Re: Benefits of flu vaccine overestimated in elderly people


David Wright wrote:
> In article <1136986469.575863.251830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <1136311427.596450.19450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >> PeterB <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Roman Bystrianyk wrote:
> >> >> "Benefits of flu vaccine overestimated in elderly people", Xagena,
> >> >> Italy, December 27, 2005,
> >> >> Link:
> >> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.xagena.it/news/medicinenews_net_news/44c62bd3f8177f420ed8cee90fdbc0a1.html
> >> >
> >> >This is clear evidence that flu vaccine studies have been biased in
> >> >favor of a positive outcome. A similar flaw in epidemiological studies
> >> >probably explains the utopia-like outcomes in children receiving
> >> >measles vaccine, particularly those already the beneficiaries of
> >> >positive environmental factors never adjusted for.
> >>
> >> My goodness, PeterB, you certainly do raise clutching at straws from
> >> a mere act of desperation to something resembling an art form.
> >
> >Thinking *is* a form of art, if you think about it.
>
> Have it your own way. You're no artist.

Can I get it without the pickles?

> >> Talk about comparing apples and oranges. For one thing, measles
> >> vaccination is nearly universal, and the tiny number of cases these
> >> days makes it quite clear (to everyone but the wilfully blind, like
> >> yourself) that it's working just fine.
> >
> >If I had a penny for every non sequitur you've posted since I've been
> >here, I'd have a few bucks by now. The fact an intervention is applied
> >doesn't prove it works.
>
> The fact that an intervention is applied and the desired result
> ensues, throughout an entire country, and when the intervention ceases
> to be used and the old result returns, is as close to proof as you're
> going to get outside of mathematics.

You've never proven any of that.

> If you think that's a non sequitur, that's your problem.

Non sequitur? No, it was an ipso facto.

> You were comparing flu vaccination to measles vaccination. That's not
> a legitimate comparison.

No, I was comparing sloppy accounting, or worse.

> First off, flu vaccine doesn't confer
> lifetime immunity, unlike measles vaccine (or, similarly, getting the
> measles). Flu changes every year; measles doesn't. Second, we've
> never tried to have everyone vaccinated for the flu, whereas virtually
> all children are vaccinated for measles.

Which does not mean we have not over-estimated the effectiveness of
both.

> >Since you don't have the study results to prove that it does, my
> >guess is as good as yours.
>
> No, it's not -- because I have evidence on my side, and all you have
> is speculation.

Your evidence is very low quality.

> Furthermore, just because I don't have the studies
> doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they don't exist in PubMed.
> Papers about measles vaccine, at least as of the time it was
> introduced, are too old to be in PubMed.

Talk about speculative.

> >My guess is that it "works" about 10% of the time.
>
> Your guess is obviously wrong, because a vaccine that only works 10%
> of the time would never confer herd immunity and measles would still
> be with us, barely abated.

Since measles mortality had already dropped by 95% (meaning a
substantial amount of morbidity, as well), the only indicator we have
for vaccine effectiveness is tally stroking, blood work, poor people
getting to the doctor, and a total absence of vaccine bias. You
believe in those fairy tales because the problem has gone away, but I
don't.

> >Without controlled studies, we just don't know. It's just as likely
> >as not that a variety of environmental factors are responsible for
> >the other 90% that remain free of infection, even after exposure (we
> >certainly have no forensic proof that people aren't being exposed,
> >now do we?)
>
> Since measles invariably breaks out when vaccination declines, I'd say
> we're still being exposed.

I agree we're still being exposed but I don't agree that measles
invariably breaks out when vaccination declines. Without controlled
studies, the impact of vaccine is guesswork.

> So, I don't know of these supposed "environmental factors" that
> appeared out of nowhere at the same time as vaccination and actually
> did all the heavy lifting.

Susceptability to viral disease has always been strongly related to
environment.

> >> The supposed "environmental
> >> risk factors" do not even enter into the matter.
> >
> >This brings to mind the self-balancing checkbook analogy. If I don't
> >look, I'll never be over-drawn. Does this mean that smoking never has
> >to cause lung cancer?
>
> No, it means you've never come up with a convincing argument for your
> "10% effectiveness" claim. The best you could muster was the idea
> that either measles was still infecting everyone, but so weakly that
> nobody noticed it (which still requires explanation, even if it were
> true) or that doctors and parents were so overwhelmed with the idea of
> vaccination that they all suddenly lost their minds and became unable
> to identify a case of the measles.

I've talked about the difficulty of diagnosis depending on the stage of
illness when (and if) a child is presented for medical evaluation. You
seem to think that children enter a doctor's office with a placard on
their forehead that reads: "I have a mild case of measles. Please
order bloodwork and report your findings to the dept. of health."

> "The vaccine works" is a much simpler explanation.

Believing the earth was flat was also pretty simple, but stupid.

> >> For one thing, you can't tell us what they are, and it's highly
> >> unlikely that they even exist, since if the vaccination isn't doing
> >> it, there should be lots of pockets of significant measles
> >> outbreaks every year. But there aren't.
> >
> >You love these non sequiturs, don't you? "If" and "should" open the
> >proverbial can of worms.
>
> Oh, then, by all means, open it, PeterB. Let your magnificent
> intellect show me the error of my ways.

I'm not here to show *you* anything. But you already know that.

PeterB

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... >> PeterB wrote: ... Measles morbidity is not, and did not. ... > death were behind us when vaccination began. ... >>> vaccination was driving measles infection, or deaths, further down. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... >> PeterB wrote: ... Measles morbidity is not, and did not. ... > death were behind us when vaccination began. ... "What we do know is that 90% of measles deaths occured ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... deaths are not the only issue. ... >*BEFORE* vaccination, how do you give the vaccine credit for more ... >for better nutrition in the poor, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... A pre-vaccination trendline shows measles declining many ... > for decades before the introduction of vaccination. ... and the death rate should be discussed separately. ... how do you give the vaccine credit for more than 10 points ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Opinions on Echinacea
    ... Measles incidence had been consistent ... But I was always talking about incidence. ... In terms of percentages, complications from measles, including death, ... > my contention that measles vaccination reduces cases of measles. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)