Missed the flu scare this year

[Pliny]

There was nothing in the news this flu season about getting flu shots - what happened? I guess everyone is washing their hands. Anyway, no big deal this year even if a few H1N1 cases emerged.

What's up?

[Topaz]

The radio report I hear was the the flu is just about over and some cases will pop up but nothing alarming. I haven't had a flu shot in years and have never gotten either. The head of the company that suppied the flu shot was a close friend of Harper's, need I say more, he made his millions.

[Moonlight Graham]

Good point Pliny. I guess the medias found more interesting things to report this winter.

[RNG]

No significant new one sprung up this year. Now, I have COPD. The flu could easily kill me so I am pretty up on all this stuff. And Mrs. RNG has worked in hospitals as a clinical dietitian all her life. The problem is that each year they guess which flu or flues will rage. If they guess right, we won. If they guess wrong, lots and lots of people get sick, and unfortunately, on a world wide basis lots of people die. But there is strong evidence that the more flu shots you get, the more you are resistant to a wide variety of flues. I have been getting shots every year since 1994. And only had the flu once in that time. (And yes, the authorities, that is WHO and the Atlanta Center for Disease Control admitted they blew it that year.)

[segnosaur]

There was nothing in the news this flu season about getting flu shots - what happened? I guess everyone is washing their hands. Anyway, no big deal this year even if a few H1N1 cases emerged.

What's up?

Well, the particular strains of flu that are commonly circulating usually varies on a year to year basis. (And, as RNG stated, groups like the WHO have to guess months in advance as to which strains will be most common.)

Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that what's happened is that the H1N1 strain, which had been an "emerging" strain last year, has now become just another endemic strain, but one that is still the most common. With no other emerging flu strain to overtake H1N1, there was little need for any large scale response this year. People who got the shot the previous season were already protected against the most common circulating strain, those who didn't get the shots were mostly brain damaged idiots who wouldn't get the shot anyways because they're amoral jerks.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/08/10/who-h1n1-swine-flu-pandemic.html

The WHO and its international group of influenza experts has been watching for a number of signs it believes are key to determining that H1N1 is morphing into a seasonal flu virus that circulates during winter months in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Edited April 28, 2011 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

Also not hearing too much about this global warming.. or climate change so far this year. What's up with that?

[Pliny]

...those who didn't get the shots were mostly brain damaged idiots who wouldn't get the shot anyways because they're amoral jerks.

...an encapsulation of my very essence.

Thanks for the input, it expalins everything. Did the death rate go down this past year?

[Pliny]

Also not hearing too much about this global warming.. or climate change so far this year. What's up with that?

You haven't heard? We ae going to burn all the fossil fuels and when they are all gone we will be finally safe.

[Keepitsimple]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1. It ended up being one of the mildest flus on record and served to mask the reality that normal flu season results in 2500 Canadians dying from flu-related complications every year on average. THAT has always been the REAL story. The good news is that the H1N1 strain has now mutated itself into seasonal flu and its mild effects have helped to keep the mortality rates down - and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

[Pliny]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1.

.....and our politicians along with our tax dollars.

Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Amen!

[segnosaur]

It's too bad the media was duped last year into promoting the hysteria around H1N1. It ended up being one of the mildest flus on record and served to mask the reality that normal flu season results in 2500 Canadians dying from flu-related complications every year on average. THAT has always been the REAL story.

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)

The good news is that the H1N1 strain has now mutated itself into seasonal flu and its mild effects have helped to keep the mortality rates down...

As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

...and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_details.asp?news_id=4964&news_channel_id=1026

In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)

Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

[Pliny]

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

Where are the statisitics for that?

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

The first stat you sight is influenza-associated deaths and I don't think shows anything more than annual variables.

The second one is simply admissions to hospital which is a good statistic to show how much public concern was generated by a frenetic media.

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)

As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

Merely suppositions on your part.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_news_details.asp?news_id=4964&news_channel_id=1026

In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)

Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

2% is still hundreds of millions of dollars if not in the billions. A good return from a few press releases. I agree most of the manufacturers disappeared because of the high level of liability but not the low profit margins. The liabilities cannot be absorbed by smaller companies, and lately, including with the H1N1 virus, the pharmaceutical companies lobby government to provide them liability protection or they won't provide the much needed vaccines.

Statistically, I am not convinced of the efficacy of flu vaccinations in prevention. I have not had the flu either since the nineties without a vaccine. but that is just anecdotal, so beyond scinetific consideration. If a person gets the vaccine every year and attributes their flu freedom to that it too is anecdotal and I give it the same credibility. I don't advise anyone to contradict their beliefs or substitute mine for theirs. I only ask them to look for themselves. You, segnosaur have looked and found what you like to believe and you accept the data presented you. You will be healthier because of it. It is one of the things that "beliefs" do. "Beliefs" contribute to the placebo effect.

All believers believe their beliefs are true facts - except skeptics who are only certain they know nothing with any certainty and are on a mission to prove absolutely no one knows anything for sure, even though they beelive there is no such thing as an absolute - absolutely!

Edited May 4, 2011 by Pliny

[segnosaur]

Don't think its quite accurate to call the H1N1 a "mild" flu.

While the overall death rate from H1N1 was lower than in previous years, the flu did have a different effect than other strains... it tended to hit younger people worse than the elderly. (For example, in the 2007/08 and 2010/11 seasons in the U.S., the number of pediatric deaths was under 100. During the 2009/10 H1N1 pandemic, the death rate shot up to almost 300.)

Where are the statisitics for that?

Ummmm... the statistics were in the very first reference I gave in my post. They came from the CDC.

I know its impossible to put a "value" on human life, but I suspect most people would be more concerned about a virus that seems to hit younger people harder than the elderly.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/IPD16.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP516.htm

The first stat you sight is influenza-associated deaths and I don't think shows anything more than annual variables.

Actually, the first reference is for the number of influenza-related pediatric deaths... The graphs are pretty simple. Not sure how anyone can be so incompetent that they can't understand them.

2007/08 - 88 deaths.

2008/08 - 133 deaths

2009/10 - 282 deaths - This was the year of the H1N1 Pandemic. Notice the number of deaths is a lot higher than previous years? Why do you think that is?

2010/11 - 97 deaths - After the pandemic. Number of deaths is back down

The second one is simply admissions to hospital which is a good statistic to show how much public concern was generated by a frenetic media.

Actually, no its not. The important thing to note is that the number of hospitalization of children aged 0-4 far exceeds the number of people hospitalized in other age groups. This is quite different than the patterns in other years, when its often the elderly that have the most hospitalizations (For example, see: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2010-2011/EIP816.htm)

For example: (from the references provided above)

2007/08 - ~40 children/100,000 were hostpitalized, compared to ~75 elderly/100,000 population

2009/10 - ~75 children/100,000 were hospitalized, compared to ~25 elderly/100,000 population.

Notice something? The proportion of children hospitalized (indicating a serious infection) was much higher during the H1N1 pandemic.

And your argument that it was due to "frenetic media" doesn't hold much weight. After all, doctors/hospitals tend to admit people based on actual need, not on what the patient wants. (And even if there were a few doctors who excessively admitted patients because of the "panic", you would see the same increase in admissions in all age groups. You didn't see that though... You only saw children with a higher admission rate.)

I could also point out that perhaps part of the reason why death rates were so low during the H1N1 "pandemic" is because vaccination did end up being more widespread than it might have otherwise have been, due to the panic. (I do recognize though that the flu season peaked early, which would have reduced the value in the vaccination.)

As I said before... its more likely that low H1N1 rates this year are due in part to the widespread vaccination that already occurred.

Merely suppositions on your part.

Which is based more in science than the airy-fairy mumbo jumbo bunk that you keep pushing.

You know, I've published multiple references in this thread to mainstream sources. Now where exactly is your evidence? Does it exist? (Hint: No, it doesn't.)

...and out of the headlines. Like always - follow the money. Last year - no surprise - the pharmaceutical companies got rich.

Oh, jesus christ on a pogo stick. Not that type of nonsense again.

The fact is, despite claims of "rich" pharmaceutical companies, the vaccine market is not really that lucrative. Consider: In the 1970s there were dozens of companies manufacturing influenza vaccines. Now, there's around a third of that. If there's so much money to be made, why are companies leaving the market?

From: http://www.medbroadc...channel_id=1026

In the 1970s, there were as many as 25 flu vaccine makers. Today, there are only two major suppliers for the world. That's because vaccine-making is a risky business with high levels of liability and low profit margins that most pharmaceutical companies avoid.

From: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba655 (Note: I recognize that this is a potentially biased source; however, I am referencing it here because its conclusions match the more "mainstream" source given above.)

Vaccines account for only 2 percent of pharmaceutical revenues.

2% is still hundreds of millions of dollars if not in the billions.

So, not only are you ignorant of science/epidemiology, you are also ignorant of business.

Just a little hint... when you're dealing with big business, you care about profit margin, not raw dollars. Even if I had potential earnings of $1 billion, I'm not going to bother with a product if I have to invest $100 billion to see that profit.

A good return from a few press releases. I agree most of the manufacturers disappeared because of the high level of liability but not the low profit margins.

Where is your proof!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh' that's right... you don't have any, except your wonderful hand-waving.

I've provided references. You have given zip. Zero. Ziltch. Nada. The big nothing.

Statistically, I am not convinced of the efficacy of flu vaccinations in prevention.

That's because you seem to be rather scientifically ignorant.

Here's a study they did with 264 health care professionals. They found that the number of reported illnesses among those who were vaccinated against influenza was 29/100 people, whereas the people who did not receive the vaccine was 41/100 people.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/10/908.short

See? A study doing real science. Appearing in an actual scientific journal. Amazing, isn't it?

Oh, and here's a study involving 1600 children involving the nasal vaccine. They found that vaccinated children have, on average, 1.2 fewer days of influenza-like illness than those who didn't receive the vaccine.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/108/2/e24

And guess what? That's an actual scientific study.

I have not had the flu either since the nineties without a vaccine. but that is just anecdotal, so beyond scinetific consideration. If a person gets the vaccine every year and attributes their flu freedom to that it too is anecdotal and I give it the same credibility.

You're right. That's why, when I provide evidence regarding the influenza vaccine, I like to point to actual scientific studies, with things like control groups and double blind protocols. Those studies do not count as "anecdotal". Its solid evidence. Its the way science progresses.

I don't advise anyone to contradict their beliefs or substitute mine for theirs. I only ask them to look for themselves.

And I ask people to actually look at real hard evidence, like that provided by science.

You, segnosaur have looked and found what you like to believe and you accept the data presented you.

I do not have a "belief" in this area. Belief implies acceptance without evidence. However, the evidence in this matter is pointing to the fact that vaccines save lives. Its based on multiple studies, involving thousands upon thousands of patients.

All believers believe their beliefs are true facts - except skeptics who are only certain they know nothing with any certainty and are on a mission to prove absolutely no one knows anything for sure, even though they beelive there is no such thing as an absolute - absolutely!

Nope.

A skeptic is not a cynic. A skeptic does not automatically question everything that is presented to them. Instead, a skeptic looks at the quality and weight of evidence presented to them.

I am a skeptic. I accept that vaccines work because I've viewed the evidence, weighed the quality of evidence supporting vaccination (multiple studies involving thousands of patients, many performed using double blind protocols to avoid "proof by anecdote") vs. those against vaccination (snake oil salesmen and anecdotes by idiots). The evidence supporting vaccination is more convincing to anyone who approaches things with a rational mind.

[Pliny]

Ummmm... the statistics were in the very first reference I gave in my post. They came from the CDC.

Actually, the first reference is for the number of influenza-related pediatric deaths... The graphs are pretty simple. Not sure how anyone can be so incompetent that they can't understand them.

2007/08 - 88 deaths.

2008/08 - 133 deaths

2009/10 - 282 deaths - This was the year of the H1N1 Pandemic. Notice the number of deaths is a lot higher than previous years? Why do you think that is?

2010/11 - 97 deaths - After the pandemic. Number of deaths is back down

OK....let's take a close look at this graph. I'm having a little bit of trouble with it. Your link

2007/08 - 88 deaths

2008/09 - 133 deaths

2009/10 - 282 deaths

2010/11 - 97 deaths

It seems that no deaths occurred the last half of 2008 and very few occurred in all of 2010.

Most of the deaths occurred in 2009 and most of them in the last half of 2009. That's when the H1N1 flu season started. I could interpret the graph to mean that the administering of the vaccine caused a spike in the number of deaths and that would be an illustration of the problem of interpreting statistics. OR...it may be the fact, after all H1N1 didn't just appear in Jan 2009 and disappear in January 2010 but it appears to have done so. I seem to recall the big frenzy regarding vaccination was around October of 2009.

Any way, I cannot get all my questions answered regarding these graphs from the information in them.

more information is necessary. The graph itself looks odd, as though data is missing. Earlier years would have to be included so that I know the information falls outside what would be considered normal parameters of variability. I am only looking at three years really with an apparent spike in all of 2009, not just the fall when the H1N1 scare started.

Is 2009 an anomaly over ten or twenty years? Don't know. I can't tell that from the graphs, and unless the vaccines were particularly effective in the last half of 2008 I don't know why the death rate was zero nor why it was insignificant in all of 2010.

You have made some conclusions from this information and hope others will make the same conclusions, I haven't, I need more information. Frankly I have looked at and posted in earlier threads overall death rates for a fairly long period and there has been nothing that falls outside of what would be considered a normal variable on an annual basis.

[Pliny]

And Segnosaur, was it you who earlier called Jenny McCarthy an idiot for trying to link her sons autism to vaccinations because there was no scientific evidence of a link. The big announcement is that there is a link. You should hear about it soon if you haven't already. The facts were there but suppressed and all we saw were the denials. But it was argued loud and long that there was no connection.

[segnosaur]

OK....let's take a close look at this graph. I'm having a little bit of trouble with it.

Understandable, given the fact that you seem to lack a basic understanding of science, epidemiology, or rational thought.

Your link

2007/08 - 88 deaths

2008/09 - 133 deaths

2009/10 - 282 deaths

2010/11 - 97 deaths

It seems that no deaths occurred the last half of 2008...

Yes, that's the flu "off-season" where very people people are getting sick, and thus deaths would be reduced.

...and very few occurred in all of 2010.

Yup, 2 things probably accounted for that:

- The H1N1 flu season started relatively early, and would also have peaked early

- There was widespread vaccination that took place in late 2009. Given that it takes a few weeks for the vaccine to trigger full immunity, a drop off in 2010 would be the expected time frame.

Most of the deaths occurred in 2009 and most of them in the last half of 2009. That's when the H1N1 flu season started.

Nope, you fail again.

The first cases of H1N1 in the U.S. started back in March 2009. http://www.webcitation.org/5gRa3URY4

(Note: That's why there's no real "break" between the 2008-09 and 2009-10 numbers... as I said before, the H1N1 virus started early and there was no real "off season" as there were other years.

I could interpret the graph to mean that the administering of the vaccine caused a spike in the number of deaths and that would be an illustration of the problem of interpreting statistics.

You could, but then you'd be even more of an idiot.

There has never been any study which shows that the H1N1 influenza vaccination has ever caused anyone to come down with the flu. It can't. The virus used in the injections is attenuated. Dead. Deactivated.

Want more proof? The H1N1 vaccinations didn't begin until October 2009 (around week 40). If you look at the graphs of pediatric deaths, the number of deaths at that time was already higher than in the 2007-08 and 2010-11 flu seasons. So children were dying more often and the vaccine wasn't available at the time.

OR...it may be the fact, after all H1N1 didn't just appear in Jan 2009 and disappear in January 2010 but it appears to have done so. I seem to recall the big frenzy regarding vaccination was around October of 2009.

The reason you had the big frenzy around October 2009 is because that's when the vaccine became available.

Any way, I cannot get all my questions answered regarding these graphs from the information in them.

more information is necessary. The graph itself looks odd, as though data is missing. Earlier years would have to be included so that I know the information falls outside what would be considered normal parameters of variability. I am only looking at three years really with an apparent spike in all of 2009, not just the fall when the H1N1 scare started.

Here's a graph going back to the 2005-06 flu season. http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/upload/2009/10/whats_the_harm_pediatric_flu_d/IPD39.php

2005-06 - 46 deaths

2006-07 - 78 deaths

So, going back an additional 2 years shows the same low death rate for children, far below that of the H1N1 flu season.

Is 2009 an anomaly over ten or twenty years? Don't know.

Well, I've provided data for 6 flu seasons. (6 seasons should be more than enough to establish what the "normal" rate of child deaths is.)

You have made some conclusions from this information and hope others will make the same conclusions, I haven't, I need more information.

Actually, no. You need to be able to think rationally. The fact that you look at the data and reject it is a sign of your failing, not a failing of the data.

Frankly I have looked at and posted in earlier threads overall death rates for a fairly long period and there has been nothing that falls outside of what would be considered a normal variable on an annual basis.

Ummmm... I never claimed that the overall death rate for H1N1 was high... what I pointed out was that it affected children much more severely than other influenza strains. That's why my graphs have been concentrating on pediatric deaths.

And Segnosaur, was it you who earlier called Jenny McCarthy an idiot for trying to link her sons autism to vaccinations because there was no scientific evidence of a link.

And there isn't.

The main "evidence" of a link was by a doctor named Wakefield. Since then, its been found that he falsified his data in at least one of his 'studies', co-authors of the paper he wrote have asked that their name taken off the paper, and he was barred from practicing medicine.

On the other hand, there have been multiple studies showing absolutely no link between vaccines and autism.

See:

- http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960175-4/fulltext

- http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1960277-1,00.html

- http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf

The big announcement is that there is a link. You should hear about it soon if you haven't already.

Nope, no announcement. At least not from a reputable source. (Hint: Quoting some no-name snake-oil salesman is not exactly convincing.)

The facts were there but suppressed and all we saw were the denials.

Ah yes, the whole "evil conspiracy out to suppress the truth". Sounds a lot like the people who claim "The Moon landing was a hoax", and "9/11 was an insider job".

But it was argued loud and long that there was no connection.

And there still isn't.

[Sir Bandelot]

They should have already known that it was going to be a mild flu season. The Australian winter that immediately preceeded ours was also low in flu activity. They were surprised at the low incidence of teh dreaded H1N1, and Avian or SARS or whatever else they called it.

When the flu season came around here, I told you that... That why segnosaur now owes me a beer. Oh wait, he doesn't even like beer, just cherry-vodka spritzers

[segnosaur]

They should have already known that it was going to be a mild flu season. The Australian winter that immediately preceeded ours was also low in flu activity.

Ummm... first of all, what happened in Australia may not have been an accurate predictor for what would happen in the rest of the world. (Australia is relatively isolated, is pretty far geographically from the origin of the infection, and their flu season occurred fairly early. It might have been different in North America, where we have greater transportation links with Mexico, giving the chance for the virus to become better "entrenched" before the actual start of the flu season.)

It turns out that what happened in Australia did match what happened elsewhere, but like I said, there was no guarantee that it would.

Secondly, as I stated before, the problem was not in how widespread the flu was, it was how it impacted various groups of people, hitting children a lot more severely than adults.

When the flu season came around here, I told you that... That why segnosaur now owes me a beer.

Ummm... why would I owe you a beer?

I've been pretty consistent in admitting that the H1N1 pandemic might be "over-hyped". But once again, that doesn't mean that those refusing to get vaccinated aren't amoral idiots who are contributing to other people's death's.

From: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=14853&st=60&p=476450entry476450 (A post in Oct2009)

Hey, I've been quite willing to admit, there is likely a certain amount of over-hype regarding H1N1. I've already stated that multiple times in this thread. However, even if it is 'over-hyped', the fact is:

- Some people will die from H1N1

- The vaccine has the ability to reduce the risk for influenza

- People who do not get vaccinated will die unnecessarily. Others will get sick unnessarily, and perhaps pass the virus on to others who will die.

Even if this flu season is not any worse than previous years, those 3 facts outlined above will still apply.

Edited May 10, 2011 by segnosaur

[Pliny]

Ah yes, the whole "evil conspiracy out to suppress the truth". Sounds a lot like the people who claim "The Moon landing was a hoax", and "9/11 was an insider job".

And there still isn't.

Thank you for the graphs. There is an increase in deaths in just about every year except the last which doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the administration of vaccines.

And as for the "evil conspiracy" - you are about to eat your words with some breaking news.

Generally, why should I trust you to interpret scientific data for me? I would prefer the scientific data be presented in non-scientific terms by science itself. When you or some politician presents scientific data to me and proceeds to tell me what it all means because I am too idiotic to interpret it then I ask one question - where is the scientist that isn't explaining it. I suspect then that the data is being used for purposes other than understanding. As long as I have questions regarding statistical evidence presented to me I will have to get them answered. Your interpretation won't suffice, especially knowing your skeptical proclivities. More information is necessary.

I can't wait until you hear the news and see what your response is reagrading all the scientific evidence that refuted any connection between autism and vaccines.

I am not an idiot by the way or we would not be having this conversation. Science cannot convince me of anything. I am the only one that can convince me of anything. It seems science is all that is necessary for you to be convinced of anything but then of course science is not after truth as truth cannot be known in any absolute terms. So basically you are in a state of confusion along with the mystery that science finds itself in.

[segnosaur]

Thank you for the graphs.

You're welcome.

Of course, I should point out that the data I provided is a lot more than you ever gave.

There is an increase in deaths in just about every year except the last which doesn't bode well for the efficacy of the administration of vaccines.

Actually, the increase appears to be a natural statistical fluctuation (combined with an overall increase in the population, which is going to lead to an increase in overall deaths anyways).

Want evidence? Here's an article that pointed out the number of pediatric deaths from influenza also decreased between 2004 and 2005. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/122/4/805.full.html

Generally, why should I trust you to interpret scientific data for me?

Well, how about because you seem to be incapable of interpreting it yourself.

Seriously, here's a suggestion... try reading at least the abstract/intro/conclusion of some of the scientific references I provided. You'll find that even though a lot of it is quite complex and over the heads of many of us, there are usually short one or 2 sentence descriptions of what the article is actually saying that anyone should be able to understand.

I would prefer the scientific data be presented in non-scientific terms by science itself.

Your suggestion makes absolutely no sense.

You want the "science data" to be presented in "non-scientific terms"... but why? Is it because you don't understand science yourself? If so, then why are you trying to argue about something that you don't seem to understand yourself? And are you really so incompetent that you can't even read an abstract of a scientific paper and understand what it's about?

Its the job of a scientist to engage in research, in a way that is understandable to other scientists. There are plenty of doctors who do make it a point to "educate" people, but that's not the job of those actually doing these studies. Maybe you should consider sitting in on an elementary science class.

And something tells me that if a scientist does explain what things mean, you'll somehow dismiss him has being "in on the conspiracy".

When you or some politician presents scientific data to me and proceeds to tell me what it all means because I am too idiotic to interpret it then I ask one question - where is the scientist that isn't explaining it. I suspect then that the data is being used for purposes other than understanding. As long as I have questions regarding statistical evidence presented to me I will have to get them answered. Your interpretation won't suffice, especially knowing your skeptical proclivities. More information is necessary.

Nope, no more information is necessary... You are incapable of actually analyzing things properly, so to you no data will ever be enough.

I can't wait until you hear the news and see what your response is reagrading all the scientific evidence that refuted any connection between autism and vaccines.

Wait a sec... are you referring to the article from the Pace Law school that supposedly shows a link between autism and vaccines?

If so, I'd suggest you actually read the article, which even admits:

This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP.

From: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

Notice the part I put in bold? Even the authors of the study recognized that they're full of cr*p.

The article does not appear in any medical journals, it conducts no actual research (in a scientific sense), no double-blind studies, and the authors themselves are definitely not doctors. (They made at least one significant medical blunder that even I, a non-doctor, was able to point out.) All it does is say "some kids have autism, and some were vaccinated".

Once again, I need to point out that the authors of this article were not scientists.

I am not an idiot by the way or we would not be having this conversation. Science cannot convince me of anything.

The fact that "science cannot convince you" is pretty much the reason why I'm assuming you're an idiot.

It seems science is all that is necessary for you to be convinced of anything but then of course science is not after truth as truth cannot be known in any absolute terms.

Actually, yes it can.

This is not some ambiguous area based on morality or personal preferences/experiences. In cases like these, science can be used to follow the truth.

If you give a vaccine to a large group of people and a placebo to an equally large group of people, and the number of people who get ill with the vaccine is less than with the placebo, then you're pretty much guaranteed that the vaccine helped prevent illness. Repeating the experiment multiple times only strengthens confidence in that conclusion.

Science has helped us cure smallpox and could possibly eliminate polio and other diseases. Its helped us place man on the moon, given us insight into our origins as a species, and has given us a quality of life never before seen.

[segnosaur]

I can't wait until you hear the news and see what your response is reagrading all the scientific evidence that refuted any connection between autism and vaccines.

Wait a sec... are you referring to the article from the Pace Law school that supposedly shows a link between autism and vaccines?

If so, I'd suggest you actually read the article, which even admits:

This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP.

From: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr

Notice the part I put in bold? Even the authors of the study recognized that they're full of cr*p.

The article does not appear in any medical journals, it conducts no actual research (in a scientific sense), no double-blind studies, and the authors themselves are definitely not doctors. (They made at least one significant medical blunder that even I, a non-doctor, was able to point out.) All it does is say "some kids have autism, and some were vaccinated".

Just a little bit more on this particular article...

From: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/742471

Dr. Offit (Who by the way, is a real doctor. Actually works on developing vaccines)said the study authors reach erroneous conclusions due to an erroneous definition of autism. A child with measles encephalopathy, he said, may have severe cognitive deficits that fall into the autism spectrum, but such symptoms themselves do not necessarily translate into a diagnosis of autism. A spokesperson for HRSA mounted the same defense — shared symptoms do not make 2 different conditions identical — in an email to Medscape Medical News. The spokesperson affirmed that while the US Court of Federal Claims has granted awards for encephalopathy, it has never granted awards for autism per se.

Furthermore, there's this... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

83/2500 results (the number of cases the article's authors examined) in an estimated prevalence rate of approximately 3.3%. On the surface, this seems to support the claim that the prevalence of autism is three-fold higher in VICP-compensated children than it is in the general population. Of course, there's at least one problem, and that's that the authors admit that, of these 83 children, they could only find documentation of autistic symptoms for only 39. This results in an estimated prevalence of autism of around 1.6%. This is rapidlyfalling into the range of what we would expect in the general population.

And lets consider the authors of this study, shall we? Not only are they lawyers, and not doctors or scientists, some had already been involved in the anti-vaccine movement prior to this study being released. Krakow and Collin are trial lawyers who specialize in vaccine injury cases... hmmm.... no conflict of interest there (sarcasm is intended). Holland had written a book called "Vaccine Epidemic"... hmmm.. no conflict of interest there either.

Of course, I am assuming that this 'study' is the evidence you were claiming exists which shows the autism-vaccine link. Perhaps you are aware of other "evidence", but I doubt it.

[bloodyminded]

I'm inclined to think Segnosaur is right in this debate.

(And why in hell would the "breaking news" bit on autism be considered in the same league as the scientific work done on the efficacy of vaccines...much less be considered as trumping it????)

[Pliny]

I'm inclined to think Segnosaur is right in this debate.

Right about what? The "science" is right? Well, I have been disabused of listening to skeptics who believe in their superiority to interpret science for me. I stand unconvinced of the efficacy of the flu vaccine. The single important statistic is in the death rate and there has been no significant change because of the introduction of the annual flu vaccine.

(And why in hell would the "breaking news" bit on autism be considered in the same league as the scientific work done on the efficacy of vaccines...much less be considered as trumping it????)

It is simply an indicator of the political and perhaps, economic influence in the scientific process.

Once science becomes political and is used to forward political purposes it becomes suspect. Skeptics use science to promote their interpretaion of science. It's about time science asked them to stop "helping" them. Overall it is a battle against the individual having any mind of his own and being entirely reliant upon the interpretation of science by skeptics and politicians wishing to direct our lives and engineer society. If we succumb to that we are left with no thoughts of our own.

[segnosaur]

Right about what? The "science" is right? Well, I have been disabused of listening to skeptics who believe in their superiority to interpret science for me.

Yet in your previous posts you suggested that you "don't understand" science, expressing a wish for the researchers to explain their work in "non-scientific terms".

So, basically your whole argument comes down to "Pliny doesn't understand science, Pliny doesn't want to understand science, and so Pliny thinks science is wrong just because he doesn't agree with what he doesn't understand".

And yet you somehow think you're not an idiot.

I stand unconvinced of the efficacy of the flu vaccine.

Probably because you don't understand science. More importantly, you don't want to understand science. Such willful ignorance is very dangerous.

The single important statistic is in the death rate and there has been no significant change because of the introduction of the annual flu vaccine.

Ummm... no.

First of all, there are more statistics around besides the death rate that are significant... days spent sick/hospitalized (unless of course you think people like being ill and spending time in the intensive care ward) and costs (I've pointed to studies that show that preventing the flu via vaccine costs society a lot less than having to deal with lost productivity from sick days+costs of treatment).

Secondly, simply looking at the "death rate" is an idiotic way to go about it since the "death rate" alone says nothing about the length of life. The issue is not "how many have died from influenza", but "how many years of life have been lost".

Unlike diseases like small pox or polio, there are multiple strains of flu that constantly change. Its quite possible to avoid a deadly influenza infection (because of vaccination) when you are 65, and still die of it 10 years later when infected by a different strain. End result: it still counts as an "influenza death", but the individual received 10 more years than they would have otherwise received.

In fact, there have been statistical models that have shown just that...

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16104466

(Hey, wait... I know that's more science, and I know its scary to you.

It is simply an indicator of the political and perhaps, economic influence in the scientific process.

Scientific articles generally contain information giving potential conflicts of interest, and are peer-reviewed by people who are not stakeholders in the publication.

Oh, and once again... I note the incredible hypocrisy... You condemn "economic/political influence" in science, yet you willingly listen to people who actually make their living off lawsuits involving vaccines!!!!

Once science becomes political and is used to forward political purposes it becomes suspect.

Except what appears in scientific journals (you know, the stuff that you don't seem to want to understand is not political in any way. Its data.

If you give a vaccine to one group of people and a placebo to another and examine the results, there is nothing political about the process. There is only the data.

Skeptics use science to promote their interpretaion of science.

Nope, skeptics use science to develop their model of how the world is. We don't need to interpret science.

Overall it is a battle against the individual having any mind of his own and being entirely reliant upon the interpretation of science by skeptics and politicians wishing to direct our lives and engineer society. If we succumb to that we are left with no thoughts of our own.

Nope, its a battle between those people who have rational, skeptic view, who are willing to base their opinions on the quantity and quality of evidence provided by scientific observation, and the brain-damaged idiots who are willfully ignorant and cannot apply any sort of logical thinking, and who's arguments are based on claims made by snake oil salesmen and other idiots/scumbags.

And here's a little word of advice... being a willful idiot by sticking your head in the sand saying "I don't understand science so its false" is not "having a mind of your own"... it is being a willful idiot.

[Pliny]

Of course, I am assuming that this 'study' is the evidence you were claiming exists which shows the autism-vaccine link. Perhaps you are aware of other "evidence", but I doubt it.

This is the case I am referring to.

The policy of the Federal government is that there is no link to the MMR vaccine and autism.

The advice of the Federal Government to those receiving compensation for autism related to vaccines is that it is not in their best interests to advertise the fact.

I don't think I need to point to all the "science" that promoted such drugs as Vioxx and accutane nor the long list of side-effects that pharmaceutical companies are now required to list. Nor the off-purpose prescribing of drugs that pharmaceutical companies try to get away with.

You know as well as I do that some of the "science" that comes from big pharma is given to PR writers to paint drugs and their application in the proper light.

My beef with you is that you are a little premature in your conclusions and I don't accept your interpretation of the science, and it is an interpretation. You don't ask any questions but just quote the "science" that supports the view it has convinced you of. Don't you have any questions?

This legal case only scratches the surface. And of course the "science" is already in place to confirm to you that of which you have already been convinced. Someone is asking questions but it isn't you.