milo
Jack L. Jones
If it is as widespread as you say and the cause so clear, why isn't this supported by any studies? You cannot blame it all on big pharma because I am not aware of any rigourous academic studies that support your thesis either.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Quacks & Pseudoscience
- Thread starter scaramanga
- Start date
If it is as widespread as you say and the cause so clear, why isn't this supported by any studies? You cannot blame it all on big pharma because I am not aware of any rigourous academic studies that support your thesis either.
I tend to trust science, because scientists are always trying to prove/disprove one another's work. They are clever people, with the intelligence, resources and dedication to reach conclusions that we should pay attention to. Individually, they can be wrong, but if the bulk of scientists inform me, a know-nothing qunt, that the world is round, climate change is a thing and vaccines work, I will believe them. I think it is irresponsible for those of us who know phuck-all to disregard the body of work by those who have the knowledge. If the scientific consensus changes, then I'd go with them.
As such, my daughter has had her vaccines and will continue to have them as needed.
As such, my daughter has had her vaccines and will continue to have them as needed.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
Can you imagine spending your whole working life basically trying to prove yourself wrong? Amazing work.
richie_spur
Gordon Durie
My kids have had all their vaccines and, as they get older, they get more annoying. This cannot be a co-incidence. They first started answering me, then answering back, now they sometimes don't even acknowledge I've spoken...
If you like your vaccinator literature fast-paced, but as subtle as a brick, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(novel)
If you like your vaccinator literature fast-paced, but as subtle as a brick, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(novel)
braineclipse
Willie Hall
If that's the case it should very comfortably show up in studies. It hasn't. Not all of these studies are done by big pharma before you go all conspiracy theory.
I believe you're being tricked by people who profit from scaring people. The vaccine scare machine is big industry. Not pharma sized, but certainly quite a lot of people are making their money from that industry. Everything you worry about with capitalism is true about those who try to scare people away from vaccines.
The motivation for a scientist to uncover this damage, if true, would be very strong. Just about guaranteed Nobel prize, huge publicity and take your pick of big independent research lab to work for or even run. Not to mention the acclaim and citations something like this would generate. Wet dream for just about any researcher. Yet exactly nothing keeps showing up. This is a very strong indication that the risk associated with vaccines are quite well documented.
Surprised that this would be an issue. Herd immunity is fairly well understood and the risks associated with not vaccinating obviously doesn't hit every child.
Also quite strange to me that this would be a neonatal talk. Isn't the neonatal period a fairly short period after birth? Not typically when vaccines are given... In fact one of the arguments for vaccinations is that young at risk babies are protected by herd immunity when they themselves aren't vaccinated yet.
Do you have a link or more information about this? What level of the NHS? Who was the talk for? Any links available?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
If @JPBB is still interested in a discussion. I suggest choosing a single topic and sticking to it, at least for a while. You suggest a movie by someone I consider a fraud and you throw around a lot of things you consider factual and it's difficult to actually dig deep on any one topic.
As it's been a recurring theme, I suggest looking at the proposed increase in Autism. It's one of the more serious claims made by those opposed to vaccinations and it's frequently mentioned outside this site as well. It's also frequently mentioned by those who profit from the anti-vaccine movement.
This article explains the mainstream scientific explanation of this increase quite well I think: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ot-vaccines-gmos-glyphosate-or-organic-foods/
Very quickly Autism (then infantile autism) was first included in the DSM in 1980. It's entirely unsurprising that the number of cases would increase from then. This is a practical result of using a diagnosis manual like the DSM. We can't expect clinicians and other experts to adapt immediately to a new version. Since then the diagnostic criteria for Autism has changed dramatically. Thus more people now fall within the diagnostic criteria. Finally the way diagnosis have been tracked has also changed to include those made by outpatient visits as well as those made in hospitals.
The rise of Autism not only correlates with vaccination. It also correlates with the growth in organic food sales:
The lesson in interpreting correlations seems clear.
As it's been a recurring theme, I suggest looking at the proposed increase in Autism. It's one of the more serious claims made by those opposed to vaccinations and it's frequently mentioned outside this site as well. It's also frequently mentioned by those who profit from the anti-vaccine movement.
This article explains the mainstream scientific explanation of this increase quite well I think: https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ot-vaccines-gmos-glyphosate-or-organic-foods/
Very quickly Autism (then infantile autism) was first included in the DSM in 1980. It's entirely unsurprising that the number of cases would increase from then. This is a practical result of using a diagnosis manual like the DSM. We can't expect clinicians and other experts to adapt immediately to a new version. Since then the diagnostic criteria for Autism has changed dramatically. Thus more people now fall within the diagnostic criteria. Finally the way diagnosis have been tracked has also changed to include those made by outpatient visits as well as those made in hospitals.
The rise of Autism not only correlates with vaccination. It also correlates with the growth in organic food sales:
The lesson in interpreting correlations seems clear.
Braineclipse. Thank you for responding directly to me. You make some interesting points.
You say I have been tricked by anti-vaxxers who are only in for the money. Can you point me in the direction of any person or organisation who is making money out of anti-vaccination? I have never met anyone. In fact many people suffer considerable financial loss to tell their story. Many have rejected the non disclosure agreements so they can speak out.
You deny that autism has increased on the ground and any reported increase is down to a change in the way Autism is reported. That is not my experience.I find it surprising that science does not have the wherewithal to take this into account when publishing figures.
You offer the explanation that organic food is the cause of autism. You need to will give a simple explanation for a lay person so I can understand this. It is slightly more plausible than other explanations offered on here such as not loving your kids enough and wearing the wrong shoes.
I acknowledge that Wakefield did make the hypotheses that vaccines damaged the gut and that triggered disturbances in the immune system which in turn caused autism. Where does organic food fit in?
You say I have been tricked by anti-vaxxers who are only in for the money. Can you point me in the direction of any person or organisation who is making money out of anti-vaccination? I have never met anyone. In fact many people suffer considerable financial loss to tell their story. Many have rejected the non disclosure agreements so they can speak out.
You deny that autism has increased on the ground and any reported increase is down to a change in the way Autism is reported. That is not my experience.I find it surprising that science does not have the wherewithal to take this into account when publishing figures.
You offer the explanation that organic food is the cause of autism. You need to will give a simple explanation for a lay person so I can understand this. It is slightly more plausible than other explanations offered on here such as not loving your kids enough and wearing the wrong shoes.
I acknowledge that Wakefield did make the hypotheses that vaccines damaged the gut and that triggered disturbances in the immune system which in turn caused autism. Where does organic food fit in?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
And thank you for staying on topic. To be clear I wouldn't mind discussing other topics, but I prefer doing these one at the time.
On money:
How about Andrew Wakefield as an example? He had several undisclosed financial interests that he would profit from had his initial paper on autism and vaccines been confirmed or at least remained debatable. He's given numerous talks, published a book and now helped produce a movie. Having been discredited by mainstream science and medicine this seems like a good source of income for him.
Other examples include those pushing supplements and nutrition advice along with their anti-vaccine message. Often all as an alternative to vaccination. Or how about the many alternative medicine "cures" for autism allegedly caused by vaccines. Including those promoted by Jenny McCarthy. In short the alternative medicine industry along with the supplement and nutrition industry are big money makers both for countless individuals and for larger corporations. The anti-vaccine message is often included in their overall message and I believe it to an important scare tactic for them. Your kid is more likely to get autism unless you follow our advice is a pretty convincing marketing strategy aimed at parents.
Of course most people in just about any movement will not be profiting from that movement. Just like the vast majority of people who believe the mainstream scientific view (here and elsewhere) do not earn a single penny from defending the science based view on this topic.
On the diagnostic category changes:
There has been a change in how autism is diagnosed. This is a simple fact. If people are claiming to inform you on autism and the increase in the number of diagnosis without including this very basic information that would be a big red flag for me. This is readily available information. Had a quick google and this page seems to highlight the running changes quite well: http://bdkmsw.umwblogs.org/what-is-autism/autism-in-the-dsm/
These changes are not surprising. New research and a growing understanding of the phenomenon along with clinical experience has developed and changed the understanding of how autism should be diagnosed. Remember we're working from a point where pre-1980 the diagnostic manual didn't even differentiate autism from schizophrenia. The clinical changes in the last 40 years have been huge on this topic.
Again, this is only one factor. When autism was first included in 1980 most likely a lot of clinicians would not have been up to date with the research and would have taken time to get to know this "new" diagnosis. Clinicians educated since then would have gotten this as a part of their education, along with better screening and better access to health care this goes at least some way towards explaining the increased number of people being given the diagnosis. The article I first linked explain these things quite well and it's based on what seems to be a solid research paper.
I deny that the actual autism numbers are rising in the population based on findings such as these and an understanding of how diagnostic manuals are being used and how diagnosis are being made. I'm not sure I understand your objection. If you could expand a bit on what you mean I would be happy to discuss it.
On correlations:
You misunderstand me and I can only assume you didn't read the article I first linked to. I'm not saying that organic food is causing autism. I'm saying that the correlation between the growth of organic food sales and autism is very similar to the correlation between the growth in vaccination and autism. (And one would assume the correlation between vaccinations and organic food sales). The point is that these kinds of correlations do not prove causation. Correlations can indicate causation, but no conclusions can be made based on correlation alone. I no more claimed that organic food causes autism than I claimed that vaccinations are causing an increase in the sale of organic food products.
Based on these correlations alone it would be equally invalid to conclude that autism was caused by organic food as it is to think it's caused by vaccines. That's my point.
This misunderstanding is a fairly common one. I mentioned before that I think you're being tricked and I believe one of the ways you're being tricked is by the use of correlations to "prove" what they cannot prove. I really would suggest reading up a bit on what correlations are and what they show, it makes one less receptive to people misrepresenting facts.
Money. I am not sure that Wakefield is better off since he was forced out the country and lost his job. Also I believe he should be allowed to earn a living. And if he does this by talking about his experiences, i don't see the problem. Is it any worse than Paul Merson or Gary Lineker doing the same every week? And frankly it is farfetched to suggest that these talks are bringing the $trillion vaccine industry to its knees. As for your suggestion that the supplement industry is an anti-vaxxed conspiracy. I don't find it plausible. Surely the biggest manufacturers of supplements are big Pharma?
Autism rates. Are you saying that there is the same number of people with autism now as there was in 1980? And the only difference is better diagnosis and a broader definition? How do you explain the year on year increase since 1980? And is it really an adequate explanation for % increase in the 10,000s over that period.
Correlation. I think I understand now. What you are saying is that because you say there is no link between organic food and autism that proves there is no link between vaccines and autism. I don't agree with the logic.
Autism rates. Are you saying that there is the same number of people with autism now as there was in 1980? And the only difference is better diagnosis and a broader definition? How do you explain the year on year increase since 1980? And is it really an adequate explanation for % increase in the 10,000s over that period.
Correlation. I think I understand now. What you are saying is that because you say there is no link between organic food and autism that proves there is no link between vaccines and autism. I don't agree with the logic.
Well, the official death rate as a result of the rotavirus vaccine is 0.19%. Good luck playing russian roulette with your kid with that one...
milo
Jack L. Jones
Do you have a link to where you got that figure? I'd be interested in reading up on that.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I doubt this was Wakefield's plan all along. But read up on his financial involvement before his original autism paper and tell me why he should be trusted. Having been discredited like he was it was never an option to continue down the path as a researcher. But he clearly has financial interests in spreading the anti-vaccine message.
I'm not saying the supplement industry is an anti-vaccine conspiracy. I don't think that's a fair representation of my views. I also didn't say that he was bringing the vaccine industry to its knees. All I'm asking for is the same kind of questioning of those with financial interests on the anti-vaccine side as the questioning you present to those on the pro-vaccine side. Your comment earlier indicated that this is not something you've done in the past. You've seemingly not even considered that there are financial interests on your side of this.
I'm saying the studies indicate that it's likely that there are the same number of people with autism now as there was in 1980 had the same diagnostic categories existed and been used in the same way.
The year on year increase since 1980 isn't surprising to me. A new diagnostic category was established. These things take time to spread in clinical communities. It's just not the world we live in that this information is/was immediately spread to clinicians who then start using it in a uniform way as soon as a diagnostic manual is updated. A year on year increase is to be expected as older clinicians are gradually replaced by younger clinicians who've been taught about the new category in their studies and as this information spreads within various clinical communities.
This is not abnormal. Though I understand that it's quite easy to present it in a way where it looks abnormal. Particularly if you leave out the information about this being an entirely new diagnostic category in 1980 and the changes that have been made to the diagnostic category since.
The question of "is this an adequate explanation for the increase" is a scientific question that obviously has drawn interest. The original link I posted quotes a Danish study who attempts to answer that very question. It concludes it likely that the factors I mentioned earlier explains the trends seen. What it does show with a high degree of certainty is that if actual Autism rates are rising, they're not doing so particularly quickly. Because these other factors adequately explains a lot of this change. The % increase in the 10,000s over the period you mention along with some of your previous claims would indicate a large effect size of whatever it is that's supposedly causing this rise. That seems extremely unlikely.
I don't think you understand actually, because you're not presenting my views on this fairly. To repeat myself I really think correlation is a topic worth reading up on.
Correlation is not a particularly complicated topic, it's covered in intro statistics classes and basic science methodology classes after all. But it's a topic that I think one actually has to learn about to understand. A common sense "this is probably what it means" approach is going to lead to some rather strange conclusions.
What I'm saying is that the correlation between autism growth and vaccines doesn't prove anything. This is illustrated by the very similar looking correlation between autism growth and organic food sales, which also proves nothing. I think the article I posted explains this quite well, that's where I got the graph from. Until you understand why neither of those correlations prove anything about the cause of autism rise you don't understand correlations.
Source: Rotarix BLA Clinical Review.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Thank you. Is this the bit that you are referring to?
Serious adverse events - deaths
A total of 118 deaths (0.158% of all study subjects) were reported throughout the course of the
studies. Overall death rates were 0.184% (68/36,755) in the RotarixTM (≥ 106.0 CCID50 potency)
group, 0.163% (5/3076) in the RotarixTM (< 106.0 CCID50 potency) group, and 0.158% (55/34,739) in
the placebo group. In the Core and Supplementary ISS analyses for deaths, there were no
significant imbalances between treatment groups in the rates of fatalities during the 31 days post-
vaccination or entire study follow-up periods. For either follow-up period, there were no significant
imbalances in fatalities between groups for any Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities
(MedDRA) Preferred Term (PT).
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Biolog...ggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHzCskIlghjVsqqFhwO66_7iDS5sA
milo
Jack L. Jones
The point is that the fatality rate between the control group and the group receiving the vaccine were virtually identical and statistically indistinguishable.
Last edited:
braineclipse
Willie Hall
To conclude from this that "the official death rate as a result of the rotavirus vaccine is 0.19%" you have to either be untrained in the reading of scientific material or misrepresenting the finding. A couple of minutes on google makes the claim look uninformed at best.
Not blaming you @JPBB. I'm sure you picked this up from someone else presenting the information as a fact and you're just passing it on in good faith. But the lesson on who to trust on your health care information is clear. As is the obvious way these people are playing on your fears. As you said yourself "Good luck playing russian roulette with your kid with that one." That's the message these people are putting out there. Pure scare propaganda based on scientific illiteracy.
Whoever presents this as health care information should not to be trusted. This is a huge red flag. They're either incompetent or they're lying.
Meanwhile the actual risk - as pointed out by @Seedy Ron - is with not vaccinating for this. Particularly in less developed countries, but even in developed countries kids do die from this. And should we drop below the levels of herd immunity for this vaccine those kids with a weakened health who can't be vaccinated would be the most likely victims. Russian roulette indeed.
Well, it says that you are more likely to die if you take the vaccine, then if you don't. And the reports authors admit to an increased risk of death from pneumonia after getting the vaccine.
And for what purpose? Rotarix own data sheets says "A relationship between antibody responses to rotavirus vaccination and protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been established."
I think you are better off relying on good old fashioned breast milk to protect your kid.
But hey, its your kid. Knock yourself out pumping your baby full of this brick. Just don't criticise me for passing...
I will reply to your other points when I have time.
Money. Why is it in Wakefield's interests to spread the anti vaccine message? He has Scara, you and the whole medical and pharma industry lined against him. Surely it would be better for him to take the research fund he is being offered, renounce the anti-vaxxers and live in comfortable obscurity?
And as you say, he is not making any difference to the $trillion dollar vaccine industry, so why do you begrudge him a few hundred dollars to talk to a few like minded people. The vaccine industry refusal to allow even the tiniest questioning is worrying. (as an aside I note that California has banned the film Vaxxed. The land of the free, eh.)
Some people on the anti-vaxxed side are in for financial gain. Those are the people whose children have been damaged by vaccines. Do you begrudge them their day in court (if they have deep enough pockets, and the patience and energy to wait the 10 to 15 years for the courts to hear their case)?
Last edited:
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Where Wakefield is now is there a research fund being offered? I doubt it. He's been accused of scientific fraud. People wouldn't want him making their coffee in a research lab.
He had undisclosed financial interests he stood to make a lot of money from had he succeeded in fooling the scientific community further than he already did. He chose the high-risk, high reward approach. And he was outed as a fraud. He's not welcome in science any more. So he makes his money denying science and promoting the anti-vaccine message.
You really see the anti-vaccine movement just as a grassroots movement of victims and the concerned and no one is using that group and it's popularity to make money?
Like I said. You question the capitalistic intentions of Big Pharma and their supporters. Yet you seem completely unwilling to do the same for those who agree with you. Just try it on for size. Try for a day or two to look critically at those who sell the message you buy in to.