Mothering Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,826 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2016/12/30/fake-science-when-is-medical-science-not-science/

Once the scientific literature has been sanitized of any studies that could show harm for a corporation’s product, someone is funded (usually by the corporation with financial interest) to conduct a special type of study called a meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis, a supposedly unbiased sample of available studies are pulled together, and their statistical analyses and results condensed into one, large conclusion. Well, if the previous four biases were not enough to sanitize the literature, there is always obfuscation by combining studies of different types, or rejection of studies with significant effects for having too small sample sizes – even though the positive result already demonstrated sufficient power at the sample size at which the study was conducted. The meta-analysis then finds no overall significant negative effect, and is cited as being “the largest study to date”, based on “over a million patients”, both of which are non-sequitur descriptors of meta-analyses, and are therefore patently untrue. One hundred poorly designed, under-powered studies that found no significant negative effect will result in one large meta-analysis that conclude no significant effect – so the citation of hundreds of thousands of patients involved in a meta-analysis does not imply increased power.
I think we've seen two or three of these "big" studies mentioned as "proving" this that or the other about vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xerxella

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
OT: I thought this was a fantastic primer on understanding meta-analysis. Enjoy!
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/absolutely-maybe/5-key-things-to-know-about-meta-analysis/

____

I have mixed feelings about meta analysis. I understand why they are at the top of the evidence chart, but that does not give them a pass on scrutiny Who does them? Who is funding? What studies are they excluding and why? It is often a huge percentage - which just brings about more questions: such as why are so many studies not meeting the guidelines, or if there is data in the rejected studies that could be useful. You have to look at meta-analysis just as thoroughly as individual studies. I suspect at one point most of us just throw in the hat - and decide that the whole vaccine system is basically healthy or the whole system is basically flawed and operate from there. Anything else eventually becomes too onerous, unless you really get your kicks looking at studies (grin).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,826 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
OT: I thought this was a fantastic primer on understanding meta-analysis. Enjoy!
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/absolutely-maybe/5-key-things-to-know-about-meta-analysis/

____

I have mixed feelings about meta analysis. I understand why they are at the top of the evidence chart, but that does not give them a pass on scrutiny Who does them? Who is funding? What studies are they excluding and why? It is often a huge percentage - which just brings about more questions: such as why are so many studies not meeting the guidelines, or if there is data in the rejected studies that could be useful. You have to look at meta-analysis just as thoroughly as individual studies. I suspect at one point most of us just throw in the hat - and decide that the whole vaccine system is basically healthy or the whole system is basically flawed and operate from there. Anything else eventually becomes too onerous, unless you really get your kicks looking at studies (grin).
Yeah, exactly.

I just thought it was funny how well he described the tone of pro-vaxers talking about the latest "big" study: "millions" "conclusively proves" and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,720 Posts
When drug companies want to test a vaccine, they will exclude anyone who will make their numbers look bad, YET in the real world, these excluded people are not sick enough to qualify for medical exemptions.

GSK recently completed a clinical trial to measure the immunogenicity and safety of their HPV vaccine (cervarix) in 4-6 year old girls. The results are not all posted yet, but take a look at their exclusion criteria! The following children were not allowed to participate in the trial. Does that mean children with these conditions will also be excluded from HPV vaccination??? 1. Any confirmed or suspected immunosuppressive or immunodeficient condition, based on medical history and physical examination (no laboratory testing required). *** SPECIAL NOTE: As a physician, we are not allowed to offer a medical exemption using these criteria, but this drug company is allowed to use these criteria to deselect for those more likely to become vaccine-injured.
2. History of seizures or serious neurological disorder, which, according to the judgment of the investigator, precludes administration of any of the study vaccines. *** A febrile seizure is a vaccine intolerance. These children are excluded because they are already at risk. Gotta protect those numbers.
3. Acute disease and/or fever at the time of enrollment:
3. A. Fever is defined as temperature ≥ 37.5°C on oral, axillary or tympanic setting, or ≥ 38.0°C on rectal setting. *** Many physicians override this, even though this is also a CDC recommendation.
3. B. Subjects with a minor illness (such as mild diarrhoea, mild upper respiratory infection) without fever may, be enrolled at the discretion of the investigator. Enrollment can be deferred until condition is resolved. *** ditto
3. C. Previous administration of the fifth dose of DTP vaccine and/or the second dose of MMR vaccine or planned administration of DTP vaccine and/or MMR vaccine outside the study. *** Checking the tipping point?
3. D. Hyperpyrexia (≥ 40.5°C) within 48 hours of administration of previous doses of DTP or MMR vaccines. *** Again, this criteria won't qualify for a medical exemption, but will for this "research study."
3. E. Persistent, inconsolable crying lasting more than 3 hours, occurring within 48 hours of administration of previous doses of DTP vaccine. *** Can you say encephalitis secondary to vaccination? Let's not test these kids, they already aren't tolerating vaccines.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01627561?term=pertussis+vaccine+pregnancy&rank=32
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,826 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for posting that @applejuice.

Absolutely typical of the way vaccine studies are done. Followed by rolling out the vaccine to the entire population and then followed by labeling the reactions that do occur as coincidental.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top