Missed the flu scare this year

[Pliny]

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".

You're whole argument comes down to that.

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

I believe science sets the parameters for that. Do you have a study that confirms it? Actually, I believe this is your opinion of the general populace and your job is to set them straight by referring to the proper science.

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).

If the death rates increase annually, on average, I don't see how the incidents of the flu are less.

I remember you referring to that study. The reason for the study was to calculate the economic loss to society of sick days caused by the flu. It assumed that the flu vaccine was efficacious and prevented the flu and of course it can't tell you how many people didn't get the flu because of the vaccine.

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.

Totally conjecture about how many years of life have been lost and impossible to prove. Statistics are great, aren't they?

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!!!!

How can they make a living off lawsuits involving vaccines? The "science" is clear. Are they idiots?

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.

Most of it is pretty good - if it isn't promoting some political concept. Something like over-population - purely political.

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.

I don't see anything wrong with what you say here. It is political when the data is created to push a particular political policy or view. Failure to make the case is rejected and you never see that data.

Anything horribly wrong with a vaccine will probably bury the study and the data. Scientific experimentation sets out to prove something. If it doesn't prove what is wanted then it is relegated to the archives and forgotten - there is no need for it to be scrutinized or peer reviewed. Only those that successfully prove the desirable result are scrutinized and peer reviewed. This method hasn't prevented human error or tragedies such as Vioxx. The data that doesn't corroborate the desired result is never made public nor included for scrutiny. It may be assumed that the study was flawed in the first place and not worthy of peer review but for whatever reason the data is not included and you will never see it.

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

So you admit they do "use" science? But I beleive they already have a model of how the world is developed. Now it is just a matter of convincing everyone else.

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.

You will have to excuse my point of view. I read a lot about politics and economics and there is quite a bit of BS to wade through regarding those subjects. Whenever I see a political view presented that backs itself up with "science". I have to question it. Al Gore, for instance, with his presentation of doom, gloom and devastation from global warming was probably the one most responsible for the majority of those who disbelieve it and forced the issue to be labelled "climate change" instead of "global warming". But the whole area is political and unscientific - pushed by some scientists that are politically motivated.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

You're whole argument comes down to that.

I believe science sets the parameters for that. Do you have a study that confirms it? Actually, I believe this is your opinion of the general populace and your job is to set them straight by referring to the proper science.

If the death rates increase annually, on average, I don't see how the incidents of the flu are less.

I remember you referring to that study. The reason for the study was to calculate the economic loss to society of sick days caused by the flu. It assumed that the flu vaccine was efficacious and prevented the flu and of course it can't tell you how many people didn't get the flu because of the vaccine.

Totally conjecture about how many years of life have been lost and impossible to prove. Statistics are great, aren't they?

How can they make a living off lawsuits involving vaccines? The "science" is clear. Are they idiots?

Most of it is pretty good - if it isn't promoting some political concept. Something like over-population - purely political.

I don't see anything wrong with what you say here. It is political when the data is created to push a particular political policy or view. Failure to make the case is rejected and you never see that data.

Anything horribly wrong with a vaccine will probably bury the study and the data. Scientific experimentation sets out to prove something. If it doesn't prove what is wanted then it is relegated to the archives and forgotten - there is no need for it to be scrutinized or peer reviewed. Only those that successfully prove the desirable result are scrutinized and peer reviewed. This method hasn't prevented human error or tragedies such as Vioxx. The data that doesn't corroborate the desired result is never made public nor included for scrutiny. It may be assumed that the study was flawed in the first place and not worthy of peer review but for whatever reason the data is not included and you will never see it.

So you admit they do "use" science? But I beleive they already have a model of how the world is developed. Now it is just a matter of convincing everyone else.

You will have to excuse my point of view. I read a lot about politics and economics and there is quite a bit of BS to wade through regarding those subjects. Whenever I see a political view presented that backs itself up with "science". I have to question it. Al Gore, for instance, with his presentation of doom, gloom and devastation from global warming was probably the one most responsible for the majority of those who disbelieve it and forced the issue to be labelled "climate change" instead of "global warming". But the whole area is political and unscientific - pushed by some scientists that are politically motivated.

It is political when the data is created to push a particular political policy or view.

I pasted that into a Pliny translator and it came out...

I decry the science as political when it conflicts with my political beliefs.

Really what youre doing on a subconcious level is fortifying your ideological and political beliefs. You create a firewall against the possibility that emperical knowledge will compromise your ideology by creating a scenario in your head where all contrary information is the the result of a political conspiracy.

You probably dont even realize youre doing it.

Fascinating!

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

This opens the door to understading many ills of modern society. What's different nowadays from the past is that people know how much we are being lied to, by those jockeying for positions of power in the elite. What this does is undermine "faith" in the system, and when that happens people spontaneously start behaving differently. I don't believe the psychological potential of this problem has been fully explored.

[Pliny]

Really what youre doing on a subconcious level is fortifying your ideological and political beliefs. You create a firewall against the possibility that emperical knowledge will compromise your ideology by creating a scenario in your head where all contrary information is the the result of a political conspiracy.

You probably dont even realize youre doing it.

Fascinating!

You mean not any different to the religious or scientific zealot?

I am just not easily convinced of the conclusions others have reached when they interpret the writings, statistics, scientific or religious data they present. Most of what segnosaur presents is data compilations and statistics not any actual scientific experimentation and you can't prove a negative so no one can really say how many lives were saved through flu vaccinations or if any were saved at all.

And, as I mentioned, failures to prove a premise are usually dustbinned. The discovery of heliobactar pylori was an accident of an experiment that had been considered to have gone wrong and we could have been still prescribing acid blockers as the sole treatment for ulcers and not had a cure for some stomach and pancreatic cancers. Or HPV would never have been considered as a contributor to the development of some uteran cancers.

If we all thought like segnosaur and made conclusions from previous scientific data and research like he does and presents those conclusions as cold hard indisputable fact, we would have missed out on a lot of things. Sure, he maintains the luxury of changing his mind if facts prove other than the conclusions he has already accepted and forwarded. It's like he has concluded there is no God and forwards that as the only valid conclusion that could be made and it must be so. What he, and most skeptics, don't make clear is that they reserve the right to change their mind later and in the interim wish to deny anyone to even entertain the idea of holding a different view - one he may change his mind to later but right now the facts are the facts.

[segnosaur]

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.

I see...

So, at any time did you actually read the study, in particular the part where they admit their study "is not science" (pretty much their own words)? Or the part of the study which points out that they don't really have proof that the government is wrong?

And did you actually notice that the people doing the "study" are lawyers who earn their money with vaccine lawsuits?

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

A policy based on dozens of studies that indeed there is no link between MMR vaccines and autism.

What do you know... governments can sometimes make the right policy.

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.

That's because those receiving compensation are not receiving compensation for autism related to vaccines.

Not all children who have symptoms of autism actually have autism (any more than an individual who sneezes is necessarily suffering from a cold). And even if a child actually has autism and receives compensation, it does not mean that their compensation is related to autism. Given the thousands of cases, there is going to be some overlap.

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.

Yup, many drugs have side effects. Sometimes side effects are overlooked.

But there are major differences there: For one, when there are problems with drugs, they are often reported in situations that hadn't been anticipated. On the other hand, the Vaccine/Autism link has been studied. Extensively. Dozens of studies. None showing any link.

More importantly, when those drugs like Vioxx are recalled, its because scientific evidence exists indicating problems. Yeah, there were problems with Vioxx. Guess what? Those problems were reported in scientific journals.

Oh, and while I'm sure you can point to plenty of drugs that have been recalled, I can probably point to many many more that have been released with no such problems.

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.

I find it quite ironic that you're basically accusing science of bias here.

Once again, I should point out that the big Vaccine/Autism study you were trying to push was written in part by lawyers who made their living off of vaccine lawsuits. The type of people who would probably get more business if they could start launching lawsuits over autism. Where is your sense of distrust in that particular article?

My beef with you is that you are a little premature in your conclusions...

Nope, not premature at all.

Over 2 dozen studies showing absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. Many others showing the flu vaccine keeps people from getting sick and dying. These studies have been going on for years, if not decades. More than enough time to draw conclusions.

There are things that science doesn't know yet. There are things that are currently open to interpretation. But the value of vaccines in general (and the influenza vaccine specifically) is not one of them.

[quot]...and I don't accept your interpretation of the science, and it is an interpretation.

Correction, its the correct interpretation.

Your problem is not only that you won't accept the proper interpretation, its that you're willfully ignorant. You get pleasure from being a dangerous idiot.

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?

Actually, I have plenty of questions. Just none involving the value of vaccines in this case.

Trying to question the value of vaccines is like trying to question the value of the wheel in the transportation industry. Questioning why tires are round on your car (and not square) is basically a waste of time. I'd prefer to save my inquisitiveness for things that haven't been answered yet.

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.

You have things backwards... I'm not finding the science that convinces me. In fact, I'm convinced because of the science.

Someone is asking questions but it isn't you.

Yeah, but sometimes those questions are not necessarily of any value.

Edited June 2, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

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".

You're whole argument comes down to that.

Nope, not really.

My argument comes down to "They gave the vaccine to some people, the placebo to others. People who got the vaccine got sick less than those that got the placebo". That particular experiment has been done multiple times, with pretty much the same result.

The fact that you're so willfully ignorant that you're not willing to read such articles or spend a couple of minutes trying to figure out what it means doesn't mean that those experiments were wrong.

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).

If the death rates increase annually, on average, I don't see how the incidents of the flu are less.

Ummm... first of all, I never said that incidents of the flu were necessarily less. What I said is that increases in the death rate from the flu does not mean that vaccines are ineffective.

Heck, even with the flu vaccine, you're always going to have an increasing number of deaths, for no other reason than the fact that we have an increased population.

I remember you referring to that study. The reason for the study was to calculate the economic loss to society of sick days caused by the flu. It assumed that the flu vaccine was efficacious and prevented the flu and of course it can't tell you how many people didn't get the flu because of the vaccine.

Actually, it didn't assume the vaccine was efficacious. It actually did experiments to test the effectiveness. They gave the vaccine to one group, a placebo to another group, found how many sick days resulted in the 2 groups, and did an economic analysis based on the experiment results.

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....pubmed/16104466

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

Totally conjecture about how many years of life have been lost and impossible to prove. Statistics are great, aren't they?

So, despite an explanation for how the vaccine extends life, and models showing just that, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la".

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!!!!

How can they make a living off lawsuits involving vaccines? The "science" is clear. Are they idiots?

Ummmm... in case you didn't notice, government policy and/or court rulings are not always done on the basis of science. They are sometimes based on (possibly uninformed) public opinion, current events, etc.

A lawyer bringing a vaccine lawsuit does not have to convince scientists/doctors/experts that their case is valid, they have to convince a judge/jury, composed largely of people who may not know anything about medicine themselves.

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.

Most of it is pretty good - if it isn't promoting some political concept. Something like over-population - purely political.

Red herring.

Scientific journals do not, in general, promote any agenda. They give data. Its the population at large (including our politicians) who tend to make the decision to politicize it.

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.

I don't see anything wrong with what you say here.

Yet when I point out the experiments where they did just that (and found that vaccines reduced influenza) you ignore the results.

It is political when the data is created to push a particular political policy or view.

There is nothing "political" about the fact that the influenza vaccine keeps people from getting sick and ending up hospitalized (or dead).

You could say its "political" to make a decision to vaccinate. On the other hand, you could also say "I hate children and the elderly and want them to suffer", in which case you will look at the same studies and say "Lets not vaccinate. I want people's grandparents to be ill". But that doesn't change the fact that vaccines work.

Failure to make the case is rejected and you never see that data.

Actually, such "null cases" are published all the time in scientific journals. Results do get peer reviewed and scrutinized. For example, you seem to be touting Vioxx as an example of the failure of science, yet it was science that provided the evidence that there was indeed a problem. (Here's a reference to a meta-study which shows that, rather than "burying" the data, scientists published the results for all to see: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/296/13/1619)

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.

You will have to excuse my point of view.

No, I don't.

Your "point of view" is one that risks the deaths of innocent people. There should be no excuse for that.

I read a lot about politics and economics and there is quite a bit of BS to wade through regarding those subjects.

Politics is different. There is often no clear "right or wrong".

Whenever I see a political view presented that backs itself up with "science". I have to question it. Al Gore, for instance, with his presentation of doom, gloom and devastation from global warming...

What "Al Gore says" is not necessarily science. And even if he is over-hyping things, that doesn't mean that the science behind it is wrong.

[segnosaur]

You mean not any different to the religious or scientific zealot?

Ummmm... the difference between a religious and scientific zealot is that the religious person is basing things on un-confirmed beliefs. On the other hand, the scientific actually has real observation behind them.

Further more, when contradictory evidence exists, science tends to adapt. It incorporates the new data and changes as a result. Religious beliefs tend to be static, and anything contradictory is typically ignored.

I am just not easily convinced of the conclusions others have reached when they interpret the writings, statistics, scientific or religious data they present.

That's because you're willfully ignorant. You're more akin to the religious zealot, who is unwilling to use observation, and instead depends on deep-seated "beliefs" to develop an opinion.)

Most of what segnosaur presents is data compilations and statistics not any actual scientific experimentation...

Bull cr*p.

I've provided references to over a dozen scientific studies showing there is no link between vaccines and autism. I provided several more showing the effectiveness of the influenza vaccines which involved actual experimentation. I could have provided many many more.

If I said "the sky is Blue" and you said "The sky is yellow", it makes no sense to assume it could be yellow. If observations show it to be blue, and you provide no observations to show its yellow (only vague insinuations that "scientists might be wrong"), then it is idiotic to assume a yellow sky, whether there were 100 "blue sky" observations, or only 2.

Similarly, there have been many scientific studies showing the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine via experimentation. I only referenced 2 (I could have published more). You, on the other hand, referenced exactly zero studies showing they don't work. Hmmm... what's a bigger number, 2 or 0?

And, as I mentioned, failures to prove a premise are usually dustbinned.

Nope, its not.

Like the fact that they did multiple studies in an attempt to show a link between vaccines and autism. No link was found. The results were not dustbinned, in fact they were published for all the world to see.

The discovery of heliobactar pylori was an accident of an experiment that had been considered to have gone wrong and we could have been still prescribing acid blockers as the sole treatment for ulcers...

Ummmm... so?

Guess what? Science is dynamic. Its able to accept new (and sometimes unexpected) observations into its body of knowledge and adjust itself appropriately.

Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that the investigation of H. Pylori as the cause of ulcers was actually published in scientific journals such as The Lancet and presented at scientific conferences. So rather than criticizing "science" the whole investigation into H. Pylori is actually an example of the success of the scientific method.... observations were made, publications were made to disseminate the information, the results were reproduced, and now we have a better understanding.

It's like he has concluded there is no God and forwards that as the only valid conclusion that could be made and it must be so. What he, and most skeptics, don't make clear is that they reserve the right to change their mind later...

No, I've been pretty clear about that. A skeptic follows the evidence, where ever it leads.

...and in the interim wish to deny anyone to even entertain the idea of holding a different view - one he may change his mind to later but right now the facts are the facts.

There is a difference between "holding another view" because you have evidence, and "holding another view" because you are a willfully ignorant who doesn't care if people die.

I think the words of Carl Sagan say it best: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

If you're going to hold opinions which run counter to so much of what we know about epidemiology and vaccinations obtained through multiple studies and experiments, you'll actually need to provide evidence, not claims of some massive conspiracy to "bury the truth".

By the way, do you think we should start teaching the Flat Earth idea in geography class? What about holocaust denial in history class? After all if your argument is based on "you can't trust anything", then how do you know the earth isn't flat? Or that millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide? Does your "open mind" concept extend to these as well?

[Pliny]

Guess what? Science is dynamic. Its able to accept new (and sometimes unexpected) observations into its body of knowledge and adjust itself appropriately.

This is a circular argument without end. If I say I am not convinced of the science. You say I must be.

If I point to instances where science has been wrong before you say science has the ability to adapt and accept new observations, basically saying that science will eventually get it right.

Mind if I just wait until science adapts and is "able to accept new (and sometimes unexpected) observations into it's body of knowledge and adjust itself appropriately"?

Tell me then, if the science points to the efficacy of Vioxx what scientist is then going to refute the science? It wasn't science that convinced anyone that the science should be looked into, it was the related deaths that convinced science that the science had to be re-visited.

As for the flu, I am not in a high risk category. I know there are some risks associated with vaccines.

I have to weigh the risks and that's all anyone should do. You are suggesting that no one actually look at the risks for themselves or ignore them and suggest that perhaps there should even be legislation for mandatory vaccines for everyone for the "common good". Because stupid "willfully ignorant" people like myself won't do the right thing.

When the number of flu deaths drop from vaccines I will reconsider all the risks. They haven't dropped so far and a negative, that is, the number of lives saved, cannot be proven. So in my view, the flu vaccine has not proven to be particularly efficacious despite all the political spending to promote them.

They have pounded the drum for the last, at least five years, why they didn't last season is somewhat puzzling considering the touted importance of the vaccine in "saving lives".

You have quoted numerous scientific studies that prove no link of vaccines to autism and you believe there is no link. A court of law, which is the only body that will ever be able to challenge the claim,

since funding for studies and the will to refute studies that prove otherwise is in short supply (why would anyone in the science community wish to refute scientific findings???) has determined that there is a link and compensation is in order but keep it under your hat.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Pliny

[segnosaur]

This is a circular argument without end. If I say I am not convinced of the science. You say I must be.

The problem is not that you're not convinced of the science. The problem is that you're acting like a brain damaged idiot who doesn't want to even understand the science. Your whole argument is "Pliny don't understand, so Pliny thinks he can be right". Sorry, in the real world such willful ignorance is both stupid and outright dangerous.

If I point to instances where science has been wrong before you say science has the ability to adapt and accept new observations, basically saying that science will eventually get it right.

Yes, that's right. But here's the point... there must actually be new observations. Its rather idiotic to say "I have no proof, but because I am to lazy/idiotic to learn, I'll assume its wrong".

Mind if I just wait until science adapts and is "able to accept new (and sometimes unexpected) observations into it's body of knowledge and adjust itself appropriately"?

Yes, I do mind, when A: your waiting is gong to cause people to die, and B: the whole question of the effectiveness of vaccines and the links with autism have been studied to death.

So, you don't think 25 studies denying the link between autism/vaccines is enough. Then how many is? 30? 40? You don't think the 2 studies posting the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine is enough... then how many? 5? 10? (Hint: I can easily post more than just the 2...)

Here's a list of 8 different studies.... all of whom actually did experiments (comparing those who got vaccinated vs. a placebo control group), none of the sources were from "drug company literature". And this was only after a very short search... could have found many more. And every one I found ended up with the same results... vaccines reduced the number of people who got sick with the flu.

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

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X00004497

http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx

http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7581/1241.short

http://www.passporthealthusa.com/files/PDF/Effectiveness-of-Vacination-Against-Influenza-on-Healthy-Working-Adults.pdf

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9580647/reload=0;jsessionid=96AB8DA0F2EB6506E91C5DCB2317D29E.jvm1

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

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/13/1677.short

Tell me then, if the science points to the efficacy of Vioxx what scientist is then going to refute the science? It wasn't science that convinced anyone that the science should be looked into, it was the related deaths that convinced science that the science had to be re-visited.

Ummm.... you do realize that the issue with Vioxx was not over concerns over efficacy, don't you? Vioxx worked. In fact, it worked very very well. Studies showed that, and the experience with the medical community showed that. It was the fact that there were unexpected side effects.

Oh, and Vioxx was only on the market for 5 years before it was withdrawn. Some of the studies I gave regarding the effectiveness of vaccines were around 2 decades old. And they were specifically testing for it. Similarly, some of the studies that show no link between autism and vaccines go back longer than the 5 years Vioxx was on the market.

As for the flu, I am not in a high risk category. I know there are some risks associated with vaccines.

I have to weigh the risks and that's all anyone should do.

But here's the problem... what if you're a brain damaged idiot who doesn't understand science, who doesn't want to understand science? What if you're such a moron that you're incapable of understanding how tiny the risks are compared to the benefit?

You see, even with the minor risks from vaccines, you're still better off getting the vaccine than not. Well, unless of course you like the idea of getting sick. By all means, look at the risks, but actually try looking at the risks using a little intelligence. Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of doing so.

Oh, and consider this... you say you're "not in the high risk category". Well, in the U.S., there were ~9000 influenza-related deaths and roughly ~160,000 hospitalizations for those in the 18-64 age range in 2009-10 (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/pdf/graph_April%202010N.pdf). These were not the elderly, nor children. On the other hand, the main severe reactions to the vaccine are allergic reactions (easily handled by getting patients to wait 15 minutes after vaccination) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which would only affect ~1 out of every 1 million people. (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#h1n1)

So, 9000 deaths from influenza (in the US), vs. maybe a few hundred people getting sick from GBS, a disease that people usually recover from completely. (Oh, and it gets better: While there have been some cases where the vaccine is linked to GBS, its also quite likely that the risk is even greater for those who don't get vaccinated and contract influenza naturally!)

You are suggesting that no one actually look at the risks for themselves or ignore them and suggest that perhaps there should even be legislation for mandatory vaccines for everyone for the "common good". Because stupid "willfully ignorant" people like myself won't do the right thing.

Never claimed that you should be forced to get vaccinated.

I do however have no problem with requirements that schoolchildren, health care workers, etc. get vaccinated because of the risk of spreading the disease. I would also have no problem with an employer firing people who were too stupid to get vaccinated. (Why should they pay for idiots who might have to take extra sick days off? And who might spread disease to others in the office.)

When the number of flu deaths drop from vaccines I will reconsider all the risks.

By that I assume you mean "Pliny is an idiot who doesn't understand basic science".

They haven't dropped so far...

Which of course is an idiotic brain damaged argument that I've already debunked before. Of course, you'll stick to it because facts are not on your side.

They have pounded the drum for the last, at least five years, why they didn't last season is somewhat puzzling considering the touted importance of the vaccine in "saving lives".

They likely didn't "pound the drum" because A: they predicted the flu season would be relatively mild, and B: one of the most common circulating strains would be the H1N1 (pandemic) virus (which they'd be protected against).

Still, the government of Canada states that people are encouraged to receive the vaccine (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/10vol36/acs-6/index-eng.php). In the U.S. the CDC also "recommends a yearly flu vaccine as the first and most important step in protecting against flu viruses." (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/preventing.htm). So, the governments are still pushing people to get vaccinated.

You have quoted numerous scientific studies that prove no link of vaccines to autism and you believe there is no link. A court of law, which is the only body that will ever be able to challenge the claim...

Very bizarre claim to make. As I pointed out before, courts do not always make the correct "scientific" decision.

since funding for studies and the will to refute studies that prove otherwise is in short supply (why would anyone in the science community wish to refute scientific findings???)...

Ummm... its the job of scientists to do studies, even if those studies are controversial. You love to tout the Vioxx case as somehow proof of problems in science, but articles indicating problems with Vioxx were in fact published in science journals. So obviously science journals have no problem publishing results that question current drugs when the evidence is there. So, you fail once again.

I have asked before, but I've noticed that once again you ignored the questions:

Any time did you actually read the study (The ones written by lawyers studying the autism/vaccine link), in particular the part where they admit their study "is not science" (pretty much their own words)? Or the part of the study which points out that they don't really have proof that the government is wrong? And did you actually notice that the people doing the "study" are lawyers who earn their money with vaccine lawsuits?

Since you seem to think science is "in doubt", do you think we should start teaching the Flat Earth idea in geography class? What about holocaust denial in history class? After all if your argument is based on "you can't trust anything", then how do you know the earth isn't flat? Or that millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide? Does your "open mind" concept extend to these as well?

Eagerly awaiting your answers to those questions.

(edited to fix one of the links)

Edited June 6, 2011 by segnosaur

[Pliny]

Since you seem to think science is "in doubt", do you think we should start teaching the Flat Earth idea in geography class? What about holocaust denial in history class? After all if your argument is based on "you can't trust anything", then how do you know the earth isn't flat? Or that millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide? Does your "open mind" concept extend to these as well?

Eagerly awaiting your answers to those questions.

(edited to fix one of the links)

Science is not in doubt. Science is what it is. Politics is in doubt.

Should I quote the myriad scientific studies during the thirties in eugenics that proved the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of the Jew -which is probably why "millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide"?

The flat earth idea is taught in geography class and so is the holocaust denial taught in school. They seem to be common knowledge and are often referenced as lies or at least unscientific conclusions debunked by science alone and if it were not for science we may still be deluded into thinking the earth is flat or by politicians that the holocaust was a necessary event.

Have you ever considered being a politician and putting science into practice? I have a yardstick I use that if some issue is political the science behind it is suspect.

And every one I found ended up with the same results... vaccines reduced the number of people who got sick with the flu.

The studies did not show vaccines reduced the number of people who got sick with the flu.

It showed that some people even though they had a vaccine still got the flu. It did not show that a vaccine reduced the number of people who got the flu. It showed that the only known measured and considered difference between both study groups was a vaccine.

Please do not use science as a fascist/totalitarian tool. It has not proven to be healthy for any society. Especially those that science deemed mentally ill who died in Siberia for their willful ignorance.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Pliny

[segnosaur]

Since you seem to think science is "in doubt", do you think we should start teaching the Flat Earth idea in geography class? What about holocaust denial in history class? After all if your argument is based on "you can't trust anything", then how do you know the earth isn't flat? Or that millions died in concentration camps in WW2 as a result of deliberate genocide? Does your "open mind" concept extend to these as well?

Eagerly awaiting your answers to those questions.

Science is not in doubt. Science is what it is. Politics is in doubt.

Ah, there with that bull cr*p again.

Once again... the studies that show the safety and effectiveness of vaccines are not political in any way, shape or form.

Should I quote the myriad scientific studies during the thirties in eugenics...

By all means. I doubt you'll find anything resembling even a rudimentary "experiment" in a peer review journal that was used to prove eugenics.

Yes, there were some notable people claiming that "science supported eugenics". Some were politicians. Some were even scientists. But the idea of eugenics was probably more inspired by racism and bigotry rather than 'science'.

The flat earth idea is taught in geography class and so is the holocaust denial taught in school. They seem to be common knowledge and are often referenced as lies or at least unscientific conclusions debunked by science alone and if it were not for science we may still be deluded into thinking the earth is flat or by politicians that the holocaust was a necessary event.

Flat earth and holocaust denial may be taught, but not as potentially valid theories. It was pretty clear from the context that what I was asking was whether you thought they should be taught as potentially valid theories.

So, to clarify... since you somehow think that "facts" can easily be overturned, do you think that flat earth and holocaust denial should be taught as possible "successful" theories (not as formerly debunked concepts, as you tried to weasel out.) If you think "science is subject to be overturned", then should our science classes be saying "the earth may very well be flat. The round earth theory may be influenced by politics and thus could be overturned!"? Should our history classes by stating "the holocaust never happened! History has become politicized!"

Have you ever considered being a politician and putting science into practice? I have a yardstick I use that if some issue is political the science behind it is suspect.

Tell me, is your repeated misunderstanding caused by a lack of brain functionality, or are you willfully trying to mess things up?

Once again, the science behind vaccines is non-political. The scientists do the research. Much of the research confirming the usefullness of vaccines is not funded by drug companies.

If a politician wants to state "we should vaccinate to save lives" he can do so. A politician could also say "We have too many idiots... lets try to discourage vaccination to kill off the dumb ones". But that doesn't change the fact that the vaccines themselves have been shown to be effective.

Try to understand that concept.

The studies did not show vaccines reduced the number of people who got sick with the flu.

Ummm... yes they did. The fact that you're so willfully ignorant that you don't want to actually spend any time to understand the science behind the studies.

It showed that some people even though they had a vaccine still got the flu.

Ummm... you do realize that there are multiple strains of the flu circulating at any one time, and I doubt you'll find any scientist who will claim that any flu vaccine will stop strains that aren't included in the vaccine.

It did not show that a vaccine reduced the number of people who got the flu.

Ummm... yes they did.

Since you seem unwilling to actually read any of the references:

From: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9580647/reload=0;jsessionid=96AB8DA0F2EB6506E91C5DCB2317D29E.jvm1

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial... Two hundred eighty-eight children were assigned to receive one dose of vaccine or placebo...Culture-positive influenza was significantly less common in the vaccine group (14 cases among 1070 subjects) than the placebo group (95 cases among 532 subjects).

If the vaccine is ineffective, why were more people sick in the non-vaccine group (even though there were roughly have as many people) than in the vaccine group?

From: http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx

One hundred thirty-one vaccinated employees were compared with 131 age- and gender-matched non-vaccinees... Twenty-six (20%) of the vaccinated and 64 (49%) of the unvaccinated group had ILI (Influenza-like-illness)

If you don't think the vaccine prevents the flu, then why were people who got vaccinated 30% less likely to get sick!

From: http://www.passporthealthusa.com/files/PDF/Effectiveness-of-Vacination-Against-Influenza-on-Healthy-Working-Adults.pdf

A total of 849 subjects were enrolled between October 10 and November 30, 1994... Randomization resulted in an even

distribution of all base-line measures... Immunization decreased the frequency of upper respiratory illnesses by 25 percent, absenteeism from work due to upper respiratory illness by 43 percent

If the vaccine wasn't effective, why was illness reduced 25% in that study?

Of course, those are just 3 of the studies I referenced earlier. But all of them show similar results.

So, if you don't think vaccines are effective, why is it when you give a vaccine to one group and a placebo to another group, cases of flu decrease in the vaccinated group?

- Could it be that people feel better when they think they're being protected? No, because in most cases the patients don't know if they're getting the vaccine. (Notice the use of the word "double blind"?)

- Could it be that the doctors are specifically looking for people who get sick in the non-vaccinated group? No, because in a double blind study the doctors themselves don't know who got the vaccine or not

- Could it be due to luck/chance? Well, the same experiment has been repeated multiple times, so that's not a factor

- Could it be the people who got the vaccine were naturally healthier? No, because once again, look at the use of the word "randomized" (used in several of the studies). These are large scale studies, in some cases involving hundreds of people. A 'healthy' person is just as likely to get stuck in the placebo group

Please do not use science as a fascist/totalitarian tool.

I'm not. You're falsely dragging politics into things, when the science itself has nothing to do with politics or authoritarianism.

But, I guess since you don't really have any facts or evidence to support your point of view (other than your dangerous willful ignorance), your only "tool" is to blindly accuse those who actually understand the basic science are somehow "fascists". Again, I strongly urge you to go to school and take a few remedial science courses.

[GostHacked]

Years ago the idea that cell phones can cause cancers or other problems in humans were severely poo-poo'd.

Now the evidence is there that is can and does cause problems.

So the notion that big pharma does not play political games when it comes to how their vaccines get developed/distributed/administered, is 100% delusional. Big pharma spends a lot of money lobbying governments. If the vaccines are truly good,then you would not need to lobby anyone, the proof would be in the evidence and experiments. That would be enough to say .. 'I'll take 1,000 cases please!!'.

Some vaccinations DO work, and people should get them. But what about area's of the world where vaccinations are not even present, and yet do not have cases of the disease that we here are getting vaccinated against.

So, wonder why the flu is not a hot topic this year?

[segnosaur]

Years ago the idea that cell phones can cause cancers or other problems in humans were severely poo-poo'd.

Now the evidence is there that is can and does cause problems.

Actually, no there isn't. (At least no evidence that can be replicated).

From the American Cancer Society: ...(most) studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. (See: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones)

Now, cell phones have been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen, but then, so has coffee and pickled vegetables. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens#Mixtures)

See: http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/05/31/who-verdict-on-mobile-phones-and-cancer/

A small caveat: there are limits on the ability to test the risks of cell phones. (e.g. phones have only been in wide use for a couple of decades, so its possible that there's an unknown long term risk). However, if there is any sort of risk, its likely to be small. (Most studies find the risk to be rather indistinguishable from statistical noise.)

Of course, the comparison with vaccines is not exactly a fair one... Heck, we know vaccines have risks (allergic reactions being one of them); if there are other risks they certainly haven't shown up yet, and as such it will be one of these 1-in-a bajillion type risks, far below the number of people actually helped by vaccines.

So the notion that big pharma does not play political games when it comes to how their vaccines get developed/distributed/administered, is 100% delusional.

Ah that old bull cr*p again.

Just to repeat the stuff I've stated before:

- Many of the studies showing vaccine effectiveness/safety are not funded by the vaccine companies at all.

- Believe it or not, influenza vaccines have not been huge moneymakers in the past. The number of companies making vaccines decreased substantially for years and years.

Big pharma spends a lot of money lobbying governments. If the vaccines are truly good,then you would not need to lobby anyone, the proof would be in the evidence and experiments.

Retarded argument.

You can have more than 1 vaccine manufacturer. In that situation, companies will lobby, not because they're trying to sell an ineffective vaccine, but because they are in competition with other vaccine manufacturers (all of whom are selling effective products).

Some vaccinations DO work, and people should get them.

And the influenza vaccine is among them.

But what about area's of the world where vaccinations are not even present, and yet do not have cases of the disease that we here are getting vaccinated against.

Ummm.... examples?

(Although let me be a bit proactive... its possible that you may not hear of "western diseases" in other parts of the world, for the simple fact that in "developing countries" reports of diseases probably get drown out by other disasters.)

So, wonder why the flu is not a hot topic this year?

I believe that's already been addressed in this thread...

- The flu season was not predicted to be particularly serious

- One of the most common circulating strains was last year's H1N1. No need to push people to get vaccinated when they would have been covered by the previous year's vaccination

Edited June 8, 2011 by segnosaur

[scouterjim]

i didn't get it, nor did I miss it!

[Pliny]

By all means. I doubt you'll find anything resembling even a rudimentary "experiment" in a peer review journal that was used to prove eugenics.

Yes, there were some notable people claiming that "science supported eugenics". Some were politicians. Some were even scientists. But the idea of eugenics was probably more inspired by racism and bigotry rather than 'science'.

Flat earth and holocaust denial may be taught, but not as potentially valid theories. It was pretty clear from the context that what I was asking was whether you thought they should be taught as potentially valid theories.

So, to clarify... since you somehow think that "facts" can easily be overturned, do you think that flat earth and holocaust denial should be taught as possible "successful" theories (not as formerly debunked concepts, as you tried to weasel out.) If you think "science is subject to be overturned", then should our science classes be saying "the earth may very well be flat. The round earth theory may be influenced by politics and thus could be overturned!"? Should our history classes by stating "the holocaust never happened! History has become politicized!"

Science is what it is at the time. Whether it had peer reviewed double blind studies is beside the point.

Who is science today disagreeing with that the world was flat? Why, that would be the "science" of yesterday. If you disagreed with the science then and said the Earth was round or some such heresy you could be locked up or sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of your life. It was science that carried the concept to being political and the fact that the Earth was flat was taught at the finest schools.

Who is science today disagreeing with that Eugenics and racial hygiene, the holocaust and North American forced sterilization laws were necessary? Why that would be the "science" of yesterday. It was the science of Eugenics and racial hygiene that carried the concept through to the political solutions who cares if the science was inspired by racism and bigotry. The science was what it was at the time. Civilization happened to be moving toward egalitarianism and away from racism and bigotry, until the science "proved' the necessity for racial hygiene and genetic purity.

Most of the "science" of that time can be found here: The Eugenics Archive

In another century are we going to look back at today and shake our heads at the science of today?

We probably will. Let's not create any more medical atrocities on the way.

Tell me, is your repeated misunderstanding caused by a lack of brain functionality, or are you willfully trying to mess things up?

Mess up what?

Once again, the science behind vaccines is non-political. The scientists do the research. Much of the research confirming the usefullness of vaccines is not funded by drug companies.

If a politician wants to state "we should vaccinate to save lives" he can do so. A politician could also say "We have too many idiots... lets try to discourage vaccination to kill off the dumb ones". But that doesn't change the fact that the vaccines themselves have been shown to be effective.

Try to understand that concept.

If a politician states that I don't mind it. If he makes a law about it I do.

Ummm... yes they did. The fact that you're so willfully ignorant that you don't want to actually spend any time to understand the science behind the studies.

Ummm... you do realize that there are multiple strains of the flu circulating at any one time, and I doubt you'll find any scientist who will claim that any flu vaccine will stop strains that aren't included in the vaccine.

Ummm... yes they did.

Since you seem unwilling to actually read any of the references:

From: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9580647/reload=0;jsessionid=96AB8DA0F2EB6506E91C5DCB2317D29E.jvm1

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial... Two hundred eighty-eight children were assigned to receive one dose of vaccine or placebo...Culture-positive influenza was significantly less common in the vaccine group (14 cases among 1070 subjects) than the placebo group (95 cases among 532 subjects).

If the vaccine is ineffective, why were more people sick in the non-vaccine group (even though there were roughly have as many people) than in the vaccine group?

From: http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/1997/05000/Cost_Effectiveness_of_the_Influenza_Vaccine_in_a.6.aspx

One hundred thirty-one vaccinated employees were compared with 131 age- and gender-matched non-vaccinees... Twenty-six (20%) of the vaccinated and 64 (49%) of the unvaccinated group had ILI (Influenza-like-illness)

If you don't think the vaccine prevents the flu, then why were people who got vaccinated 30% less likely to get sick!

From: http://www.passporthealthusa.com/files/PDF/Effectiveness-of-Vacination-Against-Influenza-on-Healthy-Working-Adults.pdf

A total of 849 subjects were enrolled between October 10 and November 30, 1994... Randomization resulted in an even

distribution of all base-line measures... Immunization decreased the frequency of upper respiratory illnesses by 25 percent, absenteeism from work due to upper respiratory illness by 43 percent

If the vaccine wasn't effective, why was illness reduced 25% in that study?

Of course, those are just 3 of the studies I referenced earlier. But all of them show similar results.

So, if you don't think vaccines are effective, why is it when you give a vaccine to one group and a placebo to another group, cases of flu decrease in the vaccinated group?

- Could it be that people feel better when they think they're being protected? No, because in most cases the patients don't know if they're getting the vaccine. (Notice the use of the word "double blind"?)

- Could it be that the doctors are specifically looking for people who get sick in the non-vaccinated group? No, because in a double blind study the doctors themselves don't know who got the vaccine or not

- Could it be due to luck/chance? Well, the same experiment has been repeated multiple times, so that's not a factor

- Could it be the people who got the vaccine were naturally healthier? No, because once again, look at the use of the word "randomized" (used in several of the studies). These are large scale studies, in some cases involving hundreds of people. A 'healthy' person is just as likely to get stuck in the placebo group

Now you have to admit that none of these studies were laboratory controlled studies. They were basically compilations of statistics in a double blind study. I note there were no deaths whatsoever and that no lives were claimed to be saved.

I'm not. You're falsely dragging politics into things, when the science itself has nothing to do with politics or authoritarianism.

Tommy Douglas actually dragged politics into things. We have socialized medicine managed by government.

It will until it's dying days be tied into politics and must be looked at with a jaundiced eye.

Especially, if laws are being enacted requiring medical intervention or denying medical treatment to contrived, specified target groups.

But, I guess since you don't really have any facts or evidence to support your point of view (other than your dangerous willful ignorance), your only "tool" is to blindly accuse those who actually understand the basic science are somehow "fascists". Again, I strongly urge you to go to school and take a few remedial science courses.

There are plenty of facts that science tied to politics is suspect. Today Eugenics is once again raising it's head.

[sharkman]

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to get into an argument on flu. I got some kind of bug and it took 3 weeks for it to run its course. Feverish and night sweats with a bad sore throat, almost lost my voice for the first week. Then I got an ear infection, then an eye infection with puss leaking. The night sweats continued into the second week for a while and I got a cough. Then the sore throat came back even worse and the night sweats came back. After one month I still cough for a while after I eat meals. I hope it doesn't double back on me.

I hate the flu.

[segnosaur]

Science is what it is at the time. Whether it had peer reviewed double blind studies is beside the point.

Ummm... no, its not beside the point at all.

Double blind and peer review are key elements of science. Without them, knowledge does not progress.

Who is science today disagreeing with that the world was flat? Why, that would be the "science" of yesterday.

Current methodology in science (generating testable hypothesis, rigorous experiments, peer review, etc.) has only been around for a century or 2.

And once again, I notice you ignored the question. I know why... because you can't without showing how intellectually bankrupt you are. But I will try once again....

If you think you can't trust science, should we teach things like the flat earth as a viable geographic model, or should we teach holocaust denial as a viable history if you think you can't trust "science" or "peer review" or any of the other basic foundations of knowledge development.

Come on.... lets see you answer the question without dancing away from it.

Who is science today disagreeing with that Eugenics and racial hygiene, the holocaust and North American forced sterilization laws were necessary? Why that would be the "science" of yesterday. It was the science of Eugenics and racial hygiene that carried the concept through to the political solutions who cares if the science was inspired by racism and bigotry. The science was what it was at the time. Civilization happened to be moving toward egalitarianism and away from racism and bigotry, until the science "proved' the necessity for racial hygiene and genetic purity.

Most of the "science" of that time can be found here: The Eugenics Archive

Boy, not only are your arguments retarded, but incredibly lazy as well.

Did you actually, you know, read the reference you provided? I suggest you do. It says right there under research methods:

eugenicists were lax in defining the criteria for many of the "traits" they studied... published works of eugenicists were short on data and long on anecdotal information

You see that part in bold? What it shows is what I pointed out earlier (and which you should have understood if you weren't so lazy)... the study of "eugenics" was not done with anything which resembled proper scientific rigor. They were not doing double blind studies (you know, the things I keep pointing out which are rather key to medical research).

In another century are we going to look back at today and shake our heads at the science of today? We probably will. Let's not create any more medical atrocities on the way.

Not really.... after all, as I pointed out, your own reference shows how the "science" behind eugenics was not handled properly. This is not the same as medical research, that uses double blind peer reviewed studies.

Tell me, is your repeated misunderstanding caused by a lack of brain functionality, or are you willfully trying to mess things up?

Mess up what?

The fact that you continually try to drag politics into things, when I have repeatedly pointed out that none of my arguments have involved politics in any way, shape or form. Only someone who is a brain damaged idiot or someone who is trying to be a troll would repeatedly make that mistake.

(List of 3 double blind, peer reviewed studies showing how influenza can be prevented via vaccines)

Now you have to admit that none of these studies were laboratory controlled studies. They were basically compilations of statistics in a double blind study.

Ummm... what the heck are you babbling about?

What exactly do you think a "laboratory controlled study" is? What do you expect that a double blind study is? Do you think they keep children locked in cages in some warehouse, injecting them with vaccines and viruses?

Of course, something tells me that even if I did provide a "laboratory controlled study" you would claim "Oh that's not evidence of its effectiveness because it only happened in the lab, not with real people."

By the way, I still notice you haven't answered the question.... if the vaccine is ineffective, why do people who receive the vaccine get sick less often than those who get the placebo? Still waiting for that answer.

I note there were no deaths whatsoever and that no lives were claimed to be saved.

So? Your exact statement (and the one I completely debunked) was "It did not show that a vaccine reduced the number of people who got the flu.". (Post #35.) Well, I showed that vaccines do indeed reduce the number of people who get the flu. Rather than admit that you are indeed wrong, you move the goalposts.

Tommy Douglas actually dragged politics into things.

Pssst... in case you haven't noticed, I'm not Tommy Douglas. Unless you think I'm somehow the zombified corpse of the former premier.

Of course, you still seem to be missing the point... None of the peer reviewed studies that I've referenced based any of their "research" on the government.

People should get vaccinated because when they give vaccines to people, they tend not to get sick as much. Got it? How many more times does that concept have to be explained to you?

There are plenty of facts that science tied to politics is suspect. Today Eugenics is once again raising it's head.

The only people raising "eugenics" are people who don't really understand science (like you).

[Pliny]

Ummm... no, its not beside the point at all.

Double blind and peer review are key elements of science. Without them, knowledge does not progress.

gosh how did we ever get this far.

Current methodology in science (generating testable hypothesis, rigorous experiments, peer review, etc.) has only been around for a century or 2.

And once again, I notice you ignored the question. I know why... because you can't without showing how intellectually bankrupt you are. But I will try once again....

If you think you can't trust science, should we teach things like the flat earth as a viable geographic model, or should we teach holocaust denial as a viable history if you think you can't trust "science" or "peer review" or any of the other basic foundations of knowledge development.

I think I said I trust science, I don't trust it's use by politicians or skpetics.

Come on.... lets see you answer the question without dancing away from it.

We should ask our students to arrive at their own conclusions. I know you won't tolerate some of them.

Boy, not only are your arguments retarded, but incredibly lazy as well.

Did you actually, you know, read the reference you provided? I suggest you do. It says right there under research methods:

eugenicists were lax in defining the criteria for many of the "traits" they studied... published works of eugenicists were short on data and long on anecdotal information

Did you read my post? I said that the methods of science have not always been constant over time. The methods are not as important as the authority to forward theory. And Eugenics was forwarded as legitimate and propounded by many North American scientists, which you claim were biased in the first place and of course scientists are no longer human so bias is an impossibility today.

You see that part in bold? What it shows is what I pointed out earlier (and which you should have understood if you weren't so lazy)... the study of "eugenics" was not done with anything which resembled proper scientific rigor. They were not doing double blind studies (you know, the things I keep pointing out which are rather key to medical research).

The holocasut was not done with any scientific rigor is what you are saying. The study of genetics produced those theories of racial superiority. There was lots of scientific experimentation in genetics and improving species of plants and animals. Eugenics was just a branch of genetic study and it was mostly political. That's how science is used forwarding findings as facts of the day and actions that lead to improvement. I know that's all you want is improvement, right?

Not really.... after all, as I pointed out, your own reference shows how the "science" behind eugenics was not handled properly. This is not the same as medical research, that uses double blind peer reviewed studies.

Nor was the science that produced the heliocentral universe. Will they laugh tomorrow at the science of today as they laugh at the scinece of yesterday? My bet is yes.

The fact that you continually try to drag politics into things, when I have repeatedly pointed out that none of my arguments have involved politics in any way, shape or form. Only someone who is a brain damaged idiot or someone who is trying to be a troll would repeatedly make that mistake.

You don't have to drag it in. As I pointed out, it is already in. You can't miss it. Well, I suppose you have.

Ummm... what the heck are you babbling about?

What exactly do you think a "laboratory controlled study" is? What do you expect that a double blind study is? Do you think they keep children locked in cages in some warehouse, injecting them with vaccines and viruses?

A fully controlled double blind study that would have to be a requirement. Otherwise, unobserved variables may enter in. Basically, I am saying the studies you quote are not fully controlled.

Of course, something tells me that even if I did provide a "laboratory controlled study" you would claim "Oh that's not evidence of its effectiveness because it only happened in the lab, not with real people."

Each one would have to be scrutinized on it's own merit. Peer reviewed would just be one of the qualifiers as well and not a final acceptance of findings.

By the way, I still notice you haven't answered the question.... if the vaccine is ineffective, why do people who receive the vaccine get sick less often than those who get the placebo? Still waiting for that answer.

That conflicts with the fact that the percentage should be reflected by a decrease in the death rate and it hasn't. You can't prove how many people did not get sick because of the vaccine and you cannot prove how many people did not die and the inability to do that is one of the safe points of argument for the proponents of flu vaccines. You can only judge by a drop in the death rate. The experiments you have cited show a decrease in the incidences of flu with on corresponding drop in the death rate. The evidence is not conclusive and one has to weigh the risks for himself. You advise everyone get the flu vaccine.

So? Your exact statement (and the one I completely debunked) was "It did not show that a vaccine reduced the number of people who got the flu.". (Post #35.) Well, I showed that vaccines do indeed reduce the number of people who get the flu. Rather than admit that you are indeed wrong, you move the goalposts.

Those were the conclusions of the experiments you cited. My concern about them is that they are not fully controlled experiments and I doubt they will ever do one.

Of course, you still seem to be missing the point... None of the peer reviewed studies that I've referenced based any of their "research" on the government.

Both you and the government like to quote them and use them.

People should get vaccinated because when they give vaccines to people, they tend not to get sick as much. Got it? How many more times does that concept have to be explained to you?

Every one needs to weigh their own risks. As much as you wuold like to think we are all the same piece of protoplasm - we aren't. Many people need to know the chemicals that go into the making of a vaccine.

Like peanut butter, for some they may be deadly. People should definitely not get vaccines because you say so.

The only people raising "eugenics" are people who don't really understand science (like you).

I understand science and it's use by skeptics, politicians, governments and even scientists, who are indeed still mostly human and subject to prejudices and biases.

By the way have you read "The Bell Curve"? Racial superiority a dead concept? Not so - we're just waiting for the political will necessary so science can tell the truth about it.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Pliny