Why would you use an "inert placebo" for a "cost benefit" analysis?
The risks of vaccines are in the 1/1,000,000 level. The benefits are 1000s/1.
An unvaccinated student infected 21 others with measles at a yeshiva in Brooklyn.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Why would you use an "inert placebo" for a "cost benefit" analysis?
The risks of vaccines are in the 1/1,000,000 level. The benefits are 1000s/1.
I think I got half of an answer to my second question out of this response (although I feel like you're arguing with Joe more than having a conversation with me...that's ok, I'll get over it ;-).
Still curious on question #1 - if king for a day, do you find it all so dubious that you would halt all vaccination programs worldwide until the science is settled to your standard?
Sorry, no I wouldn't halt vaccinations. I would leave it up to individual choice, with complete informed consent.
So long as the damage to un-vaccinable people (babies, cancer patients, those with other conditions that require medical waivers) can be 100% paid by those who choose to NOT vaccinate, I have no problem with his position. Let them pay full-ride for health issues that would have been prevented with vaccinations. Let them reimburse those who cannot vaccinate for damages (incl death) for infecting them.
We ALREADY HAVE a fund set up for those who incur vaccine-related health issues. (Autism isn't included in this, because it's not a vaccine-related occurrence).
So, if anti-vaxxers want to 'have it their way', then let them fork up the $$ to cover the costs others will bear for their non-compliance. That's "personal responsibility".
Of course you use inert placebos in the pre-market analyses in order to help you realize the full cost of vaccination.
That's the whole point Joe, how do you know you're in the 1/1,000,000 range when your safety testing design is designed to not detect negative outcomes? Those 1 in a million numbers clearly have a dubious backing to put it mildly.
No. You don't.
You use things like that in 'safety studies', which have been performed for decades.
You can include true known data into a c/b analysis. The better your data is, the better your analysis will be. Clearly, this is BAD data.
Yeah I don't like it. It's not the fault of those who chose not to vaccinate that the science sucks so much that they feel forced to choose not to vaccine to avoid the unknown (possibly substantial) risk of serious injury or death to their child. Sorry that's not their fault.
Well no, because they didn't use common sense science and use an inert placebo. It's almost as if they were trying to hide something....
A pro-vaccine pediatrician commissions an independent quality assurance project to look at vaccination data from his practice. Long story short, here are the results:
https://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/...-yssOpR92xl7E2oZe_AydWMB5cJwsWk0WFUrjPt8FFUPU
Of course Joe's going to object and say it's a small sample size. Yes, but again it's a signal. Out of all the completely unvaccinated kids in his practice (715) one of them has autism. ONE. Don't kid yourself, that is meaningful, given the autism rate in the US. The pediatrician feels these 715 are a high risk group to boot. Lot's of cost/benefit talk in this vid relevant to this thead, well worth it to give a listen:
49:50:
A pro-vaccine pediatrician commissions an independent quality assurance project to look at vaccination data from his practice. Long story short, here are the results:
https://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/...-yssOpR92xl7E2oZe_AydWMB5cJwsWk0WFUrjPt8FFUPU
Of course Joe's going to object and say it's a small sample size. Yes, but again it's a signal. Out of all the completely unvaccinated kids in his practice (715) one of them has autism. ONE. Don't kid yourself, that is meaningful, given the autism rate in the US. The pediatrician feels these 715 are a high risk group to boot. Lot's of cost/benefit talk in this vid relevant to this thead, well worth it to give a listen:
49:50:
No. It's not a "signal". Nor is it a scientific analysis.
You could have probably had THREE kids in one of the groups end up autistic, and it still wouldn't be a "signal". Take your "data" to a biostatistician, and let them explain it to you. Because I CAN explain it, but you won't listen.
Only you and your closed minded HROT buds would see this as completely meaningless. Full steam ahead for you isn't it?
I have a better idea. How about let's put the vsd to work and do the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study to see if there's anything to it. At best you slam dunk the "av" crowd and put it to bed. At worst we find out vaccines are causing problems and we work together and CORRECT it and this terrible indefensible "science". What are they afraid of?
No. Any statistician would immediately see it as completely meaningless. Because you have ONE "positive" per group, in a sample size of roughly 1000. And based on that simple fact, you cannot make ANY distinction between the two groups. They are statistically equal and indistinguishable to within any reasonable study power.
Now, go find a professional biostats guy, who will explain that exact same concept to you. In fancy math terms you won't understand.
Now that people are threatening to toss you off a building too, I feel a special kinship with you and your oppression. But I still don't want to be in the same room with your kids.
Paul Thomas is a lying shithead and an anti-vax nut job. Obviously.A pro-vaccine pediatrician commissions an independent quality assurance project to look at vaccination data from his practice. Long story short, here are the results:
https://www.jeffereyjaxen.com/blog/...-yssOpR92xl7E2oZe_AydWMB5cJwsWk0WFUrjPt8FFUPU
Of course Joe's going to object and say it's a small sample size. Yes, but again it's a signal. Out of all the completely unvaccinated kids in his practice (715) one of them has autism. ONE. Don't kid yourself, that is meaningful, given the autism rate in the US. The pediatrician feels these 715 are a high risk group to boot. Lot's of cost/benefit talk in this vid relevant to this thead, well worth it to give a listen:
49:50:
Paul Thomas is a lying shithead and an anti-vax nut job. Obviously.
No. As I'd already stated, he's just statistically illiterate.
And if you disagree, feel free to share the data/study with an actual statistician where you have ONE "incident" per group in a study this small.
Maybe this will simplify it for you:
If you flip a coin 10 times, and get 7 Heads, 3 Tails, that doesn't mean if you flip it 1,000,000 times, you're going to get 700,000 Heads and 300,000 Tails. But that's precisely what your "source" is trying to claim here.
Joe just wants a larger sample size, which I hope he gets when other practices jump on board with this novel idea.Paul Thomas is a lying shithead and an anti-vax nut job. Obviously.
The "sample size" in the Danish study was over 200x larger than your "study". And it involved dozens and dozens of "practices". And "peer review" - something you also don't appear to understand.
Larger sample size? That’s exactly what Thomas and Bigtree were calling for in that video; “We need more data.”
Oh boy, it looks like the two sides are finally coming together!!
Yeah, but your Danish study had an indefensibly terrible and fraudulent design so....
Again; take both studies to a reputable biostatistician and get their feedback.
That's exactly what was posted last month, in a 15+ year study covering hundreds of thousands of children, which identified a PROTECTIVE effect for vaccines, relative to ASD. Which, again, was not a CONCLUSIVE protective effect, but highly skewed that direction. Confidence interval was something like 0.85-1.02, with the 0.85 meaning children getting vaccines were 15% LESS likely to develop autism, and a very slight overlap on the CI to an effect of 1.00 (e.g. a NON-effect).
Can you point to the confidence intervals on your "studies"? Because absent those, you really have no conclusions to make which carry any validity.
Larger sample size? That’s exactly what Thomas and Bigtree were calling for in that video; “We need more data.”
Oh boy, it looks like the two sides are finally coming together!!
Is the vaccination schedule in Denmark identical to the CDC’s and are autism rates identical for the two nations? Asking for a friend
Joe! You post a study and two completely untouched critiques followed that completely trash the study. Yet you still type here as if it's still valid.
A completely uv / v VSD study is what is needed.
It is well established that autism rates vary by country, due to factors such as: genetic diversity, genetic predisposition, environmental exposures, healthcare/ASD definitions among other things.
That Danish study is simply the newest of many dozen which have shown the same result: no correlation. Not even a hint of a causality.
Now, go to your "new" study of barely 3000 kids, where we have ONE out of 440 and ONE out of 700 - the study power to detect causation here is far below any rational standard to draw conclusions. Ask a statistician. They can explain it to you if you don't trust my background on this.
Didn't you look at the critiques? Would you like me to copy and paste? I think the vid was only a little over 10 min worth.
So, at what point, 1 out of ______ (pick a number) would be statistically significant to you?
Last edited:
Reading through this thread is my first exposure to antivax “arguments”. I’ve wanted to look away but it just kept pulling me in. I am amazed at the arrogance that one must have to think that watching some YouTube videos and blog posts gives one the ability to critique & debunk research performed by scientists with PhDs and MDs.
Thanks Joe for fighting the good fight, however I don’t know how you win this argument with reason with this crowd. It reminds me of the Flat Earth documentary on Netflix, this anti-intellectualism is pervasive.
Also, I am in fact a scientist working in the biomedical industry. I would love to participate in a good faith discussion of medical research, study design and clinical data, however I have zero interest of investing time into lost causes.
Thanks Joe for fighting the good fight, however I don’t know how you win this argument with reason with this crowd. It reminds me of the Flat Earth documentary on Netflix, this anti-intellectualism is pervasive.
Also, I am in fact a scientist working in the biomedical industry. I would love to participate in a good faith discussion of medical research, study design and clinical data, however I have zero interest of investing time into lost causes.
There is plenty of science that speaks to the negative health outcomes associated with vaccines. Does the same type of thinking apply to that body of works? Do you discount the PhDs and MDs that critique and question the vaccine science? It's a self-defeating argument on two different fronts.
Last edited:
Don’t know, haven’t read it. Post the peer reviewed papers.
It's called a "confidence interval", and you have to use statistical calculations to assess where that is.
ONE incident per group, consistent with existing rates, isn't anywhere close to enough of a sample size.
Google "alpha error" and "beta error" if you're confused on this. They have exceedingly high "beta error" in your study, which means very very low study power.
Just throw some statistical terms at them: they're clueless as to what "study power" and "beta error" are, and seem to think a study of 3000 kids at a single clinic holds the same merit as one on 1 million kids over multiple centers.
Seems that none of them would consider riding on a home-made rocket for a plane flight, built by a guy on Youtube, but they'll happily take medical advice from Youtube vids vs. an actual doctor.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football Intel: O'Lontae Dean OV, 2025 Potential Flips, Kaleb Brown- Latest: Eliot Clough
