Yahoo: Insight: Evidence grows for narcolepsy link to GSK swine flu shot

[Corcaigh]

Perhaps I am employing a well-known learning strategy. I can give you answers... but it won`t mean anything to you and you will question everything I say. But instead, I will guide you to come to your own conclusions... and perhaps that will carry more meaning for you.

Oh no you didn't.

[PeterMP]

$2 billion might not even seem staggering.... because as you can see from this thread... how difficult it would be for the general population to DIRECTLY associate adverse effects to the vaccine.
- In the US, people have to have symptoms for 6 months before their case will even be heard.

First, the general public doesn't have to unless you are claiming there is a general failure of the medical and public health community in the US.

With respect to the vaccine in the OP, there has been no problem making the connection even though in many cases the symptoms don't occur for months after the vaccine and in very small percentage of the population.

So at that level we seem to do being pretty well in non-failed countries unlike Chad.

And you don't have to have the injury/symptoms for 6 months if you were hospitalized or had surgery to go through the VICP.

[Die Hard]

Excellent points, because the process of scientific research and peer reviewed publications hasn't changed since those times. And the example Peter provided at the start of this thread shows the openness of real science to errors.

To be certain, I have plenty of issues with scientific research and peer-reviewed publications. I have read too much about medical journals, research (conflicts of interest, bad science), and insane amount of inherent deficiencies(financial, logistical, etc) admitted by the former and current CDC, FDA and IOH executives and employees to put any credibility in them.

Most people never dig and get beyond the abstracts.

---------- Post added January-24th-2013 at 08:51 AM ----------

Oh no you didn't.

Honestly, no one here will ever read what I`ve read... because they physically won`t have access to it. And probably, no one would ever care to. This is a futile exercise... I know cause I`ve done this for 10+ years with you schucks I`ll be damned if I`m going to waste my life again. But I don`t mind dropping tidbits of information to those people interested enough to explore it. Then they can come to me if they`re further interested.

But I`m not going to waste time trying to convince people who know everything.

[Larry]

It is an interesting topic.

How much liability can/should be assigned, in the case of a pharmaceutical which is known to prevent a major disease which is heading this way, right now, when it is discovered, later, that something like 1 person in 4,000 has a bad side effect?

If you were tasked with making sure that something like this doesn't happen in the future, how would you fix it? How many people would you have to "clinical trial" this drug on, to have caught this? A million?

(And what about drugs whose side effects don't show up for years? Do you solve that problem by mandating that all new drugs must be tested on a million people, and then wait 10 years, before the drug can be approved?)

I asked a similar question, after the Oklahoma City bombing (I was living on Oklahoma City at the time), when people were demanding that the government "do whatever it takes to make sure that this can never happen again". My question was "If you were King of the US, what would you have to do, to make sure that this can't happen again? And then ask yourself, if you want to live in that country."

My assertion was that I would rather live in a country where the Oklahoma City bombing can happen again.

Would the "cure", of guaranteeing that something like this can't happen again, be "worse than the disease"?

I could at least see the argument that we're better off, if something like this can happen again.

[Corcaigh]

To be certain, I have plenty of issues with scientific research and peer-reviewed publications. I have read too much about medical journals, research (conflicts of interest, bad science), and insane amount of inherent deficiencies(financial, logistical, etc) admitted by the former and current CDC, FDA and IOH executives and employees to put any credibility in them.

This is the issue. No-one is claiming that modern science is perfect and that there are not errors (and even corruption) that lead to terrible consequences.

But here you are claiming that modern medicine has no credibility.

What's your alternative?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[PeterMP]

It is an interesting topic.

How much liability can/should be assigned, in the case of a pharmaceutical which is known to prevent a major disease which is heading this way, right now, when it is discovered, later, that something like 1 person in 4,000 has a bad side effect?

If you were tasked with making sure that something like this doesn't happen in the future, how would you fix it? How many people would you have to "clinical trial" this drug on, to have caught this? A million?

(And what about drugs whose side effects don't show up for years? Do you solve that problem by mandating that all new drugs must be tested on a million people, and then wait 10 years, before the drug can be approved?)

I asked a similar question, after the Oklahoma City bombing (I was living on Oklahoma City at the time), when people were demanding that the government "do whatever it takes to make sure that this can never happen again". My question was "If you were King of the US, what would you have to do, to make sure that this can't happen again? And then ask yourself, if you want to live in that country."

My assertion was that I would rather live in a country where the Oklahoma City bombing can happen again.

Would the "cure", of guaranteeing that something like this can't happen again, be "worse than the disease"?

I could at least see the argument that we're better off, if something like this can happen again.

First, in this case the rate is about 1 in 40,000 (800 sick and 30 million accinated).

Using a simple statistical test and the higher rate of risk given in the link (13) and therefore a lower rate of narcolepsy in the general population, with a 1,000,000 trails I get a p-value of 0.078 (essentially there is a 7.8% chance the association isn't random). By mosts normal statistical methods, this wouldn't be significant (you'd need a p-value less than 0.05 at least).

However, in this case because we are talking about people's lives, the seriousness of narcolepsy, and the fact that there were other vaccines out there, I think it would have been reasonable to cut off the program with that sort of level of information.

However, that would have meant vaccinating a million people and stopping and waiting months in this case.

The more common the side affect the harder it would be associate it with the vaccine (essentially the vaccine would have to cause more cases or you'd have to have a larger sample size).

Where the line is hard. This essecially true after the fact. I even have somewhat of an issue with the article because it is associating WITH vaccine death rates as if they are valid in a non-vaccinated population.

30 to 60 people didn't die of the flu because of the vaccine program, but that's based on numbers in a world where people WERE vaccinated. Even in this country where on a total population level, we didn't vaccinate a ton of people, we did a really good job of vaccinating the people most likely to get the disease, and therefore to spread it and those most likely to have serious side affects of the disease.

In a world where NOBODY got vaccinated, it is easy to imagine more people would have gotten and there would have been a higher death rate.

In addition, the flu causes long term neurological issues so you'd have to take in that rate.

You'd also have to take into the quality of life of the person, and the value of that vs. just being dead with respect to the person and society and that becomes a moral issue.

In this case, given what we know and the fact that they could have had similar levels of vaccination without using this vaccine, they almost certainly messed up by approving it.

[Major Harris]

Perhaps I am employing a well-known learning strategy. I can give you answers... but it won`t mean anything to you and you will question everything I say. But instead, I will guide you to come to your own conclusions... and perhaps that will carry more meaning for you.

Maybe you are...but I missed the part whee the generally accepted protocol is that someone posts a link and it is on the other guy to prove him wrong, usually people are expected to defend and back up their own statements.

Oh no you didn't.

Wipe your chin

[Larry]

Where the line is hard. This essecially true after the fact. I even have somewhat of an issue with the article because it is associating WITH vaccine death rates as if they are valid in a non-vaccinated population.

30 to 60 people didn't die of the flu because of the vaccine program, but that's based on numbers in a world where people WERE vaccinated. Even in this country where on a total population level, we didn't vaccinate a ton of people, we did a really good job of vaccinating the people most likely to get the disease, and therefore to spread it and those most likely to have serious side affects of the disease.

In a world where NOBODY got vaccinated, it is easy to imagine more people would have gotten and there would have been a higher death rate.

Yeah, I wondered about that, myself.

I wondered, when they were doing the benefit side of the calculations, did they consider how many people who didn;t get vaccinated, were saved because the guy next to them got vaccinated.

I assumed that, them being rocket scientists and all, that they took that into account.

----------

In this case, given what we know and the fact that they could have had similar levels of vaccination without using this vaccine, they almost certainly messed up by approving it.

I wonder, though, can we even conclude that?

I think we can conclude that "if we knew then, what we knew now, we would have used a different brand of vaccine".

But that's like "If I'd known I was going to miss the field goal, I would have gone for it on 4th and 3."

Can we look at this, and conclude that people didn't do due diligence? I haven't seen that evidence.

Yeah, we can conclude that "there was another option that we could have used, that would have been better". But to me, that isn't the definition of "messed up"

[Corcaigh]

Wipe your chin

His post about asking questions is standard fare for conspiracy theorists who claim to be simply lighting the path of discovery for the rest of us dumb sheep.

Sometimes they get all pretentious and claim to be using the Socratic method.

****ing idiots. Seriously.

[Major Harris]

]

His post about asking questions is standard fare for conspiracy theorists who claim to be simply lighting the path of discovery for the rest of us dumb sheep.

Sometimes they get all pretentious and claim to be using the Socratic method.

****ing idiots. Seriously.

Ok, I totally misread you my bad.

But still wipe your chin. Lol

[Enter Apotheosis]

Are you suggesting that the statistics, information and personal accounts from the story are inaccurate?

I am only pointing out that your source can't be counted upon to be objective. It might be dead-on in this particular instance but I find it highly suspicious that the only places harping on these events are all of the same anti-vaccination ilk (the venerable Alex Jones being among them). The more benign ones leave the situation as an open-ended question of the vaccine's role but many do not.

The Chad Ministry of Health has indicated that there's no evidence that the incident was caused by the vaccine, that one child who did not get vaccinated claimed the same symptoms, and that the kids actually checked out just fine under medical examination. Now, I'm sure you could argue a coverup or something of that nature but this smells like baseless panic to me.

Oh... and count me in with those who consider refusing to answer questions posed to you as being exceptionally poor form. Reminds me of a certain Stadium poster.

[The Evil Genius]

I still don't understand the mission of the anti-vaccine crowd.

Is it to warn us of the dangers? To remind us that the government is evil? To tell us that big pharm is trying to kill or maim us so that they can make more money now but a lot less money (because no more flu shots from them) in the future?

[Corcaigh]

I still don't understand the mission of the anti-vaccine crowd.

To sell healing crystals, chiropractic and osteopathy services.

[Die Hard]

I am only pointing out that your source can't be counted upon to be objective.

Name me any person or institution that doesn`t have a bias. Because I`m sure that you do not have a bias as a caucasian, a male, an American, a young adult, a democratic political environment, your economic, religious and cultural environment, your upbringing (the beliefs your parents had and gave to you).

Nah, let`s just point out everyone else`s bias... and pretend we don`t have any. Let`s ignore the message... and shoot the messenger. That`s a Republican tactic right.

You must have smoked dope at some point right. That makes you a stoner. Perhaps you get drunk regularly... you`re an alcoholic. It`s just impossible to take anything you say seriously.... because you are an addict of some sort. That`s how we`ll play it.

Do you know why I refuse to answer PeterMP`s questions.... because he asked questions that he himself cannot answer. So you leave open the possibility.

But using this tactic.... I`ll throw it back at you. Prove to me that you didn`t have sex with your dog last night. I mean really, it`s a possibility. I`m sure that you can`t account for every moment of your day... and you don`t have an alibi for every moment. Who`s to say when you went to the washroom... that you didn`t take a minute to bring the dog into the garage and got your rocks off. I can`t prove you did... but you can`t truly prove you didn`t either. I`m just saying there`s a possibility you screwed your dog last night.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Let me just preface this reply by saying that this is one of the most unusual posts I have ever seen on the internet that at least manages coherency

Name me any person or institution that doesn`t have a bias. Because I`m sure that you do not have a bias as a caucasian, a male, an American, a young adult, a democratic political environment, your economic, religious and cultural environment, your upbringing (the beliefs your parents had and gave to you).

Nah, let`s just point out everyone else`s bias... and pretend we don`t have any. Let`s ignore the message... and shoot the messenger. That`s a Republican tactic right.

You must have smoked dope at some point right. That makes you a stoner. Perhaps you get drunk regularly... you`re an alcoholic. It`s just impossible to take anything you say seriously.... because you are an addict of some sort. That`s how we`ll play it.

Every source has a bias. However, I think it's important to make note of sources that possess a particularly flagrant bias. I also think that if you're going to introduce such a source you need to do a little bit of extra work to make sure that it's defensible and be willing to defend it. Would it not be foolish to enter a discussion and expect to be taken seriously when your argument hinges on expecting people to believe that Rush Limbaugh has a finger on the pulse of the feminist movement?

Good reporting strives for objectivity even if it still falls short. I wouldn't call VacTruth good reporting by a long shot. Instead of taking issue with me for pointing that out it would have been far more prudent of you to produce additional information from a source that I wouldn't expect to bend the truth in that particular direction. If a relatively unbiased source or even one with opposing bias reports the same thing in similarly biased fashion, then that particular VacTruth article has substantially more merit.

In this case, I actually did the hard work for you (lucky you) and checked a bunch of different sources on my own when I first stumbled across your posts. It's a legitimate incident but, again, the role of the vaccinations as the cause of all this is incredibly dubious at best. You don't really get that from VacTruth, even if they did have the decency to leave their accusations as open-ended questions.

Do you know why I refuse to answer PeterMP`s questions.... because he asked questions that he himself cannot answer. So you leave open the possibility.

But using this tactic.... I`ll throw it back at you. Prove to me that you didn`t have sex with your dog last night. I mean really, it`s a possibility. I`m sure that you can`t account for every moment of your day... and you don`t have an alibi for every moment. Who`s to say when you went to the washroom... that you didn`t take a minute to bring the dog into the garage and got your rocks off. I can`t prove you did... but you can`t truly prove you didn`t either. I`m just saying there`s a possibility you screwed your dog last night.

If you're going to make an assertion then you need to be able to back it up. It's not Peter's or anyone else's job to support your position or your sources. The onus falls on you to compel the rest of us to accept them as at least being minimally plausible.

That second paragraph, while a colorful way of illustrating your point, isn't even comparable because, once more, you are the one making the assertion. It's up to you to convince everyone else that that is somehow a hobby of mine because, as it is, I can just sit back and laugh knowing that a reasonable person wouldn't take your word for it. They're smart enough to know that if I call you a cross-dressing pedophile I am just ****ing with you in all likelihood even if I am really insistent. It's different if I can provide an arrest record