Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Peer Review and the Scientific Process

<< < (33/47) > >>

Renegade:
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.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

Same. I'll just hit a few points.

to play devil's advocate.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.
-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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.-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---


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.).

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

--- End quote ---

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.-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

Really?

You're cherry picking facts, -Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

See below. ;)

avoiding any semblance of context, -Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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, -Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

Seriously? Like, really?

I presented information from the MANUFACTURER.

and stringing it all together with a framework of logical fallacies. -Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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:

but in the second instance, we have clear evidence that the child is contagious.
--- End quote ---

I should have qualified that as:

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


That's why they call it pseudo science.-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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-Vurbal (February 11, 2015, 04:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

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. :)

Vurbal:
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.

Renegade:
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.
-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.-Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

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. -Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

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. -Vurbal (February 12, 2015, 11:19 AM)
--- End quote ---

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.

Vurbal:
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.

mouser:
Someone let me know when this thread should be moved to the basement.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page