Quacks & Pseudoscience

[braineclipse]

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'm guessing the concept of statistical significance is not one you're particularly familiar with?

Statistical significance is used to determine if the difference between two groups is likely to be caused by what is being studied or rather caused by random chance. In this case we're talking about a rare phenomenon in large groups of people. The variance is likely to be quite large. This is not some newfangled test invented by evil Pharma. This is a standard statistical test used in much of research. The scientists you're second guessing learned about this in an intro-statistics class and have since then probably studied 5-10 years and since then gotten experience interpreting these results through their work. Yet you have all the confidence in the world making a conclusion contrary to what they're saying.

Let me put it this way... If this had been the other way around. 0.184% mortality rate for kids who didn't get the vaccine and 0.163% mortality rate for kids did get the vaccine would you have argued for taking the vaccine as it protected against dying?

Do you know why you know about this particular study? Because someone picked this one out of a lot of studies because they were able to scare you with those numbers. And they succeeded. First in making you believe that the official death rate as a result of the rotavirus vaccine is 0.19%, when it's not. Then in misunderstanding those numbers because you're not familiar with basic statistical concepts. These are the people you're getting your health care information from. This is their scare tactic, and it's working.

You don't want to get criticized? You're commenting on the health care of children, seemingly with no training in the field. You're doing so using inflammatory language like "playing russian roulette with your kid on that one" and "pumping your baby full of this brick". You're actively pushing an anti-scientific agenda on a very important topic. What makes your opinions on this beyond criticism? I realize you're probably used to sharing these opinions with people who either agree with you or don't know enough about this to disagree. But yours is a very controversial, science denying opinion. You have to expect resistance.

 

[Bullet]

Brain eclipse, I applaud your perseverance but don't bother; you are interfering with Darwinism and should let natural selection take its course.

 

[scaramanga]

Brain eclipse, I applaud your perseverance but don't bother; you are interfering with Darwinism and should let natural selection take its course.

If it were just @JPBB I'd agree, but as we're talking vaccines here he's risking the lives of his children and increasing the risks to many others.

 

[braineclipse]

Brain eclipse, I applaud your perseverance but don't bother; you are interfering with Darwinism and should let natural selection take its course.

Thank you.

Like Scara I really don't want to see these kind of things left unanswered. At least on the parts of the internet i frequent. Always the chance of the middle ground bystander being pushed in one direction or the other.

I also think this has exactly nothing to do with Darwinism and natural selection, all joking apart. Scientific literacy, critical thinking and being science minded can be taught and learned. It's relation to intelligence or anything heritable is most likely non-existent, or at most extremely low. As illustrated by how long it took us as a species to really figure out the scientific method. The basis for biased thinking on stuff like this is in all of us. Some of us have been lucky enough to gain the information and skill needed to separate fact from fiction with a decent frequency, we have some responsibility for teaching others the same. Even if it's a frustrating and slow process.

 

[scaramanga]

Thank you.

Like Scara I really don't want to see these kind of things left unanswered. At least on the parts of the internet i frequent. Always the chance of the middle ground bystander being pushed in one direction or the other.

I also think this has exactly nothing to do with Darwinism and natural selection, all joking apart. Scientific literacy, critical thinking and being science minded can be taught and learned. It's relation to intelligence or anything heritable is most likely non-existent, or at most extremely low. As illustrated by how long it took us as a species to really figure out the scientific method. The basis for biased thinking on stuff like this is in all of us. Some of us have been lucky enough to gain the information and skill needed to separate fact from fiction with a decent frequency, we have some responsibility for teaching others the same. Even if it's a frustrating and slow process.

In fact, there's a good chance that it's evolution that has caused us to tend towards pattern spotting and jumping to conclusions.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[braineclipse]

In fact, there's a good chance that it's evolution that has caused us to tend towards pattern spotting and jumping to conclusions.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Agreed. In a lot of ways I see the rational revolutions of antiquity, the renaissance and reformation periods as battles of rationality against many of our evolved tendencies. Goes on to this day in a lot of domains I think.

 

[JPBB]

Brain eclipse, I applaud your perseverance but don't bother; you are interfering with Darwinism and should let natural selection take its course.

Whoa. This has taken a rather sinister turn. You want me and my unvaccinated children dead? Will you allow my partially vaccinated child to live? You pro-vaxxers really don't like a challenge, do you? Sounds a bit like a fascist state - killing off people you don't agree with.

The good news for is that you have plenty of support. CDC is are pushing for the right to imprison unvaxxed people. California will deny you healthcare, schooling and housing if you not vaxxed. Hilary wants this across the whole country. That will mean giving over 100 jabs to your kids - all of which you say are completely safe and necessary - or no schooling, healthcare or housing.

But we if complain or even question this program Bullet, Scara, Brain and Milo want us dead... I am not sure I will introduce myself or my kids at Wembley or WHL.

That is, of course, if the measles epidemic has not got us all first.

 

[braineclipse]

Whoa. This has taken a rather sinister turn. You want me and my unvaccinated children dead? Will you allow my partially vaccinated child to live? You pro-vaxxers really don't like a challenge, do you? Sounds a bit like a fascist state - killing off people you don't agree with.

The good news for is that you have plenty of support. CDC is are pushing for the right to imprison unvaxxed people. California will deny you healthcare, schooling and housing if you not vaxxed. Hilary wants this across the whole country. That will mean giving over 100 jabs to your kids - all of which you say are completely safe and necessary - or no schooling, healthcare or housing.

But we if complain or even question this program Bullet, Scara, Brain and Milo want us dead... I am not sure I will introduce myself or my kids at Wembley or WHL.

That is, of course, if the measles epidemic has not got us all first.

This post is all kinds of confusing. You really just took Bullet literally on that comment? Having made comments about other people playing russian roulette with their children's lives themselves?

And you accuse us of not liking a challenge having explicitly asked people not to criticize you?

This is one massive detour into internet flame war territory. I suggest we get back to the question of autism rates if you don't mind.

Edit: And/or the issue of the mortality rate claims you've been making.

 

[milo]

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 assume that you understand that if the trial was run again you would not get identical results. The differences between the three groups are so small that the most likely explanation is that they are normal variance and that the vaccine poses no additional risk.

With regards to the vaccine's efficiency, that quote is a bit selective and taken out of context. I would recommend reading this

http://www.rxlist.com/rotarix-drug/clinical-pharmacology.htm

It seems to be clear from numerous studies that the vaccine significantly reduces the risk of contracting rotavirus gastroenteritis and is even more effective at preventing severe cases.

On what basis do you say that breast milk protects against rotavirus?

 

[JPBB]

Well this is what I have learnt on here

1 When the stats say autism is increasing - Brain says that it is a statistical blip and it is not true and us lay people are too stupid to understand this.
2. When there is a correlation between autism and vaccination. Brain says its does not count. Although other correlations do count. But you need to be a scientist to understand which ones do.
3, When a stat shows that you are more likely to die if you take the rotavirus then if you don't. Milo says it not does count and I do not have the capacity to understand why
4. When the manufacturer of the rotavirus vaccine says it can not be sure it works - Milo says they don't really mean it
5. When Bullet wants me and my family dead. Brain says he doesn't mean it.

I guess the state needs to start making some decision for us liberal arts types who dare to question the status quo.

 

[milo]

Well this is what I have learnt on here

1 When the stats say autism is increasing - Brain says that it is a statistical blip and it is not true and us lay people are too stupid to understand this.
2. When there is a correlation between autism and vaccination. Brain says its does not count. Although other correlations do count. But you need to be a scientist to understand which ones do.
3, When a stat shows that you are more likely to die if you take the rotavirus then if you don't. Milo says it not does count and I do not have the capacity to understand why
4. When the manufacturer of the rotavirus vaccine says it can not be sure it works - Milo says they don't really mean it
5. When Bullet wants me and my family dead. Brain says he doesn't mean it.

I guess the state needs to start making some decision for us liberal arts types who dare to question the status quo.

If that is what you think you have learnt, then you haven't understood what we have been saying.

1. @braineclipse has not said that it is a statistical blip. He has said that diagnosis has changed and that can explain the increase.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
4. Please provide a link to the document where they say this. The quote that you have provided appears to be taken out of context and is not supported by the clinical trials (which seems like an unlikely approach for the manufacturer to take).
5. He doesn't, he was making a joke.

 

[braineclipse]

Well this is what I have learnt on here

1 When the stats say autism is increasing - Brain says that it is a statistical blip and it is not true and us lay people are too stupid to understand this.
2. When there is a correlation between autism and vaccination. Brain says its does not count. Although other correlations do count. But you need to be a scientist to understand which ones do.
3, When a stat shows that you are more likely to die if you take the rotavirus then if you don't. Milo says it not does count and I do not have the capacity to understand why
4. When the manufacturer of the rotavirus vaccine says it can not be sure it works - Milo says they don't really mean it
5. When Bullet wants me and my family dead. Brain says he doesn't mean it.

I guess the state needs to start making some decision for us liberal arts types who dare to question the status quo.

Questioning the status quo is absolutely fine. Try learning a bit more about how science works and I think you'll realize that questioning the status quo is a pretty big part of it.

1, 2 and 3 you're partly right. Remember these are topics that experts take years to properly understand. Think of any topic you yourself are an expert in and imagine a novice displaying the same arrogance on that topic as you are here.

You're wrong on lay people being too stupid, or only scientists being able to understand though. And no one has made that claim. Unless you didn't notice I made a real effort to explain a couple of these basic statistical concepts to you, and I even posted some links to where you could find out more. And I'm more than happy to continue that conversation. It seems you didn't particularly take the time to try to understand this though. That doesn't make you stupid, just ignorant on this particular topic. Slightly worse though it makes you seem happy to remain ignorant.

Meanwhile you have actually been proven wrong, at least the once. Even you must surely admit that your original claim about the rotavirus vaccination mortality rate was wrong. From this you take humility and admit that perhaps on the topic of interpreting scientific evidence you have something to learn from others? Even those with a different opinion to yours. Seems the appropriate liberal arts approach to being proven wrong, don't you think?

If at some point you decide that perhaps it's the case that your lack of scientific literacy is a hindrance to you. Or you just want to at least make an effort to try to understand the point of view of those who disagree with you. I would recommend the book "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre as a solid starting point. By no means exhaustive, but a fairly good read that explains some of the more useful basic concepts well. It really is worth the time.

Again, I don't blame you. Scientific literacy is not particularly widespread and it's not easy to learn. There really is a class gap opening up between those who can parse scientific information and those that can not. You're better off on the side that can and it's worth the effort to try to learn. I say that both as my opinion and from personal experience. It really is an important life skill these days with all the information available to us.

 

[braineclipse]

If that is what you think you have learnt, then you haven't understood what we have been saying.

1. @braineclipse has not said that it is a statistical blip. He has said that diagnosis has changed and that can explain the increase.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
4. Please provide a link to the document where they say this. The quote that you have provided appears to be taken out of context and is not supported by the clinical trials (which seems like an unlikely approach for the manufacturer to take).
5. He doesn't, he was making a joke.

4. There is a difference between admitting that something might not work at all and admitting to not understanding every level of every mechanism of how a drug, treatment or vaccine works.

What JPBB posted seemed a pretty standard "this part of the biological process is not quite well enough understood yet". To take from this that the manufacturer are saying that it might not work at all is just misreading what is being said. Unfortunately bread and butter for the anti-vaccine movement. And I don't think for a second JPBB came up with objection himself. Rather anomaly hunters doing their anomaly hunting thing and happening upon something they either didn't understood or figured out could be used to make others misunderstand.

 

[milo]

Questioning the status quo is absolutely fine. Try learning a bit more about how science works and I think you'll realize that questioning the status quo is a pretty big part of it.

1, 2 and 3 you're partly right. Remember these are topics that experts take years to properly understand. Think of any topic you yourself are an expert in and imagine a novice displaying the same arrogance on that topic as you are here.

You're wrong on lay people being too stupid, or only scientists being able to understand though. And no one has made that claim. Unless you didn't notice I made a real effort to explain a couple of these basic statistical concepts to you, and I even posted some links to where you could find out more. And I'm more than happy to continue that conversation. It seems you didn't particularly take the time to try to understand this though. That doesn't make you stupid, just ignorant on this particular topic. Slightly worse though it makes you seem happy to remain ignorant.

Meanwhile you have actually been proven wrong, at least the once. Even you must surely admit that your original claim about the rotavirus vaccination mortality rate was wrong. From this you take humility and admit that perhaps on the topic of interpreting scientific evidence you have something to learn from others? Even those with a different opinion to yours. Seems the appropriate liberal arts approach to being proven wrong, don't you think?

If at some point you decide that perhaps it's the case that your lack of scientific literacy is a hindrance to you. Or you just want to at least make an effort to try to understand the point of view of those who disagree with you. I would recommend the book "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre as a solid starting point. By no means exhaustive, but a fairly good read that explains some of the more useful basic concepts well. It really is worth the time.

Again, I don't blame you. Scientific literacy is not particularly widespread and it's not easy to learn. There really is a class gap opening up between those who can parse scientific information and those that can not. You're better off on the side that can and it's worth the effort to try to learn. I say that both as my opinion and from personal experience. It really is an important life skill these days with all the information available to us.

I second reading Bad Science. I learnt a lot from reading it and it sparked an interest in science that was sadly lacking during my school days.

 

[milo]

4. There is a difference between admitting that something might not work at all and admitting to not understanding every level of every mechanism of how a drug, treatment or vaccine works.

What JPBB posted seemed a pretty standard "this part of the biological process is not quite well enough understood yet". To take from this that the manufacturer are saying that it might not work at all is just misreading what is being said. Unfortunately bread and butter for the anti-vaccine movement. And I don't think for a second JPBB came up with objection himself. Rather anomaly hunters doing their anomaly hunting thing and happening upon something they either didn't understood or figured out could be used to make others misunderstand.

You are right. I have found the datasheet now and it appears again that the quote is selective and taken out of context. This appears to be the section where the quote is taken from:

Mechanism of Action

The immunologic mechanism by which ROTARIX protects against rotavirus gastro-enteritis is not entirely understood. A relationship between antibody responses to rotavirus vaccination and 2 protection against rotavirus gastro-enteritis has not been established. ROTARIX, which is derived from the most common human rotavirus type G1P[8], has been demonstrated to induce protective immunity against both the G1P[8] type, and also against other non-G1 prevalent strains (See Clinical Trials).

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/r/Rotarixliquidvac.pdf

 

[Bullet]

Whoa. This has taken a rather sinister turn. You want me and my unvaccinated children dead? Will you allow my partially vaccinated child to live? You pro-vaxxers really don't like a challenge, do you? Sounds a bit like a fascist state - killing off people you don't agree with.

The good news for is that you have plenty of support. CDC is are pushing for the right to imprison unvaxxed people. California will deny you healthcare, schooling and housing if you not vaxxed. Hilary wants this across the whole country. That will mean giving over 100 jabs to your kids - all of which you say are completely safe and necessary - or no schooling, healthcare or housing.

But we if complain or even question this program Bullet, Scara, Brain and Milo want us dead... I am not sure I will introduce myself or my kids at Wembley or WHL.

That is, of course, if the measles epidemic has not got us all first.

Maybe I was saying Braineclipse is ultimately going to be proven wrong. You both made your choices. Across millions of people and a few generations we will find out who was right.

I can see your point if you are talking about 1000 vaccinations for kids. Mine has had 5 or 6 and I'm unaware of others I've missed. I spent a few hundred quid on Meningitis B as I couldn't live with myself if he got that awful disease.

 

[JPBB]

You are right. I have found the datasheet now and it appears again that the quote is selective and taken out of context. This appears to be the section where the quote is taken from:

Mechanism of Action

The immunologic mechanism by which ROTARIX protects against rotavirus gastro-enteritis is not entirely understood. A relationship between antibody responses to rotavirus vaccination and 2 protection against rotavirus gastro-enteritis has not been established. ROTARIX, which is derived from the most common human rotavirus type G1P[8], has been demonstrated to induce protective immunity against both the G1P[8] type, and also against other non-G1 prevalent strains (See Clinical Trials).

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/r/Rotarixliquidvac.pdf

You can twist it all you like. They are unequivocal. They are not sure it works. And there are other significant side effects. They say that because it is true. Simple as that.

What they do know is that you are more likely to die if you take it than if you don't and there are significant risks of other complications, and it is all for a condition which in the UK isn't that serious. Pretty much everyone one of us has had it. And we all survived.

But hey fudge it, let's give your infant child the jab anyway. It keeps the pharma industry happy and the new parents brainwashed and compliant

And if your kids is damaged by it. Tough brick. Its all worth it for the greater good. The industry will just deny it and when you complain they will mock you.

it's your child. Pump them full of as much brick as you like. Just don't complain when it goes wrong. They warned you about the risk when they gave it to your baby didn't they? What? You didn't read the data sheet? That was your first mistake. Because it's now your word against a man in a white coat. No one will believe you. Apparently they warned you about the risks of MMR before they gave it to your tiny child. Remember?

You spend hours agonising over which car seat to buy but you don't ask one question when they start pumping brick into your kid within minutes of then being born.

 

[Seedy Ron]

We all survived yes, but others didn't. Children are hospitalised by it, and die of it, in the developed world, and even more so in the developing world.

It's not a jab BTW.

According to the NHS the vaccine reduced cases in 2013 by 69%:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/rotavirus-vaccine.aspx

No doubt the NHS is just in the employ of Big Pharma though, so they can't be trusted.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but it's a bit pointless if you'll only listen to the answers you want to hear.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

You can twist it all you like. They are unequivocal. They are not sure it works. And there are other significant side effects. They say that because it is true. Simple as that.

The mechanism of action being poorly understood and 'they are not sure it works' are not the same thing. If you need someone on here to explain how they are not the same thing, it can be done. Just ask.

Yes, there are other significant side effects. Just like there are with every single drug on the planet. Just because a drug has side effects does not mean that 1). Every single person that takes the drug will get them or 2) The drug is bad/evil/killing everyone.

 

[JPBB]

Maybe I was saying Braineclipse is ultimately going to be proven wrong. You both made your choices. Across millions of people and a few generations we will find out who was right.

I can see your point if you are talking about 1000 vaccinations for kids. Mine has had 5 or 6 and I'm unaware of others I've missed. I spent a few hundred quid on Meningitis B as I couldn't live with myself if he got that awful disease.

I have no idea how old your kids are but it sounds like they missed quite a few if they have only had 5 or 6 vaccinations. They should have 49 by the time they are six.