Quacks & Pseudoscience

[scaramanga]

You can twist it all you like. They are unequivocal. They are not sure it works.

That's absolutely not what they say. They have said they are not sure how it works. they do know it works.

And there are other significant side effects. They say that because it is true. Simple as that.

As with all medicine. The risks of those side effects are measurably better than the risk of not being vaccinated.

What they do know is that you are more likely to die if you take it than if you don't

They neither know that nor have said that. They have said that they measured an increased death rate less than that of statistical anomaly . Compare that to the death rate should there be an epidemic and it disappears completely.

and there are significant risks of other complications, and it is all for a condition which in the UK isn't that serious. Pretty much everyone one of us has had it. And we all survived.

I'm not sure where you get your information there - Rotavirus can be incredibly dangerous and often (way more than statistical anomaly) ends up in hospitalisation. The vaccine doesn't just reduce the likelihood of getting the infection, it also reduces the chance of it being serious if it happens.

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

The case has been made over and over, with clear evidence as to why vaccines work. You have yet to show any reliable evidence as to why they don't or why they are dangerous. Shouldn't that be the least you do before comments like yours?

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

Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen. They are far less likely to happen if you vaccinate your kids than if you don't. Some kids get hit by cars, some die in childbirth - you do get the concept that not perfect is still better than not trying right?

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

They did. But if you start attributing side effects that aren't caused by MMR vaccines, people probably will treat you like a fool - especially when you lap up unverified information from one side whilst ignoring fact-based evidence from the other.

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

Yet for both, most of us rely on the opinion of experts.

 

[milo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are either misunderstanding most of what we have said and shared with you or choosing to ignore it.

With Rotarix the mortality rate was virtually identical between the three groups in the trial you cited. If the trial was rerun, we shouldn't be surprised if the outcomes were the other way around. This tells us that there is no proven additional risk of death from this vaccine.

The same trials that you cited also show a significant drop in cases of rotavirus gastro-enteritis in children who were immunised and an even more marked drop in serious cases.

The advice that I have read from the manufacturer, US, UK and New Zealand governments all say that serious complications from this vaccine are rare (I'm happy to provide links if you wish). I am not aware of any evidence that you have provided of risks from this virus apart from misinterpreting the data of the risk of mortality. Are there any other complications from this vaccine that we should be aware of?

As for whether this disease poses a risk in the UK (or developed world) at the moment. It may not now but if immunisation rates drop, it soon would, and within a generation it would be back to where it was.

 

[braineclipse]

Rotarix own data sheets says "A relationship between antibody responses to rotavirus vaccination and protection against rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been established."

When the manufacturer of the rotavirus vaccine says it can not be sure it works

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

This is either dishonesty or intellectually lazy.

If it was an honest mistake the right thing to do would be to apologize immediately when the error was pointed out.

 

[JPBB]

This is either dishonesty or intellectually lazy.

If it was an honest mistake the right thing to do would be to apologize immediately when the error was pointed out.

We got there in the end. It is always just below the surface of even the most reasonable pro vaxxer. Anti vaxxers are liars and stupid. And we should apologise for daring to question the Pharma industry.

To apply legal tests to this.

The Pharma companies own admission that they have not established that a link means there is reasonable doubt so that they can not be sure it works.

At its highest, they could argue that on the balance of probability they think it works. In other words a better than 50/50 chance that it works.

So i say that, given the side effects and the lack of certainty from the pharma company about the vaccine's effectiveness, it's not worth it for a disease that the very great majority of us had with no long term effect and now have natural immunity to. And if it was good enough for us, it should be good enough for our kids.

it seems to me that the motivation for this vaccine is to save money for an overstretched health system rather than our kids well being.

 

[scaramanga]

We got there in the end. It is always just below the surface of even the most reasonable pro vaxxer. Anti vaxxers are liars and stupid. And we should apologise for daring to question the Pharma industry.

Only when they're being stupid liars

To apply legal tests to this.

The Pharma companies own admission that they have not established that a link means there is reasonable doubt so that they can not be sure it works.

Far from it.

We don't properly understand how anaesthetic works - I don't think anyone's claiming that therefore it doesn't work are they?

At its highest, they could argue that on the balance of probability they think it works. In other words a better than 50/50 chance that it works.

Er, no. That's not how statistics work. If you're so keen on legal tests, their certainty in this case would be considered "beyond reasonable doubt".

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+stats

So i say that, given the side effects and the lack of certainty from the pharma company about the vaccine's effectiveness, it's not worth it for a disease that the very great majority of us had with no long term effect and now have natural immunity to. And if it was good enough for us, it should be good enough for our kids.

What side effects? The death rate was indistinguishable from a healthy, non-vaccinated sample group.

it seems to me that the motivation for this vaccine is to save money for an overstretched health system rather than our kids well being.

It's not - it's been long proven that the most effective way to treat illness is to prevent it in the first place.

But let's take worst case here and pretend that the reasoning is to save money for an overstretched healthcare system. Saving time, money and valuable expertise in hospitals on preventable infections makes everyone more likely to survive/get better/have better care, because our professionals aren't running about treating people for something that they needn't have contracted in the first place.

 

[milo]

@JPBB - do you accept that the part from the data sheet that you quoted is out of context with the full section it is taken from?

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

@JPBB -

You claim that because 'Big Pharma' say they don't know how something works, that means they don't know if it works.

With this in mind please explain to me how you think the MMR vaccine causes autism? Because, in your own words that's the only way to know with certainty if it does.

I genuinely would appreciate a response.

 

[JPBB]

With this in mind please explain to me how you think the MMR vaccine causes autism? Because, in your own words that's the only way to know with certainty if it does.

Well as you know I am a liberal arts clam rather than a shiny scientist and because of this I don't know brick as you and others have told me many times on here.

However, a judge who is far cleverer than me, has listened to the expert evidence and found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the MMR vaccine can and did cause autism.

The issue we probably disagree on is the prevalence of this adverse effect.

 

[JPBB]

@JPBB - do you accept that the part from the data sheet that you quoted is out of context with the full section it is taken from?

I don't accept your accusation. The full sentence is quoted in full and unedited. I do accept that the Pharma company has tried to minimise the statement and deflect from it. That is a Pharma company's modus operandi.

However, it is there because it is true. And it is their (literally) get out of jail card. When it does wrong, they will tell us they warned us, they will tell us that it is a new vaccine, that it contains a live virus and there are inherent risks with that. And that it is not their fault and they acted in good faith. And really it is our fault for allowing our kids to be used as guinea pigs. And we should have read the datasheet.

 

[milo]

I don't accept your accusation. The full sentence is quoted in full and unedited. I do accept that the Pharma company has tried to minimise the statement and deflect from it. That is a Pharma company's modus operandi.

However, it is there because it is true. And it is their (literally) get out of jail card. When it does wrong, they will tell us they warned us, they will tell us that it is a new vaccine, that it contains a live virus and there are inherent risks with that. And that it is not their fault and they acted in good faith. And really it is our fault for allowing our kids to be used as guinea pigs. And we should have read the datasheet.

I did not say that the sentence had been edited or changed but I do think that it is easy to misinterpret when quoted in isolation.

I do not agree that the rest of the paragraph is the manufacturer trying to deflect from that statement. Let's have a look at the full paragraph again:

Mechanism of Action

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

So the first two sentences say that it is not entirely understood how Rotarix protects against gastro-enteritis and that the relationship between the antibody response to the vaccination and protection against the diseases has not been established. I assume that you and I will agree on it so far. They then go on to say that the vaccine has been demonstrated to provide immunity against common strains of gastro-enteritis, citing trials. These would be the same trials that you cited when you misinterpreted the data on mortality rates. The tables below show the efficiency of Rotarix against a placebo in two trials. I think that it is pretty clear that the incidence of gastro-enteritis is significantly lower in the group that received Rotarix than the control group. You might also be interested that there was no significant difference in adverse reactions between the two groups.

http://www.rxlist.com/rotarix-drug/clinical-pharmacology.htm
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM133580.pdf

 

[JPBB]

But they are not sure it works. (they say so themselves). The best they can say that on the balance of probabilities it will work. That means that it has a better than 50/50 chance. You pays your money and takes your chance. But it not worth it in my book.

 

[scaramanga]

Well as you know I am a liberal arts clam rather than a shiny scientist and because of this I don't know brick as you and others have told me many times on here.

However, a judge who is far cleverer than me, has listened to the expert evidence and found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the MMR vaccine can and did cause autism.

The issue we probably disagree on is the prevalence of this adverse effect.

Care to link to the case details? Was it overturned at any point?

 

[milo]

But they are not sure it works. (they say so themselves). The best they can say that on the balance of probabilities it will work. That means that it has a better than 50/50 chance. You pays your money and takes your chance. But it not worth it in my book.

No they don't. They are sure that it works, the trials prove that, what they cannot be certain of is how it works.

Rather than 50/50, the trials show it to be between 80% and 100% effective depending on what severity of infection you wish to measure against.

 

[scaramanga]

But they are not sure it works. (they say so themselves).

No they don't, they don't say that at any point. Assuming English is your first language, I cannot understand how you continue to fail to understand what they are saying - it's not even technical.

The best they can say that on the balance of probabilities it will work.

Nope. That's why we have clinical trials, that's why we need prospective studies and that's why we need placebos against which we can compare. @milo has given you the details of two studies that do just that. There's no room for balance of probabilities at all, they show that vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected in this case.

That means that it has a better than 50/50 chance. You pays your money and takes your chance. But it not worth it in my book.

The bolded bit is the first accurate thing you've said in a while. Yes, it does have a better than 50/50 chance of working - in fact, it has an 87.1% chance of working against any level of GE, a 95.8% chance of working against severe GE and a 100% chance of working (within measurable limits) against hospitalisation due to GE. You are right to say that all of those chances are better than 50%.

 

[milo]

Care to link to the case details? Was it overturned at any point?

I assume that @JPBB is referring to this which we covered and showed was wrong several pages back.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to that. The judge hearing the appeal by Prof John Walker-Smith who was struck off with Wakefield and carried out the research with him said in his judgement:

'There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17283751

 

[scaramanga]

I assume that @JPBB is referring to this which we covered and showed was wrong several pages back.

There was apparently an Italian judge who awarded on the basis of the Wakefield "evidence" but I'm fairly sure that decision was subsequently overturned.

 

[milo]

There was apparently an Italian judge who awarded on the basis of the Wakefield "evidence" but I'm fairly sure that decision was subsequently overturned.

You are right

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/italian-mmr-autism-decision-overturned/

I wasn't aware of that case.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Well as you know I am a liberal arts clam rather than a shiny scientist and because of this I don't know brick as you and others have told me many times on here.

It has nothing to do with being or not being a scientist. It's about having an evidence based opinion rather than something made up from hearsay and nonsense. So far you've provided no actual evidence to support your claim that the Vaccine causes autism. Multiple folks here have provided actual evidence that it doesn't.

Added to that no one has ever offered an explanation as to how the vaccine causes autism. Yet you accept that opinion. On the other hand (thanks to your skewed conspiracy theory on Big Pharma) you expect drugs companies to explain how it works before you will accept that it does even though they are repeatedly showing solid, peer reviewed, run in a controlled environment clinical data proving that their vaccines work.

Can you see how someone could think your opinion doesn't make much sense?

However, a judge who is far cleverer than me, has listened to the expert evidence and found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the MMR vaccine can and did cause autism..

Can you forward me the details of the case?

The issue we probably disagree on is the prevalence of this adverse effect.

No. We disagree on the cause. You think the MMR causes autism based off some claims that have been made without any scientific evidence to support them. I don't think the MMR causes autism because the scientific evidence that I've seen suggests that it doesn't.

 

[JPBB]

You are right

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/italian-mmr-autism-decision-overturned/

I wasn't aware of that case.

I didn't mean that at all. Typical pro vaxxers attributing statements to me. I think someone has already accused me of being in it for the money and promoting an autism "cure".

I meant the thousands of cases that have been proven in vaccination courts around the World.

DTaP is, of course, by far the most dangerous. I have lost count of the number of pictures of dead babies I have seen after the DTaP. (I think another poster (giter?) pointed this out but you mocked him/her too

Men ACWY is second most dangerous. Destroying perfectly healthy teenagers lives. But apparently, it is just a "coincidence" and that is "when autism is first apparent"

Then flu (probably seriously under reported because older people's deaths are not attributed)

And MMR limps as the fourth most dangerous vaccine.

 

[milo]

I meant the thousands of cases that have been proven in vaccination courts around the World.

Please can you provide a link to one