I was a staunch Vaxxer then went completely anti vax - AMA

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:10 pm

amother Cadetblue wrote:

First of all correlation doesn't equal causation.

Correlation does not equal NO causation either.

This saying was invented by Tobacco Scientists who chanted " correlation does not equal causation"

To deny that cigarettes cause lung cancer.

But then they did Smoker V Non Smoker Studies that proved that smoking does cause cancer!

Cadetblue, how do you justify CDC refusal to do
A Vax V Unvax Study?

scruffy

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:12 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

1. Double blind placebo studies is the gold standard, nothing else comes close.

2. There is no ethics problem to do a Vax v unvax study, just compare the health outcomes of people who chose to be unvaxxed against the general population.

But CDC refuses.

In fact, when people started demanding a vax v unvax study, government response was to remove all Vax exemptions so there is no unvax control group to compare!

If that doesn't open your eyes, than nothing will.

"Double blind placebo studies" and "health outcomes of people who chose to be unvaxxed against the general population" directly contradict each other.

So yes, a double blind study would be unethical.

amother

↑ Cadetblue ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:21 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

Not sure why people are saying it wouldn't have ethical issues - if we go with the assumption that vaccines are life saving (go ahead, attack me for that), then a placebo study would be unethical.
I'm not saying (and never have) that the CDC is the gold standard for what is ethical and best practice - I'm aware they're politically motivated. BUT they are not the only source for information.

Also, maybe the exact phrasing of "correlation does not equal causation" is from tobacco scientists, but the concept is a statistical concept that is not politically founded at all - it's factual.

amother

↑ Aqua ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:27 pm

amother Cadetblue wrote:

But that's just it. We can assume they're life saving or life threatening. Which assumption do we make?

That's why there has to be a rigorous process that is always followed. If a cancer patient is given a year to live, he has to fight like mad to become eligible to participate in experimental treatment programs. Vaccines are treated differently than other medications.

amother

↑ Cadetblue

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:28 pm

amother Aqua wrote:

But this also assumes as fact that the vaccines are not harmful, are not tied to autism, auto-immune issues, cancer, whatever.

And here is where we reach an impasse - you'll never get both sides to agree on an assumption for this conversation, which means anti will always see CDC should do a double blind placebo study and pro will say that's unethical.
Anti - think of it this way - would you want to participate in a double blind placebo study where you have a chance of you/your child receiving the vaccine? That's how I feel about the same study from the other end - I wouldn't want to put myself/my child in a scenario where they might not get the vaccine

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:43 pm

amother Cadetblue wrote:

What is unethical about studying people who chose not to vaccinate

And comparing their health against the general population???

There is a pediatrician who did a Vax v unvax study based on his own patients (a couple thousand)
And the results were for autism

Completely unvaccinated 1:715

Partial spaced out Vaccinations. 1:438

And the general population (vaxxed per cdc) 1:45

Last edited by #BestBubby on Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ Trademark ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 2:48 pm

#BestBubby wrote:

What is unethical about studying people who chose not to vaccinate

And comparing their health against the general population???

There is a pediatrician who did a Vax v unvax study based on his own patients (a couple thousand)
And the results were for autism

Completely unvaccinated 1:700

Partial spaced out Vaccinations. 1:450

And the general population (vaxxed per cdc) 1:45

The whole point of vaccination is that everyone takes it and it provides herd immunity.

You can't just say it's my personal choice.

amother

↑ OP

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:15 pm

Trademark wrote:

The whole point of vaccination is that everyone takes it and it provides herd immunity.

You can't just say it's my personal choice.

Herd immunity is a scam.
Also another chapter dedicated to this topic entirely in turtles all the way down. Read it. You have nothing to lose. Worst case, you say it’s baloney, even though nobody has been able to refute any of it until this point, best case, you come out more knowledgeable on a topic of discussion that you were not aware of all the angles.

↑ skyeblue ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:15 pm

amother Cadetblue wrote:

It frustrates me when people hold binary views on topics that are based on statistics and data like this- inherently they cannot be 100% right because their view is based on statistics - there is no 100%. I've just heard this narrative on so many different polarized topics - when you refuse to admit that my claim might have legitimacy, I lose respect for the debate, because things are rarely so black and white. I don't claim to be absolutely right, and don't believe you are absolutely wrong. People in the more polarized group don't have the same perspective, and that's frustrating.
Btw, I'm aware that there are people from the pro-vax camp who do the same- your research/opinion is totally illegitimate and I'm 100% correct. I don't think that's right either

It sounds like you feel that since statistics can be interpreted in different ways, then if people don't have a nuanced conclusion that's a sign that their assessment of the issues has been less than fully logical or rational. And, of course, you cannot respect someone who you view as being irrational. (Please correct me if I'm misstating what you're saying.)

I hear that, but I'm not sure this is correct. The statistics get produced by studies, and you can distrust the studies that produced them. Then what? How do you evaluate statistics if you feel that the studies that produced them are unreliable?

In OP's case, her view is based on total distrust of the system and her discovery that vaccinations aren't getting tested properly. She said she would be willing to consider giving vaccines, but why is there no proper testing? Why are the vaccine companies not liable for damages? Why is there so much lying and gaslighting? Why do not they not take reports of vaccine injury seriously? They appear to want people to trust doctors and "studies" and "statistics" more than their own eyes and ears.

In such a situation, statistics need not even come into play. It's a mistake to think this decision (or any decision?) has to be based on statistics to be rational.

Also, re the bold, I could be mistaken, but I'm getting the sense that "anti-vaxxers"' "binary" views bother you more than the binary views of "pro-vaxxers," who you think are "not right," but it doesn't seem to actually bother you. Just saying.

↑ skyeblue

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:17 pm

amother OP wrote:

Also, why do *I* have to sacrifice *my child* to *your* herd immunity? (Not you literally, OP)

amother

↑ Aqua ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:33 pm

amother Cadetblue wrote:

That's why it's important to rigidly follow the regular rules and protocols as required for the approval of any medication. I don't think it would be impossible to find trial subjects who don't care whether their child gets the vaccine or not for purposes of conducting the trial.

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:33 pm

Trademark wrote:

The whole point of vaccination is that everyone takes it and it provides herd immunity.

You can't just say it's my personal choice.

If the vaccines work and you are immune ,

why do you care if someone is unvaxxed?

PS

There is no "herd immunity " by vaccination because it wears off, doesn't work on everyone

Herd immunity is when most of population gets the disease and has natural life long immunity.

Last edited by #BestBubby on Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

↑ Aqua ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:35 pm

Trademark wrote:

You're not sacrificing your child. You are protecting your family's health and the community's health, which btw we have an obligation to follow doctors.

As yidden we have a responsibility to one another.

This extreme individualism isn't a Jewish concept.

But that's just the question, isn't it? Am I protecting everyone's health or am I risking my child's health while conferring no benefit on anyone?

We don't have clear answers precisely because the initial steps were skipped or done improperly, such as no placebo trials.

↑ Trademark ↓

Thu, Sep 28 2023, 3:47 pm

amother Aqua wrote:

That's what I thought, too, until the covid vaccine when they claimed that if you are immunocompromised or elderly, that was even more of a reason to GET the vaccine. Literally made no sense.

I agree with you on the covid vax.

I'm talking more of the standard childhood vaccines.

I don't think because the covid vax became so political (I don't trust them on the covid vax either) that the other vaccines based on years of research and have not been politicized (besides for a few anti-vax) have to be put under the same category.