Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 07:56
VIEWED: 21145
PAGE 16 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I think you misunderstand what a "control" is for.
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.
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
I'm well aware of what a control is. What you are describing is called a positive null control. What I am describing is simply a positive control; I'm saying it's good to add groups that are on substances you normally encounter in order to show that your drug is not more dangerous than everyday life. This is why you give someone a sugar pill placebo instead of something inert that the body can't digest at all. Additionally, you want negative controls, where you don't give them anything at all. I never suggested you'd use a drug in a control, but you might give something that isn't just pure saline.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
"Good question on smallpox, the Virgin Mother of Vaccination. It's my next segment coming."
As I've had a long day and still have things to do before I get home, I'm going to wait for you to answer this before I repond to your other comment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.)
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:And why is that? Isn't salt something one encounters in normal life? (Compare with sugar pills.)
but you might give something that isn't just pure saline
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before I hit the road and get on with my real life, I have to say that some of your statements detract from the point you're trying to make.
1) Then you agree that controlling a vaccine with another vaccine is bad methodology. (Controlling a drug with another drug?)
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 most 'scientifically correct' (by your standards) studies are also the most controversial - they take place in Africa and they DO deny medicines to sick people and vaccines to exposed populations. You wouldn't want to see that - would you?
2) "but you might give something that isn't just pure saline" "And why is that?"
For several reasons. The placebo has to mimic whatever is being tested so that the recipient (and sometimes the tester as well) can't tell the difference. And also to nullify the effects of the matrix of whatever is being tested. If flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, you might want to use un-inoculated eggs as your controls to make sure that whatever effect you are seeing, it is due to the specific thing - the flu particles - you are testing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote: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.)
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:And why is that? Isn't salt something one encounters in normal life? (Compare with sugar pills.)
but you might give something that isn't just pure saline
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
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.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OK, freerad, you're starting to sound a bit creepifying...
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know WHY they say they don't do good science. But even if their excuses are valid (which I hotly contest), valid excuses don't magically turn bad science into good science. Controlling a drug with another drug is still bad science, and whatever results they get are not generalizable.
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.
Science has impartial standards. The more you meet those standards, the more meaningful your findings are. If the best you can do still falls short of those standards, the best you can do is simply not good enough--however short you are is however less meaningful your study is.
Example. Let's say DPT vaccine is given to one group, and Hep A vaccine is given to another group. They find that DPT is 96% more effective than Hep A in preventing pertussis. What can we conclude?
That DPT is 96% more effective than Hep A in preventing pertussis. Period.
What you cannot conclude is that DPT is 96% more effective than not getting the vaccine at all, because there was no inert control group. The results suggest that DPT may be more effective than not getting it, but that is an indirect inference. You don't know how much more effective it is, if it is at all. Ultimately, such a study yields no conclusive scientific proof that DPT is more effective than doing nothing.
So for instance, if I wanted to inject the Hep A vaccine to my kid in order to protect from pertussis, you can say this study demonstrated scientific evidence that the DPT vaccine would be more effective than Hep A. And you'd be absolutely right.
If I wanted to not vaccinate at all, well, you can say this study suggests the DPT vaccine may be more effective than not getting it, but it offers no conclusive proof of that.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
--Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Controlling a drug with another drug is still bad science"
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?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:OK, freerad, you're starting to sound a bit creepifying...
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.
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
Yes, I agreed with that awhile ago. Remember when I said the study you cited was sloppy?
Saline is useful; but it's also useful to give something to compare to that you might encounter day to day to another group.
Good science has lots of controls.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it wasn't just that study. 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.
Originally posted by freeradical42:
Yes, I agreed with that awhile ago. Remember when I said the study you cited was sloppy?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Little defeat big, when little is smart.
First with the head, then with the heart.
-- The Power of One (movie)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME