= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FrameBenignly comments on What topics are appropriate for LessWrong? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (107)
I just looked at those posts from that discussion, and your description of the literature is clearly cherry-picked. You're only concentrating on the studies which favor your argument and not contrasting them with the studies which oppose your argument. You only acknowledge that those other studies exist in passing. By going into great detail on your preferred studies instead of presenting a comprehensive overview you're exposing yourself to sampling bias.
NatPhilosopher is also underhandedly manipulating quotations by lifting words out of context.
Take a look at NatPhilosopher's first quotation and citation in their pièce de résistance arguing against the safety of pediatric vaccination:
This does sound worrying. But let's take a look at the actual report. Here are the quotations in context (emphases mine, italics are NatPhilosopher's lifted words):
Not so worrying with context, is it?
The actual conclusion of the report (emphases mine):
I am not in any way an anti-vaxxer, my own child has been vaccinated according to the standard protocols in my country, and I agree that NatPhilosopher should have mentioned that alongside the scary-sounding stuff s/he quoted the quoted sources contain statements that aluminium-based vaccines appear to be safe, and that not doing so is dishonest.
BUT it seems to me (as far as the material you've quoted goes; of course there may be more that points the other way) that NatPhilosopher is correct to say that this report suggests that the safety of injected aluminium salts is poorly understood, particularly with respect to long-term consequences as opposed to acute adverse events.
NatPhilosopher may very well be dead wrong, and indeed my guess is that s/he is. But the material s/he quoted doesn't seem to me much less worrying with context than without.
I wasn't an anti-vaxxer till I started reading the scientific literature on it. I vaxxed my first 2 kid too.
The actual conclusions are crowd think. The fact of the matter, as they discussed, is they had no empirical basis to assess the toxicity of injected aluminum in neo-nates, or even adults for that matter, in spite of having done it for 70 years. They had never bothered looking. They still have no empirical basis for claiming its safe, in fact, just the opposite. In fact, they are injecting 100's of times as much aluminum into neo-nates as they get from diet in the first six months, bypassing numerous evolved filters that served to keep it out. When people actually did animal experiments on neo-nates, they reported this was very toxic to development. When people actually look at any epidemiology that's sensitive to it, they find its very toxic to development. Its highly correlated to autism, for example, as well as infant mortality.
Incidentally, when they talk about "low incidence of adverse events", they are talking about adverse events within 72 hours. I am talking about the impact of aluminum on development and the immune system and the development of the brain. Much of the aluminum gets stuck in the muscle and only leaks out over periods longer than 72 hours. The total load infants get from vaccines over the first six months is hundreds of times the total load they get from diet, taking into account that the dietary system filters 99.75% of ingested aluminum but virtually all parenterally injected aluminum eventually makes its way into systemic flow.
The results of the various medical surveys are crowd think. The summaries as a general rule present blather that soothes the soul. If you look at the actual empirical results published in the scientific literature, the situation is clear, even though it is the opposite of what all the surveys tell you in their summaries. If you ignore this, you are destined to fail to realize that committees of doctors or government officials are incapable of understanding a scientific literature or making medical decisions that are better for health than random, and more generally that crowd think is an important phenomenon in the world.
Regardless of the conflicts between your beliefs and that of others, it is dishonest to misrepresent the writings of other people to bolster your arguments. Do not manipulate quotes from a report to make it say what you want it to say, even if you believe that the original report is incorrect.
On the contrary,
While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the same period.
Breast fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams. But about 99.75% of that goes straight into the poop, as the dietary system is incredibly good at not absorbing dietary aluminum. By contrast virtually all of the 4.4 mg of aluminum they get injected from vaccines eventually makes it to their systemic flow. That results in a total load of aluminum entering the blood from diet of .0025*7mg= .01 mg compared to the 4.4mg of injected aluminum reaching their system. Or in other words, the ratio of aluminum reaching the blood from vaccine is about 250 times the amount reaching the blood from diet.
Better read the fine print or they will pull the wool over your eyes. See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010978 for some measurements.
But I want to commend you polymathwannabe. You are the first reply I have gotten that attempted to engage any meaningful question.
The article you cite says,
From the article I didn't gather what type of exposure was more worrying to the authors---acute or chronic. They seem to admit acute exposure has been proven safe, but on the other hand they dare not make any definite statements on chronic exposure. And above all, they never suggest that vaccinations should be stopped: in their conclusion they make it very clear that the purpose of understanding better the toxicity profile of vaccines is for increasing trust in vaccination.
The article I cited reported that breast fed infants wind up getting up to 1000 times as much aluminum from vaccines as from diet. That is the empirical result that paper was reporting. The rest is window dressing which would be at best the authors opinion. The question of whether getting that amount of aluminum is toxic is more complicated. The natural experiment is to scale it for weight and inject it into post natal mice. That experiment has been done and reports they suffer great developmental damage. There's also a fair amount of epidemiology that bears on the subject, which also suggests the aluminum is causing damage. Its highly correlated with autism, for example. I reviewed the literature all with links to about 3 dozen citations at http://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/08/example-1-pediatrician-belief-is-opposite-the-published-scientific-evidence-on-early-vaccine-safety/
Also, I suggest to you that there is demonstrably very strong crowd think effects on the subject of vaccines. A phenomenon of crowd think is persecution of heretics. In such a climate, scientists publishing results that challenge the orthodoxy have to tread very sensitively indeed if they wish to avoid the inquisition. And they often respond to this by adding various flowery prose to their publications such as that which you mention, mitigating the distaste of having to report such contrary results. If you wish to understand crowd think better, I recommend: http://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/22/why-are-the-pediatricians-so-confused-about-the-actual-state-of-the-scientific-literature/
There's no "inquisition" in medicine. There's peer review to ensure you did your homework, and government agencies to ensure you don't hurt (too many) people.
What criterion are you using to select what counts as fact and what is immaterial? How would you identify an author who is being reasonably cautious not to make any unjustified statements?
There's no "inquisition" in medicine. That's an unsupported opinion I believe is false. Laura Hewitson and Andrew Wakefield are immediate counterexamples that come to mind. I expect any Doctor that took a public position against vaccination would come under a lot of social pressure at least, and may well lose job or opportunities.
What criterion are you using to select what counts as fact and what is immaterial? How would you identify an author who is being reasonably cautious not to make any unjustified statements? I don't look to authors to make statements or draw conclusions. If I can't draw the conclusion myself, its not valid. I look to authors to report empirical data, and maybe spell out a proof or calculation of its implications, but if I can't personally follow the proof or calculation of the implications, then its not valid. The point of the scientific literature is, its supposed to be verifiable by scientists, so I look at it in that spirit. The scientists writing it are really supposed to keep their opinions out of it, but when they can't help themselves the readers should exercise judgement themselves. I am looking at the questions as semantic, as being questions about the physics of the world, and understanding it as a physicist should. What's relevant is what's relevant to answering the physics questions such as "are vaccines causing damage?" and is decided by the physics of the world and rationality.
I wasn't aware of Ms. Hewitson, but it appears she can't devise a proper experimental design to save her life. As for Mr. (and most decidedly not Dr.) Wakefield, charlatan is the kindest word I can apply to him. His link between vaccination and autism has been disproved over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
That's a huge red flag right there. It means they've already decided what research must prove.
I pointed out I'm not cherrypicking and have discussed every relevant citation that I've found. Please post a citation that I missed that is within the scope of my investigation or retract your comment and any negative points you have given me.
Just to point out one other thing you might be missing: The scope of my investigation is whether the aluminum and many early vaccines are causing developmental damage. It explicitly omits the only things the safety surveys focus on, which is thimerosal and mmr and acute effects . I omitted these because (a) they claim to have removed it from vaccines (except flu) and (b) mmr doesn't have adjuvants and is normally given second year of life and (c) its the only thing they defend, so why attack it, which will only involve great effort and likely be hard to decide in the end anyway? For aluminum and many early vaccines, there is no defense in the scientific literature of their safety, its a walkover to all intents and purposes, so it made the review task of deciding on the safety straightforward as well as relatively simple.
No I'm not. I am looking at every empirical study on aluminum, for example. I'm looking at every study that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated, or even more vaccinated to less vaccinated.
The safety surveys are cherry picking. I am not. I am following the scientific literature to find all the papers that address semantic issues like: is the aluminum in vaccines causing damage? Are vaccines in the first year or two of life inherently dangerous because they disrupt development of the immune system and brain? What studies of vaccinated and unvaccinated address the impact on long term health?
If you know of any studies on the other side of anything I've written, I am intensely interested in citations. The safety surveys don't cite anything, and I haven't been able to find anything.
I suspect the reason you think I'm cherrypicking is you assume there must be a literature on the other side of these issues that I have ignored. There is not. There is no empirical paper indicating that injecting the aluminum in vaccines into neo-nates is anything but highly toxic that I have found, or any of the rest of it. If you find any, please post a citation.
How high a probability would you assign to aluminum in vaccines being removed in 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?
sorry to jump in, but given the development of laser adjuvants at the moment there might at least be a viable alternative within a few years, whether companies would adopt it I don't know.
That's a good point and a reason to consider it likely independent of NatPhil's claim.