The Vaccine Thing

[bluehenbillk]

So if I have a strong moral or ethical belief to yell racial slurs, or yell "fire" in crowded theaters etc I guess that's OK too.

I wonder if people get sick in any way from unvaccinated kids, can't they in turn sue the parents of the unvaccinated kids?

People are dumb.

[Grizalltheway]

People are dumb.

/thread

[Ivytalk]

Listen to your doctors. Not to politicians.

[Ibanez]

Listen to your doctors. Not to politicians.

Or playboy playmates/MTV employees.

[JohnStOnge]

Just starting to work through the thread after I started it and I'll start with this comment:

Sen. Rand Paul gave false and misleading statements about vaccine safety in two separate interviews, including a claim that “many” children have developed “profound mental disorders” after vaccinations.

Saying that many children have developed profound mental disorders after vaccinations is not saying that there is evidence of cause and effect.

[JohnStOnge]

Of COURSE every study is going to say there's no link.

I'll use that comment to get into one big issue I see with what's been going on. There's been this thing where poeple have been saying that "science" has shown that vaccines do not cause autism. That's not true.

You can't infer a negative with statistics. What you do is set up the null hypothesis and try to get sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, If you fail to reject the null hypothesis that does not mean you have shown the null hypothesis to be true. It's a very important concept.

The truth is that when they look at all of the studies they have to say the studies failed to provide sufficient evidence to conclude that vaccines increase the risk of autism. But that's very different than the impression that's been created by media reports on this and even some statements on the CDC website. The impression that's been created is that it's been positively shown that vaccines do NOT increase the risk of autism. That is not true.

I am not personally worried about vaccines causing autism. But this thing of acting like there's no risk to vaccines is nonsense. For example: A person can have a fatal allergic reaction to a vaccine. It's a risk/benefit consideration. For example, if you go to the CDC web site and look at what it has to say about the measles, mumps, and rubella series you will find this:

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.{/quote]

Then if you scroll down some to the "Severe Problems" section you see this:

Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.

That's a lot different than the impression of "it's PERFECTLY safe" that's been created by recent reports from people in the media who have no idea as to what they're talking about and just parroting what they think "science" says.

So, are you going to take a 1 in a million chance that your kid will suffer permanent brain damage from the vaccine in order to be more confident that they don't get measles? I looked at all the information on risk/benefit many years ago and decided to have my children receive the MMR vaccine. But I don't think it's as easy a decision as some have suggested.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

hey numbnuts, how about you learn how to fucking quote so we know who the fuck you were talking to without having to go look back on it.

[YoUDeeMan]

hey numbnuts, how about you learn how to fucking quote so we know who the fuck you were talking to without having to go look back on it.

Easy there Ursus...JSO chooses to take the name off the quotes, intentionally, to address the comment, not the person.

[JohnStOnge]

Now a story of personal experience and how it revealed to me that when they are talking about vaccinations they are not concerned about YOUR child. Doing what's best for YOUR child can be different from what's best for "the herd."

When my kids were young I researched polio vaccination. The public policy was to give every kid the oral polio vaccine that contained live, attenuated poliovirus. But there was also a "killed" vaccine injectable virus available. As I continued to research the situation I learned that the only cases of polio occurring in the United States anymore were due to the live oral vaccine. You risked your kid getting polio if you gave it to them.

I also learned that the "killed" injectable vaccine was just as effective in conferring immunity. So why were they recommending the the live oral vaccine?

I learned that it was because they wanted "secondary" vaccination. They wanted people to take the live oral vaccine because if they did they would excrete the attenuated virus and people who were not vaccinated would come into contact with it and, in may cases, acquire immunity. If everybody got the "killed" vaccine that wouldn't happen. So they were willing to accept giving polio to a small number of persons receiving the live oral vaccine in order to achieve the greater benefit of gaining a higher overall immunization rate.

The point is that they're not looking at your individual kid when they establish vaccination policies. They are looking at "the herd." If you are interested only in what's best for YOUR kid it is quite possible that your decision will be different than the decision of public health policy people who are looking at the overall population.

That was clearly the case in my own experience when I was considering polio vaccines. The lowest risk to my own kids was CLEARLY associated with getting the killed injectable vaccine and that's what my wife and i insisted on. But my wife had to endure all kinds of patronizing crap from physicians and nurses in the process.

Now, as I understand it, the live oral polio vaccine has been phased out precisely because of the reason I chose not to have it given to my kids.

But DON'T think that they are thinking of YOUR child individually when they're establishing vaccination recommendations. It ain't the case. And you could very well, if totally informed and understanding the risk picture both ways, make a rational decision to go against the vaccination recommendations if all you care about is YOUR kid.

[Ibanez]

JSO, is that your Masters thesis?

[JohnStOnge]

hey numbnuts, how about you learn how to **** quote so we know who the **** you were talking to without having to go look back on it.

My bad. The CDC page I quoted is at http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. When you click there click on the "MMR" link.

Now, as you can see from their comments, it's hard to tell if such things are actually caused by the vaccine. But an important point is that one CERTAINLY can not say they are not. Any time you see someone say that "science" has shown that something is NOT caused by vaccines you should recognize that as a false statement.

The most"science" can say is that there is not sufficient evidence to say it IS caused by the vaccine.That's the way it works. You try to show that something has an effect. But failing to show that it has an effect does not mean you've shown it does NOT have an effect.

That's an important distinction and I don't think it's coming across in all the media stories on this issue.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, is that your Masters thesis?

No, it's just a personal experience and some history. That really did happen with the live oral polio vaccine. They WERE really accepting the negative of having a small number of kids get polio from the vaccine in order to achieve the benefit of having the live attenuated virus circulating in the environment in order to achieve a greater overall immunity level. Herd immunity.

And it really is a classic illustration of the fact that when Public Health officials develop vaccine policy they are thinking of "the herd" and not of your child individually.

[Ibanez]

JSO, is that your Masters thesis?

No, it's just a personal experience and some history. That really did happen with the live oral polio vaccine. They WERE really accepting the negative of having a small number of kids get polio from the vaccine in order to achieve the benefit of having the live attenuated virus circulating in the environment in order to achieve a greater overall immunity level. Herd immunity.

And it really is a classic illustration of the fact that when Public Health officials develop vaccine policy they are thinking of "the herd" and not of your child individually.

I get it, I do. When Rose was born, we declined the Hepatitis shot. She was 4 hours old and we didn't want to start pumping her full of shit. We waited 2 months. Next week she gets another round and we're doing like 93 did. Our doctor in on board and supports us.

Why would the CDC be thinking of your kid, or my kid, individually? The greater good. Public health, etc... that's what is more important.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

hey numbnuts, how about you learn how to fucking quote so we know who the fuck you were talking to without having to go look back on it.

Easy there Ursus...JSO chooses to take the name off the quotes, intentionally, to address the comment, not the person.

It's fucking dumb. A person made the comment and they had no problem making it because they put their name on it in the first place. It is not some high level cerebral shit he's doing. He's trying to diminish the person he's quoting which is a bitch move.

Not that I care that much but stirring the pot seemed like the move in that spot anyway.

[93henfan]

JSO, is that your Masters thesis?

It's actually an excellent post.

[93henfan]

No, it's just a personal experience and some history. That really did happen with the live oral polio vaccine. They WERE really accepting the negative of having a small number of kids get polio from the vaccine in order to achieve the benefit of having the live attenuated virus circulating in the environment in order to achieve a greater overall immunity level. Herd immunity.

And it really is a classic illustration of the fact that when Public Health officials develop vaccine policy they are thinking of "the herd" and not of your child individually.

I get it, I do. When Rose was born, we declined the Hepatitis shot. She was 4 hours old and we didn't want to start pumping her full of shit. We waited 2 months. Next week she gets another round and we're doing like 93 did. Our doctor in on board and supports us.

Why would the CDC be thinking of your kid, or my kid, individually? The greater good. Public health, etc... that's what is more important.

Good plan Mark!

Inject the poison slowly. I really don't give a shit what studies say. I will always regret that we let the doctors work on autopilot on our first son.

[Vidav]

Both of my kids are fine after having shots at the same time/rate.

[Vidav]

I get it, I do. When Rose was born, we declined the Hepatitis shot. She was 4 hours old and we didn't want to start pumping her full of shit. We waited 2 months. Next week she gets another round and we're doing like 93 did. Our doctor in on board and supports us.

Why would the CDC be thinking of your kid, or my kid, individually? The greater good. Public health, etc... that's what is more important.

Good plan Mark!

Inject the poison slowly. I really don't give a shit what studies say. I will always regret that we let the doctors work on autopilot on our first son.

So rather than look at real science you are just going to blame vaccines for your first son's autism. That is really sad.

[93henfan]

Good plan Mark!

Inject the poison slowly. I really don't give a shit what studies say. I will always regret that we let the doctors work on autopilot on our first son.

So rather than look at real science you are just going to blame vaccines for your first son's autism. That is really sad.

Fuck you. You know nothing about my son or why he developed autism, and you're an insensitive prick.

You also welch on beer swaps, which is probably your worst trait.

[Vidav]

So rather than look at real science you are just going to blame vaccines for your first son's autism. That is really sad.

Fuck you. You know nothing about my son or why he developed autism, and you're an insensitive prick.

You also welch on beer swaps, which is probably your worst trait.

I'm not trying to be insensitive. I'm just saying it would be better to keep looking for the real cause than blame something that has been shown to have no link. I mean this in regards to all parents looking for an answer, not just you. If we get stuck blaming vaccines then we might stop looking.

And I do apologize for the beer thing. I am more than happy to make amends.

[JohnStOnge]

Listen to your doctors. Not to politicians.

No. Think independently. I have had MANY experiences during my life where Doctors turned out to be wrong. And there is no doubt about it. If you just blindly go in and assume public health professionals and Doctors are always right and are always acting in your best interest and even more importantly the best interests of your children you are making a mistake. Bad advice happens a lot. At least in my experience it did.

[JohnStOnge]

I went ahead and looked up what I was talking about with respect to the history of CDC recommendations on polio vaccination. The following quote is from http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Until recently, the benefits of OPV use (i.e. intestinal immunity, secondary spread) outweighed the risk for vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) which occurred in one child out of every 2.4 million OPV doses distributed. To eliminate the risk of vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP), as of January 1, 2000, OPV was no longer recommended for routine immunization in the United States. However, OPV continues to be used in the countries where polio is endemic or the risk of importation and transmission is high. OPV is recommended for global polio eradication activities in polio-endemic countries due to its advantages over IPV in providing intestinal immunity and providing secondary spread of the vaccine to unprotected contacts.

What that's saying is that to this day, if you are in a country where polio is still a problem, public health officials are going to calculate that it's desirable to impart the risk of contracting polio from the oral vaccine to YOUR kid in order to gain the larger goal of a lower polio rate in the general population.

The intestinal immunity thing is something I didn't reference in my first post on this but the idea is that if someone is vaccinated using the "killed" injectable vaccine they can become an asymptomatic vector carrying the wild poliovirus.

But anyway here's the thing: Back when the recommendation in this country was the live oral vaccine parents were being told the best thing for THEIR children was to get that vaccine. And that was a lie. It really was. If you were a parent at that time the best thing for YOUR kids was to get the killed injectable vaccine. Absolutely no doubt about it. But I know from the personal experience of my wife who was the one having to deal with it that Doctors and other health care professionals gave her a hard time about it.

They WILL lie to you for the "greater good." There is absolutely no doubt about that either.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I was just now watching Hardball with Chris Mathews and he became yet another talking head who showed he doesn't know what the word "temporally" is. He pronounced it "temporarily." That's been one of the most amazing things about this episode. I'm sure it must've happened but so far in watching accounts of what Rand Paul said I have yet to see a talking head correctly pronounce the word. Pronouncing it "temporarily" has been fairly common. They clearly don't know what it means.

Also, on Rand Paul's Statement: Again, the CDC web site lists "Permanent brain damage" as a "Severe" side effect of the Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine as well as of the easles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella Vaccine. It indicates that it is very rare in percentage terms. But it lists it.

So how is it that the media are ridiculing people for referring to that?

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, I gotta tell ya': I've been looking at the risk picture with measles and the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and I honestly think that the risk of having something really bad happen to a kid as a result of the vaccine is higher than the risk of having something really bad happen to that kid because he/she didn't get the vaccine. That's taking into account how likely it is under current circumstances that the kid will come into contact with someone with measles (very low), the likelihood that they will contract measles from a contact (high but not 100%), and the likelihood that something really bad will happen to them as a result of contracting measles.

I should emphasize that the risk of something really bad happening is extremely small either way. But I think it's larger if the kid gets the vaccine.

The paradox is that if EVERYBODY realizes that and NOBODY or fewer than some critical mass get the measles vaccine then the whole probability picture will change because there will be a whole lot more measles cases and the probability of coming into contact with someone with the measles will explode.

Of course the solution to that is that if you're just looking at what minimizes the risk of something really bad happening to YOUR kid you could refuse the MMR now and continue to monitor the situation. Then if the incidence of measles gets high enough to say the risk picture has changed sufficiently the kid could always get the vaccine later.

Bottom line though is that all this bandwagon stuff about how "the science" says you should have your kid vaccinated for measles is crap if you're a parent. It's not crap if you are someone having to establish vaccination recommendations because then you're looking at what's best for the whole population. But it's crap if you're a parent and you're just focused on what minimizes risk of severe problems for YOUR child.

[Pwns]

I'll use that comment to get into one big issue I see with what's been going on. There's been this thing where poeple have been saying that "science" has shown that vaccines do not cause autism. That's not true.

You can't infer a negative with statistics. What you do is set up the null hypothesis and try to get sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, If you fail to reject the null hypothesis that does not mean you have shown the null hypothesis to be true. It's a very important concept.

The truth is that when they look at all of the studies they have to say the studies failed to provide sufficient evidence to conclude that vaccines increase the risk of autism. But that's very different than the impression that's been created by media reports on this and even some statements on the CDC website. The impression that's been created is that it's been positively shown that vaccines do NOT increase the risk of autism. That is not true.

I am not personally worried about vaccines causing autism. But this thing of acting like there's no risk to vaccines is nonsense.

Of course, you have the issue of practical significance. You could always calculate the type II error probability for the smallest meaningful effect size. My guess is it wouldn't be very large given how big a lot of meta-analyses on these things are. The cohort meta analysis had over a million people for example.

You also have to consider what happens when you get significance, but in the opposite direction of what the hypothesis is. In this paper they show the individuals who had MMR had significantly lower rates of autism.

I also find it interesting that all of their point estimates have an odds ratio of 1.00 or less even though they weren't significant.