Should I get vaccinated? - Page 2

skeptigirl · 26th October 2009, 08:53 PM

Quote:

In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson’s call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it.

I find this statement totally false. Many placebo controlled flu vaccine studies have been done.

The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Individuals - A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Quote:

Conclusion.
—In the elderly, influenza vaccination may halve the incidence of serological and clinical influenza

Dymanic · 26th October 2009, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

You don't get a W age curve by simply increasing the numbers of those infected.

That is an assertion. As I've said, it may even be correct. But I don't believe you'll be able to support it with evidence -- other than with the very same epidemiological evidence which inspires you to assert it.

It's called "affirming the consequent". In this instance, it looks like this:

If the virus is special, the age distribution curve will be different.
The age distribution curve is different.
Therefore, the virus is special.

Brian-M · 26th October 2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I find this statement totally false. Many placebo controlled flu vaccine studies have been done.

The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Individuals - A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

That's a pretty good study. If that result is typical from these kinds of studies, maybe articles like the one I linked to are the result of someone, somewhere down the line, mistaking a 50% reduction in infection for a 50% reduction in mortality.

BenBurch · 26th October 2009, 11:11 PM

I'm not dead yet.

Yeggster · 26th October 2009, 11:16 PM

What?
Nothing! Here's your ninepence

Puppycow · 26th October 2009, 11:58 PM

To me, it seems very straightforward.
Somebody please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong here, but over 5000 people have died so far of this strain of H1N1, and zero have died of the vaccine AFAIK, and zero have had negative reactions attributable to the vaccine AFAIK.

Not getting the vaccine is like playing Russian roulette.

skeptigirl · 27th October 2009, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dymanic

That is an assertion. As I've said, it may even be correct. But I don't believe you'll be able to support it with evidence -- other than with the very same epidemiological evidence which inspires you to assert it.

It's called "affirming the consequent". In this instance, it looks like this:

If the virus is special, the age distribution curve will be different.
The age distribution curve is different.
Therefore, the virus is special.

Apparently you are not reading the current epidemiology of this flu strain. I don't have time to do the lit search for you. How about you show us the lit supporting your false assertion here instead?

skeptigirl · 27th October 2009, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

That's a pretty good study. If that result is typical from these kinds of studies, maybe articles like the one I linked to are the result of someone, somewhere down the line, mistaking a 50% reduction in infection for a 50% reduction in mortality.

There are a couple confounding studies like the ones mentioned here which failed to show a drop in the overall death rate to go along with increased vaccine use. This is not new news. It also is not evidence flu vaccine doesn't work. It is evidence something else is going on.

More than sufficient studies have confirmed flu vaccine is effective. My hypothesis is, either the contradicting outcomes are from flawed studies, or if flu extends people's lives, it may not extend them more than a few months in the very oldest populations. I don't think the death rate studies have been well explained. However, they are contradicted by many other studies which support the effectiveness of flu vaccine.

Eddie Dane · 27th October 2009, 02:34 AM

Oops, my wife got her information from the respected Robert Koch Institute.
They (allegedly) say that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, to rule out adverse health effects.

The site is German, so I'll have to ask my wife to point out the relevant bits. I really cannot plow through that much medical jargon in Hun. (sorry honey).

Hopefully I'll have time to look it up tomorrow.

The incident with the paralysed child was hearsay.

softstuff · 27th October 2009, 03:38 AM

I've been vaccinated, hubby is going on Monday.

For me it was a no brainer, I work in a games store in a mall, and the mall has a doctors surgery. The first thing a parent does after visiting the surgery with little Johnny and discovering little Johnny is sick and is going to be off school for 2 weeks is drag him coughing and sneezing into my store to get something to entertain him.

I've already had whooping cough as a result (didn't realise the childhood vaccine wore off), didn't really fancy H1N1.

Parents around here are mainly anti-vaxxers, one of the local areas was recently in the news for the major outbreak in a school of whooping cough, so anything I can do for self preservation I will.

Eddie Dane · 27th October 2009, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by softstuff

Parents around here are mainly anti-vaxxers

That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends?

softstuff · 27th October 2009, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends?

I live in a lovely area, but it's full of woo. Everything from organic coffee shops to crystal stores and tarot readers. Still, it makes the queue at the doctors surgery pretty short and you never have to wait long for decent books at the library

fls · 27th October 2009, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I usually don't put too much faith in sensationalistic articles I stumble across on the internet, and I'm not against vaccination in general, but this does raise a question in my mind.

Why? Do you think relevant information is not accessible to health care providers and other experts, or that they are not able to reason as effectively from that information as a couple of reporters?

Quote:

How effective are flu shots at reducing the effects of mortality of the seasonal flu? Even the links you provide admit the seasonal flu shots have flaws...

Quote:

In any case, as Mark Crislip pointed out, vaccines for seasonal flu are suboptimal for a variety of reasons.

Quote:

Also, the elderly, the ones most likely to die of complications after the flu, tend not to develop as robust an immune response to the vaccine.

This provides support for the idea that immunizing those who may pass on influenza to the frail elderly might be more effective than focussing on the frail elderly.

For example:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la..._eventId=login

Linda

BenBurch · 27th October 2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Yeggster

What?
Nothing! Here's your ninepence

I'm getting better.

Dymanic · 27th October 2009, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Apparently you are not reading the current epidemiology of this flu strain.

Apparently you are not reading what I've posted.

Quote:

How about you show us the lit supporting your false assertion here instead?

Which assertion was that?

Ivor the Engineer · 27th October 2009, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by fls

I think that you'd be better off not getting information from people who have no expertise and whose motivation is to sensationalize, rather than inform.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...uenza.php#more
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2258

Linda

What are those two ad hominem pieces supposed to prove, other than the authors couldn't (or didn't want to) be bothered with addressing the points Jefferson et al. have raised?

Last time I looked at the evidence it suggested to me:

i) Seasonal flu vaccination is probably not much use in the elderly...
ii) ...but more effective in the young and middle aged.
iii) (ii) can provide indirect benefits to the elderly if enough people are vaccinated.
iv) Monovalent flu vaccines developed for pandemic flu (such as the current vaccines for H1N1) are generally more effective than the trivalent vaccines are for seasonal flu.

fls · 27th October 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

What are those two ad hominem pieces supposed to prove, other than the authors couldn't (or didn't want to) be bothered with addressing the points Jefferson et al. have raised?

Last time I looked at the evidence it suggested to me:

i) Seasonal flu vaccination is probably not much use in the elderly...
ii) ...but more effective in the young and middle aged.
iii) (ii) can provide indirect benefits to the elderly if enough people are vaccinated.
iv) Monovalent flu vaccines developed for pandemic flu (such as the current vaccines for H1N1) are generally more effective than the trivalent vaccines are for seasonal flu.

If you think those were the main take-away points in The Atlantic article, then kudos for you.

Linda

Hydrogen Cyanide · 27th October 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I usually don't put too much faith in sensationalistic articles I stumble across on the internet, and I'm not against vaccination in general, but this does raise a question in my mind.

How effective are flu shots at reducing the effects of mortality of the seasonal flu? Even the links you provide admit the seasonal flu shots have flaws...

See also http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur...the_atlant.php
and
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur..._sur_rebut.php

and http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040

Kiosk · 27th October 2009, 11:43 AM

I'm 37, and have pretty bad asthma / bronchial stuff from too much smoking (yes, I know). If I were to get swine flu, it would not be good news. At least, not for me.

I'm in a sort of medium-risk group - once the elderly and seriously ill have been vaccinated, we wheezers are next in line. I'm almost certainly going to get it, but I can't help feeling somewhat dubious for some reason. I'm completely pro-vaccination, never had the slightest sympathy for woo, and yet I'm ever-so-slightly nervous about getting this shot. I don't quite understand it. Maybe my very nasty reaction to a controversial drug, a few years ago, has left me overly cautious.

Or maybe FUD is an airborne disease.

Yeggster · 27th October 2009, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I'm getting better.

No you're NOT, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

skeptigirl · 27th October 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Oops, my wife got her information from the respected Robert Koch Institute.
They (allegedly) say that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, to rule out adverse health effects.

The site is German, so I'll have to ask my wife to point out the relevant bits. I really cannot plow through that much medical jargon in Hun. (sorry honey).

Hopefully I'll have time to look it up tomorrow.

The incident with the paralysed child was hearsay.

So riddle me this. What does the Koch Institute think of the adverse health effects of the more than sufficiently observed actual H1N1 flu infection?

skeptigirl · 27th October 2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Apparently you are not reading what I've posted.

So I should buy your unsupported hypothesis rather than the actual epidemiology reports I've read written by actual researchers?

There are several out there. The US's CDC has one. The EU surveillance organization put one out. And someone wrote up the characteristics of the first Mexican fatalities and hospitalized patients, can't remember who as that one was many months ago.

I'm just not going to find links for you on these three papers, I don't have time.

You are speculating. These researchers reported on the actual epidemiology of the hospitalized and fatal cases.

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Which assertion was that?

Your assertion that we are merely seeing widespread disease with the same demographics expected with increased numbers of cases rather than something specifically different in the virulence of this flu strain.

BenBurch · 27th October 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Yeggster

No you're NOT, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

I don't want to go on the cart!

Dymanic · 27th October 2009, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

So I should buy your unsupported hypothesis rather than the actual epidemiology reports I've read written by actual researchers?

Your continued pointing to the epidemiology indicates that you really aren't getting what I'm saying here. When you have time, I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully.

Quote:

There are several out there. The US's CDC has one. The EU surveillance organization put one out. And someone wrote up the characteristics of the first Mexican fatalities and hospitalized patients, can't remember who as that one was many months ago. I'm just not going to find links for you on these three papers, I don't have time.

Don't bother with the link dump. I've already read them anyway. You're trying to use epidemiological data to explain a trend in epidemiological data. It's tautological. Your assumptions are apparently completely transparent to you.

Quote:

You are speculating.

Interesting comment considering that that's exactly what I see you doing. What's worse is that you don't even seem to realize that it's speculation.

Quote:

Your assertion that we are merely seeing widespread disease with the same demographics expected with increased numbers of cases rather than something specifically different in the virulence of this flu strain.

I will concede that in the interest of better conveying the fact that I was not making an "assertion", I might have chosen my words more carefully; in the statement "There's nothing particularly unique about the virus itself", the qualifier, "particularly" was not strong enough.

As I've already acknowledged (twice), it might be reasonably argued that something we might call "different virulence" is the best explanation for the patterns we're seeing in the epidemiological data (you can't really argue for "greater virulence", since we aren't seeing that, but I'd entertain the idea of different virulence). But you seem to want to treat that as the only possible explanation, and it certainly is not. I don't agree that it is even the best explanation -- just that it is not unreasonable. You seem to want to insist on viewing "virulence" as solely a property of the virus. I don't agree with that. You also seem to want to insist that trends in the epidemiological data may be treated as if they can stand alone as evidence for a given explanation of those very trends -- and I REALLY don't agree with that.

Do you feel that you have a firm grasp of the formal logical fallacy referred to as "affirming the consequent"?

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It's a no brainer: yes, vaccinate your kids. Then get yourself vaccinated, if possible.

That definitely is a "NO BRAIN-er"

H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence says;

"Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences, such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact of seasonal, avian or pandemic influenza."

This same statement is on the Tamiflu website also.

Also this statement is from The Atlantic

"We have built huge, population based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual."

Dr. Jefferson's requests for placebo-controlled studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccine have been called "radical" by the CDC.

When did it become radical to test effectiveness of a drug?

The CDC says that H1N1 is just as safe and effective as seasonal flu shot, so;

Lancet study finds vaccine not effective for the elderly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02flu.html

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is looking at whether or not the flu vaccine is effective. Preliminary results indicate you'll get just as sick (with colds, flu, flu-like illnesses) if you got the vaccine than if you didn't.
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthi.../aa011604a.htm

Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, a pediatrician with the Northport (N.Y.) Wellness Center and president and co-founder of the Holistic Pediatric Association

"The dogmatic view that vaccines are safe and effective is being met with a considerable amount of attention, which is warranted and needed,"

Person experience, I have never received a flu shot in my life and I only had the flu once in my 35 years.

Dymanic · 27th October 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Without Rights

H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

As about a dozen posters are about to inform you, those "hazards" are not as well supported by evidence as you may suppose, but those who are concerned about this should have no great difficulty obtaining thimerosal-free vaccine (the single-dose vials don't have it) -- that is, no more difficulty than with finding novel H1N1 vaccine at all, which is still a bit of a trick in most places.

BenBurch · 27th October 2009, 01:42 PM

WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible?

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

To me, it seems very straightforward.
Somebody please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong here, but over 5000 people have died so far of this strain of H1N1, and zero have died of the vaccine AFAIK, and zero have had negative reactions attributable to the vaccine AFAIK.

Not getting the vaccine is like playing Russian roulette.

Russian roulette? That is the overstatement of the year. 5000 deaths worldwide in a population of 6.7 billion or .0000007462%

Zero negative reactions is not correct,

7 health care workers reported vomiting, loss of consciousness, and other minor effects.

Hospitals reported that 25 patients were exhibiting adverse effects from the new vaccine, including two serious cases.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially stated that there will be as many as 30,000 serious, potentially lethal adverse reactions to the novel H1N1 vaccine, or 1 out of 100,000.

Also, as of today, the CDC has not started tracking adverse reactions, although the plan is now in place.

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Dymanic

As about a dozen posters are about to inform you, those "hazards" are not as well supported by evidence as you may suppose

That's only because not many studies have been done on strictly thimerosal. But the main ingredient, mercury, has been tested plenty. When you add mercury with other ingredients in thimerosal it doesn't magically make mercury safe.

dudalb · 27th October 2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends?

Because rationality is never that deep.There will never be a final victory over woo, given how human nature is go prone to it.

fls · 27th October 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Without Rights

That definitely is a "NO BRAIN-er"

H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

You forgot to mention that vaccines contain water which is also well-documented as being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

Quote:

Dr. Jefferson's requests for placebo-controlled studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccine have been called "radical" by the CDC.

When did it become radical to test effectiveness of a drug?

Exactly. This should be a big clue to you that the article you read grossly misrepresents the state of affairs.

There have also been a total of five links to articles written by people who know what they are talking about, rather than non-expert reporters, just a few posts up in this thread. Consider reading them.

Quote:

Person experience, I have never received a flu shot in my life and I only had the flu once in my 35 years.

Yeah, I haven't ever needed my seatbelt.

Linda

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible?

Nice argument technique, but i need clarification.

What specifically is "nonsense"

dudalb · 27th October 2009, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible?

Which is why I get upset when some "rational thinkers" try to let Bill Maher off the hook for his Anti Vax /Anti Modern Medicine rants (which are becoming a mainstay of his show) just becuase he says nasty things about organized religon.
Just because you reject organized religon does not mean you are a rational thinker. There are other forms of woo you can still fall for bigtime. And Maher has fallen for perhaps the most dangerous of them all. I get very tired of him being lionized by people who should really know better.

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by fls

You forgot to mention that vaccines contain water which is also well-documented as being toxic and hazardous, especially to children.

No it hasn't

Quote:

Exactly. This should be a big clue to you that the article you read grossly misrepresents the state of affairs.

So the fact the CDC doesn't want to test effectiveness means I should trust them that it is effective? Interesting

Quote:

There have also been a total of five links to articles written by people who know what they are talking about, rather than non-expert reporters, just a few posts up in this thread. Consider reading them.

Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence. Not a non-expert reporter.

Quote:

Yeah, I haven't ever needed my seatbelt.

Because car accidents and airborne viruses are the same.

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Which is why I get upset when some "rational thinkers" try to let Bill Maher off the hook for his Anti Vax /Anti Modern Medicine rants

Off the hook?

Are you suggesting Bill Maher get in trouble for being anti vax, as you call it.

softstuff · 27th October 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Because rationality is never that deep.There will never be a final victory over woo, given how human nature is go prone to it.

I do wonder though if there will be some disease in the future, with a pretty risk free and readily available vaccine, that will quite simply wipe out the anti-vaxxers.

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

And Maher has fallen for perhaps the most dangerous of them all.

So being against vaccination is dangerous and kills people. Debate over. Wow, I need some real world evidence on that one. Maybe a fact or two would help. Any idiot can say that about anything, where is your facts.

George152 · 27th October 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

To me, it seems very straightforward.
Somebody please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong here, but over 5000 people have died so far of this strain of H1N1, and zero have died of the vaccine AFAIK, and zero have had negative reactions attributable to the vaccine AFAIK.

Not getting the vaccine is like playing Russian roulette.

Think of it as evolution in action

JoeTheJuggler · 27th October 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

Hey, Skept? Joe?

I prefer letting the pros do their job. Over a fairly long life (and it's nowhere near as long as I expect, given my experience with scientific medicine) I've learned to take doctor's orders.

Especially when they make sense that even a halfway intelligent layman can understand.

But if your doctor spews out nonsense that contradicts what the CDC and WHO are saying about the flu vaccine, I do not recommend following his advice.

That's why I objected to your advice to follow your doctor's advice no matter what.

(And there's another thread on this forum that describes a doctor whose advice was this sort of nonsense. So it does happen.)

Without Rights · 27th October 2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by softstuff

I do wonder though if there will be some disease in the future, with a pretty risk free and readily available vaccine, that will quite simply wipe out the anti-vaxxers.

Not as long as they contain mercury, aluminum, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde

26th October 2009, 08:53 PM	#41
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 17,997	Quote: In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson’s call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it. I find this statement totally false. Many placebo controlled flu vaccine studies have been done. The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Individuals - A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Trial Quote: Conclusion. —In the elderly, influenza vaccination may halve the incidence of serological and clinical influenza
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

26th October 2009, 10:06 PM	#42
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	Originally Posted by skeptigirl You don't get a W age curve by simply increasing the numbers of those infected. That is an assertion. As I've said, it may even be correct. But I don't believe you'll be able to support it with evidence -- other than with the very same epidemiological evidence which inspires you to assert it. It's called "affirming the consequent". In this instance, it looks like this: If the virus is special, the age distribution curve will be different. The age distribution curve is different. Therefore, the virus is special.
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	__________________ It goes without saying that...

26th October 2009, 10:14 PM	#43
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 751	Originally Posted by skeptigirl I find this statement totally false. Many placebo controlled flu vaccine studies have been done. The Efficacy of Influenza Vaccination in Elderly Individuals - A Randomized Double-blind Placebo-Controlled Trial That's a pretty good study. If that result is typical from these kinds of studies, maybe articles like the one I linked to are the result of someone, somewhere down the line, mistaking a 50% reduction in infection for a 50% reduction in mortality.
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 751	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim

26th October 2009, 11:11 PM	#44
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 12,638	I'm not dead yet.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot.

26th October 2009, 11:58 PM	#46
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 5,982	To me, it seems very straightforward. Somebody please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong here, but over 5000 people have died so far of this strain of H1N1, and zero have died of the vaccine AFAIK, and zero have had negative reactions attributable to the vaccine AFAIK. Not getting the vaccine is like playing Russian roulette.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

26th October 2009, 11:16 PM	#45
Yeggster Scholar Join Date: May 2009 Location: Orillia, Ontario, Canada Posts: 112	What? Nothing! Here's your ninepence

27th October 2009, 02:26 AM	#47
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 17,997	Originally Posted by Dymanic That is an assertion. As I've said, it may even be correct. But I don't believe you'll be able to support it with evidence -- other than with the very same epidemiological evidence which inspires you to assert it. It's called "affirming the consequent". In this instance, it looks like this: If the virus is special, the age distribution curve will be different. The age distribution curve is different. Therefore, the virus is special. Apparently you are not reading the current epidemiology of this flu strain. I don't have time to do the lit search for you. How about you show us the lit supporting your false assertion here instead?
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

27th October 2009, 02:31 AM	#48
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 17,997	Originally Posted by Brian-M That's a pretty good study. If that result is typical from these kinds of studies, maybe articles like the one I linked to are the result of someone, somewhere down the line, mistaking a 50% reduction in infection for a 50% reduction in mortality. There are a couple confounding studies like the ones mentioned here which failed to show a drop in the overall death rate to go along with increased vaccine use. This is not new news. It also is not evidence flu vaccine doesn't work. It is evidence something else is going on. More than sufficient studies have confirmed flu vaccine is effective. My hypothesis is, either the contradicting outcomes are from flawed studies, or if flu extends people's lives, it may not extend them more than a few months in the very oldest populations. I don't think the death rate studies have been well explained. However, they are contradicted by many other studies which support the effectiveness of flu vaccine.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

27th October 2009, 02:34 AM	#49
Eddie Dane Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,046	Oops, my wife got her information from the respected Robert Koch Institute. They (allegedly) say that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, to rule out adverse health effects. The site is German, so I'll have to ask my wife to point out the relevant bits. I really cannot plow through that much medical jargon in Hun. (sorry honey). Hopefully I'll have time to look it up tomorrow. The incident with the paralysed child was hearsay.

27th October 2009, 03:38 AM	#50
softstuff Student Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 41	I've been vaccinated, hubby is going on Monday. For me it was a no brainer, I work in a games store in a mall, and the mall has a doctors surgery. The first thing a parent does after visiting the surgery with little Johnny and discovering little Johnny is sick and is going to be off school for 2 weeks is drag him coughing and sneezing into my store to get something to entertain him. I've already had whooping cough as a result (didn't realise the childhood vaccine wore off), didn't really fancy H1N1. Parents around here are mainly anti-vaxxers, one of the local areas was recently in the news for the major outbreak in a school of whooping cough, so anything I can do for self preservation I will.
softstuff Student Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 41

27th October 2009, 03:51 AM	#51
Eddie Dane Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,046	Originally Posted by softstuff Parents around here are mainly anti-vaxxers That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends?

27th October 2009, 04:55 AM	#52
softstuff Student Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 41	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends? I live in a lovely area, but it's full of woo. Everything from organic coffee shops to crystal stores and tarot readers. Still, it makes the queue at the doctors surgery pretty short and you never have to wait long for decent books at the library
softstuff Student Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 41

27th October 2009, 05:01 AM	#53
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	Originally Posted by Brian-M I usually don't put too much faith in sensationalistic articles I stumble across on the internet, and I'm not against vaccination in general, but this does raise a question in my mind. Why? Do you think relevant information is not accessible to health care providers and other experts, or that they are not able to reason as effectively from that information as a couple of reporters? Quote: How effective are flu shots at reducing the effects of mortality of the seasonal flu? Even the links you provide admit the seasonal flu shots have flaws... Quote: In any case, as Mark Crislip pointed out, vaccines for seasonal flu are suboptimal for a variety of reasons. Quote: Also, the elderly, the ones most likely to die of complications after the flu, tend not to develop as robust an immune response to the vaccine. This provides support for the idea that immunizing those who may pass on influenza to the frail elderly might be more effective than focussing on the frail elderly. For example: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la..._eventId=login Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

27th October 2009, 06:31 AM	#54
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 12,638	Originally Posted by Yeggster What? Nothing! Here's your ninepence I'm getting better.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot.

27th October 2009, 06:58 AM	#55
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Apparently you are not reading the current epidemiology of this flu strain. Apparently you are not reading what I've posted. Quote: How about you show us the lit supporting your false assertion here instead? Which assertion was that?
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	__________________ It goes without saying that...

27th October 2009, 07:10 AM	#56
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 5,483	Originally Posted by fls I think that you'd be better off not getting information from people who have no expertise and whose motivation is to sensationalize, rather than inform. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...uenza.php#more http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2258 Linda What are those two ad hominem pieces supposed to prove, other than the authors couldn't (or didn't want to) be bothered with addressing the points Jefferson et al. have raised? Last time I looked at the evidence it suggested to me: i) Seasonal flu vaccination is probably not much use in the elderly... ii) ...but more effective in the young and middle aged. iii) (ii) can provide indirect benefits to the elderly if enough people are vaccinated. iv) Monovalent flu vaccines developed for pandemic flu (such as the current vaccines for H1N1) are generally more effective than the trivalent vaccines are for seasonal flu.
	__________________ "Nothing is impossible for an engineer." - Isambard Kingdom Brunel Last edited by Ivor the Engineer; 27th October 2009 at 07:12 AM.

27th October 2009, 07:28 AM	#57
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer What are those two ad hominem pieces supposed to prove, other than the authors couldn't (or didn't want to) be bothered with addressing the points Jefferson et al. have raised? Last time I looked at the evidence it suggested to me: i) Seasonal flu vaccination is probably not much use in the elderly... ii) ...but more effective in the young and middle aged. iii) (ii) can provide indirect benefits to the elderly if enough people are vaccinated. iv) Monovalent flu vaccines developed for pandemic flu (such as the current vaccines for H1N1) are generally more effective than the trivalent vaccines are for seasonal flu. If you think those were the main take-away points in The Atlantic article, then kudos for you. Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com

27th October 2009, 11:10 AM	#58
Hydrogen Cyanide Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 3,700	Originally Posted by Brian-M I usually don't put too much faith in sensationalistic articles I stumble across on the internet, and I'm not against vaccination in general, but this does raise a question in my mind. How effective are flu shots at reducing the effects of mortality of the seasonal flu? Even the links you provide admit the seasonal flu shots have flaws... See also http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur...the_atlant.php and http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasur..._sur_rebut.php and http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2040
	__________________ 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/ Last edited by Hydrogen Cyanide; 27th October 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason: Added another link...

27th October 2009, 11:43 AM	#59
Kiosk He Thinks He's People Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: London Posts: 338	I'm 37, and have pretty bad asthma / bronchial stuff from too much smoking (yes, I know). If I were to get swine flu, it would not be good news. At least, not for me. I'm in a sort of medium-risk group - once the elderly and seriously ill have been vaccinated, we wheezers are next in line. I'm almost certainly going to get it, but I can't help feeling somewhat dubious for some reason. I'm completely pro-vaccination, never had the slightest sympathy for woo, and yet I'm ever-so-slightly nervous about getting this shot. I don't quite understand it. Maybe my very nasty reaction to a controversial drug, a few years ago, has left me overly cautious. Or maybe FUD is an airborne disease.
	__________________ Many of the medical profession are sceptical about my work. They point to my record of treatment of athlete's foot sufferers - 84 dead, 65 severely wounded, and 12 missing believed cured. But then, people laughed at Bob Hope. People laughed at my wife when she wrapped herself up in greaseproof paper and hopped into the Social Security office - but that doesn't mean that Pasteur was wrong.

27th October 2009, 11:50 AM	#60
Yeggster Scholar Join Date: May 2009 Location: Orillia, Ontario, Canada Posts: 112	Originally Posted by BenBurch I'm getting better. No you're NOT, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

27th October 2009, 12:33 PM	#61
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 17,997	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane Oops, my wife got her information from the respected Robert Koch Institute. They (allegedly) say that the vaccine has not been sufficiently tested, to rule out adverse health effects. The site is German, so I'll have to ask my wife to point out the relevant bits. I really cannot plow through that much medical jargon in Hun. (sorry honey). Hopefully I'll have time to look it up tomorrow. The incident with the paralysed child was hearsay. So riddle me this. What does the Koch Institute think of the adverse health effects of the more than sufficiently observed actual H1N1 flu infection?
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by skeptigirl; 27th October 2009 at 12:44 PM.*

27th October 2009, 12:39 PM	#62
skeptigirl Web Surfer Girl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 17,997	Originally Posted by Dymanic Apparently you are not reading what I've posted. So I should buy your unsupported hypothesis rather than the actual epidemiology reports I've read written by actual researchers? There are several out there. The US's CDC has one. The EU surveillance organization put one out. And someone wrote up the characteristics of the first Mexican fatalities and hospitalized patients, can't remember who as that one was many months ago. I'm just not going to find links for you on these three papers, I don't have time. You are speculating. These researchers reported on the actual epidemiology of the hospitalized and fatal cases. Originally Posted by Dymanic Which assertion was that? Your assertion that we are merely seeing widespread disease with the same demographics expected with increased numbers of cases rather than something specifically different in the virulence of this flu strain.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by skeptigirl; 27th October 2009 at 12:42 PM.*

27th October 2009, 01:12 PM	#63
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 12,638	Originally Posted by Yeggster No you're NOT, you'll be stone dead in a moment. I don't want to go on the cart!
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot.

27th October 2009, 01:12 PM	#64
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	Originally Posted by skeptigirl So I should buy your unsupported hypothesis rather than the actual epidemiology reports I've read written by actual researchers? Your continued pointing to the epidemiology indicates that you really aren't getting what I'm saying here. When you have time, I suggest you re-read my posts more carefully. Quote: There are several out there. The US's CDC has one. The EU surveillance organization put one out. And someone wrote up the characteristics of the first Mexican fatalities and hospitalized patients, can't remember who as that one was many months ago. I'm just not going to find links for you on these three papers, I don't have time. Don't bother with the link dump. I've already read them anyway. You're trying to use epidemiological data to explain a trend in epidemiological data. It's tautological. Your assumptions are apparently completely transparent to you. Quote: You are speculating. Interesting comment considering that that's exactly what I see you doing. What's worse is that you don't even seem to realize that it's speculation. Quote: Your assertion that we are merely seeing widespread disease with the same demographics expected with increased numbers of cases rather than something specifically different in the virulence of this flu strain. I will concede that in the interest of better conveying the fact that I was not making an "assertion", I might have chosen my words more carefully; in the statement "There's nothing particularly unique about the virus itself", the qualifier, "particularly" was not strong enough. As I've already acknowledged (twice), it might be reasonably argued that something we might call "different virulence" is the best explanation for the patterns we're seeing in the epidemiological data (you can't really argue for "greater virulence", since we aren't seeing that, but I'd entertain the idea of different virulence). But you seem to want to treat that as the only possible explanation, and it certainly is not. I don't agree that it is even the best explanation -- just that it is not unreasonable. You seem to want to insist on viewing "virulence" as solely a property of the virus. I don't agree with that. You also seem to want to insist that trends in the epidemiological data may be treated as if they can stand alone as evidence for a given explanation of those very trends -- and I REALLY don't agree with that. Do you feel that you have a firm grasp of the formal logical fallacy referred to as "affirming the consequent"?
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	__________________ It goes without saying that...

27th October 2009, 01:24 PM	#65
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus It's a no brainer: yes, vaccinate your kids. Then get yourself vaccinated, if possible. That definitely is a "NO BRAIN-er" H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children. Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence says; "Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences, such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact of seasonal, avian or pandemic influenza." This same statement is on the Tamiflu website also. Also this statement is from The Atlantic "We have built huge, population based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual." Dr. Jefferson's requests for placebo-controlled studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccine have been called "radical" by the CDC. When did it become radical to test effectiveness of a drug? The CDC says that H1N1 is just as safe and effective as seasonal flu shot, so; Lancet study finds vaccine not effective for the elderly. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02flu.html The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is looking at whether or not the flu vaccine is effective. Preliminary results indicate you'll get just as sick (with colds, flu, flu-like illnesses) if you got the vaccine than if you didn't. http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthi.../aa011604a.htm Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, a pediatrician with the Northport (N.Y.) Wellness Center and president and co-founder of the Holistic Pediatric Association "The dogmatic view that vaccines are safe and effective is being met with a considerable amount of attention, which is warranted and needed," Person experience, I have never received a flu shot in my life and I only had the flu once in my 35 years.
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608

27th October 2009, 01:34 PM	#66
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	Originally Posted by Without Rights H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children. As about a dozen posters are about to inform you, those "hazards" are not as well supported by evidence as you may suppose, but those who are concerned about this should have no great difficulty obtaining thimerosal-free vaccine (the single-dose vials don't have it) -- that is, no more difficulty than with finding novel H1N1 vaccine at all, which is still a bit of a trick in most places.
Dymanic Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 2,770	__________________ It goes without saying that...

27th October 2009, 01:42 PM	#67
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 12,638	WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible?
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot.

27th October 2009, 02:00 PM	#68
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Puppycow To me, it seems very straightforward. Somebody please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong here, but over 5000 people have died so far of this strain of H1N1, and zero have died of the vaccine AFAIK, and zero have had negative reactions attributable to the vaccine AFAIK. Not getting the vaccine is like playing Russian roulette. Russian roulette? That is the overstatement of the year. 5000 deaths worldwide in a population of 6.7 billion or .0000007462% Zero negative reactions is not correct, 7 health care workers reported vomiting, loss of consciousness, and other minor effects. Hospitals reported that 25 patients were exhibiting adverse effects from the new vaccine, including two serious cases. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has officially stated that there will be as many as 30,000 serious, potentially lethal adverse reactions to the novel H1N1 vaccine, or 1 out of 100,000. Also, as of today, the CDC has not started tracking adverse reactions, although the plan is now in place.
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608

27th October 2009, 02:04 PM	#69
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by Dymanic As about a dozen posters are about to inform you, those "hazards" are not as well supported by evidence as you may suppose That's only because not many studies have been done on strictly thimerosal. But the main ingredient, mercury, has been tested plenty. When you add mercury with other ingredients in thimerosal it doesn't magically make mercury safe.
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608

27th October 2009, 02:05 PM	#70
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 13,161	Originally Posted by Eddie Dane That is disturbing. What is wrong with modern societies to have such strong anti-rational trends? Because rationality is never that deep.There will never be a final victory over woo, given how human nature is go prone to it.

27th October 2009, 02:06 PM	#71
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	Originally Posted by Without Rights That definitely is a "NO BRAIN-er" H1N1 vaccine contains thimerosal which is well documented has being toxic and hazardous, especially to children. You forgot to mention that vaccines contain water which is also well-documented as being toxic and hazardous, especially to children. Quote: Dr. Jefferson's requests for placebo-controlled studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccine have been called "radical" by the CDC. When did it become radical to test effectiveness of a drug? Exactly. This should be a big clue to you that the article you read grossly misrepresents the state of affairs. There have also been a total of five links to articles written by people who know what they are talking about, rather than non-expert reporters, just a few posts up in this thread. Consider reading them. Quote: Person experience, I have never received a flu shot in my life and I only had the flu once in my 35 years. Yeah, I haven't ever needed my seatbelt. Linda
fls Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,542	__________________ God - a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader sCAM will now be referred to as DIM - Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine www.stopsylvia.com Last edited by fls; 27th October 2009 at 02:07 PM.

27th October 2009, 02:06 PM	#72
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by BenBurch WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible? Nice argument technique, but i need clarification. What specifically is "nonsense"
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608

27th October 2009, 02:10 PM	#73
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 13,161	Originally Posted by BenBurch WR, nonsense like that is KILLING people. How can you be so smug and irresponsible? Which is why I get upset when some "rational thinkers" try to let Bill Maher off the hook for his Anti Vax /Anti Modern Medicine rants (which are becoming a mainstay of his show) just becuase he says nasty things about organized religon. Just because you reject organized religon does not mean you are a rational thinker. There are other forms of woo you can still fall for bigtime. And Maher has fallen for perhaps the most dangerous of them all. I get very tired of him being lionized by people who should really know better.
	Last edited by dudalb; 27th October 2009 at 02:12 PM.

27th October 2009, 02:13 PM	#74
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by fls You forgot to mention that vaccines contain water which is also well-documented as being toxic and hazardous, especially to children. No it hasn't Quote: Exactly. This should be a big clue to you that the article you read grossly misrepresents the state of affairs. So the fact the CDC doesn't want to test effectiveness means I should trust them that it is effective? Interesting Quote: There have also been a total of five links to articles written by people who know what they are talking about, rather than non-expert reporters, just a few posts up in this thread. Consider reading them. Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of the Vaccines Field at the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected international network of researchers who appraise medical evidence. Not a non-expert reporter. Quote: Yeah, I haven't ever needed my seatbelt. Because car accidents and airborne viruses are the same.
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608

27th October 2009, 02:15 PM	#75
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608	Originally Posted by dudalb Which is why I get upset when some "rational thinkers" try to let Bill Maher off the hook for his Anti Vax /Anti Modern Medicine rants Off the hook? Are you suggesting Bill Maher get in trouble for being anti vax, as you call it.
Without Rights Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 608