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, 01:32 PM   #81
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
What study?

You have been asked about this many times, yet you have not once provided a valid citation. Why is that?
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.
__________________
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, 01:33 PM   #82
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
'Adverse effects' applies only to the vaccinated.
Why?

Quote:
The unvaccinated may develop various conditions, but those conditions are not called 'adverse effects' because they're not related to any vaccine.
This is a joke, right?

Someone in "the unvaccinated" develops smallpox, or rabies, or ... and dies. Seems to me that's a pretty "adverse effect", the direct cause of which is the fact that they did not get a smallpox (or rabies, or ...) vaccination.

More generally, this goes to JayUtah's many posts in this thread, regarding your ability to understand risk-benefit analyses.
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, 01:33 PM   #83
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
'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.
Are we to understand that you, as an expert on the subject, understand how the two are to be differentiated, so as to be able to attribute to vaccines a phenomenon that also occurs anyway? And while at it, to understand whether the things you have declared not to be "adverse effects" can be guaranteed not to be the adverse effects of something other than a vaccine? What do you actually know?
__________________
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, 01:34 PM   #84
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The study <snip>
What "study"?

Why won't you cite it?
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, 01:37 PM   #85
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,098
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.
Out of context video w/o cross examination does not prove anything

Insisting that it has any type of evidentiary value speaks more of your lack of knowledge about the legal process than what you might know of the science involved.

Again - what is the name of the civil action that involves this video? What I'm looking for is a Joe v Jane case name that I can then review.
__________________
"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, 01:38 PM   #86
Hungry81
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
'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.
When getting a vaccine, it is good to weigh up the potenial adverse effects of the disease vs the vaccine.

Itchy Boy: What are the adverse effects of the following:

Small pox vs the vaccine?
Polio vs the vaccine?
Measles, mumps and rubella vs the vaccine?
Whooping cough vs the vaccine?
Menangitis strains vs the vaccine?
T.B vs the vaccine?


What is the mortality rate of any of the diseases vs the vaccines?

What is the serious injury rate of diseases vs the vaccines?
Hungry81 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, 01:39 PM   #87
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 43,963
I think the IB got his degree in Medicine from the same place where Jenny McCarthy got hers......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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, 01:51 PM   #88
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Continued ...

Originally Posted by Beth View Post
<snip> it's true that safety cannot be properly monitored with our current reporting system and research program for vaccine injuries.
What is the basis for this claim of yours? Please be as objective and comprehensive as you can.

Re scope: are you referring to the US only?

Quote:
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.
How would you propose that "genetically disposed" be objectively determined?

Quote:
This is a serious problem.
Why? Can you make an objective estimate of the range and severity of the "problem"?

Quote:
When we don't have accurate information available, it's quite reasonable for parents to be hesitant.
May I ask, what steps have you taken that leads you to conclude that "accurate information" is not "available"?

What, to you, constitutes "accurate information"?

Quote:
Serious adverse reactions may be rare, but they do happen.
Source?

Quote:
<snip>

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.
And you think this does not already happen, because ...?

Quote:
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. <snip>
May I ask, are you a medical professional? Have you taken the Hippocratic oath?

(to be continued)
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, 02:13 PM   #89
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,649
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453695/Davenport%2C_Katherine_NVICP.pdf?sequence=2&isAllo wed=y


48 hits for adverse
__________________
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, 04:49 PM   #90
Beth
Philosopher
 
Beth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,598
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Continued ...

What is the basis for this claim of yours? Please be as objective and comprehensive as you can.

Re scope: are you referring to the US only?
Yes, I'm referring to the USA. The problem is that safety studies are looking to estimate rates for rare events. There are inherent difficulties with making accurate estimates of low probability events. In order to have accurate estimates, an active reporting system is necessary. We don't have that. We have a passive reporting system. There are well-documented issues with the accuracy of passive reporting systems.

Here is a link to a report on a pilot study for an active reporting system.

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/defa...eport-2011.pdf

"Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. "

The project received no further funding. The pilot study was commissioned years ago, but we still don't have a system of this type in place.


Quote:


How would you propose that "genetically disposed" be objectively determined?
Here's a link to a former NIH director talking about her vision of what we could determine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZFP...R7bhAJxWkyLYO8

The interview is from more than 10 years ago. Why don't we know any more now that we did then?

Quote:


Why? Can you make an objective estimate of the range and severity of the "problem"?
We can place an upper estimate on the percent of adverse reactions from the link above - 2.6%. That's all adverse reactions, include many relatively mild ones that were still bad enough to generate an entry in their medical history recording the problem.

Quote:

May I ask, what steps have you taken that leads you to conclude that "accurate information" is not "available"?

What, to you, constitutes "accurate information"?
We don't have a good system to capturing adverse events and estimating their frequency. In this context, I would consider accurate information to be an estimate with 95% confidence that it's within one order of magnitude of the true value.

Quote:


Source?
Seriously? You want a source to confirm that adverse events can occur after vaccination?

Here's one: https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...tent/134/2/325'

"CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide."

Here's a link to a woman testifying to a state government committee about her son's very severe adverse reaction to the MMR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsXL...me67iBMh1rxQeQ

Quote:

And you think this does not already happen, because ...?
Because we don't have a system designed to capture accurate information on the problem, thus we can't reassure parents with accurate information on the risks.
Quote:
May I ask, are you a medical professional? Have you taken the Hippocratic oath?

(to be continued)
No. Why do you ask? Here's a link to a report from the Institute of Medicine prepared by appropriate experts summarizing issues with our current system and including suggestions on how to capture and report the information that parents would like to know regarding vaccinations. https://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/1
__________________
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, 04:49 PM   #91
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Why?



This is a joke, right?

Someone in "the unvaccinated" develops smallpox, or rabies, or ... and dies. Seems to me that's a pretty "adverse effect", the direct cause of which is the fact that they did not get a smallpox (or rabies, or ...) vaccination.

More generally, this goes to JayUtah's many posts in this thread, regarding your ability to understand risk-benefit analyses.
The thread isn't about risk/benefit.
__________________
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, 05:06 PM   #92
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Beth View Post
Thanks for posting that. I believe that's the citation JeanTate was asking for.

From page 6 of the study:
"Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health."

Which is exactly the point of the OP.
__________________
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 05:08 PM. Reason: grammar
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, 05:07 PM   #93
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,982
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The thread isn't about risk/benefit.
Wait . . . what?!!! A thread asking about if vaccines are safe - wait for it - "isn't about risk/benefit." WTH?

I don't know if you are so obtuse, or just simply so stupid.
__________________
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 30th May 2019, 05:20 PM   #94
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by Beth View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Continued ...

What is the basis for this claim of yours? Please be as objective and comprehensive as you can.

Re scope: are you referring to the US only?
Yes, I'm referring to the USA. The problem is that safety studies are looking to estimate rates for rare events. There are inherent difficulties with making accurate estimates of low probability events. In order to have accurate estimates, an active reporting system is necessary. We don't have that. We have a passive reporting system. There are well-documented issues with the accuracy of passive reporting systems.

Here is a link to a report on a pilot study for an active reporting system.

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/defa...eport-2011.pdf

"Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. "

The project received no further funding. The pilot study was commissioned years ago, but we still don't have a system of this type in place.

Quote:
How would you propose that "genetically disposed" be objectively determined?

Here's a link to a former NIH director talking about her vision of what we could determine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZFP...R7bhAJxWkyLYO8

The interview is from more than 10 years ago. Why don't we know any more now that we did then?
Quote:
Why? Can you make an objective estimate of the range and severity of the "problem"?
We can place an upper estimate on the percent of adverse reactions from the link above - 2.6%. That's all adverse reactions, include many relatively mild ones that were still bad enough to generate an entry in their medical history recording the problem.


Quote:
May I ask, what steps have you taken that leads you to conclude that "accurate information" is not "available"?

What, to you, constitutes "accurate information"?
We don't have a good system to capturing adverse events and estimating their frequency. In this context, I would consider accurate information to be an estimate with 95% confidence that it's within one order of magnitude of the true value.
Quote:
Source?
Seriously? You want a source to confirm that adverse events can occur after vaccination?

Here's one: https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...tent/134/2/325'

"CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide."

Here's a link to a woman testifying to a state government committee about her son's very severe adverse reaction to the MMR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsXL...me67iBMh1rxQeQ
Quote:
And you think this does not already happen, because ...?
Because we don't have a system designed to capture accurate information on the problem, thus we can't reassure parents with accurate information on the risks.

Quote:
May I ask, are you a medical professional? Have you taken the Hippocratic oath?

(to be continued)
No. Why do you ask? Here's a link to a report from the Institute of Medicine prepared by appropriate experts summarizing issues with our current system and including suggestions on how to capture and report the information that parents would like to know regarding vaccinations. https://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/1
(my hilites)

I made a mistake in posting this set of questions and responses: I should have waited until you had addressed what was in my first.

Here it is again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Quote:
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.
To be clear: unless and until you can provide considerably greater clarity on what - in detail - you mean by each of these terms, and how you distinguish between them, I am unable to understand, or put into context, key aspects of your second post to this thread (which I have quoted in full).
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, 05:25 PM   #95
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Thanks for posting that. I believe that's the citation JeanTate was asking for.

<snip>
Wait ... you don't actually know what "the study" you have referred to so many times actually is?!?

And you have the audacity to post in this, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF?
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, 05:26 PM   #96
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Why?

This is a joke, right?

Someone in "the unvaccinated" develops smallpox, or rabies, or ... and dies. Seems to me that's a pretty "adverse effect", the direct cause of which is the fact that they did not get a smallpox (or rabies, or ...) vaccination.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the unvaccinated don't report to VAERS.
__________________
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, 05:33 PM   #97
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 wasapi View Post
Wait . . . what?!!! A thread asking about if vaccines are safe - wait for it - "isn't about risk/benefit." WTH?

I don't know if you are so obtuse, or just simply so stupid.

Yeah, that what makes the anti-vaccine bunch so special. They want vaccines to be 100% safe and effective... because the diseases are "not so bad." It is weird mix of the Nirvana Fallacy and living on Htrae.
__________________
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, 05:34 PM   #98
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Wait ... you don't actually know what "the study" you have referred to so many times actually is?!?

And you have the audacity to post in this, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF?
The study Beth cited is the same one as in the video. Is that not what you were asking for?

The study estimates a very low rate of reporting to VAERS. If anyone has newer evidence of a higher reporting rate, kindly post 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 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, 05:39 PM   #99
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
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the unvaccinated don't report to VAERS.

No, there is not "National Vaccine Preventable Disease Compensation Program." Though cases of many of those diseases are reported to public health departments to access dangers. Like the USA just about to hit a thousand cases of measles this year.
__________________
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, 05:46 PM   #100
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Wait . . . what?!!! A thread asking about if vaccines are safe - wait for it - "isn't about risk/benefit." WTH?

I don't know if you are so obtuse, or just simply so stupid.
Risk/benefit is actually two words. One is 'risk', the other is 'benefit'.

We're talking about 'risk' in as much as it relates to safety.

Nobody denies there are benefits to vaccines, so we're not debating that here.
__________________
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, 05:51 PM   #101
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Chris Haynes View Post
No, there is not "National Vaccine Preventable Disease Compensation Program." Though cases of many of those diseases are reported to public health departments to access dangers. Like the USA just about to hit a thousand cases of measles this year.
See JeanTate post #82 to get the right context. Maybe you misunderstood something because I don't see how your comment relates.
__________________
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, 05:54 PM   #102
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Why?

This is a joke, right?

Someone in "the unvaccinated" develops smallpox, or rabies, or ... and dies. Seems to me that's a pretty "adverse effect", the direct cause of which is the fact that they did not get a smallpox (or rabies, or ...) vaccination.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that the unvaccinated don't report to VAERS.
Wait ... what?!?

Here's what you posted, that got this mini-thread going:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
That’s it?

Nothing about cost? That it would couldn’t attain its goals unless all (new) vaccines were suspended for the duration of the study?

And, since you made the claim here, in this board, please list ALL the “experts” you have heard from (and all the peer-reviewed papers, by those experts, that you have read).


How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?


??? In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
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.
No mention of "VAERS" here, or in any of your subsequent posts on this.

Yet another example of moving goalposts?
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, 06:02 PM   #103
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The study Beth cited is the same one as in the video. Is that not what you were asking for?

The study estimates a very low rate of reporting to VAERS. If anyone has newer evidence of a higher reporting rate, kindly post it.
I'm becoming more and more confident that you either don't remember what you posted, or are waaay out of your depth, wrt reading comprehension.

Remember this?

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.

<snip>

Meanwhile, the video of Plotkin should be proof enough that the Harvard study is genuine and <snip>

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.
Yet, now you are certain that the "study Beth cited is the same one as in the video"!

How, please tell us all, could you make that connection if you do not have access to 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
Old 30th May 2019, 06:02 PM   #104
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The thread isn't about risk/benefit.
What a ludicrous claim. You don't deny that a vaccine is intended to provide a benefit by preventing disease. You argue blatantly that the risk of vaccines has not been adequately assessed. It is therefore clearly a risk-benefit argument. You may choose to sidestep the risk-benefit evaluation, but that is precisely why your critics rightly consider it a simplistic argument. The propriety of a vaccination, of any medical treatment -- or, in fact, of any proposed action -- is intimately connected to whether the likely benefit outweighs the likely risk, considering also the likely outcome of inaction. This inherent calculus does not go away simply because you don't wish to face it or don't know how to reason through it.

In evaluating an argument, we pay special attention to questions of the form, "We all agree that..." because they are the ones most likely to hide assumptions, foisted premises, and begged questions. Indeed your insistence that we all share the same monolithic standard of safety has turned out to be exactly such a hiding place. Your critics don't share the notion of a risk unmitigated by benefit. Many other "vaccine safety" advocates have no problem with the argument being between a risk and benefit. It seems more likely that you are avoiding the risk-benefit model because you realize it's a weakness of your argument that you're trying to beg your way around. Your critics are right not to let you do it.

Last edited by JayUtah; 30th May 2019 at 06:18 PM. Reason: Accommodate an answer given while the post was being composed.
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, 06:03 PM   #105
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,092
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Risk/benefit is actually two words. One is 'risk', the other is 'benefit'.

We're talking about 'risk' in as much as it relates to safety.

Nobody denies there are benefits to vaccines, so we're not debating that here.
When you're talking about risk/benefit, you have to talk about both risk and benefit.

The critical question - the only critical question - is whether the benefit is worth the risk. No-one is denying that there is risk in vaccines. We're only questioning whether that risk is worth taking.

It is, by the way. Very smart people have done the maths.
__________________
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, 06:06 PM   #106
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're talking about 'risk' in as much as it relates to safety.
You're proposing a standard of risk that doesn't take into account any other factor. You're further proposing that it's a universally accepted standard. You're begging a very important premise to any argument that advocates for or against something.

Quote:
Nobody denies there are benefits to vaccines, so we're not debating that here.
You may fervently wish for that, but you may not do so and claim we all share the same standard of risk. If you are unwilling to weigh risks and benefits, then you may not claim a common standard.
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, 06:06 PM   #107
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
See JeanTate post #82 to get the right context. Maybe you misunderstood something because I don't see how your comment relates.
I do.

Understand the context, that is. Here is post #82

IMHO, another very clear example of you moving the goalposts ...
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, 06:13 PM   #108
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It is, by the way. Very smart people have done the maths.
And part of the mathematics is the statistical framework that deals with the uncertainty in acquired data. We don't have to wait until we have bright-line numbers before we can quantify either risk or benefit suitably. And one of the things we know about human nature is that it doesn't intuitively assess risk very well. Hence any argument that proposes a risk is unacceptable at any estimate of benefit (or some level), and does so on the basis of supposed uncertainty needs to have a lot more behind it than just vague handwaving and weasel words.
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, 06:23 PM   #109
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I'm becoming more and more confident that you either don't remember what you posted, or are waaay out of your depth, wrt reading comprehension.

Remember this?



Yet, now you are certain that the "study Beth cited is the same one as in the video"!

How, please tell us all, could you make that connection if you do not have access to the study?
It's the same study. Text from it was read in the video. If you want to dispute that, show some evidence. If you have evidence of a higher reporting to VAERS than the study, share 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 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, 06:29 PM   #110
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
When you're talking about risk/benefit, you have to talk about both risk and benefit.

The critical question - the only critical question - is whether the benefit is worth the risk. No-one is denying that there is risk in vaccines. We're only questioning whether that risk is worth taking.

It is, by the way. Very smart people have done the maths.
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 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, 06:34 PM   #111
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You're proposing a standard of risk that doesn't take into account any other factor. You're further proposing that it's a universally accepted standard. You're begging a very important premise to any argument that advocates for or against something.



You may fervently wish for that, but you may not do so and claim we all share the same standard of risk. If you are unwilling to weigh risks and benefits, then you may not claim a common standard.
I'm not proposing anything. I'm merely bringing the Harvard study to light.
People can make of it as they wish.
__________________
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, 06:35 PM   #112
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's the same study. Text from it was read in the video. If you want to dispute that, show some evidence. If you have evidence of a higher reporting to VAERS than the study, share it.
Now I understand ... 1% = 2.6%

Might seem OT, but it's not, really ... have you read George Orwell's "1984"?
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, 06:37 PM   #113
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
What a ludicrous claim. You don't deny that a vaccine is intended to provide a benefit by preventing disease. You argue blatantly that the risk of vaccines has not been adequately assessed. It is therefore clearly a risk-benefit argument. You may choose to sidestep the risk-benefit evaluation, but that is precisely why your critics rightly consider it a simplistic argument. The propriety of a vaccination, of any medical treatment -- or, in fact, of any proposed action -- is intimately connected to whether the likely benefit outweighs the likely risk, considering also the likely outcome of inaction. This inherent calculus does not go away simply because you don't wish to face it or don't know how to reason through it.

In evaluating an argument, we pay special attention to questions of the form, "We all agree that..." because they are the ones most likely to hide assumptions, foisted premises, and begged questions. Indeed your insistence that we all share the same monolithic standard of safety has turned out to be exactly such a hiding place. Your critics don't share the notion of a risk unmitigated by benefit. Many other "vaccine safety" advocates have no problem with the argument being between a risk and benefit. It seems more likely that you are avoiding the risk-benefit model because you realize it's a weakness of your argument that you're trying to beg your way around. Your critics are right not to let you do it.
You can attribute to me whatever you wish. That doesn't make it so. Cheers.
__________________
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, 06:38 PM   #114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
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.
False. We can know the ratio to a certain margin of error. Perhaps you would be so kind as to compute that margin of error for us and thus illustrate your point. Right now you're just begging the question.

Quote:
The 1% report rate indicates the people doing the math had poor data due to the small sample size.
You have provided no statistical argument to demonstrate the statistical framework is insufficient. Please show your work.

Further, you've indicated you're out of your element when it comes to this particular kind of science. Is it more likely that you disagree with the prevailing wisdom because you are right and everyone else is wrong, or that your disagreement is a symptom of being out of your element?

Quote:
And, no, the question in this thread is not whether the benefit is worth the risk.
It is if you argue that we all agree on a standard of acceptable risk. Your model of risk doesn't include benefit. Your critics' model of risk includes benefit. Therefore you can't argue that we share the same model. And that means your model needs to be justified by argument, not merely begged, if you want it be the one your critics use.

Quote:
That's up to the individual to decide for themselves.
Then do you concede that we do not all share the same standard of risk?
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, 06:38 PM   #115
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
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.
If you want to make political or philosophical arguments, then this SMM&T board is not the place to do so.

Otherwise, engage in a discussion of risk/benefit. And please, engage honestly.
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, 06:40 PM   #116
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,187
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You can attribute to me whatever you wish. That doesn't make it so. Cheers.
You didn't address any of the points in my post. Please try again.
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, 06:40 PM   #117
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks for this.



Now I understand ... 1% = 2.6%

Might seem OT, but it's not, really ... have you read George Orwell's "1984"?
You said it, not me.
__________________
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, 06:43 PM   #118
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 JeanTate View Post
Thanks for this.



Now I understand ... 1% = 2.6%

Might seem OT, but it's not, really ... have you read George Orwell's "1984"?



He lives on Htrae, a much more accurate depiction.
__________________
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, 06:45 PM   #119
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,613
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You said it, not me.
I'll give you a chance to reflect on that, and to spend time reading and re-reading your posts (the ones that are directly relevant).

Fortunately, the time has passed where you can edit any of those "inconvenient" posts, and everyone who reads this thread can find - on their own - the objective evidence ...

à demain !
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, 06:52 PM   #120
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I'll give you a chance to reflect on that, and to spend time reading and re-reading your posts (the ones that are directly relevant).

Fortunately, the time has passed where you can edit any of those "inconvenient" posts, and everyone who reads this thread can find - on their own - the objective evidence ...

à demain !
Thanks. I'll give you a chance to quote where I said that.
__________________
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
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 12:41 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.