Jump to content
AccessDenied

An anti-vaxxer by any other name is still a looney.

Recommended Posts

But you don't believe in the validity of peer review.

 

Anyway we have a "Computer scientist" and an unspecified doing epidemiology work. The unspecified is linked to the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, an anti-vaccine group.

 

So this is once that Penn and Teller (silly though they are) trump your single paper.

 

Addit-Mr Miller appears to have no qualifications I can find.

Edited by Hlass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, so you read the article, well done. :)

 

I mean it's right there on the page:

 

Conflict of Interest Statement Neil Z Miller is associated with the ‘Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute’.

 

 

Funding This work is funded by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) who donated $2,500 towards the SAGE Choice Open Access fee for this article.

\

 

Anyway we have a "Computer scientist" and an unspecified doing epidemiology work.

Actually they're doing statistical work, and given that the study is about statistics and not 'epidemiology' then as long as the people can add up I don't see a problem. It was still published in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, I'm just waiting for someone to come up with some reason that the journal is not the 'right' kind or something lame like that.

 

 

Addit-Mr Miller appears to have no qualifications I can find.

Oh he's plenty 'qualified' if you mean does he have a doctorate in toxicology from Harvard then no he doesn't.

 

Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. He is the author of several books on vaccines, including

Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners; Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child (with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein); and Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?Past organizations that he has lectured for include the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, the International College of Integrative Medicine, Autism One/Generation Rescue, the Hahnemann Academy of North America, and Dr. Gabriel Cousens’ Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center. Mr. Miller is a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows, has a degree in psychology, and is a member of Mensa.

Edited by Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an ardent vacc supporter I am still not surprised by bubs getting into trouble with multiple simultaneous doses, adults can find that rough on the system.

 

Expecting an underdeveloped immune system to cope with some of those rediculous multidoses is insane. Would be very surprised to find a reason for more than a triple antigen say +1 other than convenience.

 

Ed.spell.

Edited by Elfarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, make up your mind. Either qualifications matter or they don't.

 

Why should we believe the paper is correct? So far all you have managed to come up with is "because it was published".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, make up your mind. Either qualifications matter or they don't.

 

Why should we believe the paper is correct? So far all you have managed to come up with is "because it was published".

 

Pretty sure you can find your own reasons to believe it...or not, depending on the usual personal criteria. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why do you believe it? You have discounted qualifications, affiliations, past work and counter arguments. You don't have the skills or information to interpret the figures yourself. (Which is ok, most of us don't)

 

 

So why should we believe the paper is accurate or important?

 

More specifically why do you? I am seriously asking you, if was important enough to post, let's discuss what you believe about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is called Freedom of Information, something the Net makes far easier, so long as the Farmer dictum "99% of everything is crap" is not forgotten.

 

I happen to support vaccination, however I have seen adults, including myself, knocked around by multiple vaccinations, some enough to be hospitalised.

 

It is unequivocal that vaccination carries with it some risks, the debate exists because those risks are not necessarily confined to the individual.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More specifically why do you? I am seriously asking you, if was important enough to post, let's discuss what you believe about it.

Pretty much what Chris said, it's more information that can be accessed by people looking into the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

It's very difficult to write on some subjects without bias, but as a rule I avoid too many conclusions drawn from statistics, I doubt this paper will influence anyone who hasn't already made their mind up, or influence anyone who has not by very much.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ChrisG: I think what HLass is getting at, is that (and I'll use an exaggerated example here to push this point), you can get 1 person claiming 'Sun can cause cancer' however he backs this up with lot of evidence, peer reviewed papers and years of research.

 

Then you get 1 other person going "no it doesn't clouds do!" and they back it up by saying clouds exist in all countries that these people have cancer. None is peer reviewed, it lacks any evidence and the person has put maybe a month of his time into it.

 

Freedom of information is a good thing but you can't give weight to information that has no credit, its stupid and dangerous. Hlass is point out to Director (I think) that Director is ignoring and writing off all this other evidence in favour of something that has been proven to be bullshit. Yet he'll believe whatever he wants to believe.

 

Goes to show that you can show 1000 people a picture of a Cat and there will always be one person to say "nah its a ferret!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that a) there are many more than one person expressing their concerns and b) majority opinion does not always indicate truth.

 

Bet, hey whatever, make your own choices in life, just don't try to force those choices on me is all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many more people in the world D, what matters if what they're backing it up with. If it's CRAP science, or resorting to other 'studies' done which have been proven to be full of shit.

 

I agree with B) though, you're 100% right, its fact or fiction to me, and when things have the backing to prove that they are fact, I tend to go that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never let the facts get in the way of a good mind control conspiracy?

 

I wonder how many of these "Vaccines cause autism!" folk are just looking to blame away their shitty parenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I mention I, my wife, my son all got a free Whooping cough vaccine shot when we became parents?

 

Also so did her parents and my parents. Also my work gave me a free flu vaccine shot ... I'm actually having a hard time trying to remember the last time I paid to have a vaccine shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Director is absolutely right:

 

This paper is statistics, not epidemiology.

An epidemiologist, would look for interesting and informed information that can be used to answer public health questions on a topic.

 

This article contains a following:

 

1. Statistics to support a truism (not worth publishing).

2. Assertion of "large numbers" of nondescript data, to support a view that the data doesn't support.

 

So lets discuss this paper.

 

I'll start with the end of the abstract, which is where they have the best opportunity to frame the data for the general (ignorant) public.

 

"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority."

 

Now the above is effectively two pieces of editorial content, with a prepended statistical "fact" to support it. The entire conclusion is based on this "factual" assertion being correct.

But it's not. Or at least, it's not the whole truth:

 

It SHOULD read:

 

"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths [among patients who have already had an adverse reaction]"

 

What does that matter? Well the dataset is a dataset comprising of people who have ALREADY had a reaction to a vaccine. It's all data from the VAERS database, and from nowhere else. If we assume that hypothetically every vaccine has a 1/1,000,000 chance of killing someone, then we look at people who have already died of a vaccine, you'll find that with a large sample size (say 20 years of data) deaths correlate with more vaccinations.

 

In other surprise statistical revelations, it was found that there is a correlation between being in a car and dying in a car accident, and that a correlation exists between flying in a plane and dying in a plane crash.

 

I'm not sure how many cases there are in the Airplane Adverse Event Reporting System database (AAERS) of people who have died in plane crashes while having never flown a plane, but the quandary was apparently so important that

 

"One VAERS case showed 0 vaccines, but this was corrected to indicate receipt of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine (counted as 3 vaccine doses)."

 

they specifically asked a WTF for a case with zero vaccines. Because you can't have many of those datapoints in a database of adverse reactions to vaccines.

 

So let's get this straight, they spend a lot of time working out hospitilisation rates, mortality rates, etc, but they are rates against a dataset of reported cases of adverse reactions.

The reporting of adverse reactions isn't mandatory, and is more likely to occur in more serious cases. So any such "hospitalisation rate" is simply an indication of the number of non-serious (non-hospitalised) reported cases of adverse reactions. It tells (perhaps) about how often kids are taken to the doctor because of a "cold" after having the vaccine, not about how dangerous the vaccine is.

 

To determine anything meaningful, this data needs to be compared to the general population. Which has been done numerous times.

 

All this paper achieves, is that people can be pointed towards it, and asked to swallow it hook line and sinker like a good little sheeple, without understanding why it's meaningless.

 

Personally, i'm going to write to the editor, asking them to explain why this is worthy of publication.

If they published this, maybe I can get my publications up with some interesting Airline data that big pharma has been trying to keep under wraps for decades!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot this off:

 

"Dear Kai Savolainen,

 

I recently read online an article published by Human & Experimental Toxicology - "Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010". The article purports to demonstrate some disturbing evidence in the ongoing and rancorous debate on vaccination. The article derives a number of mortality rates, and a number of apparently correlations and uses them in support of the following assertion:

"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.". The National Vaccine Information Center has kicked in money to make this paper publicly available, which is fantastic of them, until you realise their aims. They want the above (the summary at the end of the abstract) to be in the minds of parents when they make these important decisions about their children. Now unfortunately, the assertions above are at best very poorly worded, and at worst are outright misleading and deceptive.

 

As the total population studied in this paper is the VAERS, it is a pre-supposition of being in the database that you have had an adverse reaction. Leaving the single-dose outlier aside (the same outlier we'd see in a database of nut allergies), the "correlation" that you see in the database is that same you'd expect for a database of crash data for cars of airplanes. If the dataset is entirely made up of people who have been in plane crashes, then with a large enough sample size, you'd naturally expect a correlation between the number of times you've flown and being in a crash. Further, the so called "mortality rate" which would really be the "mortality rate for people who have been in a plane crash" would simply show the severity of a plane crash, not the risk of one occurring. Without reference to the general population, and using data only from adverse reactions, you cannot possibly determine any useful risk factors related to an activity, policy, or mode of transport.

 

Based solely on "adverse reactions" we would find that cars are less dangerous than airplanes, with vaccines possibly in between.

The reality based on epidemiological data, is that cars are probably the most dangerous of the three, and vaccines probably the least.

 

I'll resist the urge to quote Benjamin Disraeli and simply suggest that this article has no new and useful information. To use the legal phrases for evidence, is has absolutely no probative value and is extremely prejudicial. Allowing it to appear in your publication, to be referenced online and in literature as published evidence that vaccination is dangerous is bordering on criminally negligent. Please review the publication of this article in light of the above comments, and consider whether it is the kind of article your journal wants to be associated with.

 

Yours Sincerely,"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather my child have vaccinations then face the horrors the potential illnesses can do to them. Freedom of choice is a privilege, having children is a privilege. I love my child, I'll do everything in my power of understanding and knowledge to protect her. I choose to vaccinate my child.

 

I've had vaccinations through my childhood, when I was a infant, toddler and then through primary and secondary school and then top ups when I've need them or had to travel. When I went to Morocco I got some vaccinations.

 

My wife has had vaccinations throughout her life, so two has my two brothers and my two step brothers and my parents and none of them in my family has had an issue.

 

I'm a new parent. I've got a beautiful baby girl who's now three months old. She's had her six weeks vaccination and recently her three month vaccinations. At her six weeks vaccinations my wife and myself got our Whooping Cough vaccinations.

 

My mother has had Whooping Cough twice and it messed her up badly for weeks. She now regularly gets the Flu and Whooping cough booster when they come around. My wife has also had the Flu vaccination as her is susceptible because of Asthma and serve Hay Fever.

 

Since giving birth and being pregnant her Asthma and Hay Fever cleared up dramatically. Since breast feeding as well it's cleared up as well.

 

At first Whooping Cough wasn't offered to pregnant women, now in New Zealand it is as Whooping Cough is escalating. Since first January 2012.

 

NZ Herald - 22 Dec 2012 - Suspected Tetanus

 

This was a case of suspected Tetanus. But read whatever it did to the child, if it was Tetanus, they were very lucky. Child was not immunised.

 

NZ Herald - 14 Dec 2012 - Child dead from Whooping Cough

 

Child was six weeks old, what it doesn't say is if the child had had it's vaccinations.

Edited by Genders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×