How many people actually caught measles from the vaccination?

[fzappa13]

Yep, we can make stats say anything we want.

That was Sam Clements point and mine as well. That said, empirical evidence shows Autism, Cancer, Diabetes and other maladies on the rise precipitously. It would behoove us to find out why and the sooner the better. It's well past time to quit playing politics with numbers.

 

[fzappa13]

I looked up the data on frequency of autism over the years. Then I checked the percentage of people using cellular phones over the same period.

Doing a regression analysis, the formula for the regression line is:
y=4.857 + 0.054x. In other words, the more cell phones being used, the more autism.

Coefficient of correlation is:
r= 0.9534

Which, as you might know, is a remarkably strong correlation.

Then for the same period, I ran the analysis on frequency of autism with percentage of kids immunized with MMR.

The regression equation is: y=92.843 - 0.015x. In other words, the fewer kids immunized, the more autism we had.

The correlation coefficient is:
r= -0.9257

Again, a very good relationship, but a negative one. So we can be very confident of the results.

Clearly, cell phones cause autism, and vaccination prevents autism. (WFTH-I)

Thank you for reiterating my point.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep, we can make stats say anything we want.

Pointing out fizzle's faulty assumption. The key premise of statistics is "correlation does not necessarily indicate causation." His graph is as risible as mine. But of course, I meant mine to be.

Since vaccination rates have dropped as the incidence of autism has increased, it is doubly foolish to imagine that the data support the conclusion that vaccination causes autism.

A more reliable index would be comparing the rate of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, with all other variables controlled.

But the very fact that autism has increased as vaccination rates dropped, is a pretty good indicator that the idea is wrong. The point that the study supposedly supporting the link was found to have used faked data makes this more certain.

 

[The Barbarian]

That said empirical evidence shows Autism, Cancer, Diabetes and other maladies on the rise precipitously.

Hm... We'll get to that in a moment...

It would behoove us to find out why and the sooner the better.

Back in 2002:
BETHESDA, Maryland—Total annual cancer cases will likely double in the
United States during the first half of the 21st century, with 2.6 million
people diagnosed with the disease in the year 2050, according to a new federal
report (see Figure). The major driving force for this projected increase is the
growth and aging of the American population, which will sharply increase the
number of cases even if the cancer rate remains constant.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/articl...-population-growth-aging#sthash.y9cqnEw1.dpuf

Obesity and Diabetes in Vulnerable Populations: Reflection on Proximal and Distal Causes
Ann Fam Med. 2007 Nov; 5(6): 547–556.
Likewise, people from low-income and minority communities, as well as immigrants from the developing world, increasingly visit physicians in North America with obesity, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes. Explanations limited to lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise are inadequate to explain the universality of what can be called a syndemic, a complex and widespread phenomenon in population health produced by multiple reinforcing conditions.


There certainly may be some other contributing factors, such as pollution, increasing (but barely detectable) amounts of prescription drugs in wastewater, and so on.

But the causes of some of these are already known, and in some cases, preventable. Cancer is a disease of the elderly, and other than early detection and treatment, not much to do about it. Most diabetes can be prevented by diet and lifestyle.

 

[fzappa13]

Pointing out fizzle's faulty assumption. The key premise of statistics is "correlation does not necessarily indicate causation." His graph is as risible as mine. But of course, I meant mine to be.

Since vaccination rates have dropped as the incidence of autism has increased, it is doubly foolish to imagine that the data support the conclusion that vaccination causes autism.

A more reliable index would be comparing the rate of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children, with all other variables controlled.

But the very fact that autism has increased as vaccination rates dropped, is a pretty good indicator that the idea is wrong. The point that the study supposedly supporting the link was found to have used faked data makes this more certain.

Thank you for reiterating my point ... again.

 

[fzappa13]

Hm... We'll get to that in a moment...



Back in 2002:
BETHESDA, Maryland—Total annual cancer cases will likely double in the
United States during the first half of the 21st century, with 2.6 million
people diagnosed with the disease in the year 2050, according to a new federal
report (see Figure). The major driving force for this projected increase is the
growth and aging of the American population, which will sharply increase the
number of cases even if the cancer rate remains constant.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/articl...-population-growth-aging#sthash.y9cqnEw1.dpuf

Obesity and Diabetes in Vulnerable Populations: Reflection on Proximal and Distal Causes
Ann Fam Med. 2007 Nov; 5(6): 547–556.
Likewise, people from low-income and minority communities, as well as immigrants from the developing world, increasingly visit physicians in North America with obesity, metabolic syndrome, or diabetes. Explanations limited to lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise are inadequate to explain the universality of what can be called a syndemic, a complex and widespread phenomenon in population health produced by multiple reinforcing conditions.


There certainly may be some other contributing factors, such as pollution, increasing (but barely detectable) amounts of prescription drugs in wastewater, and so on.

But the causes of some of these are already known, and in some cases, preventable. Cancer is a disease of the elderly, and other than early detection and treatment, not much to do about it. Most diabetes can be prevented by diet and lifestyle.

Thank you for ... okay, that's enough Barbie. I get it. Stats can be used to form any reality you like. I get it. Do you?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

With my newly acquired powers I now offer this graphic. There are many more like this. They stand in stark contrast to those offered that indicate that vaccines are not only innocuous but beneficial. I think the old admonition about statistics applies here and elsewhere and that's why I'm greatly interested in personal stories and skeptical of stats. Stats are, as often as not, compiled by folks paid by folks who have their own agenda be they pro or anti vaccine or any other concern.

So the argument here is what exactly? Now all vaccines cause autism? :liberals:

Said another way, all these cute graphs suggest possible correlations that can't be confirmed by statistical analysis alone. Statistics suggest possibilities but they do not constitute proof of anything to anyone other than those predisposed to believe both their veracity and hypothetical conclusions.

The efficacy of the measles vaccine was first demonstrated via clinical trial under lab conditions and has been reproduced numerous times since, population level statistics have strongly corroborated these findings to the extent that not only is an increase in coverage followed by a decrease in measles cases, but decreases in coverage are followed by increase in cases. In countries where widespread vaccination campaigns began later, the drop in measles began later. Furthermore outbreaks occur not only when there is a decline in vaccination, but they occur in geographical locations where there are large concentrations of the unvaccinated. The relationship is multifaceted in such a way that it cannot be dismissed as mere correlation in the same way that Pirates-Global warming, Vaccination-Autism, or Cellular Phones-Autism are.

But even statistical analysis aside, the efficacy of the Measles Vaccine has been demonstrated via clinical trial under lab conditions, and the results have been reproduced more than once. In light of these facts, denial is not a rational response.

That is why I am much more interested in the personal experiences of others rather than the statistical offerings of those whose motives are, at best, questionable.

Anecdote is by far the weakest form of evidence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fizzle, not understanding statistics, imagines that one can't prove anything thereby.

Like any other methodology, it can be corrupted. But if it's used in a mathematically sound way, it can indeed show you the truth. Assumptions, like "correlation proves causation" are ways that lead amateurs astray, causing them to quit in disgust, imagining that it's worth nothing.

But businesses and politicians spend millions on statisticians, who can tell them much about the nature of voters and customers.

But you have to know what is going on, if you want to play the game.

 

[fzappa13]

Fizzle, not understanding statistics, imagines that one can't prove anything thereby.

Like any other methodology, it can be corrupted. But if it's used in a mathematically sound way, it can indeed show you the truth. Assumptions, like "correlation proves causation" are ways that lead amateurs astray, causing them to quit in disgust, imagining that it's worth nothing.

But businesses and politicians spend millions on statisticians, who can tell them much about the nature of voters and customers.

But you have to know what is going on, if you want to play the game.

I'm not a politician and I'm not playing games. I am becoming concerned about your motives, however, and I think it telling that you infer a superior knowledge of what statistics are credible while others are not so blessed.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'm not a politician and I'm not playing games. I am becoming concerned about your motives, however, and I think it telling that you infer a superior knowledge of what statistics are credible while others are not so blessed.

There's a fairly straight-forward way to determine the reliability of statistics, this is by no means esoteric knowledge.

 

[The Barbarian]

Fizzle writes:

I'm not a politician and I'm not playing games.

You're not a mathematician, either. Guess how we know.

I am becoming concerned about your motives,

And you're concerned about autism from vaccinations, so that doesn't really mean very much, does it?

however, and I think it telling that you infer a superior knowledge of what statistics are credible while others are not so blessed.

Knowing what you're talking about gives you an advantage, yes. The word you wanted, was "imply", BTW. "Infer" means to make a conclusion from evidence.

DS writes:

There's a fairly straight-forward way to determine the reliability of statistics, this is by no means esoteric knowledge.

For fizzle, it is.

 

[elohiym]

That actually refutes nothing, but carry on.

Yeah. He either doesn't understand the claim he's trying to refute, or he's being dishonest. Measles incidence and deaths had been declining long before the vaccine was introduced. Attached are two graphs: one shows the declining death rate for measles in the U.S. from 1900 to 1963, the other shows the declining death rate in the U.K. from 1838 to 1968.

 

[elohiym]

The mortality rate largely mirrors the incidence rate.

 

[elohiym]

The Science of Anti-Vaccination

​

You fell for that rabid pro-any-vax propaganda?

He starts with the claim "vaccines [in general] are good," and then immediately tries to link the entire vaccine controversy to the claim "vaccines [in general] cause autism."

@3:50 he essentially tries to downplay the fact that some parents have experienced adverse events immediately following a vaccination, and some of those adverse events were diagnosed as autism. He completely ignores that courts are paying damages to vaccine injury victims, including those who claim their autism was caused by a vaccine.

@4:00 while he claims the parent's belief that a vaccine is associated in time with a vaccine injury is "completely logical," he seems to think that doesn't matter because, "over a dozen peer-reviewed papers have found no correlation between autism and the MMR vaccine." He adds the claim, "... or any other vaccine for that matter."

See what he's doing? He then goes on to talk about conspiracy theorists, but still hasn't addressed any of the concerns I have as a parent about specific vaccines, testing, side effects or vaccination policy.

@5:05 he attempts to plant the idea that we should agree with doctors because allegedly 99% of all parents do. I guess he's not familiar with the idea of informed consent before receiving a medical treatment: "that's not a question to ponder."

@5:30 he assumes parents that choose to not vaccinate their children after researching the benefits and risks are confused rather than educated and making informed choices.

Horrible. Made to impress dimwits.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yeah. He either doesn't understand the claim he's trying to refute, or he's being dishonest. Measles incidence and deaths had been declining long before the vaccine was introduced. Attached are two graphs: one shows the declining death rate for measles in the U.S. from 1900 to 1963, the other shows the declining death rate in the U.K. from 1838 to 1968.

Interesting how one graph claims that the Measles vaccine was introduced in 1968. This is incorrect. It as introduced in 1963, not '68. Though they must have noticed the error and corrected it in the second graph.

Not off to a great start.

 

[elohiym]

Interesting how one graph claims that the Measles vaccine was introduced in 1968. This is incorrect. It as introduced in 1963, not '68. Though they must have noticed the error and corrected it in the second graph.

Not off to a great start.

I explained that one graph was the U.S. and the other the U.K.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yeah. He either doesn't understand the claim he's trying to refute, or he's being dishonest. Measles incidence and deaths had been declining long before the vaccine was introduced. Attached are two graphs: one shows the declining death rate for measles in the U.S. from 1900 to 1963, the other shows the declining death rate in the U.K. from 1838 to 1968.

Spoiler

Oh, hey, when you look at incidence rate in relation to the death rate, strange how the incident rate plummets at 1963.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I explained that one graph was the U.S. and the other the U.K.

It was introduced in 1963 in both countries.

"The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988. Prior to that a licensed vaccine to prevent measles first became available in 1963, an improved measles vaccine in 1968."

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-22173393

 

[elohiym]

It was introduced in 1963 in both countries.

According to the British: "In 1968, a vaccine was introduced in Britain..."

You can argue with them.

 

[elohiym]

Oh, hey, when you look at incidence rate in relation to the death rate, strange how the incident rate plummets at 1963.

Correlation is not causation. The incidence rates plummeted dramatically several times prior to any vaccine introduction.