Vaccines

Having just watched Vaxxed, I am really saddened at the state of affairs. Unless Linda and other debunkers have at least watched it, they shouldn't really be making comments such as that in her first post in this thread.

So who's here has ACTUALLY watched it?

I watched most of it (I fast forwarded through some of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" testimonials, since their value (such as it is) has been usurped by the good quality evidence available in the formal studies). I'd ask the same question I asked earlier - how do you know that they have offered you valid and reliable information, rather than a stinking pile of misinformation?

Linda

Linda

Who do you think that you would be collecting this information for? If a hobbyist can find this stuff after 5 minutes on Google, why would you assume that professionals who have decades of knowledge and experience in the subject aren't already aware of this and more? Laypeople may have some weirdly rosy picture of of the workings of pharmaceutical companies, but physicians sure as hell don't. The recommendations which come out of these expert advisory committees take these things into account, and a whole bunch of stuff you probably have no clue about (especially given that people seem to feel they are revealing a hidden secret with the discovery that companies act in their own self-interest instead of the public good  ).

Well if you think it can be found in five minutes and is really that easy then that demonstrates that you have no expertise in the field and further proves my point. By your own criteria I guess you should just believe me the same way I'm expected to believe you now. Also, knowledge being out there to find has little to do with someone having the desire to find it. I'm totally with you on the company/government/individual self interest gripe though. Most of what I've typically had to do is explain that shit to people.

Well, that's why we see this divide between the conclusions drawn within the scientific community (where conclusions are based on a careful consideration of the validity and reliability of the evidence, regardless of belief) and those drawn by lay-people (little to no understanding of 'evidence' in a scientific sense, with acceptance based on belief). I don't think the efforts you describe above - haphazard collections of minimally understood information meant to support a particular agenda from a non-expert - helps the situation any. 

A wrench gets thrown in there when the counter evidence is coming from an expert within the field. Which is what sets off the chain reaction of having to explain why more professionals don't agree with it and so on and so forth. The haphazardness you mention is precisely why I realized there was no point collecting all that evidence. Laypeople on the subject of this sort of investigation, like yourself, often don't understand that things are connected let alone how and why and so people like me have to spend extra effort going through every single step for them. Again this is why I recommend people like James Corbett because he is incredibly good at all that as well as citing all the sources. To which the layperson, based on their worldviews, either believes or dismisses as just a conspiracy theory since data was collected so "haphazardly" according to them. At least when it's something they disagree with. As someone who claims to be in the medical profession I'm sure you can relate. Remembering that I realized that, given your previous responses and appeals to authority and consensus, you would likely have the same idea, and lo and behold you did.

Didn't you just claim that there are all sorts of shenanigans taking place behind the scenes with respect to vaccines which casts doubt on the seeming solidity of the program? Why is it unreasonable for people to suspect the same sorts of processes are in play in other fields?

Yes I did, and no it's not unreasonable, that's kinda the point.

I used to feel that way. The problem which shows up fairly quickly is that almost none of science is amenable to pure logic-based arguments. These are almost exclusively questions which need observation (methodological naturalism) to resolve.

I don't use it for "is there a red ball in the box" problems like that because as you quite rightfully point out, it doesn't work for them. But it does work for ideas like "is consensus of claimed experts in a field a good reason to believe the collective claim of such experts at face value?" to which the answer is no, but that is an argument I'm going to leave for your sources of valid information thread so please don't respond to it here.

Ah, so you are taking the advice of a non-expert.   

Based on what? Because so far it seems like your only real argument is that people dissagree with you. Yes you and Paul seem to be using the "coorelation doesn't equal causation" argument, and yes there's certainly validity to that, but what's your evidence that all is well in the vaccine world? Why should people like me have absolutely no doubts about it and stop asking questions? Because having an M.d in front of your name doesn't mean shit. My grandma was killed by a doctor that handwaved all her concerned about bowel problems as her just being paranoid, then she died of colon cancer. His license got revoked but up until that point he was, by your own definitions, a cancer "expert." I wish I could remember how many other patients it was found he had committed malpractice with during his trial. It was at least three if I remember correctly. Or at least three that they could prove.

Those fancy pieces of paper, decades of experience, and so on certainly didn't seem to make much of a difference to his actual medical ability. So how do I know you're not just someone like him who just hasn't been caught yet? I mean, you certainly seem to have the same dismissive attitude to criticism. Or perhaps that's just the "correlation doesn't cause causation" bias again and I should just believe you because you're totally different than someone like him?

My favourite recent example of complete long the failure of experts and the systems meant to validate their expertise comes from the world of denistry:



So yeah, tell me again that I should just believe the consensus of "experts," when this is what that consensus has produced.

In what way?

Because uyour argument was "well I THINK mathematicians would be insulted by this!"

So, dismissing the argument as quakery because it's not the same. Similar to what the quote described.

Mind you I did say that your comment technically supports it more than refutes it. I don't really think pure math falls under the same criteria as some other fields that argument could be applied to either. But I've also dabbled for fun to see if there's a way to create a different form of fundamental logic than "1+1=2" and found that, technically, it's not impossible to create a closed system where "1+1=3" although it's probably impossible here.

Point is, I agree with you more than I disagree with you.

Because uyour argument was "well I THINK mathematicians would be insulted by this!"

So, dismissing the argument as quakery because it's not the same. Similar to what the quote described.

Mind you I did say that your comment technically supports it more than refutes it. I don't really think pure math falls under the same criteria as some other fields that argument could be applied to either. But I've also dabbled for fun to see if there's a way to create a different form of fundamental logic than "1+1=2" and found that, technically, it's not impossible to create a closed system where "1+1=3" although it's probably impossible here.

Point is, I agree with you more than I disagree with you.

I wasn't really trying to refute it, just making a couple of observations.

What seems really strange to me is that the chapter seems to equate "mathematics" with pure mathematics (and more than that, pure mathematics in particularly arcane fields), even though at least one of the authors is described as an applied mathematician. Applied mathematicians tend to use widely understood methods, and by definition their work has applications, so much of what the authors say isn't appropriate to them.

Well if you think it can be found in five minutes and is really that easy then that demonstrates that you have no expertise in the field and further proves my point.

That was meant to be humorous.

By your own criteria I guess you should just believe me the same way I'm expected to believe you now. Also, knowledge being out there to find has little to do with someone having the desire to find it. I'm totally with you on the company/government/individual self interest gripe though. Most of what I've typically had to do is explain that shit to people.


A wrench gets thrown in there when the counter evidence is coming from an expert within the field.

What "expert"? Thompson? He doesn't actually offer evidence for anything other than a minor technical disagreement over the inclusion of an association found when the information was divided into sub-sub-sub groups, which disappeared when analyzed on the basis of confounders (or adjustments for multiple testing). It's not unusual to have a discussion and disagreement over whether to bother reporting spurious findings. No dark underbelly there.

Which is what sets off the chain reaction of having to explain why more professionals don't agree with it and so on and so forth. The haphazardness you mention is precisely why I realized there was no point collecting all that evidence. Laypeople on the subject of this sort of investigation, like yourself, often don't understand that things are connected let alone how and why and so people like me have to spend extra effort going through every single step for them. Again this is why I recommend people like James Corbett because he is incredibly good at all that as well as citing all the sources. To which the layperson, based on their worldviews, either believes or dismisses as just a conspiracy theory since data was collected so "haphazardly" according to them. At least when it's something they disagree with. As someone who claims to be in the medical profession I'm sure you can relate. Remembering that I realized that, given your previous responses and appeals to authority and consensus, you would likely have the same idea, and lo and behold you did.

I don't mind looking at sources of information, but I do look for some indication that I won't just end up misinformed, instead. It's not a good start when they get stuff I do have expertise on very, very, wrong.

I don't use it for "is there a red ball in the box" problems like that because as you quite rightfully point out, it doesn't work for them. But it does work for ideas like "is consensus of claimed experts in a field a good reason to believe the collective claim of such experts at face value?" to which the answer is no, but that is an argument I'm going to leave for your sources of valid information thread so please don't respond to it here.

I wouldn't agree with that statement either (not without a helluva lot of qualifiers about what is meant by "consensus", "claimed", "experts", "collective" and "face value", anyways).

Based on what? Because so far it seems like your only real argument is that people dissagree with you.

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. My argument is that the people with far more knowledge and experience in the field, than those here and in the anti-vaccine movement, come to dramatically different conclusions on what the evidence shows. I don't care if people disagree with me. I'm more curious about how they reconcile these things.

Yes you and Paul seem to be using the "coorelation doesn't equal causation" argument, and yes there's certainly validity to that, but what's your evidence that all is well in the vaccine world? Why should people like me have absolutely no doubts about it and stop asking questions?

I'm sorry. Where did I say that?

Linda

That was meant to be humorous.


What "expert"? Thompson? He doesn't actually offer evidence for anything other than a minor technical disagreement over the inclusion of an association found when the information was divided into sub-sub-sub groups, which disappeared when analyzed on the basis of confounders (or adjustments for multiple testing). It's not unusual to have a discussion and disagreement over whether to bother reporting spurious findings. No dark underbelly there.


I don't mind looking at sources of information, but I do look for some indication that I won't just end up misinformed, instead. It's not a good start when they get stuff I do have expertise on very, very, wrong.


I wouldn't agree with that statement either (not without a helluva lot of qualifiers about what is meant by "consensus", "claimed", "experts", "collective" and "face value", anyways).


Sorry, if I wasn't clear. My argument is that the people with far more knowledge and experience in the field, than those here and in the anti-vaccine movement, come to dramatically different conclusions on what the evidence shows. I don't care if people disagree with me. I'm more curious about how they reconcile these things.


I'm sorry. Where did I say that?

Linda

That was meant to be humorous.

Sorry.

What "expert"? Thompson? He doesn't actually offer evidence for anything other than a minor technical disagreement over the inclusion of an association found when the information was divided into sub-sub-sub groups, which disappeared when analyzed on the basis of confounders (or adjustments for multiple testing). It's not unusual to have a discussion and disagreement over whether to bother reporting spurious findings. No dark underbelly there.

Oh I'm not in the camp that says the MMR vaccine causes autism, even Dr. Wakefield was never in that camp. I was only talking about general health concerns around vaccines. Generally in regards to not enough testing being done to even know what the full risks, especially long term from year after year of injections, even are with seasonal flu vaccines. Yet the vaccines are pushed as a necessity like it's the end of the world, sometimes to people who can't even benefit from them like people with weakened immune system who's systems might not even be strong enough to properly react to the vaccines. My main concern with the vaccines I refused to take were with the use of sodium deoxycholate and aluminium in the adjuvant. And what happens when you mix mercury(leftover from the manufacturing process), aluminum and testosterone together and then throw that at some neurons and have it sit there for the 8 years or so it takes for it to get out of your body. I'm sure compounding 40 years or so of getting injected with that is just going to be great for a person's health down the line. Although as far I've found there's no study looking into that idea.

Generally showing that the vaccine may or may not have an effect, that effect may or may not be beneficial, but the adjuvant was known to contain ingredients that affect the blood-brain barrier and such. The math said no. I'm not going to poison myself, even a little, just for the chance that I might get some immunization. If it was just the shell fragments without the adjuvant I would've gotten the free shot. And I wasn't about to pay the $100, or whatever it was at the time when I looked, for an alternative that wasn't all that much better. This of course got me labelled an anti-vaxxer by my family who refused to look at the information I tried presenting them, but whatever.

Sorry, if I wasn't clear. My argument is that the people with far more knowledge and experience in the field, than those here and in the anti-vaccine movement, come to dramatically different conclusions on what the evidence shows. I don't care if people disagree with me. I'm more curious about how they reconcile these things.

Well Andrew Wakefield has an interesting take on the whole story from 2015. I am inclined to believe his version far more given it's very in line with other organisational issues I've come across.



He has given several other interviews, i haven't seen them all yet and I doubt I'll have time to. But the short version is that pre existing concerns with pre existing vaccines were not addressed and his MMR study was overblown by a freelance journalist, which spiralled into regulatory bodies which pretty much destroying his career for no justifiable reason until, at least his co author's, exoneration recently. His, as far as I know, didn't happen because he didn't have the funds to file the appeal but I gotta go look that up again. Inn any case, take it from him not me.

His case is very similar to that of Gilles-Eric Seralini and Monsanto. Seralini published a study suggesting that rats fed GMO maize were developing cancer after about 4 months. Massive crackdown and vilification occurred. But now it's come out in california courts that Monsanto did indeed run a smear campaign against him. And of course there's the infamous "revolving door" between Monsanto and FDA employees but that's getting into scope creep.

There are others I could mention, the recently admitted "sugar conspiracy" for example. It's things like this that make people doubt "well established" science and the experts who expound them. Because there's far more to what gets labelled as true and false than lab tests. 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.

Also I'm not sure you actually did make any coorelation-causation arguments, sorry.

Based on what? Because so far it seems like your only real argument is that people dissagree with you. Yes you and Paul seem to be using the "coorelation doesn't equal causation" argument, and yes there's certainly validity to that, but what's your evidence that all is well in the vaccine world?

I'm sure there are issues in the vaccine world. The question is whether there are enough issues to stop vaccinating and risk outbreaks.

That's always the question. There is no aspect of our world in which all is well.

~~ Paul

My favourite recent example of complete long the failure of experts and the systems meant to validate their expertise comes from the world of denistry:

Is your complaint that he wasn't shut down earlier?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-quit.html

~~ Paul

Man he’s annoying.