Vaccination & epidemic

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.

I made a distinction. Nothing challenged his decision. Asked was whether the decision was based in facts or numbers. Or based in subjective speculation. He has said (by omission and profanity) that the decision was based in subjective speculation.

Also provided were facts that show that others made the same mistake. Why (for example the 1981 England study). And that researchers do these numbers frequently. His was a very common mistake. To think a decision was based in numbers when, in reality, it was only based in subjective speculation.

A common joke that discusses this thought process is , "It must be true. It's on the internet."

Another and similar example. Is your computer plugged into a power strip protector? Why spend so much money for something that does not protect from typically destructive surges, and has a history of sometimes causing house fires? In this other example, did you read the numbers? Or use hearsay and subjective speculation to assume 'protector' and 'protection' sound same; so it must do protection? Similar question was asked about vaccines and now about safety.

Again his

answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.

and

Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning.

That does not challenge anyone. It demonstrates how easily people make decision without facts. A benchmark for identifying subjective and uninformed decisions is forming a conclusion without perspective (ie the numbers).

[DanaC]

When dealing in abstracts and the hypothetical that tenor of conversation is fine. But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.

And don't even think of bringing up the children thinking emotionally and adults thinking logically stuff, because that just doesn't fly in the world of actual human beings.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.

You are reading into that post something that I never put into it. Read only what is posted. If you see emotion in my post, then ask yourself why you added your own biases to what you read. For that matter, cite specifically the personal attack.

Now please answer the question about surge protector. It is the point. Do you plug your computer into a surge protector? Or do you also find that to be combative?

[DanaC]

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion. Because this is about questioning and casting judgement on someone's parenting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion.

You may think so. But read what I posted. I never even implied that. And am rather confused how one would reach that conclusion without adding, well, its explained below.

If I was criticizing lumberjim's and jinx's parenting skills, then you would have read multiple reasons why I reached that conclusion. At this point you should know I routinely provide multiple reasons for a conclusion. This post will be a classic example.

A first post discussed conclusions about vaccines and surge protectors. What do both have in common with parenting skills? Nothing. That was a clue that you were reading what was not posted.

Many (probably most) only read what they expect to read. A conclusion based in motivated reasoning. How do surge protectors define bad parenting skills?

The point was bluntly about how people make conclusions. As discussed previously. This topic goes right back to how children think verses how adults think when using a pre-frontal cortex. No way around that reality. Children and adults who are thinking like children entertain a "motivated reasoning" process. Adults eventually discover that something must be read at least three times to understand it - especially when a concept is new. Otherwise motivated reasoning takes hold.

If you understood it with a first reading, then it said only what you already knew it would say. And probably overlooked the most important part (numbers).

At this point the emotional, using motivational reasoning, will see these words but not read what is posted. Since I have already touched on a reality that angers, then many will not reread to understand the actual topic in that first post.

We know numbers prove benefits of infant vaccines far outweigh the risks. Facts and updated numbers from research repeatedly say so (including recent numbers that expose a decreasing effectiveness in one vaccine). Why do so many know otherwise? "Motivated reasoning" partially explains it.

Dr Kahan of Yale discusses, for example, how conservatives tend to value individualism, hierarchical organization, and a belief in ensuring their own prosperity. Therefore a "sacrifice of one for the many" (what should be a familiar quote) is contrary to many conservative beliefs. As a result, a CFL light bulb that is environmentally friendly creates a very negative response from this group. Their motivated reasoning explains why CFL bulbs sell least to most conservative thinkers. Even though its advantages over an incandescent bulb and numerous and significant.

Michael Shermer in an October issue of Scientific American further demonstrates the problem by using himself as an example. Citing his bias for unrestricted gun access. Opinions that were challenged by extensive research into guns, homicides, and accidental shootings eventually changed his motivated beliefs. He said

I find that, too often, my beliefs trump scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brains reason our way to supporting what we know to be true.

Shermer then discusses a trend he noted at the 2013 FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

but this year I was so discouraged by the rampant denial of science that I wanted to turn in my libertarian membership card. ... all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be.

A commentary in Machine Design, notes (unfortunately) that scientific facts today must be 'tailored' to reader biases.

Strangely enough, that approach sounds a bit like something else that's exacerbated antiscience attitudes - namely, increasingly subjective media outlets designed to engage target audiences. That's where most people get the bulk of their science-related information right now.

Well, I did not do that, did I? I simply posted facts bluntly as facts without any concern for what was completely irrelevant here - the reader’s emotional biases. I expect you to know the minute you have assumed insult or cheapshot, then you know you have not grasped the point. And probably overlooked a perspective (the numbers). Again, most readers never see written numbers (the perspective) until after multiple rereads.

So, have you followed rather complex concepts posted here? If you did not read this at least three times, then you did not. A second benchmark point to add to one about rejecting claims that are only subjective; not quantitative. If your conclusions are not tempered by perspective (the numbers), then what was read may be a victim of motivated reasoning.

That first post says nothing critical about anyone. It is completely about how people see vaccines as dangerous when no quantitative research (even 30 years ago - 1982) said that. And about people who do same with surge protectors (ie assume it is high tech; therefore must do protection).

To suspect infant vaccines are more dangerous than beneficial is a perfect example of motivated reasoning. Defining one as easily manipulated (brainwashed) as the stripper and actress Jenny McCarthy. No quantitative conclusion even ten years ago could justify subjectively inspired fears. And yet that is what so many of us use for knowledge. Saddam's WMDs were another perfect example. The inability of TEPCO top management to make a decision to save three nuclear reactors from meltdown is another perfect example. Another is management that all but murdered seven Challenger astronauts. How many instead assumed these were accidents? At best, one could only conclude these were classic examples of brain freeze.

A conclusion based in emotions is not what the pre-frontal cortex does. But is a characteristic of how children think. When incapable of grasping something that contradicts beliefs, many have a brain freeze; simply resort to the brain mostly used by children. Many simply and foolishly decide based upon what makes them comfortable. People can die because of it.

Moving on. Did you ignore a statement about computer adjacent protectors even creating house fires? Why did that not get most of your attention? Were you reading for facts? Or reading only to be emotional or stay in your comfort zone? I intentionally included that ‘bait’ to see who would grasp for facts. How many instead remained in a 'feel good' mode; used motivated reasoning to even ignore how fires get created?

I never criticized anyone's parenting skills. I noted how people entertain their emotions rather than grasp facts and numbers. This fear of vaccines has long been a perfect example.

I simply demonstrated how lumberjim, et al were easily manipulated by Jenny McCarthy, et al type myths. Does not matter when they did the research. It was still a conclusion from reasoning also demonstrated by Jenny McCarthy. Never a criticism of lumberjim or jinx. And yet lumberjim did exactly what so many do when motivated reasoning is exposed. A majority get angry rather than learn from their mistakes. A majority get angry rather than do what Michael Shermer does (professionally).

[lumberjim]

I didn't ignore your request for numbers twice, tw. You ignored the numbers. I said jinx did tons of research. That means she did more than 2000 researches. Number.

Also, I linked a page that listed the number of deaths by measles and by vaccine injury. More numbers.

I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids. If more than zero kids died or suffered lasting health issues from vaccine injury, and none died from the disease. .... Seemed like an obvious equation. These are the only numbers that actually have relevance. The risk was greater than the reward. We never said that we would never ever take a vaccine. We decided to wait until they knew more about the risk. Or until there was a real and present danger from a disease that could be averted by a vaccine.

My use of profanity indicates only that you are a fucking Martian. You are just using this topic as a spring board to rant about your favorite subject. Namely, that you are somehow superior because you are hyper logical and devoid of human feeling. Good luck with that.


I don't use a surge protector. I have some high tech thing Zippy sent me that actually works.

People make decisions emotionally all the time. I see them do it every day. This was not an emotional decision. We took our time, looked at all the information available at the time and decided to wait. I didn't keep the notes. Dana is right. You're way over the line here.

You can slander whoever you want about falsifying studies. Seems more likely to me that a business that has lots of money riding on the approval of their drug would lie about the numbers.

I suppose it's not possible that some of the vaccines people give their kids are not strictly needed. Not possible that there is some kernel of truth to the accusations that the mmr shot can cause encephalitis. I don't really give a fuck. I'm 100% sure that my kids are healthy and whole.

I put a lot more thought into this decision than 85% of upper management did.

Most people just do what the doctor tells them to. If shit goes wrong, they sue the doctor. They abdicate their responsibilities to their kids because they are either too busy providing for them, or because they are fully indoctrinated into the system, and that's just how people do this stuff.

I guess that's why people want to give us shit for *thinking for ourselves. Because they didn't. So they are actually defending their lack of effort by disparaging our decision. Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here. And Clod of course. Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children? Or did you simply do as directed? Right or wrong. Did it even occur to you to question it? Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )

* to be honest. ..I have to give the credit to jinx. I was too busy working to give it more than a cursory look, and it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me to. Jinx had the time. She also is not afraid to question authority.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here.

Thanks for the compliment.

To be completely honest about how I don't know what the fuck I'm doing here, I signed up for a flu shot tomorrow. They're doing them at work for free again, like they do every year.

I think there's a risk associated with getting a flu shot. I didn't used to think that way years ago. I just trusted that they were completely safe. So now I'm taking it as given that there is a small risk of serious problems associated with the flu shot, but I also don't want to get the flu. I was riding on a Metro train last week, and there were a bunch of people in my car coughing. I realized we were coming up on the winter and the illnesses that get spread around then. And I just really wasn't so thrilled about that thought. So when I saw a reminder email about these free flu shots being given just down the hall, I decided to sign up for one.

I get sealed up in a train car with about 100 strangers twice a day. I think my immune system gets a good workout from that, but I also think it exposes me to more than most people. So this year, I'm shrugging my shoulders, and rolling up my sleeve.

I don't pretend to have any answers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.

Well duh, that would make life so much easier, but getting the right facts and right numbers isn't that easy. Pre-internet is was fucking near impossible unless you had connections in that field. The internet has been a help but still a minefield of misinformation and outright bullshit. Even with the ability to access the right information it might take days, weeks, even months to get it. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Yeah, yeah the children's health is worth investing the time, nobody will argue that, but that's what people like Jinx did. Whether you agree with her conclusion or not, you can not justifiably claim she didn't try to do the best for her kids.

Hindsight is usually 20-20, but even then it's not always possible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.

And when we do not have perspective (numbers are just one example), then we take extreme care. And make a guess only after accessing the risk. BTW, why is the Silicon Valley so innovative? They make mistakes. Then do not get angry. Instead they learn why they made a mistake. That was the point lost when some, instead, well, it will be explained.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids.

I am a former big-L Libertarian. Why former? L'ism is sort of dependent on the notion that the "social contract" is bullshit. But to my surprise, over time, I found it was actually kind of valid. We are all dependent on each other. Our identities, survival, and success are completely bound to the culture and society we are in, WAY far more than we acknowledge.

You are not responsible for the whole herd. And yet the whole herd depends on you. You have always given back to the whole herd, in many ways. Raising a strong family with good values. Going to work and being productive. Paying taxes. Giving a shit about others. You have given more than you have received. You've done more than I have, and I thank you for it.

This is all kind of separate from the question of whether to vaccinate. It may be that your contribution to the herd, in this case, is challenging the status quo.

Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children?

I have about 30 hours in just for this thread. Of course I don't have kids. But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.

Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )

I believe the feels part is on you. You don't have to feels if you don't want to. I believe you want to. It's OK, we all do. We are defining ourselves by how others react to us. We all want to be loved and respected by others. It's part of the social contract.

On that basis, I am willing to stop discussing it and even offered to delete the thread and move on. But it's an important thing to discuss in this world, and I wish we could continue to do it here.

The minor pain of honestly discussing hard questions helps our society reach herd immunity against ignorance.

Also, going against conventional wisdom means people will challenge you. Maybe even be mean and sarcastic. (Not sarcasm!) I've been there, big time. Better fetch that helmet brother.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.

I am not sure what gave you that impression. I did ask if there were financial pressures on doctors to maintain vaccination quotas. She denied knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point. It does not mean it's not happening, though.

Doctors offices are businesses. Big practices are organized like big businesses. They get paid by the job, just like a mechanic. If a young doctor in a big practice is not overseen and reviewed by seniors, I'd be very surprised. If that young doctor had a noticeably higher percentage of unvaccinated patients, there would be questions asked. That doctor I mentioned seemed quite upset that we were delaying the mmr vaccine. Not frantic, but frustrated to be sure. Maybe offended that we were questioning her recommendation. ... anyway, if she HAD seen 'so many kids die of measles' it would have HAD to have been in another country. But she didn't say that. So she was deceptive at best. She was trying to scare us into doing as she wanted.

I don't recall discounting orthos experience or acumen. Although, as far as I know, she is neither an immunologist, nor a pediatrician. What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?

I recall saying that I knew I was not going to change her mind. But, instead of affording me the same respect, she chose to lecture me on the benefits of vaccines, and she chose to state that I smeared all hard working physicians by questioning their motivation. She chose to talk down to me as though I were ignorant about this topic. I'm not. I may not have the same priorities as she does, but I'm not uninformed. I know that the sun causes the rooster to crow.

A Phd does not confer intelligence. It does not even mean you have a better source of information anymore. She mentioned journals. Who publishes those? It's not conspiracy. It's business. Pharma companies see doctors as front line salespeople. If any one has a biased source of information, Its doctors. Couple that with the inherent superiority complex they usually develop, and I'm sorry, but I'll think for myself. I accept the information she offers. I'll weigh it against the risk myself.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I did ask if there were financial pressures on doctors to maintain vaccination quotas. She denied knowledge of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her on that point. It does not mean it's not happening, though.

What kind of Doctor is an ortho? Orthopedic? Is she qualified to offer advice or cast judgements?


She mentioned journals. Who publishes those?

I'm late to the conversation; I was driving all day. I'm sorry LJ has left.

For anyone else who wonders if doctors are under pressure to 'maintain vaccination quotas', the answer is no. Vaccines do not make money. They are break-even at best, sometimes a money-loser. Most pharm companies have gotten out of manufacturing vaccines because of the Jenny McCarthy craziness and the huge lawsuit settlements given by jurors who believed Jenny McCarthy rather than the facts. The few remaining vaccine manufacturers sometimes can't keep production up, and we experience shortages at times. This has the potential to bite us big-time, in the next pandemic.

Procedures are what make a profit, because that's what insurance companies have decided to pay most for. Vaccines make nothing.

What kind of doctor am I? I've been a family physician since 1986 and have seen MANY children because, in Ontario, pediatricians are strictly referral specialists. No one is allowed to take their children to a pediatrician for primary care. Family docs see all the kids for preventive and primary care. I'm currently finishing a residency in Preventive Medicine and Occupational/Environmental Medicine. I will finish my Master of Public Health next spring. I'll write board exams next fall that will require that I have a specialist's level of knowledge about vaccines and immunizations. My pre-medical degree was a double major in biochemistry and chemistry. But it doesn't matter how qualified I am. That's not going to change anyone's mind who thinks vaccines harm us and that all doctors are in league with Big Pharm to get rich by forcing immunizations on the public.

Who publishes scientific and medical journals? They are edited by peer-review committees of respected scientists who examine submitted papers for study design, quality, and contribution to existing knowledge. Anyone who publishes a paper or serves on an editorial board must disclose all potential conflicts of interest. Big Pharm does not publish the journals.

I think a question was asked about whether there is any evidence that measles, mumps, and rubella actually cause harm greater than the vaccines against them do. Rubella is a mild illness in the sufferer, but a scourge when unborn children encounter it. An unvaccinated person could have rubella and not even realize it, communicate it to an unvaccinated pregnant woman, and the result would be catastrophic damage to the baby. Mumps causes deafness and orchitis resulting in infertility. Measles is what causes encephalitis, not the vaccine. It also kills via pneumonia. There is no treatment for these diseases. They're virus-caused and we don't have good antivirals against them.

Public and preventive health are concerned with the social contract. They focus on the health of populations, and vaccination is a population issue. When the herd is immune, it's protected; when a significant proportion is not immune, disease outbreaks occur. We didn't see measles, mumps, and rubella for a few decades in the late 20th century because immunization rates were extremely high. Now we're seeing outbreaks as a result of immunization refusal. Not lecturing; it's just information.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Measles is what causes encephalitis, not the vaccine.

Encephalitis is a known potential side effect of the MMR vaccine. Of course the corollary assumption is that it's rare, but check your package insert. It's written right there.