Member
Member
I was a fool and took the flu shot between about 2010 and 2017. I was sick every year two or three times. I forgot to take it one year, and never got sick even once. At that point I decided never to get it again. I wish I had never taken it even once. I can't believe I actually used to trust the medical system.Originally Posted by Gilead
Member
There are many basic biotechnology textbooks out there that should make it clear enough.
If the existence of viruses themselves (despite no single virus having ever been isolated) really is a question several people have that cannot be answered through a little quick searching or biotech education, I may have to reluctantly address it further.
Thank you for the book; I will look at it.
I had that video playing in the background while I did other things a week ago; I would have to listen to it again to remember everything I though was hyperbolic or not completely true.
A few I remember:
I recall him making the argument that people who have been vaccinated against some diseases are more dangerous, because they can by asymptomatic carriers, whereas people who are unvaccinated will clearly be ill enough to avoid other people.
This is plausible, but unlikely:
-The asymptomatic carriers will often have pathogen loads low enough that they will not be infectious, except possibly to extremely immunocompromised people.
-People can be highly infectious before they become sick enough to know to avoid other people.
-We all know from experience that many people will try to continue working through an illness when they shouldn't.
I believe he might have said something about herd immunity being an invalid goal due to combination of other factors.
While it is true that herd immunity might not be a realistic goal for certain diseases or under certain circumstances, it can be a realistic goal if the right conditions are met.
Somewhat related to your cost/benefit analysis problem, his argument as to why the comparative studies will never be done has an additional answer that he neglected to talk about; they can't be done accurately under real-world conditions.
A comparative study done in 1981 will not produce the same results as a comparative study done in 1985 or 2020.
The results of the study done in 1981 would affect the results of the study done in 1985 by altering the distribution and spread of the disease, as well as vaccine uptake characteristics.
A study done after the introduction of a vaccine (even if it is only to a small percentage of the population) would have different results if it were done before anyone was vaccinated.
Even the spread of information or attention that led to the development of a vaccine might influence the results of a comparative study done before distribution of a vaccine.
Assuming the virus has correctly been identified, is correctly known to cause the illness associated with it and the vaccine data are correct, there are still far too many uncontrollable, ever-changing variables that would undermine the conclusions of the study.
A few of the variables:
-Population demographics
-Drug/pharmaceutic use in the population
-Immigration
-Health of the population, physical activity and economic well-being
-The weather
While he is correct in saying the data should be attempted to be gathered, he is incorrect in implying it would be possible to come to a valid conclusion based on those data.
If all cause mortality of the vaccinated is tracked and compared to all cause mortality in the unvaccinated, you will probably not get conclusive, actionable information; you might get a snapshot of the current situation.
In addition to everything else, we must take into account injuries, disabilities, illnesses and all sorts of other data that are difficult to evaluate objectively or on practical time scales; this is why qualitiative analysis and judgement calls based on the values of each individual must taken into account.
There aren't clear answers.
For example, one person may decide not to vaccinate his children based on the evolutionary argument that his grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be healthier if his children have to deal with the small risk posed by an endemic disease; He may view it as cruel to expose his grandchildren to the risks of dysgenic evolution.
His neighbor may think it is cruel to potentially expose his children to preventable pain or suffering.
A third neighbor may do a deterministic cost/benefit analysis, deciding some treatments are a good option, while others are not.
The only clearly wrong answer would be to let somebody else do the thinking for you; to allow an authority figure to dictate what medical decisions you must make.
Member
You're right, there are no definitive answers, but very few situations in life offer definitive answers in the case of a complex organism living in a complex chaotic environment. The challenge is that the questions might be flawed, unless they were designed that way. Let's look at the following scenario and then try answer your questions.
Let's assume:
1) There exists Disease X that is caused by virus X.
2) Most people (70%) who get infected by virus X survive with no apparent harm. 27% go through hell but recover. 3% are permanently partially paralyzed. Long term risk is unknown.
3) There exists a vaccine X that is effective. Immunity from the vaccine effectively protects the patient 100%. For example, since vaccine X was been introduced decades ago in the US, only 1 person in 20 years contracted disease X.
4) Vaccine X is safe. Only 1 in 500,000 (0.0002%) people get permanently partially paralyzed like the disease due to the Vaccine. Long term risk is unknown.
5) Vaccine X has been administered in the US for decades and most of the world. However, some countries in the third world have inconsistent vaccine administration, so the virus is still in circulation.
6) Immunity in the US and most of the developed world comes from the Vaccine, not an infection from the wild type virus.
7) The world is globalized and integrated. Business people travel relatively freely around the world.
Big assumptions, but now lets try to answer your questions for this scenario.
[*]What current, verifiable, measurable problems exist that might be solved with vaccines?
No current problems in the US because everyone has immunity from the vaccine. While infections occur sporadically around the world, they are hard to measure because of the low incidence level and because they occur in third world nations with poor monitoring and record keeping capabilities.[*]Of those problems, what is the statistical likelihood of exposure, illness, serious illness, and death?
Virtually none because most of the world population has immunity from vaccine administration.[*]Of the problems that are statistically significant in terms of serious illness and death, which have vaccines available?
We have Vaccine X[*]What is the statistical probability of serious illness (short and long-term) or death from those vaccines?
Probably impossible to know because of such current low incidence caused by immunity from widespread vaccine administration. This is based on the majority of data published by academic institutions or governments. If you don't trust the establishment data, then you would have to rely on cherry picked studies/books or on anecdotes (NY Post) that could leave you exposed to being fooled by randomness. [*]What is the objective risk assessment of vaccination versus not for those specific problems?
Most "experts" with establishment credentials say that vaccine X is safe based on the existing data from the CDC. Based on the establishment data, vaccine x is a safe bet, not very different from the Polio vaccine.
OK, but we don't live in Fantasy Land, so what do we do in the real world that is more complicated? On the one hand, we could be vaccinating for no reason because there is an extremely low risk of infection and harm from diseases like Polio in the US, thus exposing people to unknown risks from the vaccine. Well, then let's do an experiment and stop vaccinating to see if any kids get harmed if there is a resurgence of virus. I personally won't volunteer my kid for the experiment in cases like Polio and most other mandatory vaccines. I'd rather take a risk on the current vaccines.
One thing I know for sure; those who encourage or even hint that you should vaccinate or not to vaccinate must either offer skin in the game (their own kid) or shut their Cafone mouths.
Member
A whole wall of text and not one relevant thought.
The entire thing could be concisely communicated as: "Trust me, I trust the science that Fauci told me he is. It is settled"
I hate ChatGPT.
Ray, your analysis can be conducted, but not on an exclusively quantitative basis or without scenario analysis and modeling.
Member
I literally can't make any sense of this sentence. Several people have that cannot be answered through a little quick have... what? The sentence is missing an object. So what may you have address further, as reluctantly as it may be? Are you not a native English speaker or did you write this drunk? Can you try again?
Member
The skin-in-the-game sentence obviously got under his skin. Noted.
Member
I've thought about this a bit more. I will put my money where my mouth is and I will also contribute $250 AUD to the pot in having a research review done. I'm not sure if it overlaps 100% with what Ray wants as the schedule here in Aus is slightly different but happy to negotiate details if someone has the time and access to journals to do it.
Although I do think eventually someone with jailbreak an AI to give medical advice and make this a trivial concern, I did see a post from Martin Shkreli about an AI medical chat app which is hilarious on many fronts. Mainly because it's Martin Shkreli.
✓ Member
As a native English speaker, it actually made sense to me. This may be because it would make more sense spoken out loud, where the parenthetical clause would be tonally different, for example.
This may help:
---
IF
(the existence of viruses themselves* really is a question THAT several people have AND WHICH cannot be answered (through a little quick searching or biotech education) )
THEN
(I may have to reluctantly address it further).
* despite no single virus having ever been isolated
---
Does that help, Jovan?
And, of course, did I misrepresent you, Yngvi?
Member
As a native English speaker yourself, you understood it perfectly, Jason.
I believe the question about whether or not viruses actually exist is a question that does not deserve an explanation.
I also will not be doing an in-depth explanation about why the earth is not flat.
Posting Permissions
