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 29th May 2019, 01:40 PM   #41
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
One sided deposition videos aren't generally considered to be definitive proof of anything.
The video proves the study is genuine and that the conclusion was about a 1% report rate. That's really all I wanted to establish by the video.

If your claim is that the video doesn't prove what I just said it proves, please be specific.
__________________
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 online now   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 29th May 2019, 01:44 PM   #42
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh the "Befuddled old man who can't keep up with all these questions." persona.

You literally have no idea how much that won't work. Trust me dude we've played that game with someone who can play it better then you'll ever hope to.
If you have a question, fire away.
__________________
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 online now   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 29th May 2019, 01:48 PM   #43
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I can't answer every post and question.
Try.

Quote:
So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
No, you don't get to set limits on your critics' rebuttals. You posted here knowing the kind and volume of responses you'd get.
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 29th May 2019, 01:53 PM   #44
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study...
Don't change the subject. The subject is risk-benefit analysis. You're trying to foist the concept of "safe as can be" when I and others have pointed out that a more universal standard is "safe as should be." We must agree on a standard of proof before we start talking about what evidence there is and how to get it. Otherwise it can be credibly argued that the contour of the evidence improperly informed the standard by which to judge it.

Now prove to me that "safe as can be" is a more reasonable, rational standard than "safe as should be." In other words, prove that vaccine safety overrides all other concerns.
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 29th May 2019, 02:02 PM   #45
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,982
Itchy. How dare you. You are so wrong. It is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are spreading dangerous assumptions, unfounded assumptions. The evidence you site is as inane as you are.

My little one, now 12, almost died from a bleeding brain, caused by a cyst, when she was 7. After surgery to stop the bleed, she began having frequent, violent seizures that continue to this day.

Of course she has been vaccinated along with her siblings. But now, her immune system is so compromised, that if exposed to measles, she would likely die.

You and other thinly disguised anti vaxxers are a dangerous group. How dare you.
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 29th May 2019, 02:04 PM   #46
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Why would all new vaccines have to be suspended? People taking new vaccines could simply be excluded from the study.
Because it would not, then, meet the explicit goal you stated (my hilite)! "Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study to compare health outcomes of the fully vaccinated to the unvaccinated."

Quote:
I heard Plotkin and a top health official (forgot the name) claim 'difficulty' as the reason. I can't fulfill your request for Unobtainium but if you have an authoritative source that explains why the study would be impossible, I'd appreciate a link.
Again, you are the one making claims, not me.

If that is indeed the full extent of your sources, I thank you for your candor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanTate
How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?
The 70+ doses or 40+ shots is relevant because that adds up to a lot of toxins injected into a body.
I'll ask again, how is that relevant to what you wrote in the OP?

Quote:
Quote:
??? In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
The health of the human population is at stake because vaccine uptake is being heavily promoted and pretty soon there will be no more control group available.

The only way to know if the health outcomes of the fully vaccinated are as good or better than the fully unvaccinated is to do that study.
Maybe, maybe not.

But "health outcomes [...] as good or better" is a very low standard with respect to "at stake", as I'm sure you would be the first to agree.
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 02:14 PM   #47
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but that’s not how it works.

You wrote the OP, not me.

Again, it’s up to you, not me.

Again, it’s the commonly used standard of this ISF board.

Good to read that.

I’ve asked you several other questions, directly pertinent to your OP; may I expect a response from you some time?
I can't answer every post and question.
I would not have been as blunt as JU. but yes, do try.

Quote:
So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
No. It's very far from "fair enough".

In any case, how about this: Please state, as objectively as possible, exactly what you mean by "as safe as can be"?
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 02:20 PM   #48
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The video proves the study is genuine and that the conclusion was about a 1% report rate. That's really all I wanted to establish by the video. If your claim is that the video doesn't prove what I just said it proves, please be specific.
Um, so you chose to totally ignore my post?

Here it is again:

Quote:
To repeat what was posted in the other thread in this, the SMM&T board of the ISF, your link “proves” nothing. At a minimum, you need to post a link to a paper (published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal) reporting the “Harvard study” and its results.

If you don’t like the standards commonly used here, well, so be it.

If you can’t at least try to meet these standards, please be honest enough to say so explicitly.
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 03:18 PM   #49
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,098
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The video proves the study is genuine and that the conclusion was about a 1% report rate. That's really all I wanted to establish by the video.

If your claim is that the video doesn't prove what I just said it proves, please be specific.
You may have not have been through s deposition before, so I'll cut you a certain amount of slack.

Depositions are not ever a one sided dialogue. The corresponding portion of the deposition you linked to is not in evidence - having been asked a series of questions by the attorney for the plaintiff or defendant the opposing attorney gets their shot.

The missing portion of the discussion may refute the inferences you wish to assert.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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 29th May 2019, 03:25 PM   #50
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,803
Short answer: Yes, vaccines are safe.

Longer Answer: Vaccines are safe, and stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make the rules.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 29th May 2019, 03:30 PM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,846
Honestly?

I'd give ItchyBoy almost anything in my power to give, if he were to drop all other questions, and just develop his argument for what that 1% report rate is supposed to mean.
theprestige is online now   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 29th May 2019, 04:23 PM   #52
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're not talking about how many access the compensation program. We're talking about how many reported reactions. Whether any individual reaction was due to a vaccine must be determined. A report of a reaction does not mean it was vaccine caused.

The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
Let's try again:

Odd, the === LINK TO HARVARD STUDY YOU REFERENCED >>>Harvard study <<< LINK TO HARVARD STUDY YOU REFERENCED ===
[2000]:

Originally Posted by HARVARD STUDY YOU REFERENCED
The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations.
Now, the question again:

Can you grasp how the compensation program would only be accessed by a small portion of those with "adverse reactions"? Do you think parents of kids that got a bruise, or rash, or sniffles, would access the compensation program?

Answer if you can, which you apparently cannot.
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 29th May 2019, 06:11 PM   #53
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,029
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you have a question, fire away.
You just told us not to ask any more questions. Which is it to be?
__________________
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)
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 29th May 2019, 06:29 PM   #54
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Somewhat OT ... a question to those who’ve posted here, other than the OP.

I have not encountered a “vaccine safety awareness advocate” here in this ISF board before, not that I can immediately recall anyway.

Is the level of logical and scientific rigor (or lack thereof) in the OP’s posts in this thread (and the one about a measles outbreak in the Pacific NW, to use a US term) typical of such advocates?
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 06:39 PM   #55
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,736
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Somewhat OT ... a question to those who’ve posted here, other than the OP.

I have not encountered a “vaccine safety awareness advocate” here in this ISF board before, not that I can immediately recall anyway.

Is the level of logical and scientific rigor (or lack thereof) in the OP’s posts in this thread (and the one about a measles outbreak in the Pacific NW, to use a US term) typical of such advocates?
Yes, it is very typical because vaccine safety awareness advocate is just a rebranding of anti-vaxxer. It's like "intelligent design" the liars have been identified as lairs so many time that they have to change their names to get their lies spread for a second round.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rmation_Center

https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-di...yadvocate.aspx
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 29th May 2019, 08:23 PM   #56
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,029
The term "vaccine safety awareness advocate" sounds pretty good, though on the surface. I would imagine a minimal requirement for actually being one would be understanding the subject, and perhaps knowing something about some specific vaccines, their differences and effects, and their proper administration. There's little evidence of that here, so I'm assuming in this case the originator of the thread is an expert in the subject in the same way Gingervytes is an expert on space travel.
__________________
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)
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 29th May 2019, 08:34 PM   #57
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
The term "vaccine safety awareness advocate" sounds pretty good, though on the surface.
It sounds quite reasonable, if you don't think about it too much.
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 11:42 PM   #58
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,029
It’s the same argument you often see from proponents of quackery: “Oh noes! Teh medicine has SIDE EFFECTS!!!! Far better to die a natural death from the disease.”
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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, 01:13 AM   #59
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
If anyone knows of a more recent study that estimates a higher percentage of adverse effect reports to VAERS than the Harvard study's 1%, kindly post a link and a quote containing the percentage, and I'll update my information.

If I find such a study, I'll post it here.

Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.

What does it mean? It suggests the sample size to monitor for serious adverse effects is much smaller than might be possible with improvements to the system and better compliance. All else being equal, a small sample size yields less reliable results than a larger sample size. If the sample size is small as the study suggests, then the results of monitoring for vaccine related adverse effects are correspondingly less reliable. And to that extent, it impacts vaccine safety. In my opinion.

For many people, the study raises a yellow flag. For other's it won't and I have no quarrel with that.

I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
__________________
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 online now   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, 01:24 AM   #60
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,657
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have neither access to the study
Blatantly untrue as The Greater Fool has posted links to it twice.

Quote:
nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
Are you now saying you don't understand your own evidence? Do you have any sort of point to make?
__________________
"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 30th May 2019, 03:07 AM   #61
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
The term "vaccine safety awareness advocate" sounds pretty good, though on the surface. I would imagine a minimal requirement for actually being one would be understanding the subject, and perhaps knowing something about some specific vaccines, their differences and effects, and their proper administration. There's little evidence of that here, so I'm assuming in this case the originator of the thread is an expert in the subject in the same way Gingervytes is an expert on space travel.
Thanks for this.

I thought this was a tad harsh when I first read it, but after reading this recent post by IB, I'm not so sure any more ...
JeanTate 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, 05:40 AM   #62
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
Do you have the expertise to discuss risk-benefit analysis? Are you prepared to discuss the fine details of that?

You say, "We all want vaccines to be as safe as can be." I'm not prepared to stipulate that I agree with your standard until I am certain I know what your standard is. So far you don't seem willing to discuss it. That in itself is suspicious because it leaves the door open later to equivocation, extensional pruning, and other errors that arise from imprecision.

And I've already explained why we must settle this question before we look at any actual evidence. We don't want the nature of the evidence itself tainting the decision regarding how to consider it probative. We don't want the standard to be, "Well, that's all I've got, so it will have to be enough to prove my point." You've already indicated that's a rhetoric you're ready to deploy, and that won't do.
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, 06:34 AM   #63
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,029
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
....

I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
That, by itself, seems like a very good reason not to discuss the study at all. You remind me of the Mississippi legislator who, in formulating its abhorrent abortion law, noted that he relies on his heavenly father because he's not smart enough to get pregnant, or the Ohio senator who, prefacing his statement with the declaration that he's not an expert on the subject, proposes an insurance exception for an operation which if it were possible at all would likely be fatal.

Most reasonable people hit the books before they hit the podium.
__________________
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)
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, 06:53 AM   #64
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,819
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If anyone knows of a more recent study that estimates a higher percentage of adverse effect reports to VAERS than the Harvard study's 1%, kindly post a link and a quote containing the percentage, and I'll update my information.
The Harvard study you keep referencing is titled:

Vaccines and The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (2000 Third Year Paper)

It is not a study about what you say it is about:

Originally Posted by Abstract:
The federal government plays a leading role in vaccination by funding vaccine administration and by integrating the immunization efforts of the public and private sectors on national, state and local levels. Congress repeatedly reaffirms this role of the federal government in order to ensure that the United States maintains a consistent national policy on childhood vaccination. In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act ("Vaccine Act"). This legislation establishes a National Vaccine Program "to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines." The Vaccine Act also institutes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ("NVICP"), a federal, no-fault compensation system which awards money to the victims of vaccine-related injuries and death. This paper describes the FDA's role in ensuring the safety of vaccines, the civil litigation alternative to compensation, and the events leading up to the passage of the Vaccine Act. The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations. The paper also examines whether Congress's goals in passing the Vaccine Act have been achieved and what reforms may be necessary in order to further these goals.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.
Read the above abstract to see how you are misunderstanding the report. Misunderstanding or misapplying or lying about the report contents does no good for your case.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What does it mean? It suggests the sample size to monitor for serious adverse effects is much smaller than might be possible with improvements to the system and better compliance. All else being equal, a small sample size yields less reliable results than a larger sample size. If the sample size is small as the study suggests, then the results of monitoring for vaccine related adverse effects are correspondingly less reliable. And to that extent, it impacts vaccine safety. In my opinion.
Read the above abstract to see how you are misunderstanding the report. Misunderstanding or misapplying or lying about the report contents does no good for your case.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
For many people, the study raises a yellow flag. For other's it won't and I have no quarrel with that.
Read the above abstract to see how you are misunderstanding the report. Misunderstanding or misapplying or lying about the report contents does no good for your case.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents. For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
Since you admit you couldn't possibly understand the report, or apparently even the abstract, you reasonably cannot use it to incorrectly support your wrong understanding of it's contents.

Come back when you understand what you cite:

Link to actual study: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/h...=2&isAllowed=y
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

Last edited by The Greater Fool; 30th May 2019 at 07:50 AM. Reason: site / cite. Added actual study
The Greater Fool 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, 06:56 AM   #65
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If anyone knows of a more recent study that estimates a higher percentage of adverse effect reports to VAERS than the Harvard study's 1%, kindly post a link and a quote containing the percentage, and I'll update my information.

If I find such a study, I'll post it here.
You might like to consider bruto's suggestion, hit the books. First.

For example, there are strong, reasonably open, well-funded government (or quasi-government) agencies whose scope is similar to ones here in the US, in places with first world economies and big populations, e.g. the EU (and its biggest members, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain), and Japan. Those with somewhat smaller populations (but still quite big) include Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. And don't overlook smaller populations, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.
So, here's a glaring inconsistency: as Wudang pointed out, The Greater Fool has posted a link to a study which seems to be "the Harvard study" you keep referring to. Yet you have yet to confirm (or otherwise) that this is indeed that study!

Quote:
<low level stuff snipped>

I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
Well, whether you realize it not, you have just conceded that you are not prepared (willing, whatever) to discuss your OP's main points.

If so, I think it makes sense for you to stop posting here ... except for addressing the elephant in the room, "as safe as can be". You seem extraordinarily reluctant to do so; why, may I ask?
JeanTate 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, 07:31 AM   #66
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,736
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.
What a blatant lie. Both of those two facts have been challenged.

ETA: And I see from later posts from other posters that I didn't even catch all your lies in that your post. Sheez.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 30th May 2019 at 07:36 AM.
RecoveringYuppy 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, 09:16 AM   #67
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,649
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to repost that explanation specific to RedRose's #1 and rub it my face again. Any estimate on when you might produce that for me?
Then the best course is to cite the actual study, not hearsay reporting of it
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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, 09:20 AM   #68
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,649
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The video proves the study is genuine and that the conclusion was about a 1% report rate. That's really all I wanted to establish by the video.

If your claim is that the video doesn't prove what I just said it proves, please be specific.
Incorrect the video reports something you haven't substantiated, which would be easy, go to the source material and present it

Some dude talking about a study is not the same as linking to the study itself.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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, 09:22 AM   #69
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,649
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If anyone knows of a more recent study that estimates a higher percentage of adverse effect reports to VAERS than the Harvard study's 1%, kindly post a link and a quote containing the percentage, and I'll update my information.

You are a poser who apparently can't even find a study that you should be citing, why is that it most likely has plenty of summaries that are open to access
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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, 10:02 AM   #70
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Then the best course is to cite the actual study, not hearsay reporting of it
Or a deposition. True, a deposition is testimony given under oath. But it's given in the context of litigation, and the witness often partial to one side. For example, we pay expert witnesses to support our interpretation of specialized evidence. The other side pays their expert witnesses to support an interpretation that favors them. Each one gives his opinion as sworn testimony under penalty of perjury, but nobody ever goes to jail because his coverage of the science differs from the other guy. The trier of fact simply decides which among their presentations is the most credible. I wouldn't consider excerpts from one deposition purporting to describe or interpret a learned treatise to be any sort of substitute for a reading of the treatise itself.
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, 10:45 AM   #71
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,670
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Why would all new vaccines have to be suspended? People taking new vaccines could simply be excluded from the study. I heard Plotkin and a top health official (forgot the name) claim 'difficulty' as the reason. I can't fulfill your request for Unobtainium but if you have an authoritative source that explains why the study would be impossible, I'd appreciate a link.

The 70+ doses or 40+ shots is relevant because that adds up to a lot of toxins injected into a body. The health of the human population is at stake because vaccine uptake is being heavily promoted and pretty soon there will be no more control group available.

The only way to know if the health outcomes of the fully vaccinated are as good or better than the fully unvaccinated is to do that study.
So say the study you propose is funded and populated with the proper controls.

You think it would last the necessary 18 years or so without being halted because the number of adverse effects to the unvaccinated group?
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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, 11:42 AM   #72
Beth
Philosopher
 
Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,598
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?
While I think (hope) the 1% reporting rate is a low ball estimate, it's true that safety cannot be properly monitored with our current reporting system and research program for vaccine injuries. We simply don't know how many adverse events actually occur, what the rates truly are, or who might be genetically disposed to more serious reactions, etc.

This is a serious problem. When we don't have accurate information available, it's quite reasonable for parents to be hesitant. Serious adverse reactions may be rare, but they do happen. Labeling people who question the adequacy of the safety information on vaccines and choose to skip or delay one or more vaccines as 'anti-vaccine' contributes to the problem. That most people who are actively 'anti-vaxxer' are also accurately termed 'ex-vaxxers' is a big reg flag for me.

If we want to increase vaccination rates, then providing people with accurate and well-sourced estimates of the risks of various injuries would be the right thing to do. It's neither impossible nor unethical to set up an active reporting system and to run studies comparing fully and partially vaxxed children with completely unvaxxed children.

That we don't, in 2019 in the USA, have accurate information on major parental concerns about vaccination, from our publicly funded agencies, such as the CDC, is inexcusable. It's a reasonable suspicion that this is because they are not certain about whether the results would support their past assumptions and recommendations because indeed, that is the purpose and one possible outcome of collecting accurate data.
__________________
Beth
"You are not the stuff of which you are made."
Richard Dawkins, July 2005, 10:45

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_daw..._universe.html
Beth 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, 12:13 PM   #73
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,098
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.
The underlined is no more than a half step away from the time-honored practice of folks that insist a "notarized statement" is proof of the statements' facts.

That video, out of context and without further information is less than useless.

Can you cite the case involving that deposition so interested parties can make up their own minds?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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, 12:48 PM   #74
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Beth View Post
While I think (hope) the 1% reporting rate is a low ball estimate, it's true that safety cannot be properly monitored with our current reporting system and research program for vaccine injuries. We simply don't know how many adverse events actually occur, what the rates truly are, or who might be genetically disposed to more serious reactions, etc.

This is a serious problem. When we don't have accurate information available, it's quite reasonable for parents to be hesitant. Serious adverse reactions may be rare, but they do happen. Labeling people who question the adequacy of the safety information on vaccines and choose to skip or delay one or more vaccines as 'anti-vaccine' contributes to the problem. That most people who are actively 'anti-vaxxer' are also accurately termed 'ex-vaxxers' is a big reg flag for me.

If we want to increase vaccination rates, then providing people with accurate and well-sourced estimates of the risks of various injuries would be the right thing to do. It's neither impossible nor unethical to set up an active reporting system and to run studies comparing fully and partially vaxxed children with completely unvaxxed children.

That we don't, in 2019 in the USA, have accurate information on major parental concerns about vaccination, from our publicly funded agencies, such as the CDC, is inexcusable. It's a reasonable suspicion that this is because they are not certain about whether the results would support their past assumptions and recommendations because indeed, that is the purpose and one possible outcome of collecting accurate data.
Well said.
__________________
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 online now   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, 01:09 PM   #75
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
The underlined is no more than a half step away from the time-honored practice of folks that insist a "notarized statement" is proof of the statements' facts.

That video, out of context and without further information is less than useless.

Can you cite the case involving that deposition so interested parties can make up their own minds?
The study is genuine and it estimated ~1% reportage. The video does the job of proving those two facts just fine and that's all I was citing it for.

The deposition is 9 hours long. All I know about the case is that a married couple disagree on whether to vaccinate their children. The wife is the plaintiff. Plotkin agreed to appear as an expert witness and the deposition is being conducted by the plaintiff's lawyer. I'm not aware of any deposition by the defence lawyer.
__________________
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 online now   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, 01:12 PM   #76
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,736
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The study is genuine and it estimated ~1% reportage. The video does the job of proving those two facts just fine and that's all I was citing it for.

The deposition is 9 hours long. All I know about the case is that a married couple disagree on whether to vaccinate their children. The wife is the plaintiff. Plotkin agreed to appear as an expert witness and the deposition is being conducted by the plaintiff's lawyer. I'm not aware of any deposition by the defence lawyer.
Have you read the study?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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, 01:21 PM   #77
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Beth View Post
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?
While I think (hope) the 1% reporting rate is a low ball estimate, it's true that safety cannot be properly monitored with our current reporting system and research program for vaccine injuries. We simply don't know how many adverse events actually occur, what the rates truly are, or who might be genetically disposed to more serious reactions, etc.

This is a serious problem. When we don't have accurate information available, it's quite reasonable for parents to be hesitant. Serious adverse reactions may be rare, but they do happen. Labeling people who question the adequacy of the safety information on vaccines and choose to skip or delay one or more vaccines as 'anti-vaccine' contributes to the problem. That most people who are actively 'anti-vaxxer' are also accurately termed 'ex-vaxxers' is a big reg flag for me.

If we want to increase vaccination rates, then providing people with accurate and well-sourced estimates of the risks of various injuries would be the right thing to do. It's neither impossible nor unethical to set up an active reporting system and to run studies comparing fully and partially vaxxed children with completely unvaxxed children.

That we don't, in 2019 in the USA, have accurate information on major parental concerns about vaccination, from our publicly funded agencies, such as the CDC, is inexcusable. It's a reasonable suspicion that this is because they are not certain about whether the results would support their past assumptions and recommendations because indeed, that is the purpose and one possible outcome of collecting accurate data.
(my hilite)

By the usual standards of this, the SMM&T board of the ISF, there's a lot to unpack in your post, Beth. In this first of mine (in response to this one of yours that I'm quoting in its entirety), I'll highlight the same sloppiness with terms that Itchy Boy's posts contain (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Would you please, as clearly and objectively as you can, define (and distinguish between) "vaccine adverse reactions", "vaccine injuries", "adverse events", "more serious reactions", "Serious adverse reactions", and "various injuries". Thank you in advance.
JeanTate 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, 01:24 PM   #78
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The study is genuine and it estimated ~1% reportage. <snip>
What study?

You have been asked about this many times, yet you have not once provided a valid citation. Why is that?
JeanTate 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, 01:25 PM   #79
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
So say the study you propose is funded and populated with the proper controls.

You think it would last the necessary 18 years or so without being halted because the number of adverse effects to the unvaccinated group?
'Adverse effects' applies only to the vaccinated. The unvaccinated may develop various conditions, but those conditions are not called 'adverse effects' because they're not related to any vaccine.
__________________
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 online now   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, 01:26 PM   #80
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Have you read the study?
Itchy Boy's response, in full (my hilite):

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If anyone knows of a more recent study that estimates a higher percentage of adverse effect reports to VAERS than the Harvard study's 1%, kindly post a link and a quote containing the percentage, and I'll update my information.

If I find such a study, I'll post it here.

Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and that it estimates reportage of ~1%. Since none of the above posts challenged those two facts, and until a newer study surfaces, that's the number we have.

What does it mean? It suggests the sample size to monitor for serious adverse effects is much smaller than might be possible with improvements to the system and better compliance. All else being equal, a small sample size yields less reliable results than a larger sample size. If the sample size is small as the study suggests, then the results of monitoring for vaccine related adverse effects are correspondingly less reliable. And to that extent, it impacts vaccine safety. In my opinion.

For many people, the study raises a yellow flag. For other's it won't and I have no quarrel with that.

I have neither access to the study nor the expertise to properly analyze its contents.
For that reason, I'm not prepared to discuss the fine details of the study.
JeanTate 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 12:52 PM.
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.