuracy of the risk factor, the more people will vaccinate.
No, as soon as self-anointed hacks stop pretending to be scientists and spreading ignorant misinformation, people will accept a rational public policy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:50 PM   #151
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Then why did you claim there was a universal standard?
I don't recall specifically making that claim. But if you quote the words that gave you that impression, I'll try to be clearer next time.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:02 PM   #152
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...

Mandatory vaccination has cognizable benefit. Should public policy be based on properly undertaken science, conducted by people with extensive training and experience? Or should it be based on self-appointed "advocates" with no relevant training or expertise, who claim the right to make whatever they want of published papers?

Here is the thing, there are no "mandatory" vaccines in the United States of America. Vaccine policies are created for school attendance only by the state education departments (which vary). Even in the most strict states there is still the option to home school.



Essentially, in the USA, refusing sensible public health policies means that you have to find other ways to educate the kid. And most states have free public online home school programs.


Itchy Boy has no reason to criticize the policies of the United States of America, nor any of its states because he lives in Canada.



And our experience living just south of British Columbia... that province does not enforce vaccine requirements. This is why they have frequent measles outbreaks, especially here... first 2014: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...lley-1.2624598


And now: http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-gallery...2019%20YTD.pdf



More commentary, with news that things might change in British Columbia: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...t-vaccinations
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:14 PM   #153
rdwight
Critical Thinker
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 467
I wonder if the current internet-spread anti-vax views held recently have caused doctors to be more cautious to assign blame to vaccines when side effects do occur. Main downside would be that it could limit reporting of the rarer side effects that might be possible, however small the chance of it being responsible.

There also seems to be a certain level of push back when parents are cautious with vaccines. I know in my case I had each vaccine given individually (one per visit) with their first set. Mainly because their mother was much more nervous about vaccines than I was, but also because we each had family that had a serious adverse reaction and I wanted to limit the variables. Since I was able to stick to the overall schedule prescribed, I had no problem incurring the additional time involved to do it that way. Can't say the doctor was too happy with that though..
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 11:16 PM   #154
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes View Post
Itchy Boy has no reason to criticize the policies of the United States of America, nor any of its states because he lives in Canada.
Whether you mean 'reason' or 'justification', [ed: or right] or anything else, I believe everyone, regardless of their level of intelligence and knowledge, is free to criticize anything or anyone they want.

Speaking of Canada, the freedom to criticize is being curtailed by law. But let's not go there.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 30th May 2019 at 11:17 PM.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 03:15 AM   #155
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,656
You are free to criticize anything you like in private but as soon as you make your criticisms public expect them to be challenged. Expect to be asked to justify them.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 05:53 AM   #156
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't recall specifically making that claim. But if you quote the words that gave you that impression, I'll try to be clearer next time.
Are you serious? I've quoted them many times throughout the course of this debate. Your assiduous avoidance at discussing the many times it has been brought up has now become a subtopic by itself.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
[W]e all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.
Do those words sound slightly familiar? You were trying to tell us we shouldn't be at loggerheads because we all want the same thing. If your position is now that each person is free to want a different thing, then kindly thank your critics for the argument that changed your mind.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 06:00 AM   #157
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Whether you mean 'reason' or 'justification', [ed: or right] or anything else, I believe everyone, regardless of their level of intelligence and knowledge, is free to criticize anything or anyone they want.
You have the right to criticize anyone or anything you like, but you do not have the right to expect ignorant criticism to be taken seriously. If you want your criticism to have merit, it must come from knowledge and reason. Here, on this question, you provide neither. "My ignorance is as valid as your knowledge" is not a position from which creditable criticism can arise.

Last edited by JayUtah; 31st May 2019 at 07:01 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 09:03 AM   #158
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
[A]s soon as you make your criticisms public expect them to be challenged. Expect to be asked to justify them.
Especially if you choose to publish criticism on a skeptics' forum, with the understanding, first, that skeptics tend to take a pro-vaccination position, and second, that skeptics tend to challenge any public position they feel is poorly supported. There is simply no credible rationale for the OP not to have received the responses he did.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 09:25 AM   #159
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,638
This thread is like Andy Kaufman discusses vaccine safety in Wonderland.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 09:53 AM   #160
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Are you serious? I've quoted them many times throughout the course of this debate. Your assiduous avoidance at discussing the many times it has been brought up has now become a subtopic by itself.
.

"Then why did you claim there was a universal standard?"

Then it should be easy for you to quote where I made that claim.
Let's see it.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.