flu vaccine and increase in other respiratory viruses - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-20-2014, 07:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1778.full

 

Just to add to the bulk of knowledge on flu vaccines.

 

"We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses."


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-20-2014, 07:49 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1778.full

 

just to add to the bulk of knowledge on flu vaccines.

 

I'm pretty sure we've discusses this study before.

 

It has a tiny sample size of 115.  The number of overall infections was also tiny.  The authors themselves say "Our results are limited by the small sample size and the small number of confirmed infections." 

 

This study has a sample size of over 3,500. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23748138

 

"METHODS: Nasal/nasopharyngeal samples collected from 2004–2005 through 2009–2010 were tested for 19 respiratory virus targets using a multiplex reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) platform. Vaccination status was determined using a validated registry. Adjusted odds ratios for influenza and vaccination status were calculated using three different control groups: influenza-negative, other respiratory virus positive, and pan-negative.

 

CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination was not associated with detection of noninfluenza respiratory viruses. Use of influenza-negative controls did not generate a biased estimate of vaccine effectiveness due to an effect of vaccination on other respiratory virus infections." 

 

This is another great example of the Cherry Picking fallacy. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 07:50 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/12/1778.full

 

just to add to the bulk of knowledge on flu vaccines.


That was a really interesting read!  I've heard a lot of anecdotes from people who consistently got a nasty respiratory illness the years they got the flu shot, and didn't get sick the years they skipped it, so I'm not entirely surprised by the findings.  I'll be curious to see if the follow-up studies that they suggest will ever happen.

rachelsmama is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 07:51 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)

We might have.  I do not recall it.   

 

I agree the sample size was small - however this study seems to be adding to a body of evidence that shows problems in flu vaccines and getting other viruses.

 

Other studies I recollect off the top of my head:

A Canadian one with ferrets

A Canadian one without ferrets

the Dutch one with the children with cystic fibrosis.

 

So while you might think it is "cherry picking" (an overused phrase)  I might wonder if it is emerging data.

 

ETA:  I just found this article on piglets and seasonal vaccine/H1N1.  A link to the study is embedded in the text, but it seems to be abstract only.  Some may still find it interesting :)

 

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-08-vaccination-flu-worse-exposed-strain.html

 

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2013/08/swine-study-suggests-flu-vaccination-may-sometimes-backfire


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:06 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

This study has a sample size of over 3,500. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23748138

 

Full study not available.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:14 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

We might have.  I do not recall it.   

 

I agree the sample size was small - however this study seems to be adding to a body of evidence that shows problems in flu vaccines and getting other viruses.

 

Other studies I recollect off the top of my head:

A Canadian one with ferrets

A Canadian one without ferrets

the Dutch one with the children with cystic fibrosis.

 

So while you might think it is "cherry picking" (an overused phrase)  I might wonder if it is emerging data.

 

 

..... because skeptic raptor or Orac said so? 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:31 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Those guys are so mean and moody. Snarky, with major superiority complexes. Even if I agreed with them, I would dislike their lousy attitudes and contempt for others who don't share their beliefs.

 

Kathy, I would add this study to the list of emerging data, certainly!


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:36 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

 

..... because skeptic raptor or Orac said so? 

 

The definition of cherry picking : "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."  http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70550/cherry-picking-what-is-the-correct-usage

 

For example, ignoring multiple studies that have looked at over a million people that show that the HPV vaccine is safe but thinking that a study with a sample size of three is good evidence that the HPV vaccine causes premature ovarian failure is cherry picking.  I think we all remember *that* thread... 

 

Can you find an example of a study with a sample size of 115 that Orac or the skeptical raptor called good evidence? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:59 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy

 

Can you find an example of a study with a sample size of 115 that Orac or the skeptical raptor called good evidence? 

I wouldn't know, because I don't follow Orac or Raptor. Maybe if a small study were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, or if it supported the current mainstream medical opinion, they would approve....


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 09:03 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The definition of cherry picking : "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."  http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70550/cherry-picking-what-is-the-correct-usage

 

 

 

 

So, let's follow through with your  point…what exactly are you suggesting?  That people don't post links to studies unless they conform to a particular (frequently the accepted) position?  

 

I do think cherry picking can be a problem.  If data shows a reaction rate of 0.5-3% and I say 3 and you say 0.5…well, we are both cherry picking to back up our POV.

 

Posting a study that either supports or criticizes a vaccine (or some element therefore) is not typically cherry picking.     It is sharing information.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 09:45 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

So, let's follow through with your  point…what exactly are you suggesting?  That people don't post links to studies unless they conform to a particular (frequently the accepted) position?  

 

Sure they can.  But when you post an extremely weak study with a tiny sample size or other glaring issues don't expect to not be called out on it. 

 

 

Posting a study that either supports or criticizes a vaccine (or some element therefore) is not typically cherry picking.     It is sharing information.

 

It's cherry picking if you think it proves something that it doesn't  Example: linking a "study" with a sample size of three women and saying "See, look! The HPV vaccine causes premature ovarian failure. I knew it!" is cherry picking.  I'm not saying you said that, it's just an example. 

 

I do see this a lot in the NV community.

 

PV: "There is no evidence that vaccines cause diabetes. Look at these many many studies with tens of thousands of people that show there is no link. Look at this report from the Institute of Medicine that reviewed over 1,000 studies that concluded that vaccines do not cause diabetes or autism." 

 

NV: (links a single study. Maybe two) "You're wrong, they do cause diabetes. Look at this study. It clearly shows vaccines cause diabetes and other auto immune disorders."   *Cue tons of "thumbs up" clicks from other NVers* 

 

Disregarding thousands of studies that show vaccines are safe and effective, from virtually every country on the planet, and linking to a few (usually bad) studies that show the opposite is not "good evidence" that they are dangerous. 

 

Sorry, thats not how science works.  Imagine if it was, though. " *BREAKING NEWS*  These three cherry picked stdies by creationists have completely shaken the scientific community and their consensus on the theory of evolution. Scientists are now in disarray! Evolution really IS just a myth after all!" 

 

I thought this was really good. 

 

"You cannot have a science or medical degree, and claim you have the authority to contradict and refute the established scientific consensus, unless you provide scientific evidence accumulated in the same manner as all other scientists. Just because you want to refute the consensus, just because you believe the consensus is wrong, does not discharge your obligation to provide the world with peer-reviewed evidence that supports your claim. 

 

Yes, I know it’s hard work. But it shouldn’t be easy to develop or refute a scientific consensus. It should be a gigantic pain in the brain. It should require all of your intellectual prowess. It should demand that you withstand withering criticism.  

But if you want to convince the world that vaccines don’t protect children, and then therefore put those children at risk, then your evidence should be impossibly strong, should be resistant to all criticism, should not be reliant on logical fallacies and whining about conspiracies. If you want to put children at risk of vaccine preventable diseases, then the consensus demands that you give us evidence that far exceeds, in quality and quantity, that which has been used to form a powerful scientific consensus on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. "

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/developing-supporting-scientific-consensus/

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 11:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

Sure they can.  But when you post an extremely weak study with a tiny sample size or other glaring issues don't expect to not be called out on it. 

 

Lol.  Called out on it?  I posted a link and I agree the study size is small.  You pointing out the study size is not an issue at all - calling it cherry picky is.  

 

 

Posting a study that either supports or criticizes a vaccine (or some element therefore) is not typically cherry picking.     It is sharing information.

 

It's cherry picking if you think it proves something that it doesn't.

Please say where I said it proves anything.  
Oh, yeah, I didn't; hence by your own definition it is not cherry picking.  

 

….. the consensus demands that you give us evidence that far exceeds, in quality and quantity, that which has been used to form a powerful scientific consensus on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. "

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/developing-supporting-scientific-consensus/

Raptor, again?  


 

In any event, this thread is about the link between flu-vaccines and other respiratory illnesses.  If you are interested in discussing cherry picking, I suggest you go ahead and start another thread.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 01:00 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Please say where I said it proves anything.  
Oh, yeah, I didn't; hence by your own definition it is not cherry picking.

 

You created an entire thread for this one study. I'm not buying that you don't think it has significance, even if you didn't directly say so. 

 

Raptor, again?

 

Sure, why not?  A good point is a good point, regardless of who said it.  And he does make a good point.  Pediatricians writing and selling personal books about how dangerous they think vaccines are is not evidence.  Why should they be held to a different standard?  If they think vaccines are harmful then they should provide good peer reviewed evidence that supports that claim.  I don't care who they are.  If Dr. Offit said that eating grapes causes autism and recommended that we take grapes off the market, I would expect some extremely good evidence to back up that assertion and recommendation. 

 

 If you are interested in discussing cherry picking, I suggest you go ahead and start another thread.  

 

Nah, I'll drop it if you want me to.  But my points about cherry picking are more in a general sense.  Like the many posts from members of this forum on the pinks study and their statements that it's "proof" that mercury can cause autism in some people.  A grandparent survey study with a 23% response rate is proof of no such thing, and is another good example of cherry picking evidence. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 02:42 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The definition of cherry picking : "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular positionwhile ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."  http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70550/cherry-picking-what-is-the-correct-usage

 

For example, ignoring multiple studies that have looked at over a million people that show that the HPV vaccine is safe but thinking that a study with a sample size of three is good evidence that the HPV vaccine causes premature ovarian failure is cherry picking.  I think we all remember *that* thread... 

 

Can you find an example of a study with a sample size of 115 that Orac or the skeptical raptor called good evidence? 

 

Just want to make sure - Tea IS it "cherry-picking"  when you post about one person that dies from the flu vs millions that are not sick from it or that have not died from it? headscratch.gif


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:16 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 

Just want to make sure - Tea IS it "cherry-picking"  when you post about one person that dies from the flu vs millions that are not sick from it or that have not died from it? headscratch.gif

 

You only highlighted one part of the definition.  " "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

 

I'm not ignoring a significant portion of data. The overwhelming data is that the flu is especially dangerous to pregnant women and fetuses. 

 

"Flu is more likely to cause severe illness in pregnant women than in women who are not pregnant. Changes in the immune system, heart, and lungs during pregnancy make pregnant women more prone to severe illness from flu as well as hospitalizations and even death. Pregnant woman with flu also have a greater chance for serious problems for their unborn baby, including premature labor and delivery." http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/pregnant.htm

 

Even the article in the thread you're talking about says "Pregnant women are five times more likely to end up in the ICU or have severe complications related to the flu than non-pregnant women who get infected with the flu."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/flu-miscarriage-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:31 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

I was just thinking about how 10-15yrs ago, pregnant women and flu weren't really thought of at all..like, no concern...here we are, all of a sudden in the last couple years, on a rampage about prenant women and the flu.  Funny thing is, back in 93, i was told they don't give pregnant women the flu vaccine due to untold side effects, and the risk is too great.  

emmy526 is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:31 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

You only highlighted one part of the definition.  " "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

 

I'm not ignoring a significant portion of data. The overwhelming data is that the flu is especially dangerous to pregnant women and fetuses. WRONG again - look right up at what you wrote - Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data significant portion of pregnant women will not get the flu while pregnant nor die from it.

 

"Flu is more likely to cause severe illness in pregnant women than in women who are not pregnant. Changes in the immune system, heart, and lungs during pregnancy make pregnant women more prone to severe illness from flu as well as hospitalizations and even death. Pregnant woman with flu also have a greater chance for serious problems for their unborn baby, including premature labor and delivery." http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/pregnant.htm

 

Even the article in the thread you're talking about says "Pregnant women are five times more likely to end up in the ICU or have severe complications related to the flu than non-pregnant women who get infected with the flu."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/11/health/flu-miscarriage-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 :laughno, you do this all the time!

I'm not the one ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that many contradict that position, you are the one that does!

 

A significant portion of pregnant women will not get the flu while pregnant nor die from it and you post about other too, let's not forget! http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1395229/over-a-dozen-people-on-life-support-in-michigan-from-the-flu over a dozen! to stress your cherry-picked point of view!

There is data for 2010, not full data for 2012 birth rates and they are not a significant portion like you claim - just look at the "data" on flu and how they (CDC) doesn't even calculate the deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm

 

 

should I post more threads where you do this? http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1392694/im-pro-vaccine-and-even-i-think-this-is-awful  one little boy here yet you want to go on and one about small groups of individual and make it out that it's million and millions


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:52 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

 :laughno, you do this all the time!

I'm not the one ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that many contradict that position, you are the one that does!

 

A significant portion of pregnant women will not get the flu while pregnant nor die from it and you post about other too, let's not forget! http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1395229/over-a-dozen-people-on-life-support-in-michigan-from-the-flu over a dozen! to stress your cherry-picked point of view!

There is data for 2010, not full data for 2012 birth rates and they are not a significant portion like you claim - just look at the "data" on flu and how they (CDC) doesn't even calculate the deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm

 

 

should I post more threads where you do this? http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1392694/im-pro-vaccine-and-even-i-think-this-is-awful  one little boy here yet you want to go on and one about small groups of individual and make it out that it's million and millions

 

You aren't even making sense.  As I said, the flu *is* especially dangerous for pregnant women, and I posted links from the CDC. 

 

Your logic makes no sense. The fact that many or most people don't die from something does not make it not dangerous. Using that logic, smallpox and diphtheria aren't dangerous. 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:58 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

You aren't even making sense.  As I said, the flu *is* especially dangerous for pregnant women, and I posted links from the CDC. 

 

Your logic makes no sense. The fact that many or most people don't die from something does not make it not dangerous. Using that logic, smallpox and diphtheria aren't dangerous. 

 

I makes perfect sense  - you cherry-pick and post threads all the time.

 

You like your facts to fit your agenda, you just like to think everyone else does it and not you! :bgbounce


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:14 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I makes perfect sense 

 

No you don't.  

 

I didn't post a link to the CNN article and say "SEE this is evidence that most pregnant women die from the flu"  I didn't say, nor have I ever said, that most or all pregnant women are going to die from the flu.  Is the flu more dangerous for pregnant women than for non pregnant women? Yes.  

 

But NVers link terrible studies (like the pink study) and then say that it's evidence that mercury causes autism in some people.  THAT is cherry picking. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:18 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

No you don't.  

 

I didn't post a link to the CNN article and say "SEE this is evidence that most pregnant women die from the flu"  I didn't say, nor have I ever said, that most or all pregnant women are going to die from the flu.  Is the flu more dangerous for pregnant women than for non pregnant women? Yes.  

 

But NVers link terrible studies (like the pink study) and then say that it's evidence that mercury causes autism in some people.  THAT is cherry picking. 

here is your post - you do this!

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

The definition of cherry picking : "Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."  http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/70550/cherry-picking-what-is-the-correct-usage

 

 

You post threads all the time about individual cases and data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that many contradict that position.

 

 

I think this is fitting!  :tea  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:37 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

here is your post - you do this!

You post threads all the time about individual cases and data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that many contradict that position.

 

 

I think this is fitting!  :tea  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black

 

Again, you aren't making any sense! 

 

It would be like saying someone that posts a story of a child who died from diphtheria who then concluded "Such a sad story, it's such a terrible and dangerous disease, especially in children" is cherry picking because *most* children who contract diphtheria won't die from it.  Even today, diphtheria kills up to 20% of children under the age of 5 and up to 10% of adults.  Do you not think that is a dangerous disease? 

 

Sorry, that's not an example of cherry picking.  Saying something is dangerous does not have to mean it has a mortality rate of over 50%. 

 

Alright, this thread has derailed enough and I have an appointment with a realtor tonight.  Ugh, I hate moving :( 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:57 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23023030

 

Quote:
Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?
Quote:
Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season.

is this 'cherry picking'?

emmy526 is offline  
Old 02-20-2014, 05:12 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23023030

 

is this 'cherry picking'?

Maybe!  But VAERS isn't proof of anything, remember, since correlation does not equal causation! nono.gif *Just* because someone reports something to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine had anything at all to do w/ it!

 

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic.  I've had a bad day.)

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is online now  
Old 02-20-2014, 05:28 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Again, you aren't making any sense! 

 

It would be like saying someone that posts a story of a child who died from diphtheria who then concluded "Such a sad story, it's such a terrible and dangerous disease, especially in children" is cherry picking because *most* children who contract diphtheria won't die from it.  Even today, diphtheria kills up to 20% of children under the age of 5 and up to 10% of adults.  Do you not think that is a dangerous disease? 

 

Sorry, that's not an example of cherry picking.  Saying something is dangerous does not have to mean it has a mortality rate of over 50%. 

 

Alright, this thread has derailed enough and I have an appointment with a realtor tonight.  Ugh, I hate moving :( 

Twist away, looking at those flu threads you started goes to the h:stillheartart of it. Just keep nuancing your definition to meet your agenda! 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 02-21-2014, 12:38 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23023030

 

is this 'cherry picking'?

 

Well, I'd call that particular one straight up nonsense.  But yes, if you are going to talk about pregnancy loss and h1n1 vaccine and refer only to this without weighing against other studies and data on the sibject, then that is indeed cherrypicking. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post
 

Maybe!  But VAERS isn't proof of anything, remember, since correlation does not equal causation! nono.gif *Just* because someone reports something to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine had anything at all to do w/ it!

 

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic.  I've had a bad day.)

 

Sus

 

Oh, of course the vaccine has everything to do with the increase in VAERS reports.  That is just common sense.  Women who do not get a vaccine during pregnancy do not file a report with VAERS when they miscarry.   So even having the exact same rate of pregnancy loss two years in a row, the year with a greater vaccine rate is of course going to have a greater number of reports to VAERS even though there were not actually any more miscarriages. 


Also consider the impact of hype and rumor.  Imagine two cities with a 1,000 vaccinated pregnant woman each. Both cities have the same rate of miscarriage with about 200 of the vaccinate women in each losing their pregnancies. In city 1, a rumor starts to circulate that the vaccine is hurting pregnancies, and this makes women and some providers a little nervous.  Women are encouraged to make sure their provider files a VAERS report if they miscarry and are also told that they can and should do it themseleves.  City 2 hears nothing of this. Both cities had the same number if miscarriages, but which city is likely to have a much greater number of VAERS reports?

 

VAERS is useful in that it can raise a warning flag that we might want to look into a possible problem. Beyond that, it really can't tell us much.  To know whether the vaccine was causing miscarriages, to start with, we need to know whether the rate if miscarriages in vaccinated woman was actually higher than the backgroundrate/vaccinated rate, and whether women who chose the vaccine had a greater  rate of miscarriage than women who did not.  VAERS has absolutely no way of telling us these things since it does not contain data on women who were vaccinated but didn't have any problem to report nor does it contain data on women who were not vaccinated. 

 

This sentence from the abstract is very revealing: 

 

Quote:
Capture-recapture demonstrated that the VAERS database captured about 13.2% of the total 1321 (95% confidence interval (CI): 815-2795) estimated reports, yielding an ascertainment-corrected rate of 590 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1695). The unadjusted fetal-loss report rates for the three consecutive influenza seasons beginning 2008/2009 were 6.8 (95% CI: 0.1-13.1), 77.8 (95% CI: 66.3-89.4), and 12.6 (95% CI: 7.2-18.0) cases per million pregnant women vaccinated, respectively. 

 

15 to 20 of each HUNDRED pregnancies ends in loss.  Most of these are very early in pregnancy, so would have been before a vaccine would likely have been given, true.  On the other end of pregnancy, about 1 in 160 pregnancies end in stillbirth.   

 

So for each of the million pregnancies they mention, you would expect 6,250 to end in stillbirth alone, and a whole lot more to end in miscarriages.   Obviously there was a lot of under reporting going on, but to use rates of a few reports per million to try and claim anything about the actual rate is ludicrous even when they try to correct it up to 590 per million.  

pers is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off