Vaccines Revealed

[Joes Place]

Any hack can have a blog and post his opinions and doctered graphs as facts.

This surgical oncologist reviewed the study and picks it apart. He researched the writers credentials of this study and they are pretty much a joke.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ro...ccines-and-neurological-conditions-from-yale/

This hits the nail on the head

antivaxers are desperate for validation. They crave any evidence that real scientists take them seriously or, even better, have produced evidence that supports their delusion that vaccines cause autism (or any of the other disorders, conditions, and diseases attributed to vaccines by them).

My first question, before I even started to read the paper, was: Why was this study necessary? The answer is quite simple. It wasn’t. There’s already copious evidence that vaccines are not associated with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. For instance, a large and far better study in 2007 quite emphatically did not support a causal relationship between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders other than autism, while the followup study to that in 2010 just as emphatically did not support a potential causal relationship between vaccines and autism, as many others did not. Both studies were far better designed than this one. So how do the authors justify doing yet another study to study what’s been studied ad nauseam with negative results? I’m going to use a longer quote than usual because it’s important:

...

One can’t help but note that the disorders listed that occur in the CNS after vaccines are actually quite rare, particularly Guillain-Barré. The authors of the article referenced found only 71 cases between 1979 and 2013. That’s 71 cases out of billions of doses of vaccines administered over 34 years. Remember, what this paper is claiming to look at is not serious demyelinating reactions to vaccines, which are very rare, but the reaction between vaccination and common conditions, like compulsive disorder (OCD), anorexia nervosa (AN), anxiety disorder, chronic tic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder. One notes that the authors didn’t look at autism, and they didn’t really explain why, other than to note that the vaccine-autism link has been refuted by multiple studies, to which I respond: Then autism would have made an excellent negative control, to check the validity of the model, now, wouldn’t it? One also notes that antivaxers flogging this paper are annoyed that the authors didn’t look at autism, even though the idea that vaccines cause autism is the central myth of the antivaccine movement.
​

This is a very good read by an extremely knowledgeable individual; a far cry from the bullshit blogs posted ad nauseum by the OP and others in these threads....

 

[Joes Place]

And..

So the authors found some associations, to which I say: Whoopee. RFK Jr. characterizes this paper as a “well-designed, tightly controlled study.” No it wasn’t. Not at all. RFK Jr. wouldn’t know a well-designed study if it bit him in the posterior. The only reason he thinks this study is “well designed” and “tightly controlled” is because it provides results that he likes. In fact, what the authors did is the same thing authors of a recent acupuncture study I noted did: p-hacking. They did a whole bunch of comparisons using a nominal p<0.05 and don’t correct for multiple comparisons. In other words, it’s almost certainly statistical noise, given that most of the associations are modest and that the associations are all over the place.

Check out Table 2. It is the very definition of a p-hacking table. All the bold results are “statistically significant.” Just peruse the table. You don’t even have to look that closely to see that the receipt of any vaccine within 3, 6, and 12 months is correlated, both negatively and positively, with almost every condition examined, including broken bones and open wounds. (Yes, if you accept this study’s results you have to conclude just as much that vaccines are a risk factor for broken bones! A modest one, true, but a risk factor nonetheless. Yes, that’s sarcasm.) You can look down the list at individual vaccines and see that the influenza vaccine is associated with almost as many conditions. In fact, one thing the authors mention in passing is that administration of any vaccine seems to modestly decrease the risk of major depression and bipolar disorder. Again, if you accept that vaccines increase the risk of, say, anorexia nervosa, there’s no a priori reason not to accept the result that they also decrease the risk of major depression and bipolar disorder. Either that, or you have to accept that what you’re looking at is statistical noise, which is the far more likely explanation.
​

LMAO!!! They didn't use a Bonferroni-corrected alpha for multiple comparisons!!! That means practically NONE of correlations would actually hold up in a properly designed study....

The Bonferroni correction is named after Italian mathematician Carlo Emilio Bonferroni for its use of Bonferroni inequalities,[1] but modern usage is often credited to Olive Jean Dunn, who described the procedure's application to confidence intervals.[2][3]

Statistical hypothesis testing is based on rejecting the null hypothesis if the likelihood of the observed data under the null hypotheses is low. If multiple comparisons are done or multiple hypotheses are tested, the chance of a rare event increases, and therefore, the likelihood of incorrectly rejecting a null hypothesis (i.e., making a Type I error) increases.[4]

The Bonferroni correction compensates for that increase by testing each individual hypothesis at a significance level of {\displaystyle \alpha /m}

, where {\displaystyle \alpha }

is the desired overall alpha level and {\displaystyle m}

is the number of hypotheses.[5] For example, if a trial is testing {\displaystyle m=20}

hypotheses with a desired {\displaystyle \alpha =0.05}

, then the Bonferroni correction would test each individual hypothesis at {\displaystyle \alpha =0.05/20=0.0025}

.
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction

Which genius was just on here claiming he understood alpha and beta errors? This is a MASSIVE error in a paper making multiple comparisons from a data set they are 'data mining' from...if any of you 'geniuses' are at U Iowa, take that paper on over to the Biostatistics Dept, and ASK THEM about the Bonferroni correction and multiple comparisons. They will absolutely tell you this is a major mathematical/statistical eff-up for a paper.

 

[shank hawk]

You can talk about Jenner and his ethics all you want., I don't care. I want a simple yes or no. Did the smallpox vaccine eradicate small pox?

Two things: I thought experimenting on children was one of the reasons Wakefield was such a monster but now it doesn't matter?

Also, I guess considering the number of potential smallpox victims that his vaccine killed first, it did play a minor role in eliminating the illness.

 

[shank hawk]

And..

So the authors found some associations, to which I say: Whoopee. RFK Jr. characterizes this paper as a “well-designed, tightly controlled study.” No it wasn’t. Not at all. RFK Jr. wouldn’t know a well-designed study if it bit him in the posterior. The only reason he thinks this study is “well designed” and “tightly controlled” is because it provides results that he likes. In fact, what the authors did is the same thing authors of a recent acupuncture study I noted did: p-hacking. They did a whole bunch of comparisons using a nominal p<0.05 and don’t correct for multiple comparisons. In other words, it’s almost certainly statistical noise, given that most of the associations are modest and that the associations are all over the place.

Check out Table 2. It is the very definition of a p-hacking table. All the bold results are “statistically significant.” Just peruse the table. You don’t even have to look that closely to see that the receipt of any vaccine within 3, 6, and 12 months is correlated, both negatively and positively, with almost every condition examined, including broken bones and open wounds. (Yes, if you accept this study’s results you have to conclude just as much that vaccines are a risk factor for broken bones! A modest one, true, but a risk factor nonetheless. Yes, that’s sarcasm.) You can look down the list at individual vaccines and see that the influenza vaccine is associated with almost as many conditions. In fact, one thing the authors mention in passing is that administration of any vaccine seems to modestly decrease the risk of major depression and bipolar disorder. Again, if you accept that vaccines increase the risk of, say, anorexia nervosa, there’s no a priori reason not to accept the result that they also decrease the risk of major depression and bipolar disorder. Either that, or you have to accept that what you’re looking at is statistical noise, which is the far more likely explanation.
​

LMAO!!! They didn't use a Bonferroni-corrected alpha for multiple comparisons!!! That means practically NONE of correlations would actually hold up in a properly designed study....

The Bonferroni correction is named after Italian mathematician Carlo Emilio Bonferroni for its use of Bonferroni inequalities,[1] but modern usage is often credited to Olive Jean Dunn, who described the procedure's application to confidence intervals.[2][3]

Statistical hypothesis testing is based on rejecting the null hypothesis if the likelihood of the observed data under the null hypotheses is low. If multiple comparisons are done or multiple hypotheses are tested, the chance of a rare event increases, and therefore, the likelihood of incorrectly rejecting a null hypothesis (i.e., making a Type I error) increases.[4]

The Bonferroni correction compensates for that increase by testing each individual hypothesis at a significance level of {\displaystyle \alpha /m}

, where {\displaystyle \alpha }

is the desired overall alpha level and {\displaystyle m}

is the number of hypotheses.[5] For example, if a trial is testing {\displaystyle m=20}

hypotheses with a desired {\displaystyle \alpha =0.05}

, then the Bonferroni correction would test each individual hypothesis at {\displaystyle \alpha =0.05/20=0.0025}

.
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction

Which genius was just on here claiming he understood alpha and beta errors? This is a MASSIVE error in a paper making multiple comparisons from a data set they are 'data mining' from...if any of you 'geniuses' are at U Iowa, take that paper on over to the Biostatistics Dept, and ASK THEM about the Bonferroni correction and multiple comparisons. They will absolutely tell you this is a major mathematical/statistical eff-up for a paper.

David Gorski? Another compromised vaccine Nazi that doesn't like to talk about conflicts of interest, including his employer's deep, deep ties to Sanofi-Aventis.

This is the guy that said if a study was funded by a pharmaceutical company, it decreases the strength of the evidence by a set amount.

Another Do What I Say, Not What I Do hypocrite and shill.

 

[Joes Place]

David Gorski? Another compromised vaccine Nazi that doesn't like to talk about conflicts of interest, including his employer's deep, deep ties to Sanofi-Aventis.

This is the guy that said if a study was funded by a pharmaceutical company, it decreases the strength of the evidence by a set amount.

Another Do What I Say, Not What I Do hypocrite and shill.

Huh?

Do you have any understanding of basic math and statistics? This has nothing to do with 'pharmaceutical conspiracies' or 'who wrote what'; the criticisms I've highlighted have to do with fundamental aspects of statistical analysis. And they are 100% valid and correct. This is the same place the anti-GMO and organics crowds fall down - they make ad-hominem attacks or fall for 'conspiracy theory fallacies', when the reality is the studies they latch onto have catastrophic statistical and mathematical flaws in them. Just like the oft-referencedanti-vaxxer 'autism' paper.

Saying 2 + 2 = 5 and then being corrected by someone doesn't make that person a 'shill' or mean there is a gigantic conspiracy. It's simply wrong. And it will always be wrong, no matter how many blog posts or other BS you want to throw out there.

Ignoring the adjusted alpha when running multiple comparisons on your data sets is the same as saying 2+2=5. And doubling down on it when it's pointed out to you that it is wrong makes you a dumbshit.

This is precisely why you leave the analysis and policywork to experts, because they understand these things. Laypersons do not, and they fall for the same tired bullshit again and again due to their ignorance. Being ignorant isn't bad; STAYING ignorant when someone explains the correct information to you means you're no longer simply 'ignorant', you are stupid.

 

[shank hawk]

Huh?

Do you have any understanding of basic math and statistics? This has nothing to do with 'pharmaceutical conspiracies' or 'who wrote what'; the criticisms I've highlighted have to do with fundamental aspects of statistical analysis. And they are 100% valid and correct. This is the same place the anti-GMO and organics crowds fall down - they make ad-hominem attacks or fall for 'conspiracy theory fallacies', when the reality is the studies they latch onto have catastrophic statistical and mathematical flaws in them. Just like the oft-referencedanti-vaxxer 'autism' paper.

Saying 2 + 2 = 5 and then being corrected by someone doesn't make that person a 'shill' or mean there is a gigantic conspiracy. It's simply wrong. And it will always be wrong, no matter how many blog posts or other BS you want to throw out there.

Ignoring the adjusted alpha when running multiple comparisons on your data sets is the same as saying 2+2=5. And doubling down on it when it's pointed out to you that it is wrong makes you a dumbshit.

This is precisely why you leave the analysis and policywork to experts, because they understand these things. Laypersons do not, and they fall for the same tired bullshit again and again due to their ignorance. Being ignorant isn't bad; STAYING ignorant when someone explains the correct information to you means you're no longer simply 'ignorant', you are stupid.

Awwww, is our self-proclaimed resident genius getting frustrated that know one is listening to him? So frustrated that after 12 pages he has resorted to personal insults (oh wait, that was his MO on page 1 as well. Nothing's changed I see).

The very 'expert' you cited has admitted that industry-financed 'science' taints the 'evidence'. So thank you for pointing out that David Gorski is stupid. I have long suspected it but your validation is such sweet music to my ears.

Science = prostitution. It will do and say whatever you want as long as you pay it: such a dirty, dishonest little profession. (Science that is, not prostitution. At least they admit they're whores).

 

[Joes Place]

Awwww, is our self-proclaimed resident genius getting frustrated that know one is listening to him?

"know one"
LMAO. Yep, that's about it for Club Retard here...

 

[shank hawk]

"know one"
LMAO. Yep, that's about it for Club Retard here...

Color me surprised: instead of defending your corporate whore David Gorski you have nothing to fall back on but insults.

Oh, and I had to only go back to your very last post to find this mistake:
Just like the oft-referencedanti-vaxxer 'autism' paper.

Jeepers, even a vaccine-injured monkey can be trained to use the space bar. What were you saying about Club Retard?

 

[doughudd]

Color me surprised: instead of defending your corporate whore David Gorski you have nothing to fall back on but insults.

Oh, and I had to only go back to your very last post to find this mistake:
Just like the oft-referencedanti-vaxxer 'autism' paper.

Jeepers, even a vaccine-injured monkey can be trained to use the space bar. What were you saying about Club Retard?

Lol When things don't go your way you label the opposition's source, a doctor, a corporate whore but you're perfectly fine getting your facts from a coconut oil saleman with a degree from Bible college. Derp.

 

[Joes Place]

Color me surprised: instead of defending your corporate whore David Gorski you have nothing to fall back on but insults.

What did I need to defend? You provided zero salient counter arguments. Apparently absolutely and completely befuddled by something as basic as p-hacking and Bonferroni-adjusted alpha....

 

[shank hawk]

Lol When things don't go your way you label the opposition's source, a doctor, a corporate whore but you're perfectly fine getting your facts from a coconut oil saleman with a degree from Bible college. Derp.

Nope. I didn't label a doctor a corporate whore. I labeled a corporate whore a doctor, which is granting him wayyyy more respect than he deserves.

And if you want to go after Nat knock yourself out. He is the one that had the link you are referring to about the Bible college dude.

 

[Joes Place]

And if you want to go after Nat knock yourself out. He is the one that had the link you are referring to about the Bible college dude.

You're the one who responded to it.

Takes one to "no one"...

 

[shank hawk]

What did I need to defend? You provided zero salient counter arguments. Apparently absolutely and completely befuddled by something as basic as p-hacking and Bonferroni-adjusted alpha....

And here I thought we had already covered this. The vaccine 'research' starts with the conclusion, and ends with the shuffling around of these terms you're so enamored with in order to reach those conclusions.

They are meaningless, do not impress anyone other than yourself apparently, and are simply smoke and mirrors.

I believe it was Fundenberg (sp?) that claimed people who received the flu shot at least 5 years in a row had a 10 times increased risk for Alzheimer's. If you haven't reached that number I would suggest you don't.

 

[Joes Place]

And here I thought we had already covered this. The vaccine 'research' starts with the conclusion, and ends with the shuffling around of these terms you're so enamored with in order to reach those conclusions.

Translation: I don't understand all this "math-y scienc-y" stuff, so I'll just double down on my conspiracy theories. "Know one" understands it.

 

[shank hawk]

Translation:Idon'tunderstandall this"math-yscienc-y"stuff,soI'lljustdoubledownonmyconspiracytheories."Know one" understandsit.

Fixed it for you; I understand how hard sentence structure is for vaccine damaged individuals so it's just a matter of time before all your sentences look like that.

 

[Joes Place]

Fixed it for you; I understand how hard sentence structure is for vaccine damaged individuals so it's just a matter of time before all your sentences look like that.

View embedded media

View embedded media

YESSSS! More Youtube nonsense!!!
When you cannot address something as fundamental as statistical p-hacking, POST MORE YOUTUBES!!
"Know one" can respond to THAT logic!

 

[shank hawk]

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Any hack can have a blog and post his opinions and doctered graphs as facts.

This surgical oncologist reviewed the study and picks it apart. He researched the writers credentials of this study and they are pretty much a joke.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ro...ccines-and-neurological-conditions-from-yale/

This hits the nail on the head

antivaxers are desperate for validation. They crave any evidence that real scientists take them seriously or, even better, have produced evidence that supports their delusion that vaccines cause autism (or any of the other disorders, conditions, and diseases attributed to vaccines by them).

Some red flags as I read through your article: First off they attack RFK on his looks and his speech. It's just bad taste, and NOT what this debate is about. Personal attacks seems to be a reoccurring theme. Moving on.

Under the heading, "Do we really need another study?" The first study they link, the link actually goes to a blog site, lol. After I found it, it links to Study # 2:
Study #2:

Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years New England Journal of Medicine, Thompson WW [this is the CDC Whistleblower!!], Price C, Goodson B, et al. (September, 2007)

Headline: Every child in this study was vaccinated. They didn’t even consider AUTISM as an outcome, so why is it on here? And, the CDC Whistleblower is a co-author!

Wins award for most conflicts with seven different vaccine companies mentioned. But, this study doesn’t even look at autism as an outcome, so it doesn’t apply to the vaccine-autism debate at all. Had a panel member dissent from study conclusions, a bad sign. May be interesting to some, but not anyone studying autism.

Just for fun, here’s the conflicts section:

“Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmith- Kline. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.”

Not to mention, they only looked at thimerosal and the author of your blog says "vaccines" as if all vaccines were proven safe by this study.



The second study the author states "(this study) just as emphatically did not support a potential causal relationship between vaccines and autism". The link again, leads to a blog, lol, the study is co-authored by WT (and Frank DeStefano), has similar conflict of interests, children still received other vaccines, and the only ingredient tested is thimerosal, but again of course the author implies this covers all vaccines.

Then the author states "as many others did not (vaccines relating to autism)" but the author links nothing but mmr studies! The vaccine proponents seem to truly be a one-trick pony.

I guess my takeaway is if you're going to be attack research someone else promoted, don't turn around and promote research that itself can be blasted apart and indicate these studies are "far better".

 

[BelemNole]

View embedded media

Dr Oz? Really? Your counter to problems with statistical methods is to cite the most reviled TV personality in medicine? The guy that suggests seances will help lower stress or that he never preforms a surgery without a reiki master in the room to "lay hands" on the patient? That Dr Oz? Are you taking your chili powder to lose weight and brushing your teeth with crushed strawberries too?

 

[shank hawk]

Dr Oz? Really? Your counter to problems with statistical methods is to cite the most reviled TV personality in medicine? The guy that suggests seances will help lower stress or that he never preforms a surgery without a reiki master in the room to "lay hands" on the patient? That Dr Oz? Are you taking your chili powder to lose weight and brushing your teeth with crushed strawberries too?

My problem has never been with statistical methods: when you start your research with a preordained conclusion the methods used are irrelevant and not worth debating. My problem has been with ethical and financial conflicts, with hypocrisy, mandates, etc. The entire system has been corrupted by industry money and that will not change.

Just thought it was comical to see a vac pushing darling of the media admit his wife wears the pants in the family when it comes to their children's safety.

 

[Joes Place]

My problem has never been with statistical methods: when you start your research with a preordained conclusion the methods used are irrelevant and not worth debating. My problem has been with ethical and financial conflicts, with hypocrisy, mandates, etc. The entire system has been corrupted by industry money and that will not change.

This illustrates your core incompetence and ignorance in how 'studies' and 'statistical analysis' work.
When you define the methods upfront (study power, correlational analysis corrections, endpoints, etc), it doesn't matter 'what your preordained conclusions' were. You get the results you get. It's when you have a weak or poorly designed study (e.g. p-hacking), comparing dozens of variables in your dataset that you end up with the cherry-picking of results and inaccurate/misleading results.

You don't understand it; you have no interest in learning it. All you want to do is chatter like a string-doll that only knows how to say "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!"

One.trick.pony

 

[Nat Algren]

CONSPIRACY!!!
You're really a one-trick-pony. Anything and everything is "CONSPIRACY!!!"

Oh sure. You're an accidentalist theory believer. This is just #4,329. Nothing is EVER a conspiracy with your mind. Even though they go back further than the Brutus and Caeser. Politicians are not altruists, Chief. They claw their way to power to rule over others and meet in secret to plot and scheme. You have no concept of follow the money. So puerile.

 

[Nat Algren]

This illustrates your core incompetence and ignorance in how 'studies' and 'statistical analysis' work.
When you define the methods upfront (study power, correlational analysis corrections, endpoints, etc), it doesn't matter 'what your preordained conclusions' were. You get the results you get. It's when you have a weak or poorly designed study (e.g. p-hacking), comparing dozens of variables in your dataset that you end up with the cherry-picking of results and inaccurate/misleading results.

You don't understand it; you have no interest in learning it. All you want to do is chatter like a string-doll that only knows how to say "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!"

One.trick.pony

It's easy to see where you get your marching orders...Shill. Just call them "conspiracy theorists" to discredit them.

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

 

[shank hawk]

Love this quote from Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."

http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-science-is-not-settled-a-critical-review-of-the-literature/
(From the article)
Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by Merck, which makes the current formulation (MMR-II) of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and stands to profit from results that disprove any dangers.

Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by the National Immunization Program (NIP) at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had a vested financial interest in increased uptake of the MMR vaccine, as it directly bought the vaccine from Merck and distributed it for reimbursement to the states’ public health departments. Also, one of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Diana Schendel, was a CDC employee at the time of publication. In addition, three of the co-authors (Dr. Mads Melbye, Mr. Jan Wohlfahrt, and Mr. Anders Hviid) were employees of Staten Serum Institut, a for-profit company that manufactures and distributes vaccines in Denmark.

Conflicts of interest: DG Cook, one of the paper’s authors, worked as a professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at St. George’s Hospital Medical School. Public health practitioners are generally trained to accept vaccination policies without question and would not serve as objective researchers.

Conflicts of interest: Two of the study’s authors, Nick Andrews and Elizabeth Miller, are a part of the UK’s immunization division in the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Center. This particular division is in charge of immunization uptake in the UK as well as vaccine safety.

Conflicts of interest: After this paper was published, lead author Dr. Fombonne violated scientific ethics at his post at Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University when he improperly used samples derived from autistic children for another study unauthorized by their parents. Dr. Fombonne has also testified as an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers and against families with reportedly vaccine-injured children, both in civil courts and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for the US.

Conflicts of interest: The lead author of this publication, Dr. Loring Dales, was the head of the immunization branch of the California Department of Health Services at the time of publication of this paper. Dr. Dales then had a responsibility to maintain vaccine uptake (including the MMR vaccine) in the state of California.

Conflicts of interest: The authors of this paper were residents at the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program at Boston University School of Medicine. This program is supported in part by grants from AstraZeneca, Berlex Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Boots Healthcare International, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, RW Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, McNeil Consumer Products, and Novartis Farmaceutica. Funding for their residency program is directly tied to those profiting from the vaccine companies their claims protect.

Conflicts of interest: One of the authors, Dr. Elizabeth Miller, was a chief official at the Immunization Division of the UK’s Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and possessed an institutional conflict of interest, given the PHLS’s stake in maintaining high vaccination rates in the UK.

Conflicts of interest: Two of the study authors (Dr. Elizabeth Miller and Ms. Pauline Waight) are from the UK’s Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which reflects institutional conflict of interest as this particular agency is responsible for increasing vaccine uptake within the UK population.

Conflicts of interest: Major MMR and MMR-II manufacturer Merck funded this study, and held a worldwide monopoly on these vaccines during the time of the research.

Conflicts of Interest: The lead author of this study, Dr. Eric Fombonne, has significant conflicts of interest, as he has many times represented vaccine manufacturers as an expert witness in thimerosal litigation, opposing the families of vaccine injured children.

Conflicts of interest: Two of these individuals were employees of the National Immunization Program of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is charged to increase immunization rates in the US in order to prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases. Thus there was a propensity against finding a causal relationship between vaccines and vaccine adverse events, which is demonstrated clearly in the text of the paper by the authors’ faulty explanation when statistically significant relationships are observed. Dr. William Thompson, co-author of the paper and lead statistician with the CDC, has recently (August 2014) come forth with evidence of fraud committed specifically regarding this paper, and has launched a complaint against his co-authors regarding both the outcomes and the interpretations of the results of this study.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Welp, here we go again folks Another free vaccine docu-series starting April 12th.

This one claims to be "fair and balanced" and look at the "facts and the science" surrounding vaccines. They plan to go into the history of polio and smallpox and show the role the vaccine played in their eradication.

https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/mam/?a_aid=56101a033bdd4&a_bid=e2a736f0

 

[naturalbornhawk]

This illustrates your core incompetence and ignorance in how 'studies' and 'statistical analysis' work.
When you define the methods upfront (study power, correlational analysis corrections, endpoints, etc), it doesn't matter 'what your preordained conclusions' were. You get the results you get. It's when you have a weak or poorly designed study (e.g. p-hacking), comparing dozens of variables in your dataset that you end up with the cherry-picking of results and inaccurate/misleading results.

You don't understand it; you have no interest in learning it. All you want to do is chatter like a string-doll that only knows how to say "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!"

One.trick.pony

Joe, what are thoughts about the Garsasil vaccine and would you give it to a 9 year old boy? How about an infant?

 

[Joes Place]

Love this quote from Mark Twain: "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."

http://www.anh-usa.org/vaccine-science-is-not-settled-a-critical-review-of-the-literature/
(From the article)
Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by Merck, which makes the current formulation (MMR-II) of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and stands to profit from results that disprove any dangers.

Conflicts of interest: This study was funded by the National Immunization Program (NIP) at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which had a vested financial interest in increased uptake of the MMR vaccine, as it directly bought the vaccine from Merck and distributed it for reimbursement to the states’ public health departments. Also, one of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Diana Schendel, was a CDC employee at the time of publication. In addition, three of the co-authors (Dr. Mads Melbye, Mr. Jan Wohlfahrt, and Mr. Anders Hviid) were employees of Staten Serum Institut, a for-profit company that manufactures and distributes vaccines in Denmark.

Conflicts of interest: DG Cook, one of the paper’s authors, worked as a professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at St. George’s Hospital Medical School. Public health practitioners are generally trained to accept vaccination policies without question and would not serve as objective researchers.

Conflicts of interest: Two of the study’s authors, Nick Andrews and Elizabeth Miller, are a part of the UK’s immunization division in the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Center. This particular division is in charge of immunization uptake in the UK as well as vaccine safety.

Conflicts of interest: After this paper was published, lead author Dr. Fombonne violated scientific ethics at his post at Montreal Children’s Hospital and McGill University when he improperly used samples derived from autistic children for another study unauthorized by their parents. Dr. Fombonne has also testified as an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers and against families with reportedly vaccine-injured children, both in civil courts and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for the US.

Conflicts of interest: The lead author of this publication, Dr. Loring Dales, was the head of the immunization branch of the California Department of Health Services at the time of publication of this paper. Dr. Dales then had a responsibility to maintain vaccine uptake (including the MMR vaccine) in the state of California.

Conflicts of interest: The authors of this paper were residents at the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program at Boston University School of Medicine. This program is supported in part by grants from AstraZeneca, Berlex Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Boots Healthcare International, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, RW Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, McNeil Consumer Products, and Novartis Farmaceutica. Funding for their residency program is directly tied to those profiting from the vaccine companies their claims protect.

Conflicts of interest: One of the authors, Dr. Elizabeth Miller, was a chief official at the Immunization Division of the UK’s Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and possessed an institutional conflict of interest, given the PHLS’s stake in maintaining high vaccination rates in the UK.

Conflicts of interest: Two of the study authors (Dr. Elizabeth Miller and Ms. Pauline Waight) are from the UK’s Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which reflects institutional conflict of interest as this particular agency is responsible for increasing vaccine uptake within the UK population.

Conflicts of interest: Major MMR and MMR-II manufacturer Merck funded this study, and held a worldwide monopoly on these vaccines during the time of the research.

Conflicts of Interest: The lead author of this study, Dr. Eric Fombonne, has significant conflicts of interest, as he has many times represented vaccine manufacturers as an expert witness in thimerosal litigation, opposing the families of vaccine injured children.

Conflicts of interest: Two of these individuals were employees of the National Immunization Program of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is charged to increase immunization rates in the US in order to prevent outbreaks of infectious diseases. Thus there was a propensity against finding a causal relationship between vaccines and vaccine adverse events, which is demonstrated clearly in the text of the paper by the authors’ faulty explanation when statistically significant relationships are observed. Dr. William Thompson, co-author of the paper and lead statistician with the CDC, has recently (August 2014) come forth with evidence of fraud committed specifically regarding this paper, and has launched a complaint against his co-authors regarding both the outcomes and the interpretations of the results of this study.

Funny...but that certainly doesn't look like a 'critical review of the literature'....

Having problems understanding how statistical analysis and math work?

 

[Joes Place]

Joe, what are thoughts about the Garsasil vaccine and would you give it to a 9 year old boy? How about an infant?

My thoughts are that it ('Garsasil') doesn't exist and thus I wouldn't give it to anyone...

 

[Joes Place]

It's easy to see where you get your marching orders...Shill. Just call them "conspiracy theorists" to discredit them.

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!!!!
One.trick.pony

 

[Joes Place]

Welp, here we go again folks Another free vaccine docu-series starting April 12th.

This one claims to be "fair and balanced" and look at the "facts and the science" surrounding vaccines. They plan to go into the history of polio and smallpox and show the role the vaccine played in their eradication.

https://go.thetruthaboutvaccines.com/mam/?a_aid=56101a033bdd4&a_bid=e2a736f0

 

[naturalbornhawk]

My thoughts are that it ('Garsasil') doesn't exist and thus I wouldn't give it to anyone...

Oh come on, truly, what do you think about it? And I'd like to hear your take on a 9 yr old boy, and an infant.

 

[Joes Place]

Oh come on, truly, what do you think about it? And I'd like to hear your take on a 9 yr old boy, and an infant.

I think you don't even know your proper medicine names, and thus are probably clueless on most aspects of science and medicine.

CONSPIRACY!!!!

 

[Nat Algren]

C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y!!!!
One.trick.pony

Yup. When you have nothing and people expose the truth...scream conspiracy. Attempt to discredit. You're such a shill. This is what...the 4th time you screamed this in this thread. You have no leg to stand on, Pegleg.

 

[Nat Algren]

Funny...but that certainly doesn't look like a 'critical review of the literature'....

Having problems understanding how statistical analysis and math work?

Then read and post their package inserts for us. Why are you scared?

 

[Joes Place]

Yup. When you have nothing just scream conspiracy.

FIFY

We have data. Loads of it. By thousands of independent researchers. All "allegedly compromised" by Big Pharma payouts....
CONSPIRACY!!!!

 

[Joes Place]

Then read and post their package inserts for us. Why are you scared?

I like to go to actual 'experts' for my healthcare info, not blogs and Youtubes.

Here's what they say:
http://www.acog.org/-/media/Departments/Government-Relations-and-Outreach/20110916HPVFactLtr.pdf

An effective HPV vaccination program can greatly reduce the rates of cervical cancer in this country.
Because the vaccines do not cover every HPV strain that may cause cancer, patients should still receive surveillance cervical cytology (PAP smears) as an important part of screening and prevention.

Recommended Ages

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that girls age 11 and 12 receive the HPV vaccination, with a catch-up vaccination recommended for girls and women age 13-26. Girls as young as 9 years old can be vaccinated.4 We support this recommendation.5

Safety

HPV vaccination is safe. Although any vaccine can pose a risk, the FDA and the CDC studied the safety of Gardasil in 2009 and concluded that it is a safe and effective vaccine.6 In an August 2011 consensus report, the Institute of Medicine concluded that “few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines.” In an analysis of more than 1,000 research publications, this expert panel found no links between immunization and some serious conditions that have raised concerns, including Type 1 diabetes and autism.

Short-term mild to moderate side-effects of both HPV vaccines include pain at the injection site, mild (100° F) to moderate fever (102° F), headache, and dizziness. These side effects have been found to spontaneously resolve.7

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), representing 56,000 obgyns and partners in women’s health, supports robust, factual debates on issues of importance to the American people. We urge you to call on us for expert understanding of issues related to women's health. For more information, please contact me or Lucia DiVenere, ACOG’s Senior Director of Government Affairs, at ldivenere@acog.org.
​

So....email your bullshit to them and get some advice from actual doctors. (I doubt you'll do it, but here's your opportunity)

4000 HPV related cancer deaths per year (and >12,000 diagnosed with cancer) is a LOT!!! How many 'complications' are there, per year, from the vaccines? Ask them if they vaccinate their own kids.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I think you don't even know your proper medicine names, and thus are probably clueless on most aspects of science and medicine.

CONSPIRACY!!!!

Well since you don't want to touch the issue I think at this point it's fair to say you don't think it's a good idea. And you're right. To even talk about giving this vaccine to infants when it's so heavily laden with problems is downright scary. This product should be pulled from the shelves effective immediately and seriously re-examined for it's safety, yet they're talking about approving it for infants. If this is not your position, come back to me.

 

[Joes Place]

Well since you don't want to touch the issue I

What a clueless statement.

You linked a study; we identified CLEAR problems (p-hacking and un-adjusted alphas) which showed it to be fatally flawed. That's math. That's actual scientific analysis.

Instead of identifying foundational flaws in the legitimate vaccine studies, all you have is: CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!!!

Go write some letters to the medical societies which recommend vaccines; send them your links and see what you get in response. Your ONLY reply to anything stated is CONSPIRACY, and you are incapable of seeing how retarded that is...

 

[shank hawk]

Funny...but that certainly doesn't look like a 'critical review of the literature'....

Having problems understanding how statistical analysis and math work?

Nope. Having problems understanding how prostitution(science) works? It's easy.

Johns(Big Pharma) pay the whores(researchers) to do certain sex acts(research) for money. As long as both parties consent no harm, no foul correct?

 

[shank hawk]

Oh hey, look!!! It seems that half of us are going to die from the HPV virus. Better line up and get your shots.

At least you should if you care about A-Merck*-a.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/health/hpv-virus-survey-united-states.html?_r=0


*No conflicts reported on this study.