Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose

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...?

---

AZT and digitalis/lasix are different arguments altogether. Then we'll have to get into how effective AZT and digitalis/lasix are, and that really belongs on a different thread.

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?

---

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.

First of all, the "minimum standard of care" argument only applies to treatments that have already been proven to be effective. You can't assume that a vaccine is effective to use as a minimum standard of care, WHILE you are testing whether the vaccine is effective.

All the childhood vaccine effectiveness studies I have seen use vaccine controls, assuming that the vaccines used in controls are effective. But the effectiveness of those control vaccines were determined the same way, in studies using still OTHER control vaccines. This does not speak well of the minimum standard of care argument, because effectiveness of control vaccines are assumed from flawed experiments with inadequate controls.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is a good example of the minimum standard of care argument. Treatment effectiveness was demonstrated independently with inert controls. And the effectiveness of the treatment was not the dependent variable; progression of disease in black people was what they were studying.

Am I against withholding minimum standard of care where it logically applies? Of course I am. Unethical experiments should never be performed, even with informed consent.

But does minimum standard of care apply to childhood vaccine effectiveness studies?

Consider this example. To study the effectiveness of DPT in babies, they give the control group the Hep A vaccine. They find that (no surprise) the Hep A vaccine does not protect against pertussis. (I can't find the reference right now, but I read it just the other day.)

How does the Hep A vaccine contribute to the "minimum standard of care" in these children? It is not even a recommended childhood vaccine. Why couldn't they have just used saline?

To do an experiment like this, they would need informed consent from parents that their children may get the Hep A vaccine as the placebo, which does not protect them from any childhood diseases. It wouldn't be difficult to ask them to consent to a saline placebo, which also would not protect them from any childhood diseases.

Now even IF you find a study that has a valid minimum standard of care argument for not using an inert control, it doesn't change the fact that the study still doesn't meet minimum standards of science. Ethical excuses cannot lower the standards of science. It just means we have to make do with what bad science we can ethically conduct, and interpret the results very, very carefully. And don't claim conclusive proof when the standards weren't met.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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.

---

That's very nice that you added links, but do you have a point?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
--John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

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

---

ROFL!!

Yeah. I don't mind human fallibility. What I mind is people passing faulty conclusions from faulty studies off as scientific fact. And then trying to ram that "fact" down my throat at gunpoint.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

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.

---

We do have trouble communicating, don't we? Lemme try it this way.

CTS: "Controlling a drug with another drug is still bad science."
Rue: Are you OK with the SA study...?
CTS: When did I ever say I was OK with the SA study, or the heart failure study??!!??
Rue: Well, you said it was bad science to control a drug with another drug. So to have good science, you would rather withhold life-saving drugs?
CTS: No. In some cases, you can't ethically have good science. And that's ok. You just do the best bad science ethics will allow, and interpret the results very very carefully.
Rue: Are you sure you want to say you support terminal experiments on people by withholding minimum standard of care?
CTS: When did I ever say THAT? When did I ever say, "Screw whoever you want if it'll give you good science"? When did I ever say, "Withhold minimum standard of care if it stands in the way of good science!"
Rue: Well, you oppose controlling a drug with another drug.
CTS: What I oppose is controlling a drug with another drug and calling it good science. What I oppose is misrepresenting bad science as good science. What I oppose is fraud and scientific dishonesty.

I hope that saved a mountain of back-and-forth posts bickering about this issue.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.
--Dr. Seuss

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

cross-posted

Still, I dislike how you related a 'converation' that never took place.

NOTIFY: N  | 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.

---

So you hotly contest controlling a drug with a drug. Just wanted to be clear.


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

DOH!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME