Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 15 of 17
Aside from the profit motive, which is a major distorting factor in medicine, the thing that boggles ME is the variability among people. The CEO of GSK broke ranks a few years ago, and openly admitted that any particular medication will only help 30% of the people that it's given to. Take blood pressure medication, for example: some ppl respond to ACE inhibitors, others do better with beta-blockers or diuretics or several of the other kinds of medication out there, and even diet (the DASH diet).
Or even diets. Some people do well on some diets, others do poorly on the same diet. Some people need 100X RDA (Army study) others don't. Giving broad-based advice to everyone, as if everyone were the same, doesn't work. Even the advice not to eat eggs is will prolly just create a choline deficiency.
So, how do we understand natural variation?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are a few main elements to this argument that I can see.
The first is that CTS demonstrates confirmation bias in regards to homeopathy versus conventional medication, and admits to it - but at the same time, to her, an unwillingness to consider homeopathy at all might look like confirmation bias from the other side.
Homeopathy is not scientific, which we appear to all agree about. It is also completely irrelevant to any discussion about vaccines. Whether vaccines are better than homeopathy is not the actual issue in this thread, nor is CTS's credibility, or any quirks she has that might led her to prefer homeopathy over conventional medicine. Further arguments over the effectiveness of homeopathy would be a waste of everyone's time.
I don't believe anyone here has argued that vaccine use should be discontinued in it's entirely (well, unless there were better medical technology already handy and easily manufactured to replace it). Perfect Solution Fallacy -"not 100% effective, so it should be abandoned in entirety" has been attributed when there wasn't any.
The issue that this thread and the previous thread have been discussing is the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. A side conversation is in regards to compulsory vaccinations, and whether there should be exceptions for at risk vaccinees, and whether, if there are exceptions, if it defeats the purpose of compulsory vaccination.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The quirks which lead to preference for homeopathy (despite lack of evidence in favor) are most likely the same quirks that lead to a rejection of vaccination (despite evidence in favor). Those quirks are so pervasive throughout CTS' posts that I find it to be literally impossible to have a rational discussion with her.
Whether vaccines are better than homeopathy is not the actual issue in this thread, nor is CTS's credibility, or any quirks she has that might led her to prefer homeopathy over conventional medicine.
Vaccines are effective at preventing disease or at least reducing symptoms. That is so well-established that it shouldn't even be a point of discussion. I will, if you insist, but can we consider that to be a moot point?
The real question comes about when you weigh the population-wide risk of vaccinating versus not vaccinating. When you vaccinate, you vaccinate an entire population... or nearly an entire population. OTOH, when you have an epidemic, not everyone gets sick. So the risk of vaccinating an entire population still has to be less than the risk of a less-than-whole population getting the disease, for a program of vaccination to make any sense... even from a strictly monetary standpoint.
As far as the compulsory aspects... an unvaccinated population has to pose a risk to the vaccinated population in order to require vaccination. And to be crass about it, vaccines are cheap and treatment is expensive. In any situation of universal health care (which we do not have here) an unvaccinated person, strictly speaking, should also bear the monetary consequence of their choice. But even assuming that the unvaccinated population does NOT pose a risk to everyone else, there is a significant caveat... adults are allowed informed consent. They made their choice, they take their lumps. But what about their children? If there is a significant disease risk, and an insignificant vaccination risk and the child dies of a preventable disease or is permanently brain-damaged (because that is also an consequence of disease, not just vaccine) does the parent have the right to risk their child's health too? That's not as clear-cut as, say.. treating cancer or appendicitis... but worth considering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The issue that this thread and the previous thread have been discussing is the safety and effectiveness of vaccines."
I hope this isn't a real question.
Vaccines are one of the few things for which there ARE statistical studies regarding both their safety and effectiveness across many populations and sub-groups (except for some of the newer vaccines which IMO haven't been thoroughly studied, in a major bow to profit).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I believe that at times, a people have to choose not to intervene even when intervention seems to be the more logical option. This is because intervention has its own cost that is taxed differently, but no less severely, than the lack of intervention.
This is not necessarily a rational process for me. I sometimes am able to see a rationalization for intervention that nontheless fails to move me, probably due to emotional bias.
I recall a discussion recently where someone (probably Raptor) argued that women who have large numbers of babies continuously and without the capacity to support them should be sterilized. I understand the rational argument being made. These women are sinkholes of social resources, and vacuums of social responsibility.
However, the violation inherent in sterilizing people against their will is repugnant to me. The idea of a government (society) making these choices for the individual scares me. The concept of taking babies from their parents is one I abhor. I perceive an intangible cost in these sorts of actions.
So, even though I can concretely rationalize why sterilization may be a good idea for irresponsible parents, a fountain of wrongness surrounds this suggestion and drowns any benefit I can imagine. This intangible awfulness is so profound as to make one feel dirty for even having considered the option.
Mandatory vaccinations share a touch of that same moral repugnancy for me. I could never bring myself to vote for such a measure, or express support for it, because the idea of compelling the individual to such a degree gives me the willies.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Vaccines are effective at preventing disease or at least reducing symptoms. That is so well-established that it shouldn't even be a point of discussion. I will, if you insist, but can we consider that to be a moot point?
I have no opinion on this, and have been following both sides of the argument in a futile attempt to gain one. When I think I have it pinned down, someone makes what seems to me to be a relevant point and I have to rethink it.
I will consider it a moot point while conversing with you, for ease of discussion. I can't really offer any commitment on a grander scale than that, because this isn't my field, I simply don't know enough.
I have to chew on the other points. A thought in regards to the informed consent issue, I wonder about the impact if informed consent were less age restricted. Does a little kid deserve to know risks and benefits, explained in such a way that they can understand them? I know there's limitations, I might have faith that kids can understand everything an adult can, but that might not be reality in most cases. And there might be cases where parents will coach a child and the child might just parrot the wishes of the parents, but I wonder if there would also be cases where the child, on knowing more, might go against the wishes of their parents.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Astute observation again. Yes. I have confirmation bias. Everyone has confirmation bias. To me, that's a given.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The first is that CTS demonstrates confirmation bias in regards to homeopathy versus conventional medication, and admits to it
The problem in this thread is that we're talking about two separate and distinct topics at the same time.
1) Science (science of vaccines, medicines, and homeopathy)
2) Personal choice in prophylactics and treatment
On one, I believe we all agree homeopathy is rubbish, scientifically speaking. We disagree on the quality of science re vaccines and medicines. That's fine.
On two, I choose to use homeopathy despite its being scientifically rubbish. Sig doesn't understand that. She equates "personal choice" with "science." She mistakenly projects and insists that if I use a product, I MUST believe in its scientific merits. I have no such requirement.
For me, science and personal choice are two separate domains. When I have my science hat on, I evaluate data according to the high standards of scientific rigor on which I was trained. When I take my science hat off, I do whatever I damn well please, including going to church, praying, using homeopathy and many other activities unsupported by science or data. Sig wants to proclaim my personal use of homeopathy as hard proof that I am intellectually corrupt, because she appears to want to win the argument by ad hominems.
Quote:Thank you. I would like to leave my personal choices out of any discussion of science. I will concede and stipulate that my personal life is completely inconsistent with my scientific positions, if they will drop my personal choices out of the discussion.
It is also completely irrelevant to any discussion about vaccines. Whether vaccines are better than homeopathy is not the actual issue in this thread, nor is CTS's credibility, or any quirks she has that might led her to prefer homeopathy over conventional medicine. Further arguments over the effectiveness of homeopathy would be a waste of everyone's time.
Quote:Exactly.
I don't believe anyone here has argued that vaccine use should be discontinued in it's entirely (well, unless there were better medical technology already handy and easily manufactured to replace it). Perfect Solution Fallacy -"not 100% effective, so it should be abandoned in entirety" has been attributed when there wasn't any.
Quote:Excellent summary.
The issue that this thread and the previous thread have been discussing is the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. A side conversation is in regards to compulsory vaccinations, and whether there should be exceptions for at risk vaccinees, and whether, if there are exceptions, if it defeats the purpose of compulsory vaccination.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I liked the point 1kiki made about the pitfalls of a for profit health care industry, and the one Sig made about natural variability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TONY... OOC how far would your inclination NOT to intervene stretch? I suspect everyone has a threshold where they step in, so I'm wondering where yours might be.
BYTE... this has been such a time suck for me, and I have too many thing to do right at the moment. But can you tell me what you think the flaws are in the pro-vaccination story? I will try to address them. We'll prolly both learn something!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... I wonder if there would also be cases where the child, on knowing more, might go against the wishes of their parents."
Oh gosh! All the time!
Your vegetables will make you smart and healthy and fill your tummy with good healthy food.
WANT CANDY!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME