Forum Index
»
Health and Medicine
9 Reasons to NOT get the H1N1 Vaccine
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
First, where do you get off saying I am censoring you? I disagree with your point of view and now you call me a censor? I don't have a problem with ideas. I was criticized for expressing my opinion of your post. You are free to speak, as I am free to say what I think of your post. Second, by definition, anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant. If the bet is which of us gets the flu, I agree. My bet is on you, too. Not that it matters because you and I don't add up to a statistically significant result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal+evidence |
Anonymous
|
Sigh.
We can trade definitions of anecdotal evidence all night, if you like. Here's one I found: conclusions drawn from casual observation or personal experiences, not rigorous scientific investigation. It may be valid, but is not proven. Anecdotal evidence can be valuable in suggesting possibilities that can be investigated in a more rigorous manner. I have never said nor intimated that anecdotal evidence is as good as scientific evidence. That does not mean that it is not statistically significant. When a lot of people start passing around the same anecdotes, eventually they become statistically significant. I'll go back to my example as to whether eating a lot of chocolate (and other junk foods) cause zits. There is no scientific evidence to prove it, so most dermatologists continue to say that what you eat has no effect on your complexion. There are no double-blind studies to prove it, so the medical community (for the most part) rejects it. Fine. How many of us break out when we eat a lot of chocolate a junk food? Lots and lots and lots and lots of us see a correlation. That may not be good enough for the medical community, but it's good enough for me when I'm thinking about what I'm going to eat and how I want my skin to look. The medical community also rejects the notion that drinking a lot of water will make your skin look better. Hasn't been scientifically proven. But hot damn, everyone I know agrees that their skin looks better when they drink a lot of water. Good enough for me. The scientific community is presently pooh-poohing the value of exercise. Apparently they now have some scientific studies that contradict earlier scientific studies that were then thought to "prove" that regular exercise has many certain benefits. Fine. These scientists are welcome to duke it out, contradicting each other with their so-called evidence-based studies. The latest one apparently shows that the only way to preserve bone density as you get older is to jump or, preferably, to hop. I'm not going to stop exercising. There is simply too much anecdotal evidence, including my own personal experience, to suggest that exercise is all but a virtual panacea for so many ills for me to ever consider giving it up. And I'm not limiting my routine to hopping, either. I find it ironic that you are degrading the value of anecdotal evidence and heralding the virtues of these vaccines when these flu vaccines have not been scientifically proven to protect you from the flu. They haven't. Lots of years people get flu shots and get the flu. There is no medical authority I know of that is willing to say decisively that if you get a flu vaccine, you won't get the flu. We have some anecdotal evidence that it may be effective. And we have anecdotal evidence that it may not be. I am also quite puzzled by your indignation that I interpreted your comment as a suggestion that I not speak my mind. You said that I have a right to make foolish decisions based on randomness, but others may look at my post and be persuaded by it, and then they won't get the vaccine, and this shouldn't happen to others. How am I supposed to interpret your remarks, other than to suggest that you think my opinion is dangerous and not welcome? It seems like a pretty reasonable inference to me. And finally, if you read my addendum to my post, I made it clear that my bet is that I have a better chance of avoiding the flu than you do. So, are you agreeing with me that I have a better chance of avoiding the flu, or did you just forget to read? If your approach to the physical care of your body is as sloppy as the way you express yourself in writing . . . well, let's just say that I think I have a better chance of avoiding the flu than you do. |
Anonymous
I think your opinion is incorrect, and I gave another point of view. I think it's bad advice and said so. You do not understand what statistical significance is. Why did you say flame away if you are so unwelcome to criticism of your post? |
Anonymous
I said you are welcome to flame away. I never promised not to respond, particularly if your points are inane.
Actually, I do. I also understand that it is better to set forth a basis for a conclusion, instead of just proclaiming one. Guess what? I have access to Google, too. Here's a pretty good discussion as to when anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant: Statistically significant is a fancy way to say a result is believable. If you see me toss a basketball into a hoop from 5 meters once, it might be a fluke (or a miracle, more likely). If you see me do it 28 out of 30 times, you can say with statistical certainty that I am capable of accurately throwing basket balls (this would never ever happen). Statistically significant crops up in many places, and we use it for silly reasons. The house I live in is Pink (it’s an old Victorian that once was a farm house). When we bought it my colour blind husband told people it was salmon or mauve or puce. I said it was pink. This lead to us surveying every poor soul who came over about what color they perceived our house to be. Based on a statistically significant sample of about 20 people who answered at the 80% level “Pink” or “Pink or Salmon,” my husband now tells the pizza guy we’re the first pink house after the intersection. The emphasis on the word "fancy" is mine. You keep throwing this term around as though you're in on something really special. In fact, it's a very simple concept. One anecdote is not statistically significant. Neither is two. But when you've got a certain amount of anecdotal evidence, it becomes statistically significant. I devoted much of my discussion last night to demonstrating this point to you, but apparently you cannot grasp it. You can't refute it, either. So instead you just settled for a conclusory assertion: I do not understand what statistical significance is. Oh, and since you're so into Googling and Wikipedia, here's my source: http://www.starstryder.com/2008/08/17/anecdotal-evidence-versus-statistics/ Don't like that discussion? Don't trust that authority? Here's another one: Statistical significance: If the arithmetic shows that the likelihood of the result being random is very small (usually below 5%), we reject the null hypothesis. In effect we’re saying “it’s very unlikely that this result is down to chance. Instead, it’s probably caused by the change we introduced” – in which case we say the results are statistically significant. Note that we still can’t guarantee that this is the right interpretation – significance is about proof only beyond reasonable doubt. If you care to read the entire, boring discussion, you can find it at: http://www.cennydd.co.uk/2009/statistical-significance-other-ab-test-pitfalls/ So please, do not kid yourself anymore that I do not know of what I speak. I suspect that you are the same poster who claimed that I accepted anecodal evidence as "proof". After I set you straight on that, you argued that "an anecdote" is not statistically significant, and now you're trying a new variation: I do not know what statistical signficance is. One anecdote is certainly not statistically significant. But hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Millions of anecdotes? It is a fact specific inquiry in that it depends on what you are measuring. Here, we are considering whether the number of anecdotes we hear and read of people experiencing flu symptoms shortly after receiving a flu vaccine is statistically signifcant. We are considering whether the number of people who get the flu even though they get a flu shot is statistically significant. We are considering whether the number of people who avoid the flu after receiving a vaccination is statistically significant. We are considering whether the number of people who avoid the flu without vaccination is statistically significant. I do not know the answer to these questions. I am not a statistician. But, unlike you, I am at least able to articulate the questions, and how they should be analyzed. Do we have enough anecdotal evidence of people coming down with flu-like symptoms after receiving a flu vaccine that this anecdotal evidence is statistically significant? Do we have enough anecdotal evidence that people avoid the flu after getting a flu vaccination to say that this anecdotal evidence is statistically significant? Do we have enough anecdotal evidence of people getting the flu despite getting flu shots to say that this anecdotal evidence is statistically significant? Do we have enough anecdotal evidence of people avoiding the flu without getting vaccinated to say that this anecdotal evidence is statistically significant? Unlike you, I am able to say: I don't know. We'd need data as to how many people suffered flu-like symptoms after receiving a flu shot, as opposed to those who did not suffer such symptoms after receiving a flu shot; we'd need data as to how many people got the flu, despite being vaccinated against it; we'd need data as to how many people avoided the flu after being vaccinated against it, and we'd need data as to how many people avoided the flu without a vaccination. To my knowledge, we don't have that data. But, in the face of everything I have just laid out, you certainly cannot intelligently say that anecdotal evidence does not become statistically significant at some point. You can continue to stupidly say it, but my guess is that this is not what you're going for. So please, don't embarrass yourself further. Again, the question is when, not if, anecdotal evidence becomes statistically significant. One thing we do agree on: anecdotal evidence is not proof. The truth is, proof is hard to find. It is one elusive motherf*cker. And so we turn to anecdotal evidence, time and time again. And sometimes, one single anecdote, while not being statistically significant, is enough to convince juries to send people to jail for the rest of their lives. It's called eye-witness testimony. And it's purely anecdotal. However, there is something very powerful about a victim getting up on the stand, swearing an oath, and stating that, as she was being raped, she looked hard at her attacker's face. She looked for scars, tatoos, birthmarks, and anything else that could help her identify her attacker. That she will never forget that face. And that the face of her attacker is right there, sitting in the defendant's chair. Juries convict on that. Our legal system permits it. So please, stop equating anecdotal evidence with "randomness". It is hardly the form of witchcraft which you make it out to be. And another thing: I never gave anyone advice as to whether they should vaccinate. I simply set forth some things that people may or may not want to consider in making their own decision. For all of the time and effort I have put into this discussion, I'm actually neither for or against it. I allowed my children to be vaccinated, because my husband wanted them to be and I was willing to compromise: they could have the innoculation, but not the mist. Marital harmony is important to me, and this is how many decisions are made in families. Obviously, if I thought the vaccine was horribly dangerous, I would not have compromised and allowed them to be vaccinated. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm just not for it, either. And since the vaccine-pushers are so self-righteous, so vocal, and so hurtful in telling any parent that chooses not to vaccinate that they are a bad parent, I felt it necessary to offer a balanced perspective. I'm getting a bit tired of running circles around you. I think it's time for you to quit. That being said, if you want to respond with more ignorant, conclusory assertions, I promise to give you another beating. Your choice. |
Anonymous
|
Oh, and another thing: I'm also going to continue to watch my chocolate and junk food intake, because I so hate breaking out. I'm going to continue to exercise, because I believe that it helps me control my weight and will protect me from osteoporosis as I age, amongst other things. I am going to continue to drink a lot of water, because I think it helps my skin look better and makes me healthier than I would be otherwise. I'm going to continue to do these, and a number of other things which, on the basis of what I consider to be overwhelming anecdotal evidence, are good for me. The fact that this anecdotal evidence has not been accepted as scientific fact does not bother me in the least.
Since you think anecdotal evidence is worthless, I suggest we up the stakes of our original bet that I am more likely to avoid the flu with good nutrition, rest, exercise, meditation, and hygiene than you are with your vaccine. I suggest that you eat a lot of chocolate and other junk food, avoid exercise, and don't make an effort to stay well-hydrated. In a few months, when we see if either of us get the flu, let's swap pictures and see which one of us looks healthier. Again, my bets are on me. Me, and my worthless anecdotal evidence. 
|
Anonymous
The fact that someone has received a flu a shot is usually prominent in their mind when they later experience flu-like symptoms. This leads to a natural tendency to believe that the shot is the cause of the symptoms. This is perfectly natural but it is also a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this, therefore because of this"). So researchers give volunteers a shot. All the volunteers think think they have received the real flu shot, but half of them have received a real shot and half have received a placebo (ie, a salt water injection). For adults, there was no association between receiving the real flu shot, and reports of flu-like symptoms, i.e., the real flu shot group and the placebo shot group were similar in the number of reports of flu-like symptoms they experienced after receiving what they thought was a real flu shot. The quote below is from the CDC. "In placebo-controlled studies among adults, the most frequent side effect of vaccination was soreness at the vaccination site (affecting 10%—64% of patients) that lasted less than 2 days. These local reactions typically were mild and rarely interfered with the recipients' ability to conduct usual daily activities. Placebo-controlled trials demonstrate that among older persons and healthy young adults, administration of TIV is not associated with higher rates for systemic symptoms (e.g., fever, malaise, myalgia, and headache) when compared with placebo injections." http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/adverseTIV.htm |
Anonymous
HOW IN THE HELL WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT IS PROMINENT IN THE MINDS OF OTHERS?
There you go again, with a liberal splashing of the Latin you seem so impressed by. Do you really think that throwing in a little Latin makes your argument more compelling? The CDC report that you cite actually doesn't do much to advance your position. It states that in a controlled study, up to 64% of adults experienced soreness at the site of the injection that lasted for two days. That sounds like a big ball of fun! The CDC also states that "among older persons and healthy young adults, administration of TIV is not associated with higher rates for systemic symptoms (e.g., fever, malaise, myalgia, and headache) when compared with placebo injections." Older persons and healthy young adults. What about children? What about healthy middle-aged adults? What about unhealthy middle-aged adults? What about unhealthy young adults? No mention of these groups (which are larger than the groups found not to be at risk for systemic symptoms). I'm not sure what inference to draw from the fact that these groups are not mentioned. But the inference I am inclined to draw is that those groups proved to suffer systemic symptoms (though I am open to being convinced that these groups were simply not part of the double-blind study, which still leaves a huge hole in the amount of data obtained). I think you actually spent your time pulling up research that advances my case. All my thanks. |
Anonymous
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I take offense at how you poo-poo those of us who actually believe in creationism. It is a belief many of us have and I don't need science or data to prove me right or wrong. Unless you were there the day life formed, then your guess is as good as the next person's. And I hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of scientific data out there is based on opinion and misinterpreted. Do any research on any subject and you will find study after study on the same subject with completely different results. When there are hundreds of variables in place, it is basically impossible to replicate an event so that you are comparing apples to apples. There is a need for scientific research, but it isn't perfect. Did I vaccinate my child - no. Call me naive, but when you see several drugs being recalled from the marketplace, you realize that it isn't a perfect or safe process. The vaccine was rushed to market. I am not convinced that it is safe. |
Anonymous
I am glad that you at least understand that you need a large body of data to have a statistically significant result. You need a few other things, too, but let's not even get started on sampling. We'll go with what you know or at least can google. I won't bother to show you how your definition differs from the sources you cite. Let's just go with what we agree on, which is that you need a large number of data points to reach a statistically significant conclusion. Your anecdotal evidence was you, your husband and children, plus "a lot" of people who told you something. You don't have millions of data points. You know it's not statistically significant, so why are you still arguing the point? Or to take things another direction, this is an example of a double blind, placebo-controlled RCT. In it, you will see that the efficacy ranges from 50% in a year where the match is bad, to 86% in a year with a good match between vaccine and circulating strains. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/284/13/1655 Studies like this have been done over and over. The consensus of them is that we should expect 70-90% effectiveness in most years. These studies directly contradict your personal observations, and they are robust, published results. |
Anonymous
|
OK. This pig-flu poster is going to first have to choke down the bile that rose in her throat upon reading the creationist's post. One moment please. . .
I'm back.
Why not? Too lazy? Or is this just more of the bravodo we see from you when you can't actually find anything to substantiate your conclusory remarks? You throw around words like "sampling" and add a splash of Latin for good measure. If, for whatever reason, you're not going to be bothered with the substance of my arguments, why answer at all?
There you go again. You are misstating what I have previously stated, either because you are intellectually dishonest or because you did not read what I wrote carefully. I never said that my anecdotal evidence that the flu vaccine could cause flu-like symptoms includes my own experience. Why did I not say this? Because, despite the fact that I have received many flu vaccinations for over two decades, I personally never had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. Unlike you, I will admit to facts that may undermine my position, albeit in a very minute way. Unlike you, I do not start with a conclusion, and then rush to find a select group of facts to back it up. I start with facts and use them to reach a conclusion. You also have a transparent habit of trivializing what I say by twisting it just so. I never said that my anecdotal evidence consisted of my husband and children, plus "a lot of people who told me something". I said it consists of my personal experience within my family, in addition to numerous reports, some of which were related to me first-hand by many other people (including one of our own DCUMers, who has already participated in this thread); some of which I've read in newpapers, magazines, and journals, and some of which I've heard on the news. All over the course of two decades. Simply put, there is a lot of credible information out there to suggest that getting a flu vaccine can make you feel like you have the flu.
Never said I did. I do, however, have too many data points to count.
Actually, I have no idea whether it's statistically significant, and I am not and have never argued that it is. (I argued, and will continue to maintain, that at some point anecdotal evidence does become statistically significant. I only spent time on this argument after you conclusorily asserted that anecdotal evidence, by defintion, can never be statistically significant.) In the face of my well-reasoned and well-researched arguments, you threw out the word "sampling", continued to insist that I don't know what I'm talking about, but said you couldn't be bothered to explain yourself. Fine. Just don't expect anyone to be impressed by that. Unlike you, I am not hung up on this idea of statistical significance. What I am interested in is whether there exists enough anecdotal evidence that a flu vaccine could cause flu-like symptoms for one to reasonably draw the inference that it could. If a reasonable inference can be drawn from the anecdotal evidence, that inference is one of many things I will consider in deciding whether I am going to get vaccinated for the flu. Now, I happen to think there is enough anecdotal evidence from which to reasonably draw this inference. I'm not sure -- because again, unlike you, I don't put words in other people's mouths or pretend to know what is going on in the minds of others -- but it appears that you do not think there is enough anecdotal evidence from which to reasonably draw this inference, and so you did not consider it when deciding whether to get vaccinated. Fine. We can agree to disagree on this point. And you know what? We can both be reasonable. Because when evidence is inconclusive, as it is here, reasonable minds may differ as to how to interpret it in any specific instance. But you don't seem satisfied with this. It seems that you will be satisfied with nothing less than a broad consensus that there is no reliable basis for thinking that a flu vaccine could cause flu-like symptoms. You're not going get that from me, or from most people. Because, as I've substantiated, there is a reasonable basis for reaching that conclusion.
That's convenient.
You think an efficacy rate as low as 50% and, when they do their absolute best, as high as 86% is "robust"? You think those are good odds? If so, I want to go to Vegas with you and sit at your blackjack table. Frankly, I wouldn't buy a lottery ticket based on those chances. The very most that can be said for those studies is that sometimes, if you're lucky, a flu vaccination can protect you from the flu. And I'm being very generous here. I wouldn't say that it is unreasonable to go out and get a flu vaccine based on these odds. But I certainly wouldn't say that it's unreasonble to stay home, either. And you should not feel threatened or concerned that someone may read my post and think, "I'm in the same boat, maybe I'll skip the vaccine." You said this in a prior post -- that it would bother you if someone read what I wrote and had that thought. I don't see why. It's a reasonable choice. Now that we've dispensed with these "points", I would like to get back to my original, larger question. Why did the OP's post spark so much vitriol? Why did people pay her any mind? I agree with you that 90% of what she said does not even get past the laugh test. She made some outrageous claims. Lots of people do that, and we pay them no attention. Like the woman who just posted about the merits of creationism. I don't think anyone's going to waste much time on her. There are lots of people who think really dumb things and post them. There are people who think the U.S. brought AIDS into this country to kill black people. Again, there are people who think the world was created in a day. There is a group of people who firmly believe that the world is going to end in 2012. And there are people who think that the Jews are responsible for 9/11. And yet, if we saw any one of these posts, my guess is that the vast majority of us would just sigh, and feel a little sorry for that poster, and move on, most likely without even reading the text contained under the subject line. I can't imagine that these kinds of posts would generate the kind of anger that has been visited on the OP, even though her post was just as inane as all of my other examples. And so I'm interested in why everyone paid so much attention to her. Why they attacked her with so much venom. I think (and this is only conjecture -- I don't pretend to know what is prominent in the minds of others -- that's your job) that when people decide to undergo an invasive procedure either to protect their health or restore it, they become very personally invested in the idea that the procedure will work. I think it's scary to think otherwise. None of us want to think that, even if we get a flu vaccine, we may suffer with the flu, and possibly die from it. No cancer patient wants to hear that their chemotherapy may not help them at all. And so, when faced with such arguments, people react viscerally, whether the arguments are clearly coming from a crazy person, like the OP, or from someone far more intelligent, as I like to think I am. That's my best guess. Ultimately, I think it is fear all too often causes cruelty. And ultimately, it was your cruelty towards me that caused me to dig in my heels and spend so much time and effort on these posts. I can't tell for certain, but I'm going ask you whether you posted this to me:
Is this you? I'm asking you, because I don't want to presume it. But it sure sounds like you, and so I'm asking. And please know that I will take silence as an admission. Basically, you called me a bad mother because I allowed my kids to receive vaccinations, but I chose not to get one. First of all, that doesn't make any sense. I mean, if I went out and fought like hell to get this vaccine for myself but did nothing to get it for my kids, that might give one pause. But the reverse is the case: my husband was pressing for vaccination and, since I happen not to feel strongly about it, I said OK, as long as they got the innoculation and not the mist. He wanted one for himself because he is in a high-risk group, so he got one. For me, as a healthy, 40-year-old woman with a very reliable immune sytem, I decided not to do it this year. For one thing, it's considerably difficult. I mean, if I were in my doctor's office, and he offered me an innoculation, I may well have said fine. But I didn't feel it necessary to hunt the vaccine down as though I was on the kill and then stand in line for it like I'm some teenager trying to get in to a Grateful Dead concert. That's it. And you implied that for this, I am a bad mother. Now, I really don't mind bantering and trading insults with you. But the worst things I would say about you is that you are pig-headed, intellectually dishonest, and have a less-than-overwhelming intellect. You (if it was you) intimated that I am a bad mother, and that is just not acceptable to me. There's flaming someone, and then there are "fighting words". In my opinion, you crossed a line. In my opinion, you do not call nor intimate that someone is a bad mother unless you are willing to identify yourself and notify CPS immediately. You just don't go there for flames or for fun. AND I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY, though I am certainly not waiting for one with baited breath. But you asked why I reacted so strongly to "criticism" of my post, after I said you could flame me. That's why. |
Anonymous
| I'm the Latin poster, I'm not the person you're attacking above, and I'm also not anyone who ever said anything about you as a mother, or in any other respect as a person. There are more than two people posting in this thread. And my personal opinion is that anger and stress are detrimental to reasoned discourse, not to mention a person's health. |
Anonymous
| Thank you for clarifying. I'm glad that I didn't presume it was you. |
Anonymous
| Oh, wait, I misread (see, I can admit that). Your post does not preclude the possibility that the person who "can't be bothered" to argue substance is not the same poster who implied that I am a bad mother. In fact, it makes it slightly more likely. And so far, she's been awfully quiet. |
Anonymous
I don't rebut you point by point because you write and write and write, like you don't have anything else to do. I only have a few minutes before my oldest is up, so you get what you get: 1. You just posted that you would have gotten it if it was easy, but that directly contradicts your first post where you said that's not the only reason. 2. If you feel so much like you could go either way, why are you so strident about defending the decision? 3. You still show your weakness about statistics. Efficacy in that study does not equate to overall odds of getting the virus, just how much better off you are than the control group. That aside, if I had even the tiniest bit greater than 50% odds in Vegas, I would be the richest person in America. That is not a boast. It is statistically true. 4. I don't care what you call me. Ideas are all that count. I am not going to debate my own intellect, my background in statistics, or my command of Latin (which I do not even recall using). 5. As for your articles, the first described how scientists develop theories based on anecdotes. They know the difference between theory and conclusions. The second link actually shows how a small amount of data is not statistically significant. What neither of them describe is how, when comparing a test and control group, you need a proper sample to control for exogenous variables. Sorry I don't know if "exogenous" is Latin, but it is in an English dictionary. 6. I'm not saying you are a bad mother because you got them vaccinated. It seems hypocritical if you feel that it is not the best choice. Nothing in your first post indicated that you didn't "feel strongly about it" as you now indicate. So that brings up the big question: why do you have such energy for this if you really don't feel strongly? 7. Last, this is about the scientific method, not vaccinations. That is why it matters so much. Oldest is up. Gotta run. |
Anonymous
|
For the most part, this latest post contains nothing worth responding to in substance. You continue to mischaracterize my statements, babble on incoherently about statistics, mischaracterize the very on-point links I referenced and which speak for themselves, and maintain that, if you had the tiniest bit greater than 50% odds in Vegas, you'd be "the richest person in America".
You end this incoherence by stating that this thread has, all along, been about scientific method, and not vaccinations.  I think most of us are much more interested in the flu and vaccinations than we are in some dreary, esoteric discussion about scientific method. Frankly, at this point, you're starting to sound as crazy as the OP (whom, as I've already explained, was never worthy of much response).
I think we're done here. |