Dr. Sears statistics - Page 5

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

It is being researched and I believe alternatives are in the works.

Future tense. You inject aluminum NOW. But OK. It's your child.

[mama2j&t]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

It does concern me but not enough to stop vaxing all together.

Also:

1. The baby does not get a vaccine daily.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...indexed=google
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...RVAbstractPlus


2. Pros and cons - pros outweigh cons. This is risk analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

3. It is being researched and I believe alternatives are in the works.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

i'm confused, how can it be determined that the pros outweight the cons when the cons are not known? the statement you quoted "if safety concerns of aluminum are confirmed..." so the concerns are unknown still... therefore how can the risks be assessed?

also, i'd like to see a comparison of the aluminum in antipersipirant compared to a wbv at 2,4,6 mo. i'm planning to do that later when these kids stop bugging me but maybe someone has done it already...

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Gitti

Future tense. You inject aluminum NOW. But OK. It's your child.

And I breathe it and eat it and bathe in it and drink it and it is everywhere. Yes, I am not as worried about it as you. Yes, I have researched it.

[runes]

Originally Posted by amnesiac

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=298412

for those reading links and cross referencing from that thread, i just wanted to send along the link to the abstract of the study done by dr. james cherry regarding observer bias in pertussis vaccine trials.

very interesting.

[delphiniumpansy]

from kids link I found this:

Using a clinical case definition that required >= 21 days of cough with paroxysms, whoop, or vomiting (typical pertussis) the efficacy of DTaP vaccine was 69% (95% CI = 41-83) in the high compliance category and 86% (95% CI = 76-92) and 84% (95% CI = 64-93) in the intermediate and low compliance groups, respectively.

And I do not see why they came to the conclusion that there may be observer bias.

I also found this:

We may expect that an increasing herd immunity due to increasing vaccination coverage decreases circulation of Bordetella pertussis in the population and might be a much more important factor in the prevention of pertussis than the ongoing discussions on relatively small differences in efficacy estimates.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/107/3/611

[jul511riv]

good stuff, ladies.

:

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

And I do not see why they came to the conclusion that there may be observer bias.

It's because the vaccine tends to work just well enough for vaccinated kids to not quite fit the case defintion or the physician expectations of what pertussis "should" look like. The vacciated kids might not ever puke after coughing, for example, so the doc diagnoses them with "bronchitis" and never tests for pertussis, so in the RCT the vaxed kids appear to be more immune to pertussis than they are.
So you'll get a study that says that the vaccine was 70 or 80% effective, but really, the vaxed kids still caught pertussis and got sick from it, but it was never diagnosed correctly because it was a bit milder than the unvaxed kids' cases.
That's how observer bias overestimates vaccine effectiveness in trials.
(this fact is neither pro or anti-pertussis-vax, IMO...one person sees that as a reason to skip the vax, and another thinks it's evidence that the vaccine is worth it.)
But that's how it works.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by mamakay

The vacciated kids might not ever puke after coughing, for example, so the doc diagnoses them with "bronchitis" and never tests for pertussis, so in the RCT the vaxed kids appear to be more immune to pertussis than they are.
So you'll get a study that says that the vaccine was 70 or 80% effective, but really, the vaxed kids still caught pertussis and got sick from it, but it was never diagnosed correctly because it was a bit milder than the unvaxed kids' cases.

But when my unvaxed kids had pertussis, they didn't puke after coughing either.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

And I breathe it and eat it and bathe in it and drink it...

OK.

So why then this -

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I also avoid using the aluminum antipersperant.

It's just a logical question?

It tells me that you are concerned.

[amydep]

I am much less concerned about the dangers with wiping aluminum topically on my underarms than I am with injecting it into my baby. That's just me though...

[holly6737]

...

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by mama2j&t

i'm confused, how can it be determined that the pros outweight the cons when the cons are not known? the statement you quoted "if safety concerns of aluminum are confirmed..." so the concerns are unknown still... therefore how can the risks be assessed?

You can compare the risk of a vaccine preventable disease to what you know about the ingredients in the vax. You can do your own analysis of what matters to you and what you feel comfortable with. I have read/heard that the link between aluminum and alzheimers is a red herring. Also, there is a vast difference between applying something daily and injecting it a few times a year.

Also, I know that I breathe aluminum, eat it, bathe in it, drink it, play in it (outside), etc. I am not going to stop doing those things.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by amydep

I am much less concerned about the dangers with wiping aluminum topically on my underarms than I am with injecting it into my baby. That's just me though...

I am the reverse. Interesting.:

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Gitti

OK.

So why then this -




It's just a logical question?

It tells me that you are concerned.

Actually, it says that I don't like listening to my dh harp on me and I cave easily to his whims. It was years ago that he got on my case about antipers. I asked him tonite about why it is bad to use antipersp and he said recent research shows the connection between aluminum and alzheimers to not be viable and that it is not such a bad thing if I use Secret. Yeah! I hate Toms of Maine deo!

[attachedmamaof3]

Originally Posted by mamakay

It's because the vaccine tends to work just well enough for vaccinated kids to not quite fit the case defintion or the physician expectations of what pertussis "should" look like. The vacciated kids might not ever puke after coughing, for example, so the doc diagnoses them with "bronchitis" and never tests for pertussis, so in the RCT the vaxed kids appear to be more immune to pertussis than they are.
So you'll get a study that says that the vaccine was 70 or 80% effective, but really, the vaxed kids still caught pertussis and got sick from it, but it was never diagnosed correctly because it was a bit milder than the unvaxed kids' cases.
That's how observer bias overestimates vaccine effectiveness in trials.
(this fact is neither pro or anti-pertussis-vax, IMO...one person sees that as a reason to skip the vax, and another thinks it's evidence that the vaccine is worth it.)
But that's how it works.

I agree...there are sooo many factors that can be/are manipulated behind the scenes.

That and the fact that the pertussis vaccine doesn't prevent transmission and was never "supposed" to, so that kind of throws the whole "herd immunity" thing out the window, doesn't it? (The way it works is by preventing the toxin from making you sick...so in fact you can be a giant walking ball of pertussis and not even know it! And still pass it on to your child as well. WHOOPS!)

[Irishcupcake]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I have read/heard that the link between aluminum and alzheimers has been proven to be a red herring.

Any source other than your husband?

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Irishcupcake

Any source other than your husband?

he is a scientist who specializes in toxicology and such so he is a good source but .....


http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/sc...?documentID=99

There is circumstantial evidence linking this metal with Alzheimer's disease but no causal relationship has yet been proved. As evidence for other causes continues to grow, a possible link with aluminium seems increasingly unlikely.

[Irishcupcake]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

It says what I quoted, that they are continuing to research and that it is becoming more and more likely that there is no correlation.


My dh is infallible! I can prove it!

What I asked for was a source to back up your original statement that you had read/heard the theory had been disproven...which it obviously hasn't.

[delphiniumpansy]

Originally Posted by Irishcupcake

What I asked for was a source to back up your original statement that you had read/heard the theory had been disproven...which it obviously hasn't.

I said that dh says the connection between alzheimers has been proven to not be viable. That means the idea is not capable of growing. The link and quote that came next also say the idea is not likely. They mean the same thing. So, I did back myself up. That link had more info

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/sc...?documentID=99

There have been numerous conferences on aluminium and health ever since the idea that the metal might be a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease was first proposed. The medical research community, international and government regulatory agencies and the aluminium industry all review the evidence at frequent intervals. The overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that the findings outlined above do not convincingly demonstrate a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease, and that no useful medical or public health recommendations can be made, at least at present.

It has proved extremely difficult to devise studies which could resolve this problem one way or another. Alzheimer's is a common disease with multiple causes, while aluminium is widepread in the environment and there are no methods that allow us to measure an individual's 'body burden' or lifetime exposure to this element.

It is possible that suitable 'transgenic' animal models which develop the pathological features of Alzheimer's disease in their brains will enable scientists to determine if such changes are accelerated or exacerbated by aluminium at levels which correspond to normal human exposure.

There are also links on that link to where you can get more info and you can, I am sure, email them for their sources.

[blissbabies]

Originally Posted by delphiniumpansy

I don't think you understand statistics. They are not made up! My dog took 4 shoes into the dining room yesterday. Three were mine and one was my dh's. So, 3 out of 4 were mine, meaning he prefers my shoes 3 to 1. He is 75% in favor of my shoes. That is a statistical analysis of my dog's shoe preferences. That is how stats work. You don't interpret them the way you decide what is good or bad art. They are not subjectively interpreted!

But if you do not have all the facts they can be interpreted in different ways.
If your missing some of the statistics, that would change the overall impression of the summary.
If your dog took four shoes into the living room yesterday three yours one your dh's, but then were to discard two of yours in favor of one of yours and one of your dh's then his favor would be 50%.
If you did not know that he had discarded the other two then his favor would be 75% for your shoes.