Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Peer Review and the Scientific Process
Renegade:
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.)
-40hz (February 10, 2015, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (February 10, 2015, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
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?
40hz:
So... do you kick those newly vaccinated kids out of school because they're now contagious?
-Renegade (February 10, 2015, 05:51 PM)
--- End quote ---
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. :)
IainB:
@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:
[/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.
-IainB (February 11, 2015, 04:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
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...
-IainB (February 11, 2015, 04:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
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:
Oh, how we love the courts/bureaucracies in Europe~!
http://www.blacklistednews.com/U.S._Media_Blackout%3A_Italian_Courts_Rule_Vaccines_Cause_Autism/41722/0/38/38/Y/M.html
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.
--- End quote ---
As in possibly contagious? Not everybody who gets vaccinated will become contagious.
-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
-40hz (February 10, 2015, 07:55 PM)
--- End quote ---
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:
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.-Good Reasoning Matters! (Little, Groarke, Tindale, 1989)
--- End quote ---
(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.-IainB (February 09, 2015, 10:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version