Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 07, 2016, 04:13:49 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Peer Review and the Scientific Process  (Read 56931 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #150 on: February 10, 2015, 05:51:06 PM »
Ok. I stand corrected. But that's also VARIVAX. (Chicken-pox, right?) So how many more vaccines have similiar concerns precisely? Current anti-vax arguments say all vaccines are unacceptably dangerous. I don't think that's correct.  (BTW, chicken pox is a very serious illness if contracted by an elderly person or someone with severe respiratory health problems.)

Ooops. Yes. I should have qualified that - not serious for children, etc. My bad.

As for other vaccines that leave the patient contagious, I don't know. I remember seeing the insert for one that I had years ago mentioning this, but I don't remember what it was, though I know it wasn't for chicken-pox (I've had chicken-pox, so I don't need vaccination against it).

But please don't think that I'm trying to say "all" vaccines are bad. I'm just having fun playing the devil's advocate here.

By the same token though, there are many out there that seem to want to advance the narrative as "all vaccines are good without question".

Going back to the the chance of spreading something post vaccination - if people who are exposed are already immunized either from a previous bout with the actual disease - or have been previously vaccinated as most vaccine protocols recommend - the individual infection is extremely unlikely to spread to those exposed.

Yes, but that's not an argument against the issue I brought up above. Typically vaccines are done on a schedule, e.g. it's probably irresponsible to inject a newborn with 5 litres of vaccines all at once. ;) (That was sarcastic hyperbole.)

So, if you take a typical school with different ages of children, you'll end up with some children not being vaccinated when others receive their vaccines. This is pretty much unavoidable.

So... do you kick those newly vaccinated kids out of school because they're now contagious?

That's an uncomfortable question for the pro-vaccine crowd because if they want to remain consistent in their "think of the children" argument, they MUST answer "yes". Answering "no" demonstrates that they simply do not care about children's health, and that they are instead vested in the idea of vaccination (as some kind of romantic idea that makes them feel good) rather than the actual act, effects, and science behind it.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether the pro-vaccine crowd would be for kicking kids out of school while they are contagious from something like Varivax.

However, my gut tells me that the general answer would be "no". In my own experience, I don't find that many people are very consistent in their principles if it puts some sort of burden on them.

This is the same sort of thing as the "I believe in free speech BUT..." line of logic. "But" simply means that a principle is going to be abandoned.

The question there, as far as I can see, is whether or not the principle can be "saved". Have we thought it through? Have we tried to rescue it? Have we done our due diligence? Or are we simply being lazy?




Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #151 on: February 10, 2015, 07:55:02 PM »
So... do you kick those newly vaccinated kids out of school because they're now contagious?

As in possibly contagious? Not everybody who gets vaccinated will become contagious. If they did, there would be widespread evidence that this was happening. And AFAIK, that has not been the case.

Prudence says a two day lay-up might not be unreasonable. But more for the vaccine recipient's protection rather than for the other kid's since the recipient's immune system will be busy building immunity to what they were vaccinated for, and may be mildly compromised as a result.

So how about possibly having school-aged children always get vaccinated during the summer school break (as I always was) before returning to school? That's almost three full calendar months out of the classroom. Plenty of time to get it done - and recover from it. It only takes a minute.

You could even have the public health department handle it like my town (and several churches and local businesses and pharmacies) do where I live. You don't need a full physician's exam to be vaccinated unless you're worried about something going in. The alternate vaccine distribution points in my town also have an ambulance and EMTs on standby onsite just in case something goes sideways for somebody. It's no more dangerous than being vaccinated in a doctor's office. My town (which is an admittedly well-to-do town) makes it so easy to get a flu or pneumonia shot there's almost a no excuse not to if you genuinely want one. Dirt cheap too ($20) if you can afford to pay for it. Absolutely free of charge if you can't.

So yes...there are alternatives beyond just bouncing kids out of school.

What happens here is that a child may be sent home for not having up-to-date vaccinations (if you don't have a medical justification backed by a physician's signature or a "religious" exemption) since vaccinations are mandatory for school attendance in my town's public school system. Same rule goes for our private schools, of which there are four. The Catholic parochial school system requires proof of current vaccinations as a condition of attendance. It's spelled out in their terms of service. So between public, private, and parochial schools that's roughly 99 point something percent of all school children here.

And since school attendance (or authorized home schooling) is mandatory up to age 16 where I live, parents can run afoul of state truancy laws if their kids aren't attending school due to their not being vaccinated. So there's a bit of an incentive there as well.

I guess the only kids who are able to get around it are the homeschooled kids. But they're a tiny fraction of the population so I don't think they pose a significant threat in my area where vaccination is the norm. However if they visited Disney World...

I have yet to hear of anybody launching an outbreak because they became contageous subsequent to being vaccinated. But people who have not been vaccinated certainly have. So sending somebody home purely because they have been vaccinated doesn't seem either reasonable or necessary - as opposed to sending someone home who hasn't. You are playing odds. But when you do that you have to take significance into consideration. A tossed coin doesn't really have 50-50 odds of heads or tails. It could land and stick on its thin side. But the likelyhood of that happening is so minute as to not even be worth considering. I think the same goes for spreading something because you were vaccinated. The warnings that are issued for that eventuality cover the specific groups (expectent mothers, newborns, HIV postives, et al.) that actually might be at risk for that rare scenario. So I don't see where it's disingenuous or hypocritical to say it isn't really necessary to ban a recent vaccine recipient from school for a few days on the remote chance they're contagious. Especially in a school full of already vaccinated kids and teachers.

Just my :two: anyway. :)
« Last Edit: February 10, 2015, 08:09:19 PM by 40hz »

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #152 on: February 11, 2015, 04:39:26 AM »
@Renegade and @40hz: Why kick them out? There is an argument for not vaccinating your kids, but hoping/expecting that they will get indirect immunisation (from cross-infection) from the newly-vaccinated children they go to school with.
If you were independently minded and strict about it, you could do that with a child, and deliberately avoid having them directly exposed to any vaccinations (e.g., mumps. measles, rubella, diptheria, smallpox, TB, polio, tetanus), or X-radiation, or any injections at all. I know of cases where that has happened.

Not sure what any of this has to do with peer review and the scientific process though...

barney

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,282
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #153 on: February 11, 2015, 05:08:46 AM »
[/b] Why kick them out? There is an argument for not vaccinating your kids, but hoping/expecting that they will get indirect immunisation (from cross-infection) from the newly-vaccinated children they go to school with.

Huh  :huh:?  That logic would imply that it's ok for other kids to get vaccine - in order to protect mine?!? - but not mine.  So I'd be anti-vaccine only for my child?  Something out of kilter there.

Not sure what any of this has to do with peer review and the scientific process though...

Strikes me as an active example of the process, albeit by non-professionals in the field  :-\ :P.  Sort of a peer review of Peer Review and the Scientific Process, as it were.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #154 on: February 11, 2015, 05:50:39 AM »
Oh, how we love the courts/bureaucracies in Europe~!

http://www.blacklist...722/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Quote
On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism.  
(See the Italian document here.)
  A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage.  While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent.



As in possibly contagious? Not everybody who gets vaccinated will become contagious.

And not every unvaccinated kid gets sick.

So how about possibly having school-aged children always get vaccinated during the summer school break (as I always was) before returning to school? That's almost three full calendar months out of the classroom. Plenty of time to get it done - and recover from it. It only takes a minute.

Sure. Just keep them locked in the closet and ruin summer for them. ;) Besides, if they're locked in the closet/basement/dungeon, they're much safer - no cars, no pederasts, no bees, no falling off bikes, no drowning in pools/rivers, etc. etc. etc.

Ah, safety! Sweet, sweet safety!




What happens here is that a child may be sent home for not having up-to-date vaccinations (if you don't have a medical justification backed by a physician's signature or a "religious" exemption) since vaccinations are mandatory for school attendance in my town's public school system. Same rule goes for our private schools, of which there are four. The Catholic parochial school system requires proof of current vaccinations as a condition of attendance. It's spelled out in their terms of service. So between public, private, and parochial schools that's roughly 99 point something percent of all school children here.

And since school attendance (or authorized home schooling) is mandatory up to age 16 where I live, parents can run afoul of state truancy laws if their kids aren't attending school due to their not being vaccinated. So there's a bit of an incentive there as well.

Incentive? No. That's flat out coercion. At least call it what it is and don't sugar coat it. Euphemisms don't make for an honest debate that aims at discovering truth. We are out to discover truth? Right? ;)

That is a textbook example of the ad baculum. "Do X or else."

And it goes to show just how weak the pro-vaccine arguments are.

Resorting to force is the lowest form of argument. It effectively says, "I have no compelling logic or arguments, so I'll just become violent."

This is going to be somewhat upsetting for those that are vested in the pro side of the debate. But it doesn't make it any less true.

The fact remains that there are arguments from the anti-vax side that are never addressed, or if they are, they are not addressed in a serious way.

To make this a bit more concrete, I'll outline a fictional example and then draw the parallel.

ANDY'S COOKIES

Imagine Andy. He's selling cookies. Everyone knows that he has multiple criminal convictions for selling tainted food in the past that has crippled and killed some people. But not all of his food is tainted. In fact, most of Andy's food is perfectly good. Delicious even.

Andy knocks at your door and wants to sell you some cookies. Do you buy any? Do you recommend Andy's cookies to your friends? Do you force other people to eat Andy's cookies?

This is exactly parallel to how GSK, Merck, Eli Lilly, and many other pharmaceutical companies have been found criminally liabel many times over.

While the pro-vaccine side may make some good arguments in some places, this case is never adequately addressed. In fact, the case is further undermined by how vaccine courts are structured. The objection from the anti-vax side simply isn't addressed and it **IS** a valid argument.

Actually, this is an excellent example of where the ad hominem argument is good. (Would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Same argument and same basic case.)

For anyone reading that is not well versed in logic and argumentation theory:

Quote from: Good Reasoning Matters! (Little, Groarke, Tindale, 1989)
Thus, a good ad hominem is:

    An argument that a person's view should not be given credence or should be rejected outright because the person is deemed to be (i) not knowledgeable, or (ii) untrustworthy, or (iii) biased.


(No link - it's from a paper book!  :o )

The anti-vax argument is often ii and iii. However, there are some that claim i, i.e. that the science is wrong and that the researchers are... blah blah blah. I'm not going to bother with that as the claims for ii and iii are sufficient to illustrate that there are genuine objections that have not been adequately addressed. (Also, i has been addressed at length.)



Just to be clear here, I am NOT advocating a position. I'm outlining arguments and weaknesses in those arguments.

I've had vaccinations, and my daughter has as well. I looked into each one individually and decided based on a LOT of reading.

I believe my conclusions were summarised above by Iain:

You can't fight the statistical odds.

Hopefully I've outlined a tiny bit of some parts of the debate, and hopefully illustrated where there are some breakdowns in communication and how the sides are talking past each other rather than discussing with each other.




My only firm position is that the road of forced medication is not one that should be travelled. Ever.


Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #155 on: February 11, 2015, 05:55:34 AM »
[/b] Why kick them out? There is an argument for not vaccinating your kids, but hoping/expecting that they will get indirect immunisation (from cross-infection) from the newly-vaccinated children they go to school with.

Huh  :huh:?  That logic would imply that it's ok for other kids to get vaccine - in order to protect mine?!? - but not mine.  So I'd be anti-vaccine only for my child?  Something out of kilter there.


No - it makes sense. If you can get the benefit (limited immunity) without the risk (adverse effects), then it makes perfect sense. However, that cross-infection isn't a guarantee - it's only a chance, which is the "out of kilter" bit.


Not sure what any of this has to do with peer review and the scientific process though...

Strikes me as an active example of the process, albeit by non-professionals in the field  :-\ :P.  Sort of a peer review of Peer Review and the Scientific Process, as it were.

We are kind of off topic, but yes - I think there is some value in it as it does beat around that bush some. Besides, the topic will die down eventually.

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #156 on: February 11, 2015, 06:29:39 AM »
Huh  :huh:?  That logic would imply that it's ok for other kids to get vaccine - in order to protect mine?!? - but not mine.  So I'd be anti-vaccine only for my child?  Something out of kilter there. ...
In the cases I knew of, the way I understood it was that the logic would probably have been pretty calculated and more along the lines of anarchy/freedom of self-determination, as in:
Quote
"I'm not going to let anything unnatural or potentially harmful be done to my kids. Other people can vaccinate their children if they wish, but I am not going to be forced to have mine vaccinated, because of what I see as the potential risks of toxic vaccines made using unnatural/animal cultures, though indirect/cross-infection will probably not be harmful and could be potentially beneficial as it would be through a natural human vector/medium of exchange."

So I think it would have been the uncertainty, you see. The expectation was that the vaccination programme would be successful (and it clearly was), and there was thus a de facto reliance on that leading to a greatly reduced risk that your unvaccinated child in that environment would be infected with the virulent strain of the pathogen. It wasn't an argument about the vaccines being bad/ineffective per se, but that we didn't have enough knowledge to be certain that all these unnatural things we were doing wouldn't be harmful. That of course could still generally be true today, though the probabilities/risks might be so small as to be statistically insignificant. Pretty bad luck though if your kid is the one who gets damaged by one of those "improbabilities", so you would still be taking a risk, however small, if you did have them vaccinated.

It's rather the opposite of the case (above) where the Alsatian police dogs killed the child of their human pack that they lived with. Anyone who knows anything about dog-breeding and statistics would be able to figure out fairly swiftly that the odds of that happening were relatively a great deal higher for some breeds and relatively a great deal lower or non-existant for others, and that Alsatians fell into the high risk group. It's not a good recipe for survival. You'd need rocks in your head to expose your child to such risks, but there you are, and so that DNA does not get passed on.

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #157 on: February 11, 2015, 06:48:28 AM »

Not sure what any of this has to do with peer review and the scientific process though...

It's tangentially related at best - as in: rather off topic. :-[

My apologies. Perhaps a mod could edit it out and move it elsewhere, or to its own thread? (Or I could just remove my OTs myself. Pls advise.)

Strikes me as an active example of the process, albeit by non-professionals in the field  :-\ :P.  Sort of a peer review of Peer Review and the Scientific Process, as it were.

Ouch! Painful...but true. :huh:

Guilty as charged yer Honor! (Again with apologies to all.) :-[

« Last Edit: February 11, 2015, 07:03:31 AM by 40hz »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #158 on: February 11, 2015, 07:14:08 AM »
Actually... I think this off-topic bit has been productive. I believe that I inadvertently hit on an important point above:

Actually, this is an excellent example of where the ad hominem argument is good. (Would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your children? Same argument and same basic case.)

For anyone reading that is not well versed in logic and argumentation theory:

Quote from: Good Reasoning Matters! (Little, Groarke, Tindale, 1989)
Thus, a good ad hominem is:

    An argument that a person's view should not be given credence or should be rejected outright because the person is deemed to be (i) not knowledgeable, or (ii) untrustworthy, or (iii) biased.


(No link - it's from a paper book!  :o )

The anti-vax argument is often ii and iii. However, there are some that claim i, i.e. that the science is wrong and that the researchers are... blah blah blah. I'm not going to bother with that as the claims for ii and iii are sufficient to illustrate that there are genuine objections that have not been adequately addressed. (Also, i has been addressed at length.)

Peer review is in part a pro hominem argument. Given the massive amounts of fraud, I think that points ii and iii in the quote above are relevant to it.

But, I think we've also gone over that before in this thread. The above is just one more illustration.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #159 on: February 11, 2015, 04:52:11 PM »
Honestly, Ren, it seems like you're either confused about several aspects of the whole virus, disease, vaccination process or just throwing out answers off the top of your head to play devil's advocate. Since I know how long I'd end up spending if I decided to respond to even the majority of it, I'll attempt to control myself and focus on just a couple posts.

This may be off topic, but I wouldn't mind some of your input here.
Recently, a lot of people around me have been getting worked about about the anti-vaccination issues.  I've been listening to the arguments, and I must say that I'm legitimately confused.  Politics or beliefs aside, the question I want to answer is, "Should I vaccinate?  How do I make this decision wisely?"

If you consult with a doctor that isn't blindly religious on the issue, most likely your doctor will recommend vaccination, but not necessarily for everything. Not all people need all vaccines. There actually is room for thought on the topic, though the current dialectic pretty much excludes any rational debate.

For example, do you need to be vaccinated for Japanese encephalitis? It's a horrible, crippling disease that utterly destroys people. Chances are that you don't as it is only found in certain places.

Are you at risk for cervical cancer? If you're male, then no. And here is where the insanity begins, because there are quite a few people that want forced vaccinations for boys. I.am.not.kidding.

Talk to 1 or more doctors. Read up on the issues.

I like the cut of your strawman's jib! Good thing he's no true Scotsman or else your your ad hominem left hook might not have landed.

The Japanese Encephalitis vaccine is specifically recommended only for people traveling to certain areas in Asia, and, even then, only if they are going to be staying for a long period of time. The word for a doctor who recommended it as part of the standard course of vaccination isn't religious. It's quack.

Quote
The closest I've been able to come to an answer is along these lines:
Let's say there's a disease where I have 5% chance of dying.  The vaccine is available, and with it there is the 1% risk of dying.  So in that case, the gamble is mathematically worth the risk.

That's correct given that you will get the disease. If there's a 1% chance of contracting the disease, then 5% * 1% vs. 1% doesn't justify the vaccine, mathematically that is. But that doesn't take into account other possible problems from the disease, e.g. 50% chance of blindness, etc.

Numbers derived from a false premise don't lie. In fact, they don't tell us anything at all. Used skillfully, though, they can lay the foundation for an effective appeal to consequences.

Quote
All too often people talk about mortality rates, but blindness, deafness, and many other horrible effects also come with some diseases.

Then there are diseases like rubella that aren't serious (or as serious as others). Rubella is mostly relevant for pregnant women.

But it's just not that simple.  Do we know these percentages?  What if the vaccine is for a non-lethal disease, like a cold or mild flu?  Are these risk quantification reliable?  I don't know the answer at all, to be honest.  And it's a sensitive issue in my circles as there actually are cases of life-altering mental problems that have been attributed to vaccination.  I never ask, but I want to ask how do we know it was the vaccines? 

How do we know? Good question. When you look at some of the crippling effects in some cases, and the timelines, then it's pretty obvious, but that's not scientific proof, though it is sometimes enough to get settlements from the secret vaccine courts.

Nobody is more sceptical than me about pharmaceutical industry research. I'm familiar with the sort of nonsense they use to prop up their patent-based business model. Mike Masnick has written about them at Techdirt quite a bit over the years, and I wouldn't want to use the language that comes to mind when I think about it.

If only we had someone else who aggregated data from more reliable sources, perhaps even directly from medical professionals, and provided that data to the public. We could call it the Centers for Disease Control. CDC has a nice ring to it, don't you think? They could even put up a website dedicated to it.

Alternatively, we could just assume that the parents from those lawsuits, everyone they've told about it, everyone on their legal team, including medical professional, and anyone else with knowledge of, or access to, the data is somehow magically silenced by the same companies who can't manage to keep their own fraudulent studies from seeing the light of day.

Honestly, your appeals to emotion aren't really strong enough to warrant that level of mental gymnastics. The Russian judge gives this one a 2.

Quote
When a friend of mine gets a flu shot, he's pretty much guaranteed to get the flu -- and he no longer gets any flu shots. But, that's annecdotal.

I think it really depends on the person - not all people are the same.

Ironically, your anecdotal evidence matches the actual science. It comes down to the nature of influenza, which has a genetic defect which causes a mutation every time it replicates. That's why each of the 3 major variants, Influenza A, B, and C, are separated not just by species, but also genus. It's also the reason the flu vaccine is constantly being reformulated.

Since Influenza C is rarely responsible for outbreaks, it isn't included in the vaccine at all. Antigens for 2-3 specific Influenza A strains are used, because it's the one that spreads globally. Influenza B is responsible for most localized outbreaks, so only a single strain is included.

Of course, that localization also makes it a near certainty some (perhaps most) people who get vaccinated will be in areas with resistant Influenza B strains. If the models, based on nowhere near complete information, prove wrong, a the strains used for a given vaccine may be irrelevant before the vaccine hits the street. Even if they're right, the virus can mutate into a resistant strain in your body before your antibodies manage to finish their work.

That's without considering the most dangerous outbreaks, which originate in other species. The most common of these come from pigs. Fortunately they're similar enough to humans, biologically speaking, that they generally don't result in pandemics. Those typically come from birds, which is why they're incredibly rare because birds don't cough. Even if they knew for a fact one of those strains would spread to humans, immunization would likely be futile since they would almost immediately combine with an existing human strain to create a very different hybrid.

It's impossible to create a definitive and complete flue vaccine for any given point in time, let alone months or years in the future. However, vaccination does also provide is with a mechanism for steering natural selection away from the most dangerous strains.

Flu shots don't make sense for everyone. For some segments of the population it would be insane not to get every new flu vaccine as soon as possible. It definitely saves lives among the elderly, children, and in medical environments. I will absolutely continue to take advantage of it for at least as long as my kids are living with us and my wife works for the public school system.

Quote
Oh, I just remembered a bit more insanity... This is fun~! ;D

That's because it's so easy. You're cherry picking facts, avoiding any semblance of context, proclaiming your own facts without even the pretense of evidence, and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies. That's why they call it pseudo science.

Of course, if your real intention is demonstrating the necessity for peer review using only blatant, real world examples, well done!  :Thmbsup:

Quote
A common argument that I read all the time is about "the children" and how people want to exclude unvaccinated kids from schools.

Ok. For the sake of argument... Let's run with that. ;)

Some vaccines turn the recipient into a carrier for anywhere from 2 weeks to 90 days.

So, for those vaccines, shouldn't vaccinated children be excluded from schools until they are no longer contagious? Not all kids can get the same vaccine at the same time (if that even mattered).

In the first bit above, we have no evidence that any unvaccinated child has any disease, but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is contagious. What to do? :P

Fun fun fun~! ;D

Here's what I would recommend doing. Check to see if your hypothetical has any basis in reality, especially if you're going to complain about mis/disinformation. In fact, since we have those requirements here, I can get you right to the relevant information for our local schools.

http://www.dmschools.org/departments/special-education/health-services/health-policies-guidelines/immunizations/

There are only 2 types of exemption to Iowa law, medical and religious, and I disagree with the second one. That's what you get with one of the original corporate sponsored governors running things. Regardless, if it's a religious thing, that's the parent's issue to address. If it's medical, the school nurse is more than capable of dealing with it on an individual basis. And I say that as someone living in the biggest district in the state.

@Ren - IIUC you can't (except in that rare situation with the old oral polio vaccine - which is no longer administered) come down with the illness that an attenuated-live vaccine is designed to provide immunization for unless the batch that was administered was defective. And my understanding is that cases of defective vaccine batches making it into actual circulation are extremely rare occurrences.

Sorry, but no. There are some vaccines that make the patient contagious for a period of time. You only need to check the insert to verify.

You can find it in some inserts under some section  like in the below, 5.8 "Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission". Here's a bit for the VARIVAX vaccine:
 (see attachment in previous post)
There are more. That's just one. The recommendation is for 6 weeks.

Your facts here are accurate, and also confirmed by the CDC. Once again, though, context matters. You haven't bothered to compare exposure through the vaccine to exposure in the wild.

Varicella has an incubation period of up to 16 days before Chickenpox symptoms appear, which can last as long as 21 days. That's a total of up to 37 days as a baseline, with the same recommendations for contagion. It also includes the small percentage of the population killed by Chickenpox, which has been almost eliminated by vaccination. Some percentage of those deaths were in the high risk groups that don't get vaccinated. I haven't looked for the specific numbers, but I know it was less than 100%.

If it took an extra 5 days for the virus to become dormant in just 1 person who would have died, we're already at 42 days. That's assuming they didn't just add 5 days as a margin of error. In either case, a difference of 5 days is negligible. The reduction in deaths, even among people who can't get the vaccine, is not.

Quote
Here's a bit from another insert:
 (see attachment in previous post)
That lists 28 weeks, or 7 months.

Read it again. It still says 6 weeks.

It also says newborn premature babies born before 28 weeks have weakened immune systems. That's completely different, and certainly shouldn't be news to anyone.

Quote
Again... just what part of this is hard to understand for people? Everyone wants to believe that vaccines are some sort of magical pixie dust.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT (PSA):

VACCINES ARE NOT MAGICAL PIXIE DUST!

Your comments seem to suggest it is that hard to understand. In fact understanding it is hard, like any complicated science. It's just not as complicated as you're making it. It's not even as complicated as understanding the science if you follow IainB's advice and look at the statistics.

Quote
Vaccines are, however, damn good insurance. With vaccines it's all about risk minimization and mitigation. Because at this stage of our medical knowledge and technology, that's about as good as we can make it.

Yes. Exactly.

But the pro-vaccine crowd almost ALWAYS touts all the positive benefits and completely ignores any of the possible adverse issues or other "inconvenient" facts. Again... this is about approaching the topic sanely and measuring benefits vs. costs.

Do you really not see the contradiction in those statements? You're following an ad hominem attack by complaining that the people you're attacking aren't making rational arguments. That's without even applying the same test to your own comments.

Regardless, I will absolutely concede that most people who are pro-vaccine don't analyze it that way. I will even go further and say the majority are almost completely ignorant of both the medical basis or statistical evidence. That's consistent with the average person's understanding of just about every complicated issue, and also something they have in common with the anti-vaccine side. It tells us a lot about people, in general, and not a thing about this, or any other, issue.

While it's easy to see why most people would get that impression. People who are capable of understand the issues involved without a remedial class are a small minority. Those who take the time to educate themselves are a much smaller subset of that. Reduce that to those of us with the requisite skills to communicate the information effectively and you're down to almost nothing.

The other problem, and this isn't necessarily directed at you, because I suspect you already see it, is relying on the government to make a rational case. This is a societal problem in need of a societal solution. Government is only 1 of the tools in our toolbox, and, frankly, it's the wrong one for most jobs.

Government is a blunt instrument - a hammer. As the old saying goes, if that's all you have, everything looks like a nail. Just like an actual hammer, government is the right tool for a few things, an adequate substitute for others, but a disaster waiting to happen for everything else. It's about as far from magical pixie dust as you can get. It's certainly the right tool to coerce people who cause public health hazards through willful ignorance. If intelligent discourse is what you need, good luck with that.

A few of us figure things out, a larger number comprehend and adopt those ideas, and it gradually trickles down to the masses over time if it works. That last group doesn't understand why, any more than they understand why they need to study history in school. For them, acceptance doesn't require understanding. A small group will cling to their small minds, neither understanding nor accepting. We've always got the hammer for them.

Quote
I'm sorry, but nobody gets to choose what parts of reality apply to them. Unfortunately, 100% of reality applies to everyone... vaccine advocates included.

This only goes to show, yet once again, how the mainstream views are so grossly distorted and perverse.

What really pisses me off is all these self-righteous zealots who preach "science" and then want to ignore anything that doesn't fit their personally acceptable narrative. This is a recurring theme in many fields, not just in "vaccines".

Gravity applies to Wile E. Coyote just as it does to everyone else. Nobody escapes nature. Not even psychotic zealots. :P

On either side.

Quote
Now, chickenpox (for the Varivax vaccine above) isn't very serious. But it's just one example. Not all vaccines are equal, and the zealots trying to portray them as all being unicorn farting rainbows do nothing to help the situation.

This would carry a lot more weight if you could name just one person who fits your description. I'd prefer someone who isn't a wingnut, except those 2 requirements are mutually exclusive. It won't make your broad brush characterizations any more accurate, but at least I'll have some reference for who you consider a spokesman for "my" side.

I think I'll stop here. Since it's you, I'd be concerned if you didn't get an angry rant in somewhere. If we're really lucky, or everyone else isn't, perhaps we even avoid the basement.
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #160 on: February 11, 2015, 09:05:53 PM »
Since I know how long I'd end up spending if I decided to respond to even the majority of it, I'll attempt to control myself and focus on just a couple posts.

Same. I'll just hit a few points.

to play devil's advocate.

It wouldn't be much fun if I didn't. ;)

I like the cut of your strawman's jib! Good thing he's no true Scotsman or else your your ad hominem left hook might not have landed.

The Japanese Encephalitis vaccine is specifically recommended only for people traveling to certain areas in Asia, and, even then, only if they are going to be staying for a long period of time. The word for a doctor who recommended it as part of the standard course of vaccination isn't religious. It's quack.

Oh! Somebody read that! Nice! I was waiting for someone to call me on it. ;)

The examples I picked there were quite deliberate. It's utterly insane for someone living in rural Canada to get a Japanese encephalitis shot.

Because it's not needed. And there are no strong arguments for it.

But what about vaccines for diseases that are sexually transmitted or transmitted through sharing needles?

Are infants at risk?

I don't know too many junkie whore infants. ;)

Hepatitis vaccine given at birth.

I've already mentioned cervical cancer vaccines for boys.

Infants, small children, and the elderly are typically listed as "high risk" candidates for disease, etc. Why would anyone vaccinate an infant for a disease that they would only receive if they were raped or their junkie, infected parents stuck them with dirty needles?

No - it's not a strawman at all. It's to illustrate that some vaccine schedules are overly aggressive and include unnecessary vaccines.

Numbers derived from a false premise don't lie. In fact, they don't tell us anything at all. Used skillfully, though, they can lay the foundation for an effective appeal to consequences.

My point there was to illustrate that death isn't the only possible consequence. I'm not sure what you're driving at. If anything, this is a good argument for vaccination.

Nobody is more sceptical than me about pharmaceutical industry research. I'm familiar with the sort of nonsense they use to prop up their patent-based business model. Mike Masnick has written about them at Techdirt quite a bit over the years, and I wouldn't want to use the language that comes to mind when I think about it.

Mike is definitely one of my favourite bloggers out there.

If only we had someone else who aggregated data from more reliable sources, perhaps even directly from medical professionals, and provided that data to the public. We could call it the Centers for Disease Control. CDC has a nice ring to it, don't you think? They could even put up a website dedicated to it.

I'm well aware of the VAERS database. I didn't want to bring it up because it all too quickly degenerates into a blithering mass of profanity in just about every discussion that it is in. I'm trying pretty hard to skip those toxic elements of the debate.


Honestly, your appeals to emotion aren't really strong enough to warrant that level of mental gymnastics. The Russian judge gives this one a 2.

Doesn't matter. That was a throwaway. (Also, please notice that I have omitted a lot about the history of the courts and legislation there.)



Ironically, your anecdotal evidence matches the actual science.


Regarding that whole section - good write up.

I'll throw in that there are similarities in other areas as well, e.g. measles comes in a few flavours (apart from "German measles, etc.).

Quote
Oh, I just remembered a bit more insanity... This is fun~! ;D

That's because it's so easy. You're cherry picking facts, avoiding any semblance of context, proclaiming your own facts without even the pretense of evidence, and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies. That's why they call it pseudo science.

Really?

You're cherry picking facts,

See below. ;)

avoiding any semblance of context,

I gave the context. Varivax and chickenpox. Although, I did do that in my next post. You had the context.

proclaiming your own facts without even the pretense of evidence,

Seriously? Like, really?

I presented information from the MANUFACTURER.

and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies.

Pure nonsense.

ARGUMENT 1

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
b) Unvaccinated childred are "higher risk".

Conclusion:
c) Unvaccinated children should be excluded from schools.

ARGUMENT 2

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
d) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine are "higher risk" for a period of time. (Information given by the manufacturer.)

Conclusion:
e) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine should be excluded from schools for a period of time.

You have some explaining to do for accusing me of "stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies". From what I can see there, it's a pretty simple syllogism.

While I didn't draw it out as clearly before, I didn't figure that I really needed to outline the logic for such a simple syllogism.

What I illustrated there is that where argument 1 is acceptable to some people, argument 2 isn't, even though they are THE EXACT SAME LOGIC.


If I made an error, the error was here:

Quote
but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is contagious.

I should have qualified that as:

Quote
but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is potentially contagious.


That's why they call it pseudo science.

If you have a problem with the science, take it up with the manufacturer.

Check to see if your hypothetical has any basis in reality

Like I said, refer to the manufacturer. It's their "hypothetical". Not mine. ;)

Here's a non-hypothetical from the VAERS database (2013VAERSDATA/VAX):

VAERS_ID   RECVDATE   STATE   AGE_YRS   CAGE_YR   CAGE_MO   SEX   RPT_DATE   SYMPTOM_TEXT   DIED   DATEDIED   L_THREAT   ER_VISIT   HOSPITAL   HOSPDAYS   X_STAY   DISABLE   RECOVD   VAX_DATE   ONSET_DATE   NUMDAYS   LAB_DATA   V_ADMINBY   V_FUNDBY   OTHER_MEDS   CUR_ILL   HISTORY   PRIOR_VAX   SPLTTYPE
492174   05/21/2013   NY   15         M   05/21/2013   This spontaneous report as received from a other health professional (medical student) refers to a currently 15 years old male patient with T cell precursor lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) undergoing chemotherapy. On an unknown date the patient's brothers were vaccinated with a dose of varicella virus vaccine live (manufacturer unknown) lot # dose not reported, it was not known if the patient had been vaccinated. On an unknown date, the patient experienced disseminated varicella (hospitalization) and died (on an unspecified date). The cause of death was unknown. At the time of the report the outcome for disseminated varicella, patient's brothers were vaccinated with a dose varicella virus vaccine live were unknown. Additional information has been requested. The following information was obtained through follow-up and/or provided by the government. 05/28/13 Death Certificate Received. Final Cause of Death: Multi-organ System Failure due to or as a consequence of Varicella Zoster Viremia due to or as a consequence of Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia.  05/24/13 Vaccine records/medical records received. Service dates 06/06/01 to 08/05/11. DOB 11/18/97.   Y   05/08/2013      Y               N               OTH   OTH   No other medications   Chemotherapy; Precursor T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukaemia         WAES1305USA010047

VAERS_ID   VAX_TYPE   VAX_MANU   VAX_LOT   VAX_DOSE   VAX_ROUTE   VAX_SITE   VAX_NAME
494750   VARCEL   MERCK & CO. INC.   H009535      SC   LL   VARICELLA (VARIVAX)

And please, don't blame me for presenting actual evidence. I didn't make it. I didn't file the report. I don't maintain the database. If you don't like the evidence, then take it up with the CDC and vaccine manufacturer.

But, like I said, the topic is pretty toxic. It's simply impossible to even present facts or evidence from the manufacturers or CDC without being accused of all sorts of shenanigans. This is in part why I've tried to focus on the actual logic (or lack of) that fuels the "debate" (or screaming match, as it were).

I'd like to continue, but have to get back to the salt mines. :)

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #161 on: February 12, 2015, 11:19:42 AM »
I didn't argue with any of your manufacturer data, only the endless stream of logical fallacies you added to string them together into an anti-vaccination argument. In fact, I specifically named almost all of those fallacies. One exception was the false dilemma fallacy behind your criticism of the varicella virus contagion. Even then, I corrected it.

Since most of those fallacies are appeals to emotion and consequences, straw men, and ad hominem attacks, I expect others to see through them already. Otherwise, there isn't much anyone can do to help. However, they're also the least problematic. The problem is a number of false premises, resulting in false dilemmas, without which, your arguments crumble to dust.

1. Live virus immunizations put immunized children at risk.

People do not spread diseases. They spread bacteria and viruses, which may, or may not, result in a disease. The varicella virus, spread after immunization, will enter immunized and non-immunized bodies equally. If you are not immunized, it results in chickenpox and a disease is spread. If you have been immunized, your body neutralizes it, and no disease is spread.

This is not speculation or even a hypothesis. It's accepted scientific theory, based on decades of experience using live viruses to immunize against measles, mumps, and rubella. Your hypothesis is directly contradicted by time tested theory, and you provide no evidence to either support it or disprove the theory. It is, therefore, a false premise.

Once again, here in Iowa, we already have mandatory vaccination as a prerequisite for entering school. Since we follow the CDC guidelines, every child has received at least 1 shot for every live virus vaccine they will ever be required to get until they graduate. Future required immunizations consist purely of boosters to those vaccinations. Children who get vaccinated immediately before beginning school may transmit the virus to others in their schools. They will not, however, spread the resulting disease because everyone else has also been immunized.

2. People want to immunize boys against cervical cancer.

This is simply false on its face. There is no cervical cancer vaccination. There is, however, a HPV vaccination. In fact there are 2 of them. One is formulated for both males and females, and the other only for females. Human papilloma virus is responsible for an estimated 70% of cervical cancer. However, it is also notably responsible for both anal and penile cancer. I think we can all agree boys have both anuses and penises. Yet again, a false premise, creating a false dilemma.

3. Live virus vaccines put pregnant women (and others) at increased risk.

This essentially boils down to a discussion of rubella and varicella. I'll start with varicella because it's the more complicated of the 2.

Severity aside, varicella in the wild works essentially the same as the varicella live virus vaccine. If you have not had chickenpox, and are exposed to someone who either has it, or has the varicella virus incubating in their system prior to chickenpox, he will transmit the virus to you, and you will eventually get chickenpox. If you have had chickenpox, he will still transmit the virus to you, but you will not get chickenpox.

Except we now know it's more complicated than that. In reality, chickenpox immunity after exposure isn't permanent, and since the virus becomes dormant in your nervous system after chickenpox, rather than being eliminated entirely, exposure to varicella every few years (I can't be bothered to look up the number), extends your immunity to a second case of chickenpox. It is also important for avoiding shingles from reactivation of the virus, which is why adults who may never be exposed to vaccinated children should get vaccinated.

At first glance, the risks of vaccine virus appear different than for the virus in the wild. That's not true. The vaccine was created after research showed reduced immunity to varicella over time. This discovery was primarily the result of women increasingly having children later in life, thereby increasing the odds their immunity to varicella was compromised. Younger women, the vast majority of whom had chickenpox as children, were generally not at risk. Once they had a child, he would typically contract chickenpox within the first few years of life, passing varicella on to the mother, recharging her resistance for future pregnancies. That increased resistance, which works against both the wild and vaccine viruses, can also be acquired through vaccination prior to pregnancy.

Here's where the manufacturer's warnings are actually superior to the CDC's. The CDC identifies 37 days as the maximum time between exposure to varicella and the end of chickenpox. They identify 42 days (6 weeks) after vaccination as the bright line, beyond which a new rash caused by varicella is assumed to be from a second exposure. However, they only recommend a 28 day minimum wait between receiving the vaccine and attempting to become pregnant. Granted, getting pregnant isn't usually something that happens on the first try, but it can. The difference here is that the manufacturer risks monetary liability, and therefore errs on the side of caution.

Once again, this matches our experience with other vaccines. As you have pointed out, the other major concern for pregnant women is rubella. Once again, though, a woman whose MMR boosters are current into adulthood is significantly less likely to be affected by exposure to the vaccine virus transmitted by a recently vaccinated individual. Likewise, this is impacted, statistically, by the age women choose to have children relative to when they were last vaccinated.

Yes, there is an elevated risk for vaccinated women who are pregnant, compared to those who aren't, but it's significantly lower than for women who haven't been vaccinated. It's identical to their risk from exposure to the disease, except for one thing. Wholesale vaccination reduces her risk of being exposed to someone with the disease. It doesn't show up in the records because it has been virtually eliminated from her environment.

The same applies to individuals with compromised immune systems. Finding a single person who died after exposure to varicella virus introduced by vaccination proves exactly nothing. The question isn't whether varicella still kills people in that segment of the population. It's how the number killed because of the vaccine compares to those killed without it. According to the CDC, that number has plummeted. Once again, you're arguing against not just the accepted theory, but also the statistical data which proves it. Another false premise busted.

As much as I'd be happy to talk about a cost/benefit analysis, by handwaving away the science, you're applying your own magical pixie dust to dismiss most of the benefits. It would be an exercise in futility. If you'd like to address the science, and not just individual facts taken out of context, I'm in. Otherwise, I don't know what else there is to say.
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 05:13:41 PM by Vurbal »

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #162 on: February 13, 2015, 07:13:51 AM »
I'm only going to address 1 issue for the sake of time.

I didn't argue with any of your manufacturer data, only the endless stream of logical fallacies you added to string them together into an anti-vaccination argument.

You entirely missed the point of the argument. Let me post it from above again with a clarification of the point that you missed at the end:

ARGUMENT 1

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
b) Unvaccinated childred are "higher risk".

Conclusion:
c) Unvaccinated children should be excluded from schools.

ARGUMENT 2

Premises:
a) Children that are at a higher risk of transmitting a disease should be excluded from schools.
d) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine are "higher risk" for a period of time. (Information given by the manufacturer.)

Conclusion:
e) Children that receive the Varivax chickenpox vaccine should be excluded from schools for a period of time.

CLARIFICATION

The argument is not against vaccination. The argument is that the 2 above arguments are of identical forms and accepting one entails accepting the other if one is to be logically consistent.

I'll put this in symbolic logic so that there is zero confusion.

Note: I have reformulated it in one minor way, i.e. it is a given that unvaccinated children present a higher risk of infecting others. This merely cleans up the language a bit and avoids a step that (almost) everyone already accepts as true, so it shouldn't be controversial.



SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 1

If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

1) a --> b

Where:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = a child should be excluded from school

If a child has not received a vaccination against a disease, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.

2) c --> d

Where:

c = a child has not received a vaccination against a disease
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

3) a = d

4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)

At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.

5) a (accepted as given)

6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))

The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".

SYMBOLIC LOGIC FOR ARGUMENT 2

If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

1) a --> b

Where:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others
b = that child should be excluded from school

If a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious, that child presents a higher risk of infecting others.

2) c --> d

Where:

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious
d = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

3) a = d

4) c --> a (by substitution from 3)

At this point, we accept 'a' as a given.

5) a (accepted as given)

6) b (affirming the antecedent from 1 (modus ponens))

The conclusion then is "a child should be excluded from school".



If anything, I'm arguing to keep children out of school. ;) I'm sure that would gain me a LOT more fans than your argument. :P

That you've chosen to see this as an argument against vaccination indicates to me that you're either simply being beligerent, or you're not reading what I wrote, or you don't understand basic logic (which I highly doubt - I know you're a smart person and not an idiot).

1. Live virus immunizations put immunized children at risk.

People do not spread diseases. They spread bacteria and viruses, which may, or may not, result in a disease.

You're merely being pedantic here with no real substance.

Your hypothesis is directly contradicted by time tested theory, and you provide no evidence to either support it or disprove the theory. It is, therefore, a false premise.

From what I've reposted above, you're claiming that premise 'c' is false. i.e.

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious

Let's clarify a bit.

I took a shortcut there. I combined a bit. Separating it out:

m = a child has received a vaccination against a disease
n = that vaccination could make the child contagious

So, c is just "m & n". m is uncontroversial. So, you are denying n.

I cited this:



That supports n.

I also cited a specific instance, to which you said:

Finding a single person who died after exposure to varicella virus introduced by vaccination proves exactly nothing.

So, when presented with evidence, you simply deny it. Very convenient. 

(That he died is irrelevant. The point is that he was infected.)

You continue from there:

The question isn't whether varicella still kills people in that segment of the population. It's how the number killed because of the vaccine compares to those killed without it. According to the CDC, that number has plummeted. Once again, you're arguing against not just the accepted theory, but also the statistical data which proves it. Another false premise busted.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

I presented clear evidence from the manufacturer with a VAERS case to back it up, i.e. counter examples. I only need to give 1 counter example to prove my case. I don't need 2. I don't need 3 or more. I need 1 and only 1. Check the syllogism that I set up for easier reading again.

Here's that premise that you seem to really hate once again, just to be clear:

c = a child has received a vaccination against a disease and that vaccination could make the child contagious

Or:

n = that vaccination could make the child contagious

We have unambiguous evidence to illustrate that n is true.

Now, I do get what you're trying to illustrate, but you've been clumbsy in trying show that I've commited some kind of fallacy, which I haven't.

Rather, you've misdirected your objection. You should be attacking this:

a = a child presents a higher risk of infecting others

That is where statistics come into play, and THEN you get to actually have some fun in attacking the argument I made.

The key there is to go after "higher" and qualify that.

So, just to invent some BS, simple numbers for the sake of argument,

(NOTE: I mean SIMPLE as that is all that is needed. We could create complex non-linear models that account for population sizes, etc., but it doesn't serve any significant purpose for this discussion. So PLEASE... Have the courtesy of giving a charitable read instead of accusing me of "false premises" for a change.)

let's say that a vaccinated child is our base number and equivalent to a 0% increase. We'll take an unvaccinated child to increase the chance of 1 or more other children becoming infected by 5% (which is unrealistically high, but let's just use SIMPLE whole numbers to start).

The question now becomes about what the chance of a newly vaccinated child infecting other children is.

UC = Unvaccinated Child
NVC = Newly Vaccinated Child

If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by 5% or more, and we accept this:

        If a child presents a higher risk of infecting others, that child should be excluded from school.

And you accept that UCs should be excluded, then we obviously exclude the NVC child as they present a higher risk than UCs.

If an NVC increases the chance of other infections by less than 5%, then it is possible to deny that they should be excluded from school.

HOWEVER... In that example of 5% and >= or < 5%, we should recognise that the numbers are simple, and that reality is bound to have very different numbers, and most importantly, that threshold will not be that simple to define.

It is more likely that we would end up dealing with orders of magnitude, and that we would also then end up fueling the anti-vax arguments as the numbers would simply be so low (for at least one of UCs and NVCs) as to not create much statistical concern.

The only way to "pre-empt" anti-vax arguments is to set a statistical threshold prior to discovery. This eliminates the possibility of maliciously singling out UCs to be excluded from school. And given the foaming at the mouth, rabid, vicious nature of this debate, it's a legitimate concern.



Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #163 on: February 13, 2015, 08:13:46 AM »
What you've actually demonstrated is what I said in my initial post. It's more complicated than you think, and you don't understand the process, at least not the terminology used to describe the process.

Specifically, you're misconstruing the meaning of infection. Infection merely means the virus has entered a host body. As long as the host has been immunized, the virus will be neutralized, although not necessarily eliminated, as with varicella. At worst, the infection is harmless. At best it acts like a booster shot.
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #164 on: February 13, 2015, 08:47:00 AM »
Someone let me know when this thread should be moved to the basement.

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #165 on: February 13, 2015, 09:49:15 AM »
I'm trying hard to avoid that necessity, but I'm obviously not in a position to look at it objectively.  :)
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #166 on: February 13, 2015, 11:11:34 AM »
Why "Basement" it? It's not religio-political is it? It's simply gone off-topic. Don't move it just for going off-topic.
(Unless it presents or has become a potential public embarrassment to the forum?)

Maybe you could consider moving the people who took the thread off-topic to the basement, together with their individual posts. Temporary banishment. Like a sin-bin. It's been a bit like trolling.
The thread otherwise seemed relatively on-topic until they got started. Maybe they were deliberately trying to get the thread "Basemented"?    :tellme:

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #167 on: February 13, 2015, 01:45:12 PM »
+1 w/IainB. This "move it to the basement" thing is starting to get a little out of hand, I think.

I'd like to suggest a close reading of Ken White's polemic entitled Ten Short Rants About #GamerGate.. I think it offers excellent insights and some direction about how adults should be able to handle their differences on the web.

There are certainly times when some comments may need to be taken down because they risk disrupting the entire community's social contract. Liberal though I am, I'm still not one to argue that repeated and deliberate bad behavoir must be tolerated - or allowed to go unchallenged. But when 'disruption' starts being equated with somebody merely becoming uncomfortable because they got challenged by somebody else over of something they said...well...that's the way it goes when you're speaking to adults.

I personally think the whole 'Basement' concept was a bad one despite the obviously good and noble intentions behind it. First, because it's similar to a certain disciplinary technique you'd use with a 3-year old child: "Be nice or you'll be sent to your room." Second, because it unfairly deals with the posts of other thread participants who did nothing to merit having their words sent to a place reserved for inappropriate comments or subject matter. Third, because the very existence of something like the Basement tends to greenlight certain subjects, language choices, and behaviors that most particiants already knew were inappropriate for this forum. Holding a Mardi Gras every so often may help relieve some social steam. But keeping one around as a permanent red light district is far less beneficial. Because that can easily encourage the sort of antics you're trying to keep a lid on.

My feeling is, if something is not considered appropriate in the main venue - it's not appropriate at all, and shouldn't be here. If there's enough interest in the sort of thing that's not appropriate at one site, it only takes a few bucks a month at GoDaddy to set up your own forum where you get to make the rules. But when you're sitting at the table playing somebody else's game, the grownup thing to do is play by the rules of the house.

My suggestion? There's nothing wrong with some corrective moderation should the situation warrant. A place I once co-modded had a policy of pulling the occasional ill-considered post and suggest (via PM) that the contributor consider rewriting and resubmitting it. (The software we used had a good moderation feature that allowed us to do that with minimal fuss.) Most people agreed when they were totally out of line. A few even thanked us for pulling their comment before the rest of the forum piled on them for talking trash.

Not being perfect ourselves, there were also a few times when a mod got a little too trigger-happy and had to back down once they better understood where the poster was coming from. In those cases, the OP stood as written - accompanied by an apology from the mod for behaving "holier than thou."

It was a bit of work since that forum was even busier with regulars than DoCo is. But it was doable. And after a very brief period of time, the norms and mores of the site were both understood and respected by 99.9% of its members and visitors. It was only the occasional newcomer who needed to be gently educated in ettiquet after that. Most people, however, quickly picked up what the expected standard of behavior was all on thier own. Probably because most people are on their best behavior when they first start frequenting a forum. The problems tend to start mostly after they've been participating for a year or two. That's when they sometimes need a reminder they're still guests in somebody's house. And that those hosting them still have the right to decide what's acceptable as long as they're footing the bill.

And...that's about all I have to say about this subject - which is relevant - but completely OT to this thread. ;) 8)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2015, 01:57:07 PM by 40hz »

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,409
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #168 on: February 13, 2015, 01:51:38 PM »
Fair enough -- I probably jumped the gun on this one, so I rescind my admonishment.
Though I don't think I share your assessment of the basement as a bad idea -- it does seem to me to still be, on balance, a good solution to a real problem... Though i'm not above some constructive criticism if i'm too quick to move something there.  Generally my basement spider senses start to tingle when I walk into the room and see a whole bunch of horse dust and Renegade sitting in the corner with some baseball bats and a pint of homebrew.. but perhaps on reconsideration, the discussion of vacination wasn't actually too far of the original topic...

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #169 on: February 13, 2015, 02:04:34 PM »
@Mouser - if you agreed with everything I thought, I'd be very worried about your better judgement. You're far more understanding and patient then I'll ever be. And you don't share my unfortunate tendency towards the sharp rejoinder. Be glad for that. Because I certainly am - as I'm sure we all are.
 :Thmbsup: ;)

my basement spider senses start to tingle when I walk into the room and see a whole bunch of horse dust and Renegade sitting in the corner with some baseball bats and a pint of homebrew.

Now there's an image that I'll never get out of my head! Bravo! ;D ;D ;D

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #170 on: February 13, 2015, 02:25:57 PM »
Having seen how another forum with similar types of people has struggled to deal with this sort of thing, I view the basement as the worst possible solution, except for all the alternatives.
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #171 on: February 13, 2015, 10:21:56 PM »
What you've actually demonstrated is what I said in my initial post. It's more complicated than you think, and you don't understand the process, at least not the terminology used to describe the process.

Specifically, you're misconstruing the meaning of infection. Infection merely means the virus has entered a host body. As long as the host has been immunized, the virus will be neutralized, although not necessarily eliminated, as with varicella. At worst, the infection is harmless. At best it acts like a booster shot.

Again, thank you for helping me make my point about the nature of this particular topic, i.e. that it goes exactly nowhere because people are far too busy being religious/political about the topic to actually have a discussion in good faith.

Instead of reading what I wrote ("infect") and inferring common verbiage, you rigidly stick to jargon then accuse me of not understanding. While I may be guilty of being a bit lazy in my writing when using common language, you're guilty of violating the principle of charity in your reading, particularly when you very well know what I meant and then proceed to purposefully misread it (which also happens to be a strawman).

In any event, thank you for at least helping me illustrate my point about how the topic has degenerated into a toxic wasteland and how good faith in the conversation quickly disappears. I think we're pretty much done.




So, moving on...

Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

IainB

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,139
  • Slartibartfarst
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #172 on: February 14, 2015, 05:43:13 AM »
Thanks to @mouser for injecting some common sense into the discussion.

Vurbal

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2012
  • **
  • Posts: 635
  • Mostly harmless
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #173 on: February 14, 2015, 09:24:57 AM »
@Renegade

You're right. There's no point in discussing it as long as we're talking about different things. I'm done.
I learned to say the pledge of allegiance
Before they beat me bloody down at the station
They haven't got a word out of me since
I got a billion years probation
- The MC5

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the danger of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of ''crackpot'' than the stigma of conformity.
- Thomas J. Watson, Sr

It's not rocket surgery.
- Me


I recommend reading through my Bio before responding to any of my posts. It could save both of us a lot of time and frustration.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process
« Reply #174 on: February 14, 2015, 09:04:26 PM »
From the wonky side (just a few minutes there - about geo-dating)...

http://youtu.be/Bcw5YpeTd4I?t=1h26m

Yep. Aliens!

But, the point about dating methods stands.

Here's the original research: J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, 73 (1968): pp. 4601-4607.

http://www.readcube....&show_checkout=1

Quote

It  was hoped that  the  examination of  the rare gases in Hawaiian xenoliths would provide information about the  origin of  such material or  would  at  least  further  delineate  the  reason why  such unusually old K-Ar  ages are  found for  ultramafic  nodules.

While many may question the sanity of someone talking about aliens, this isn't a valid objection when he asks a valid question. i.e. What are we to make of different dating methods when we find incredible discrepancies in their reported results?

Conclusion: ALIENS~! ;D (Well, not really, but it's still fun!)

My point here is that science is never "settled" - it's only our best guess/estimate at any given time, and may very well be overturned tomorrow. It might be a good idea to remember that Galileo was also dealing with "settled" facts, as were so many other heretics.

A group of modern heretics in the field of physics asks the same question:

WHAT IF? Asking the Dangerous Questions | Following the Evidence



Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker