Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[aradisc]

Well that's just weird. 10% of kids who have the flu shot get the flu?

Nasal spray vaccine has live virus, so you can get the flu from it. The injection does not and you cannot get the flu from the flu shot, though you sometimes feel a little sick for a day or so.

[thaber]

Nasal spray vaccine has live virus, so you can get the flu from it. The injection does not and you cannot get the flu from the flu shot, though you sometimes feel a little sick for a day or so.

That's not what the 10% is.  They're getting a different strain.
The live virus can't actually give anyone the flu,  unless they're very autoimmune compromised,  which is very unusual. 

[Barryg]

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/12/flu_shot_might_not_be_enough_to_prevent_you_from_getting_sick_cdc_says_agency_urges_use_of_antiviral_drugs_if_needed.html#incart_river

Protection from the flu vaccine "may be lower than we usually see."
"Last season's flu vaccine was about 55 percent effective."

I can't even speculate what the bottom line would be after seeing of all of these percentages...

[noturbizniss]

http://www.naturalnews.com/047955_flu_shot_cdc_vaccine_industry.html

The CDC did not say the vaccine doesn't work. A little google is your friend. Also that whole webnsite is just a bunch of crank.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-the-cdc-did-not-just-admit-that-this-years-flu-vaccine-doesnt-work/
Honestly - they published this http://www.naturalnews.com/047072_MMR_vaccine_autism_government_coverup.html 2 months ago. This website has no validity at all.
Also, snopes - http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcflu.asp

[henche]

This is interesting.  The CDC posts information about "vaccine safety" on their website. I'd assume they would make the very best case they can.

So here it is:

Concerns about Autism
As the country's leading public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is committed to protecting the health of all Americans–including infants, children, and adolescents. CDC shares with parents and many others great concern about the number of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We are committed to understanding what causes autism, how it can be prevented, and how it can be recognized and treated as early as possible.

Estimates released in 2014 from CDC's Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network found that about 1 in 68 children born in 2002 have ASD. This is higher than estimates from the early 1990s. Over the years, some people have been concerned that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. Concerns have related to different aspects of vaccines, including vaccine ingredients.

In addition to the antigens- the parts of vaccines that protect against each specific disease- some vaccines contain other ingredients. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism in children does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. And a scientific reviewExternal Web Site Icon by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism rates in children. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to autism as well.  However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism.

In August 2011, the IOM published a report thoroughly reviewing the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health problems that may happen after vaccination. This report found the eight studied vaccines to be generally safe, and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare. Another more recent reviewExternal Web Site Icon also confirmed this.

CDC recognizes that autism is an urgent health concern and supports comprehensive research as our best hope for understanding the causes of autism and other developmental disorders. Through collaborations with partners in government, research centers, and the public, CDC is focusing on three areas:

1. Understanding the frequency and trends of autism spectrum disorders.
2. Advancing research in the search for causes and effective treatments.
3. Improving early detection and diagnosis so affected children are treated as soon as possible.

Is that all?

Evidence "does not support an association."  Evidence "favors rejection of a causal relationship."  That doesn't seem very strong.  How about some evidence that there is no connection?  "No links have been found."  How about we have found that there are no links?

It feels as if the entire vaccine science is devoted to undermining the anti-vaccer studies instead of running studies themselves showing no risk.   

[Achas Veachas]

This is interesting.  The CDC posts information about "vaccine safety" on their website. I'd assume they would make the very best case they can.

So here it is:
Is that all?

Evidence "does not support an association."  Evidence "favors rejection of a causal relationship."  That doesn't seem very strong.  How about some evidence that there is no connection?  "No links have been found."  How about we have found that there are no links?

It feels as if the entire vaccine science is devoted to undermining the anti-vaccer studies instead of running studies themselves showing no risk.   

You can't prove a negative. Unlike the anti-vax group, real scientists don't like over-hyping claims...

[henche]

You can't prove a negative. Unlike the anti-vax group, real scientists don't like over-hyping claims...

You can scientifically prove a negative as well as a positive.  It's the same statistical studies.

Here's the difference between what this says, and what I'd like to see:

Scenario 1.  Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation.  Real scientists point out flaws in study. 
Scenario 2. Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation. Real scientists point out flaws in study.  Real scientists then do their own non-flawed very large study with millions of participants, and find no correlation.

See?

[zh cohen]

It feels as if the entire vaccine science is devoted to undermining the anti-vaccer studies instead of running studies themselves showing no risk.   

One of the biggest "taynos" on the "anti-vaccer's" is that they force the CDC and others to spend so much time and money disproving their claims over and over again instead of focusing on finding the cause for autism

[henche]

One of the biggest "taynos" on the "anti-vaccer's" is that they force the CDC and others to spend so much time and money disproving their claims over and over again instead of focusing on finding the cause for autism

Bseder. So after spending all that time disproving, shouldn't they have managed to do a study disproving, instead of just criticizing the one flawed study from 20 years ago?

Also, the idea that the CDC takes from its autism curing research budget to study vaccines, is absurd. 

[jj1000]

Bseder. So after spending all that time disproving, shouldn't they have managed to do a study disproving, instead of just criticizing the one flawed study from 20 years ago?

Also, the idea that the CDC takes from its autism curing research budget to study vaccines, is absurd. 

I think because of the culture you/me are immersed in the autism concern seems much bigger, but the vast vast majority of the country would laugh if you told them about the claims of anti-vax people. It has an abnormally large representation in the orthodox community.

Basically they aren't going to bother proving it wrong because every vaccine convention of doctors they bring up frum jews in brooklyn who don't vaccinate.

[henche]

I think because of the culture you/me are immersed in the autism concern seems much bigger, but the vast vast majority of the country would laugh if you told them about the claims of anti-vax people. It has an abnormally large representation in the orthodox community.

That's an interesting theory.

We also just know more kids, so even the same representation would mean we are exposed to it. 

[Yehuda57]

I think because of the culture you/me are immersed in the autism concern seems much bigger, but the vast vast majority of the country would laugh if you told them about the claims of anti-vax people. It has an abnormally large representation in the orthodox community.

Basically they aren't going to bother proving it wrong because every vaccine convention of doctors they bring up frum jews in brooklyn who don't vaccinate.

See here, more than a third of Americans would not laugh at all. Based on anecdotal evidence, I would guess the frum community has an equal rate.

One in five of those surveyed said they agreed that physicians and the government "still want to vaccinate children even though they know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders." And 36% were on the fence, saying they neither agreed nor disagreed that there may be truth in the much-studied and widely discredited contention that vaccines cause autism.

[wayfe]

Evidence "does not support an association."  Evidence "favors rejection of a causal relationship."  That doesn't seem very strong.  How about some evidence that there is no connection?  "No links have been found."  How about we have found that there are no links?

It feels as if the entire vaccine science is devoted to undermining the anti-vaccer studies instead of running studies themselves showing no risk.   

As a lawyer, you should be familiar with all the Legalese...

[thaber]

You can scientifically prove a negative as well as a positive.  It's the same statistical studies.

Here's the difference between what this says, and what I'd like to see:

Scenario 1.  Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation.  Real scientists point out flaws in study. 
Scenario 2. Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation. Real scientists point out flaws in study. Real scientists then do their own non-flawed very large study with millions of participants, and find no correlation.

See?

That's a very expensive proposition to disprove the quacks.

[wayfe]

The wiki up top is making LOL!

The wiki is divided into groups for "fact" and "opinion." Please feel free to add whichever facts you know and opinions you have. Please try to avoid cluttering the wiki with unnecessary information such as outside links.

Right. Any everybody's boich torahs are the necessary info?

Facts
The flu vaccine causes more deaths per year than chicken pox.

Freudian slip?

Even if corrected the claim is ridiculous. There are too many variables that need to be factored in to be able to substantiate any such claim.

Opinions
Vaccines do not contain thimerosal, a known toxin.

Opinion? Either it does or it doesn't.

[wayfe]

The court pays out 42% of claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court

That's a pretty high number considering all the claims are frivolous. No?

Actually, according to these statistics only about 26.66% are compensated

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Claims

[YankyDoodle]

You can scientifically prove a negative as well as a positive.  It's the same statistical studies.

Here's the difference between what this says, and what I'd like to see:

Scenario 1.  Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation.  Real scientists point out flaws in study. 
Scenario 2. Henche does a flawed study showing a correlation. Real scientists point out flaws in study.  Real scientists then do their own non-flawed very large study with millions of participants, and find no correlation.

See?

Some background discussion for those who have taken any statistics courses. You cannot prove the null hypothesis to be false, you can only reject or "not reject" the null hypothesis. In other words, if my hypothesis is that vaccines do not cause autism. My experiment can either disprove that statement or I cannot reject that statement. Many experiments involving literally millions of children have been done with none ever being able to reject that null hypothesis that autism is not caused by vaccines. That is why the language such as there is "no correlation" or "causative relationship is not supported" is used. These are statistical terms. Just like in law, certain terms sound funny to lay people but make perfect sense to experienced professionals, the same holds true of statistics and research.

Check out these Khan academy videos for good (if not simplified) explanations:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-1
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-2

[henche]

Some background discussion for those who have taken any statistics courses. You cannot prove the null hypothesis to be false, you can only reject or "not reject" the null hypothesis. In other words, if my hypothesis is that vaccines do not cause autism. My experiment can either disprove that statement or I cannot reject that statement. Many experiments involving literally millions of children have been done with none ever being able to reject that null hypothesis that autism is not caused by vaccines. That is why the language such as there is "no correlation" or "causative relationship is not supported" is used. These are statistical terms. Just like in law, certain terms sound funny to lay people but make perfect sense to experienced professionals, the same holds true of statistics and research.

Check out these Khan academy videos for good (if not simplified) explanations:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-1
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/health-and-medicine/infectious-diseases/influenza/v/vaccines-and-the-autism-myth-part-2

I'm quite familiar with basic statistical analysis.  I took a mini-course on it in law school.

This webpage was not written for statisticians. It was written for regular people. If there are comprehensive studies which are looking for a correlation and failing to find one, they should report on that, instead of just bashing the other side's studies.

[aygart]

I'm quite familiar with basic statistical analysis.  I took a mini-course on it in law school.

This webpage was not written for statisticians. It was written for regular people. If there are comprehensive studies which are looking for a correlation and failing to find one, they should report on that, instead of just bashing the other side's studies.

I am not sure what you want them to write more than this.

Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism in children does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. And a scientific reviewExternal Web Site Icon by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines and autism rates in children. Besides thimerosal, some people have had concerns about other vaccine ingredients in relation to autism as well.  However, no links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and autism.

[YankyDoodle]

I'm quite familiar with basic statistical analysis.  I took a mini-course on it in law school.

This webpage was not written for statisticians. It was written for regular people. If there are comprehensive studies which are looking for a correlation and failing to find one, they should report on that, instead of just bashing the other side's studies.

I'm not sure what your issue is... Possibly the CDC could have done a better job of writing on their website how they have dispelled the myth about autism's link to vaccines.

Regardless this has been done both by showing that the original study was fraudulent and by performing studies on millions of children which have never shown a link.

If people can watch that Khan academy video or better yet look at the actual studies and still think that there is a link then a stronger letter on the CDCs website would have no impact at all on their fantasies beliefs.