Psience Quest

(2017-12-16, 09:32 PM)Mediochre Wrote: [ -> ]When people beat down the opposition and dismiss them all as quacks and conspiracy theorists it only exacerbates the issue. Making "experts" legitimately dumb and uninformed about their own fields, which makes them no longer experts in peoples eyes. Growing the divide even more.

You are conflating two different things. There are areas of controversy and concern in any field. Quacks and conspiracy theorists are beaten down because they misinform themselves and others about areas of controversy and concern. In particular, they manufacture controversy where none really exists, grossly misrepresent existing controversies (when they accidentally manage to identify a real concern), and present false and misunderstood information.

I have no problem whatsoever with informed opposition. Medicine and science thrive on that. I have a problem with people who are determined to make themselves and others dumb and uninformed. 

Take "Vaxxed" for example. They make a big fuss about a supposed conspiracy to cover up a connection between vaccines and autism with respect to a specific study Thompson was involved in. And they showed a bunch of testimonials about kids whose ASD was expressed at some point during the immunization schedule. But a disagreement over a minor technical issue is not a conspiracy to cover up. And the study in question, even including the analysis which was left out of the original paper, shows that all the parent testimonials they were offering were mistaken. It showed that there was no increase in autism associated with MMR for any (boy, girl, vaccines on time or not) kids who were white, no increase in autism for any (black, white, boy, girl) kids who had their vaccines on schedule, no increase in autism for any (black, white, vaccines on time or not) girls. The only group which had an increased prevalence of autism were black boys who received their vaccines late. And unsurprisingly, this small group also happened to have an increased prevalence of known risk factors for autism, such as low birth weight. Take away the known risk factors (using birth certificate information), and there is no longer an increased prevalence of autism in this group either.

Encouraging people to become informed about serious and legitimate concerns is a good thing. Pointing them towards movies and websites that offer misinformation does not achieve that.

Linda

Examples of useful sources of information.

Primary sources for why Wakefield was called before the GMC and their findings, as well as why his co-conspirators (jk) were exonerated and he was not:

https://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/01January/D...rected.pdf
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Identifying valid concerns:

https://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-...B000FC1V1A
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...#t=article

Linda

Linda, how effective is the flu vaccine?

(2017-12-18, 03:27 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]Linda, how effective is the flu vaccine?

Effectiveness for 2016/17 season and previous seasons, various countries:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy..._final.pdf
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/...22.6.30460
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/va...tudies.htm

Linda

(2017-12-18, 04:58 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Effectiveness for 2016/17 season and previous seasons, various countries:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy..._final.pdf
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/...22.6.30460
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/va...tudies.htm

Linda

Linda,

I notice that you again cite the CDC's studies on flu vaccine effectiveness... Do you remember when I schooled you on those studies previously?

Are the CDC's flu VE studies case-control studies?

Do case-control studies provide inferior quality of evidence to RCT's and cohort studies?

Doesn't the CDC's case-control study rely on the key assumption that the vaccinated population is not more likely to visit a doctor for influenza-like-illness (ILI) than the unvaccinated population?

If this assumption is incorrect, couldn't the CDC's case-control study falsely show high VE even if it is basically only the vaccinated population getting sick with flu and ILI?

What side effects are commonly listed for the flu vaccines?

Are headaches, muscle aches, fever, cough, sinus, nausea, and vomiting among the commonly listed side-effects of the flu-shots?

Are these side effects also listed as symptoms of the flu?

Doesn't it seem likely that the flu shot side effects might be considered a kind of "Influenza-Like Illness" (ILI)?

Is it likely that some people who received the flu shot subsequently visit the doctor due to the side-effects which are then labeled as ILI?

Wouldn't such a positive correlation between flu vaccine and ILI falsely increase the CDC's reported vaccine effectiveness?

Isn't it likely that people who receive the flu-shot are more likely to be in high-risk environments (healthcare workers) or psychologically more inclined to see a doctor about ILI symptoms, and wouldn't this add to the positive correlation between vaccinated population and ILI?

---

Here is an example scenario where being in the vaccinated population makes you 9x more likely to have the flu and 24x more likely to have ILI, yet the CDC's study could claim 62.5% VE:
50% of the general population receives the flu vaccine.
20% of the general population gets the flu.
25% of the general population gets ILI.
5% of the vaccinated population doesn’t get flu or ILI.
90% of those with the flu were vaccinated.
96% of those with ILI were vaccinated.
18% of the general population was vaccinated and got the flu.
24% of the general population was vaccinated and got ILI.
2% of the population was unvaccinated and got the flu.
1% of the population was unvaccinated and got ILI.


Then suppose in our CDC case-control study we find numbers that track with the absolute percentages:
EE = 1800
EN = 2400
CE = 200
CN = 100
ES = 4200
CS = 300
EER (flu rate in vaccinated) = .429
CER (flu rate in unvaccinated) = .666
RR = .644
OR = .375

Estimated VE = 1-RR = 35.6%
or
Estimated VE = 1-OR = 62.5%

---

Can an educated decision about flu vaccine risks vs benefits be made if the benefits are unknown?

Isn't it true VE is not the only statistic needed to gauge flu vaccine benefit?

Does pro-vaccine propaganda and advertisement make anyone aware that VE % alone means nothing?

Wouldn't we need to know the risk of getting the flu while unvaccinated in order for VE to provide a meaningful measure of benefit?

Wouldn't we also need to know how severe the symptoms are likely to be if we do get the flu?

Does anyone know for their specific population profile what is the unvaccinated probability of getting the flu with symptoms more severe than the vaccine side-effects?

---

Why do hospitals punish vaccine exempt employees by making them wear masks all day every day?

Is it to use social ostracism to encourage compliance so that the hospital can acquire grant money, avoid liability, and improve the hospital's score on various healthcare rating websites?

Or do hospitals force their vaccine exempt employees to wear masks out of concern for their patients as they claim?

If it is purely to protect patients, why don't these same hospitals make any employee who has cold or flu symptoms wear a mask all day every day?

Isn't the risk to a patient greater from someone who is symptomatic and vaccinated than from someone who is asymptomatic and unvaccinated?

Is it fair that a healthy unvaccinated employee must wear a mask all day every day even in non-patient areas while a vaccinated employee may spew spittle and mucus all over the damned place without being forced to wear a mask?

---

Is the whole flu-vaccine business a pharmaceutical industry profit-generating scheme and eugenics conspiracy?

Are you a shill for the pharmaceutical industry?

(2017-12-18, 06:33 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]Linda,

I notice that you again cite the CDC's studies on flu vaccine effectiveness... Do you remember when I schooled you on those studies previously?

  No. I remember that you tried to make it seem like there was something suspect and I tried to get you to explain why. And then it became clear that you understood so little about the subject that you didn't even know what odds ratios were. I walked you through some of the calculations, I patiently explained where you were mistaken about your claims, and then you became abusive.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/cd...tive.2912/

Linda

(2017-12-18, 06:33 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]Linda,

I notice that you again cite the CDC's studies on flu vaccine effectiveness... Do you remember when I schooled you on those studies previously?

Are the CDC's flu VE studies case-control studies?

Do case-control studies provide inferior quality of evidence to RCT's and cohort studies?

Doesn't the CDC's case-control study rely on the key assumption that the vaccinated population is not more likely to visit a doctor for influenza-like-illness (ILI) than the unvaccinated population?

If this assumption is incorrect, couldn't the CDC's case-control study falsely show high VE even if it is basically only the vaccinated population getting sick with flu and ILI?

What side effects are commonly listed for the flu vaccines?

Are headaches, muscle aches, fever, cough, sinus, nausea, and vomiting among the commonly listed side-effects of the flu-shots?

Are these side effects also listed as symptoms of the flu?

Doesn't it seem likely that the flu shot side effects might be considered a kind of "Influenza-Like Illness" (ILI)?

Is it likely that some people who received the flu shot subsequently visit the doctor due to the side-effects which are then labeled as ILI?

Wouldn't such a positive correlation between flu vaccine and ILI falsely increase the CDC's reported vaccine effectiveness?

Isn't it likely that people who receive the flu-shot are more likely to be in high-risk environments (healthcare workers) or psychologically more inclined to see a doctor about ILI symptoms, and wouldn't this add to the positive correlation between vaccinated population and ILI?

---

Here is an example scenario where being in the vaccinated population makes you 9x more likely to have the flu and 24x more likely to have ILI, yet the CDC's study could claim 62.5% VE:
50% of the general population receives the flu vaccine.
20% of the general population gets the flu.
25% of the general population gets ILI.
5% of the vaccinated population doesn’t get flu or ILI.
90% of those with the flu were vaccinated.
96% of those with ILI were vaccinated.
18% of the general population was vaccinated and got the flu.
24% of the general population was vaccinated and got ILI.
2% of the population was unvaccinated and got the flu.
1% of the population was unvaccinated and got ILI.


Then suppose in our CDC case-control study we find numbers that track with the absolute percentages:
EE = 1800
EN = 2400
CE = 200
CN = 100
ES = 4200
CS = 300
EER (flu rate in vaccinated) = .429
CER (flu rate in unvaccinated) = .666
RR = .644
OR = .375

Estimated VE = 1-RR = 35.6%
or
Estimated VE = 1-OR = 62.5%

---

Can an educated decision about flu vaccine risks vs benefits be made if the benefits are unknown?

Isn't it true VE is not the only statistic needed to gauge flu vaccine benefit?

Does pro-vaccine propaganda and advertisement make anyone aware that VE % alone means nothing?

Wouldn't we need to know the risk of getting the flu while unvaccinated in order for VE to provide a meaningful measure of benefit?

Wouldn't we also need to know how severe the symptoms are likely to be if we do get the flu?

Does anyone know for their specific population profile what is the unvaccinated probability of getting the flu with symptoms more severe than the vaccine side-effects?

---

Why do hospitals punish vaccine exempt employees by making them wear masks all day every day?

Is it to use social ostracism to encourage compliance so that the hospital can acquire grant money, avoid liability, and improve the hospital's score on various healthcare rating websites?

Or do hospitals force their vaccine exempt employees to wear masks out of concern for their patients as they claim?

If it is purely to protect patients, why don't these same hospitals make any employee who has cold or flu symptoms wear a mask all day every day?

Isn't the risk to a patient greater from someone who is symptomatic and vaccinated than from someone who is asymptomatic and unvaccinated?

Is it fair that a healthy unvaccinated employee must wear a mask all day every day even in non-patient areas while a vaccinated employee may spew spittle and mucus all over the damned place without being forced to wear a mask?

---

Is the whole flu-vaccine business a pharmaceutical industry profit-generating scheme and eugenics conspiracy?

Are you a shill for the pharmaceutical industry?

Of course we could all not get flu vaccinated and risk our collective asses hope there would not be a repeat pandemic of the sort that happened back in 1918. Are you really comfortable risking your health, your family's and your friends by telling anyone willing to listen to antivax nonsense? You don't need to answer because I know you are.

(2017-12-18, 08:25 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Of course we could all not get flu vaccinated and risk our collective asses hope there would not be a repeat pandemic of the sort that happened back in 1918. Are you really comfortable risking your health, your family's and your friends...

Can you quantify the unvaccinated risk?

Can you quantify the vaccinated risk?

Can you quantify the risk of vaccine side-effects?

In the 1918 "Spanish" flu pandemic did more people die from the flu or bacterial super-infections?

What role did environmental factors and WWI play in that pandemic?

What role did mass vaccination campaigns and contaminated vaccines play in that pandemic?

(2017-12-18, 06:33 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]Are the CDC's flu VE studies case-control studies?

Pretty much (for your purposes, anyway).

Quote:Do case-control studies provide inferior quality of evidence to RCT's and cohort studies?

It depends. In some cases they are able to provide better information than RCT's and cohort studies. All three kinds of studies are used to look at the influenza vaccines, and the choice depends upon the question being asked.

Quote:Doesn't the CDC's case-control study rely on the key assumption that the vaccinated population is not more likely to visit a doctor for influenza-like-illness (ILI) than the unvaccinated population?

If this assumption is incorrect, couldn't the CDC's case-control study falsely show high VE even if it is basically only the vaccinated population getting sick with flu and ILI?

No, odds ratios don't depend on the underlying incidence - they can be calculated using selected samples (one of their advantages).

Quote:What side effects are commonly listed for the flu vaccines?

Are headaches, muscle aches, fever, cough, sinus, nausea, and vomiting among the commonly listed side-effects of the flu-shots?

Are these side effects also listed as symptoms of the flu?

Doesn't it seem likely that the flu shot side effects might be considered a kind of "Influenza-Like Illness" (ILI)?

Is it likely that some people who received the flu shot subsequently visit the doctor due to the side-effects which are then labeled as ILI?

Wouldn't such a positive correlation between flu vaccine and ILI falsely increase the CDC's reported vaccine effectiveness?

No. This is the trap you can fall in to when you have no experience with clinical medicine. Diagnoses aren't made based on a list of symptoms, but by pattern recognition. The analogy I use is the Mona Lisa. If you've ever seen the Mona Lisa, I can show you some paintings of "woman with a secretive smile" and you can pick her out immediately. But if you haven't ever seen her, I can show you a painting which fits that description and claim that it is her.

Besides, if you read the description of the methodology, those patients within that 2 week window were excluded anyways. 

Quote:Isn't it likely that people who receive the flu-shot are more likely to be in high-risk environments (healthcare workers) or psychologically more inclined to see a doctor about ILI symptoms, and wouldn't this add to the positive correlation between vaccinated population and ILI?

No, again, the underlying prevalence of ILI and propensity to seek medical care do not alter the equation.

Quote:

---

Here is an example scenario where being in the vaccinated population makes you 9x more likely to have the flu and 24x more likely to have ILI, yet the CDC's study could claim 62.5% VE:
50% of the general population receives the flu vaccine.
20% of the general population gets the flu.
25% of the general population gets ILI.
5% of the vaccinated population doesn’t get flu or ILI.
90% of those with the flu were vaccinated.
96% of those with ILI were vaccinated.
18% of the general population was vaccinated and got the flu.
24% of the general population was vaccinated and got ILI.
2% of the population was unvaccinated and got the flu.
1% of the population was unvaccinated and got ILI.


Then suppose in our CDC case-control study we find numbers that track with the absolute percentages:
EE = 1800
EN = 2400
CE = 200
CN = 100
ES = 4200
CS = 300
EER (flu rate in vaccinated) = .429
CER (flu rate in unvaccinated) = .666
RR = .644
OR = .375

Estimated VE = 1-RR = 35.6%
or
Estimated VE = 1-OR = 62.5%

---

I'm not sure what you were going for with this.

Quote:Can an educated decision about flu vaccine risks vs benefits be made if the benefits are unknown?

Doubtful. That's why research and surveillance are done on risks and benefits.

Quote:Isn't it true VE is not the only statistic needed to gauge flu vaccine benefit?

Yes. That's why there are many different studies done to gauge benefit (and risk).  

Quote:Does pro-vaccine propaganda and advertisement make anyone aware that VE % alone means nothing?

I don't know. People seem to follow the advice of their physician and public health advisors, which makes the point moot, I suspect. 

Quote:Wouldn't we need to know the risk of getting the flu while unvaccinated in order for VE to provide a meaningful measure of benefit?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you asking if we need measurement of baseline risk in various populations? Again, VE doesn't depend on incidence or risk.

Quote:

Quote:Wouldn't we also need to know how severe the symptoms are likely to be if we do get the flu?

Does anyone know for their specific population profile what is the unvaccinated probability of getting the flu with symptoms more severe than the vaccine side-effects?

That's the point of the research which answers those questions.

---

Quote:Why do hospitals punish vaccine exempt employees by making them wear masks all day every day?

Is it to use social ostracism to encourage compliance so that the hospital can acquire grant money, avoid liability, and improve the hospital's score on various healthcare rating websites?

Or do hospitals force their vaccine exempt employees to wear masks out of concern for their patients as they claim?

If it is purely to protect patients, why don't these same hospitals make any employee who has cold or flu symptoms wear a mask all day every day?

Isn't the risk to a patient greater from someone who is symptomatic and vaccinated than from someone who is asymptomatic and unvaccinated?

Is it fair that a healthy unvaccinated employee must wear a mask all day every day even in non-patient areas while a vaccinated employee may spew spittle and mucus all over the damned place without being forced to wear a mask?

This sounds like a pet peeve for you?

---

Quote:Is the whole flu-vaccine business a pharmaceutical industry profit-generating scheme and eugenics conspiracy?

Are you a shill for the pharmaceutical industry?

This seems to belong in the conspiracy part of the forum.

Linda

(2017-12-18, 09:57 PM)Hurmanetar Wrote: [ -> ]Can you quantify the unvaccinated risk?

Can you quantify the vaccinated risk?

Can you quantify the risk of vaccine side-effects?

In the 1918 "Spanish" flu pandemic did more people die from the flu or bacterial super-infections?

What role did environmental factors and WWI play in that pandemic?

What role did mass vaccination campaigns and contaminated vaccines play in that pandemic?

All irrelevant questions. The risk of pandemic is just as real and likely today as it was in 1918. By all means don't get vaccinated, however you should not spread such nonsense anti vaccination is the  wiser choice - it's not.