|
CommieGIR posted:I'll also point out that all medicine within the US borders is for profit, pretending that their drive for profit somehow invalidates the effect of the vaccine raises some questions about the validity of your argument. That's not the argument. The argument is that studies conducted by groups with a material interest in the outcome systematically overstate the effects of the treatment, which is widely recognised within the immunological community and is a problem even with the data related to children. Hyman may be a kook but you should probably actually look at the Cochrane studies before you dismiss these concerns so flippantly. http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004879/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-in-healthy-children#sthash.l7aPTgoN.dpuf quote:This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding. This is an enormous problem if only because it provides ammunition for anti-vaxxers to use against vaccines where the evidence is unequivocal and displays no signs of manipulation.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I have read the Chochrane study. The study primarily says that the injected vaccines have flaws and lower success rates. Nobody ever expected vaccines to be perfect, and as the study even points out we've come up with more effective vaccination methods for the flu: live nasal vaccines. It also says that the conclusions the study makes have to be interpreted in light of the fact that much of the evidence used to draw those conclusions is demonstrably systematically manipulated to make vaccines appear more effective than they are. It's entirely legitimate to be concerned about the conclusions drawn from such a body of evidence. Being intellectually honest and scrupulous requires us to admit that there are significant, documented problems with this literature. We can then turn around and show that for other vaccines those problems don't exist, while demanding that the research into flu vaccine be held to the same standards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah, I see your point. True. I'm not familiar enough with the literature to say, but I'm married to an immunologist and hang out with folks in the field from time to time and my impression is basically that it's just really difficult to get a proper RCT going because of the way the industry works. My understanding is that the immunologists and epidemiologists at Sanofi sit down and have a look at what flu subtypes were circulating last year and make a model-informed projection as to what subtypes are likely to crop up next year (they need to get their production lines going before flu season starts for obvious reasons). Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't, and the result is that it's really difficult to make year-to-year comparisons, to plan an RCT (expensive and if they got the subtype projection wrong you just flushed that study down the drain), etc. The selection criteria for the Cochrane reviews are pretty stringent- for that one I linked above you'll see they're only looking at RCTs, cohort studies, and case control studies- and so a lot of the literature that gets generated in the normal course of administering these things just doesn't meet those standards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A lot of the quoted 'risks' of vaccines according to the anti-vaxx crowd revolve around the used preservatives and a general misunderstanding of how bioaccumulation works and how the body gets rid of unwanted chemicals. For sure, the problems with the flu vax data are mostly unrelated to the common concerns of the anti-vax crowd. They're more typical of the pharmaceutical literature where material conflicts of interest almost invariably result in systematic overstatement of the degree and significance (practical and statistical) of the treatment effect.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Pasko Rakic held out on adult neuro genesis way longer than was tenable, but that's how it goes I suppose. What do you mean by this? Adult neurogenesis is a well established phenomenon in a substantial number of organisms at this point. Not sure how that's related to sexual dimorphism, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
Ah, right, that makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Does American law permit the Federal gov't to legislate compulsory preventative medical treatments like vaccines?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 02:54
|
|