Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
What I mean is that a control is more useful if some small incidence of a side effect seen in the experimental group is also seen in the control so you can compare.

---

I think you misunderstand what a "control" is for.

A control group is there to isolate the variable you are manipulating (called the independent variable).

Let's say your independent variable is heroin. You want to see what it does to a person. So you get a group of people together that is as similar as you can get them. You feed them all the same thing, have them live at the same place, etc. Then you randomly assign the subjects into two groups. One group gets the heroin, and the other group gets a saline placebo. It is extremely important for the control injection to be INERT or unable to act on a subject. That way, whatever differences exist between the heroin group and the saline group must be due to the heroin and nothing else. The more the two groups are the same (down to even getting an injection), the more confidence you have in saying your independent variable caused your observations.

If you observe both groups throwing up, you can surmise that vomiting is not caused by heroin, because the second group vomited and they didn't get heroin, you see? They must be vomiting because of the cafeteria food or some other factor both groups share in common.

If you give the second group cocaine, you have lost your ability to sort out the effects of either heroin or cocaine. Now, if both groups vomit, you don't know why. Are they vomiting from the heroin, the cocaine, or the cafeteria food? Or all three? You don't know, because they have all been exposed to too many variables.

So a control has to be as inert as possible. You don't want it to CAUSE anything at all. Now you can have all three groups, a heroin group, a cocaine group, and a saline group. The saline group can serve as a control for both the heroin and the cocaine groups. But the heroin and cocaine groups can't serve as controls for each other.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
I'm well aware of what a control is...I never suggested you'd use a drug in a control....

---

Quote:

---

but you might give something that isn't just pure saline

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
I'm well aware of what a control is...I never suggested you'd use a drug in a control....

---

Good. Then you agree that controlling a vaccine with another vaccine is bad methodology. (Controlling a drug with another drug?) Would you also agree that without true null controls, vaccine effectiveness studies are inconclusive? (Some might say downright junky.)

Quote:

---

but you might give something that isn't just pure saline

---

And why is that? Isn't salt something one encounters in normal life? (Compare with sugar pills.)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The problem with elections is that no matter who wins, you're only flushing half of the toilet.
-- Source unknown

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
I never suggested you'd use a drug in a control but you might give something that isn't just pure saline....

I think salt would be totally acceptable as a control. Specifically because it is used as a control. What do you think "saline" means? It's water with salt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Sometimes you have to control a vaccine with a vaccine, or a drug with a drug. Otherwise you'd be liable for not providing a minimum standard of care. ... The placebo has to mimic whatever is being tested so that the recipient (and sometimes the tester as well) can't tell the difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
I never suggested you'd use a drug in a control but you might give something that isn't just pure saline....

I think salt would be totally acceptable as a control. Specifically because it is used as a control. What do you think "saline" means? It's water with salt.

---

OK, freerad, you're starting to sound a bit creepifying...

Are saline injections reasonable for use in control groups, or not?

If saline is acceptable as a control, then controlling a vaccine with another vaccine, instead of saline, is bad science. Wouldn't you agree?

You can have different groups controlling for whatever variable you want, but you need at least ONE null control group (like a saline group) to make the results meaningful. Wouldn't you agree?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'
--Isaac Asimov

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
Yes, I agreed with that awhile ago. Remember when I said the study you cited was sloppy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
This is the case with ALL the studies I have found to date on effectiveness of childhood vaccines. They are ALL sloppy and inconclusive because they refuse to use inert controls.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00049244.htm
Among 19 case-patients aged 7-47 months who were eligible to have received three or more doses of pertussis vaccine, five (26%) had received less than 3 doses.
Available pertussis-containing vaccines are not approved for use on or after the seventh birthday ...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056144.htm
33 confirmed * measles cases were reported to the Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services and the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services
Beginning in September 1996, all students entering kindergarten or first grade were required to have two doses of MCV. As a result, school records indicate that virtually all students in kindergarten through third grade as of fall 1998 had received two doses of MMR. However, the proportion of students in grades 4-12 that had two doses was unknown.
1 index case (imported from Japan)
1 16 year old high school student developed measles
15 other students and one teacher at the same high school
8 other confirmed cases occurred among young adults not associated with schools
1 case occurred in a 2-year-old child

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=9764341&dopt=Abstract
"within highly vaccinated populations" doesn't indicate whether it was a single dose (not recommended) or two or more doses (recommended).


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=7621401&dopt=Books
a second dose of measles vaccine is now recommended
measles cases surged among unimmunized preschool children, especially among the poor in inner-city areas

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1405017
Measles vaccine effectiveness was calculated to be 94% (95% CI = 86, 98) for vaccination at greater than or equal to 15 months

1985 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/1/173
A comparison of the first 45 cases and 90 matched controls suggested that cases were less likely than controls to have provider-verifiable school vaccination records (odds ratio (OR) = 8.1)

1985 http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1646939
The outbreak subsided spontaneously after four generations of illness in the school and demonstrates that when measles is introduced in a highly vaccinated population, vaccine failures may play some role in transmission but that such transmission is not usually sustained.

1983
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
21 cases of measles occurred in Sangamon County, Illinois. Nine of the cases were confirmed serologically.
four occurred in unvaccinated preschool children
(no indication of how many vaccines were given in the 'highly vaccinated' population)
The outbreak subsided spontaneously
2%-10% of expected vaccine failures

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1335111
(1135 students 14 to 21 years of age). Of the 87 cases, 76 (87%) could have been prevented had all the students received two doses of measles vaccine before the outbreak, with the first at 12 months of age or later.

1986 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/2/75
Since the licensing of measles vaccine in 1963, the incidence of reported measles in the United States has declined to less than 2 percent of previous levels.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/7/774
A second dose of mumps vaccine, as recommended using measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, could potentially prevent similar outbreaks in secondary school populations in the future.

1989 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&l
ist_uids=1861205&dopt=Abstract
Students who had documentation of receiving only one dose of vaccine were at greater risk than those who had received two doses (RR = 5.2; 95% CI = 1.0, 206.2)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/3/455
18 of 152 (12%) vaccinated students developed chickenpox, compared with 3 of 7 (43%) unvaccinated students

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/104/3/561
Vaccination led to a lower attack rate in the highly vaccinated CCC and appeared to protect from severe disease.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3/earhart.htm
An outbreak of influenza A (H3N2) occurred aboard a U.S. Navy ship in February 1996, despite 95% of the crew's having been appropriately vaccinated. Virus isolated from ill crew members was antigenicly distinct from the vaccination strain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So you are OK with the SA study that looked at the ability of AZT ... Or the heart failure medication study that...?

---

Quote:

---

There are some instances where you are literally conducting terminal experiments on people if you don't give them a minimum standard of care. Are you sure you want to say you support that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
In the meantime, I thought I'd post this, which is the collection of references you posted above, but with relevant information you omitted, plus I added links.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
...that they are as fallable as ordinary humans that work at the police department, NASA, or Wal-Mart?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
CTS
This is what you said, which I dutifully copied and pasted:
"Controlling a drug with another drug is still bad science"

This is what I asked in the same post:
"So you are OK with the SA study that looked at the ability of AZT to keep newborns from getting AIDS - using a control group that got no AZT? (And consequently much more AIDS) Or the heart failure medication study that - rather than give the control group the standard of care - digitalis and lasix - gave them placebos?

There are some instances where you are literally conducting terminal experiments on people if you don't give them a minimum standard of care. Are you sure you want to say you support that?"

And this is what you posted in reply:
"Funny, I asked you to copy and paste when you want to ask me about things I say or things I want to say. If you don't, I simply won't respond."

What are you talking about ??? I have no idea at this point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
This is the case with ALL the studies I have found to date on effectiveness of childhood vaccines. They are ALL sloppy and inconclusive because they refuse to use inert controls.

---

CTS, are you saying that the medical industrial complex is not to be entirely trusted due to lack of divine intelligence and vision on the part of the researchers and organizers; that they are as fallable as ordinary humans that work at the police department, NASA, or Wal-Mart?
Ummm....

I guess I agree.



All just folk here Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:






Chrisisall, this is more like complaining about them because (to use the police example) they don't know how to load their guns properly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Chris, just remember... one third of all germs are helpful, one-third are neutral and one-third are...

---

Quote:

---

...and what are the last third, anyway? Evil? Deadly? Idiot-germs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
what do you think of the academicians who study medicines and vaccines? Do you think they're in on it like CTS seems to think they are? Or do you think they offer an educated but independent perspective?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
British. Or maybe Uzbeki. Foreign, anyway. Probably illegal aliens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So what I think I read behind that is a lot of fear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freeradical42:
However, I'm not convinced that what CTS calls "inert" is the same as what a qualified doctor would call inert. There is a certain degree of medical expertise that they have that CTS does not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What I see is this: examples go back 20 years. That’s a lot of time to find examples to show ‘failure’.

---

Quote:

---

Cases of vaccination ‘failure’ are due to either normal rate of effectiveness (no vaccine is 100% effective),

---

Quote:

---

expected waning of immunity with age - as in pertussis, or failure to receive the full complement of vaccination.

---

Quote:

---

One interesting failure was due to the fact that the strain in the vaccine was not the infective strain.

---

Quote:

---

Finally, saying that there is “no good science” on vaccine safety and effectiveness, and then citing science to make your case is contradictory.

---

Quote:

---

If vaccines are as effective as portrayed (90-95% effective), then the small percentage who experience vaccine failure should have been protected by herd immunity in a highly vaccinated population. They weren't. This raises the question if herd immunity works the way people think it does.

---

Quote:

---

They didn't expect waning of immunity until these outbreaks occurred. They used to think the immunity was lifelong, remember?

---

Quote:

---

That IS interesting. People risk vaccine side effects in order to be protected. Then they find out they are taking a risk for a strain that isn't even the one out there. It's a good excuse for failure, but it doesn't change the fact that the vaccine failed to protect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And I think she could have said - you know, vaccines are probably mostly OK, just not for me and my kids.

---

Quote:

---

But she goes on to try and paint them as so unproven and so potentially dangerous that the decision is a wash either way for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

And I think it would have been reasonable and I would have been behind her all the way on that.

---

Quote:

---

So what I think I read behind that is a lot of fear.

---

Quote:

---

(added: also, I think some of the things she's trying to say are irresponsible.)

---

Quote:

---

CTS- You really do pick and choose your facts, don't you?

---

Quote:

---

But what this is telling me is that UNvaccinated children CANNOT depend on "herd immunity". Kind of argues in favor of vaccination, don't you think?

---

Quote:

---

And people risk disease for a chance to get their temporary immunity the good old-fashioned way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But what do you think of the academicians who study medicines and vaccines? Do you think they're in on it like CTS seems to think they are?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frendfirma:
Ok, now I have the mental image of two folk hammering at a wall from different angles... and hitting each other.

---

Quote:

---

And semantics, shemantics - apparently you do not understand my viewpoint, someone elses personal opinion to me is of little consequence, and something, as an anarchist, I do not feel it's my right to mess with or force upon them, my interest is HOW they arrived at that conclusion and WHY, because that information is of value to me in making my own decisions on a subject.

---

Quote:

---

Regardless of what CTS personally believes (and has every right to) he/she stated and holds a position of informed choice - something that has been stated repeatedly here, and instead people take issue with how he/she arrived at that conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

You also did, in fact, make blanket statements, and only after the fact, when it was pointed out that they're not applicable here, then said they applied to your country, which, if they do, more power to ya, but again, I live here.

---

Quote:

---

It's when someone wishes to take those personal beliefs and impose them on others, with the full weight of law behind it... that impacts me, personally, and I do see it as a threat.

---

Quote:

---

As for informed/uninformed choice - there's no such thing, regardless of what YOU think of the quality of the information, it is NOT your decision, it is that of the person who's choice it is, to decide what information to base their own, personal decision on... so in essence, you only agree with informed choice if you, personally, agree with all the information the other person uses to make that choice ?

---

Quote:

---

As for responsibility, turn that one on it's head - do you think it's fair for me to pay (cause some of it does indeed come out of my tax dollars here in the US) for the lifelong care of people harmed by vaccinations that are legally mandatory ?

---

Quote:

---

You did dismiss evidence out of hand, I stated there was evidence that the MMR vaccine containing Thimerosal was dangerous, more so than admitted, and then provided two pretty good studies that support that fact - and you go on and continually say that there was no evidence, that no evidence was provided - what am I to think, then ?

---

Quote:

---

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html

---

Quote:

---

http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

---

Quote:

---

Those don't look like untested theories to me, that looks a hell of a lot like actual scientific research, which imop, SHOULD have been done *before* foisting the product on the general public as safe and effective.

---

Quote:

---

At no time, under no circumstances, did I say that other folks should foot the bill for someones own, personal, medical decisions - all I have ever said, and continue to say, is that I should not have to foot it for decisions forced upon me by others.

---

Quote:

---

I *will* enforce my right to personal choice, and for that matter, yours too, and if that makes me a jackbooted thug, but all means, get me some kiwi and a hanky.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: You're making several arguments.
(1) This first, which I do not for one second agree with, is that vaccines are useless
(2) The second, which I also do not agree with, is that vaccines are more dangerous than the disease itself.

---

Quote:

---

(3) The third argument is that unvaccinated population do not pose a risk to anyone other than themselves.

---

Quote:

---

As long as the number of unvaccinated people remains small, they will not pose MUCH of an additional risk. However, if they become 90% of the population,...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Although there are a lot of confounding factors in the science,

---

Quote:

---

the robust obervation remains that vaccines reduce the incidence of disease in even populations that don't share the same level of resources, clean water, attention to hygiene, medical care, or any number of other factors that you might care to propose as the "cause" of epidemic reduction.

---