More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine

[John Titor]

More CDC Nonsense About the Flu Vaccine « Dr. Brownstein

 

[HenryWallace]

I always liked that the CDC stands for Center for Disease Control.... Ah yes, control! Not eradication or dissolution or anti, etc, but Control. Cause they've got all the good stuff!

 

[ViperJock]

The good doctor's math and statistical analysis are totally off. His assumptions are completely wrong. I'm not saying that the vaccine is anything to shout about BUT the guy in the article is FOS.

For example, you cannot compare people who did not get the disease to people who did (what sense does it make to subtract 33 from 50 to get efficacy? none) because you have no idea if they were exposed to it.

In order to decide efficacy you have to know who was exposed and whether it worked or not. The only group you have is the disease positive group B. note that of the persons who got the disease 67% were not immunized compared to 33% who were. That means of tjose with known contact, if you had not been immunized you were we're twice as likely to get the disease.

Of course there are other factors involved in the general public such as the categories and habits of those who are immunized vs those that aren't. For example; on one hand immunocompromised folks who are more likely to get the flu that seek medical attention are more likely to be immunized than healthy young people. But those people are more likely to have vaccination failure as well. On the other hand folks who choose not to get immunized may be more careful to avoid persons that are contagious.

My point is, it's hard to tell what the success rate is and people like this so called holistic doctor make it more difficult by throwing completely made up numbers and baseless rhetoric out there. Btw as a holistic doc, I'm sure he isn't financially vested in this at all...

 

[drillsgt]

The good doctor's math and statistical analysis are totally off. His assumptions are completely wrong. I'm not saying that the vaccine is anything to shout about BUT the guy in the article is FOS.

For example, you cannot compare people who did not get the disease to people who did (what sense does it make to subtract 33 from 50 to get efficacy? none) because you have no idea if they were exposed to it.

In order to decide efficacy you have to know who was exposed and whether it worked or not. The only group you have is the disease positive group B. note that of the persons who got the disease 67% were not immunized compared to 33% who were. That means of tjose with known contact, if you had not been immunized you were we're twice as likely to get the disease.

Of course there are other factors involved in the general public such as the categories and habits of those who are immunized vs those that aren't. For example; on one hand immunocompromised folks who are more likely to get the flu that seek medical attention are more likely to be immunized than healthy young people. But those people are more likely to have vaccination failure as well. On the other hand folks who choose not to get immunized may be more careful to avoid persons that are contagious.

My point is, it's hard to tell what the success rate is and people like this so called holistic doctor make it more difficult by throwing completely made up numbers and baseless rhetoric out there. Btw as a holistic doc, I'm sure he isn't financially vested in this at all...

I don't see anything wrong with his article, he was talking about a CDC study and not his own, if you have problems with the methodology you have to rant about the CDC and not the doctor. I didn't read the CDC's study but it sounds like it was probably data related to odd ratios or possibly risk ratios. These are pretty simplistic but often used measures in epidemiology regarding disease. You are right though that there are a lot of potential variables that do not get taken into consideration when using this type of analysis.

Odds ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[drillsgt]

I always liked that the CDC stands for Center for Disease Control.... Ah yes, control! Not eradication or dissolution or anti, etc, but Control. Cause they've got all the good stuff!

Just wait, they are about to get back into the gun research business.

 

[ViperJock]

I don't see anything wrong with his article, he was talking about a CDC study and not his own, if you have problems with the methodology you have to rant about the CDC and not the doctor. I didn't read the CDC's study but it sounds like it was probably data related to odd ratios or possibly risk ratios. These are pretty simplistic but often used measures in epidemiology regarding disease. You are right though that there are a lot of potential variables that do not get taken into consideration when using this type of analysis.

Odds ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently you didn't read the article or my post. Its not the methodology of the study, its the way he manipulates the data that the CDC offers up. I've had college, graduate, and post doc courses on statistics. Thanks for the wikilink tho

 

[level.eleven]

I stopped reading at holistic medicine.

 

[drillsgt]

Apparently you didn't read the article or my post. Its not the methodology of the study, its the way he manipulates the data that the CDC offers up. I've had college, graduate, and post doc courses on statistics. Thanks for the wikilink tho

So have I, that's why I thought you needed some help. I'd probably put more trust in a blog post than anything CDC puts out.

 

[steveh_131]

In order to decide efficacy you have to know who was exposed and whether it worked or not. The only group you have is the disease positive group B. note that of the persons who got the disease 67% were not immunized compared to 33% who were. That means of tjose with known contact, if you had not been immunized you were we're twice as likely to get the disease.

Dude, really? You're going to brag about your stats education then draw a ridiculous conclusion like this?

Even in that subgroup with known contact, you can not conclude that those who were unvaccinated were twice as likely to get the disease because you're drawing from a group with an inconsistent rate of vaccination. In fact, since well over half of the population is unvaccinated it is not at all surprising that a similar proportion of those who contracted the flu were unvaccinated. And it does not speak well for the efficacy of this vaccine.

 

[ViperJock]

Steve, I see what you are saying.

 

[ViperJock]

Dude, really? You're going to brag about your stats education then draw a ridiculous conclusion like this?

Even in that subgroup with known contact, you can not conclude that those who were unvaccinated were twice as likely to get the disease because you're drawing from a group with an inconsistent rate of vaccination. In fact, since well over half of the population is unvaccinated it is not at all surprising that a similar proportion of those who contracted the flu were unvaccinated. And it does not speak well for the efficacy of this vaccine.

The overall vaccination rate of the population studied would have to be 50% for there to be a twice as likely rate. I had initially assumed that this would be true, but it may not be. There is far too much information missing to be able to draw any conclusion.

 

[rambone]

Viperjock, do you have anything to say about the CDC's study and conclusions?

The word "nonsense" seems to fit.

Group A consisted of 1,582 subjects who did not get the flu. In Group A, 793 were given the vaccine in this group—50%. So, the CDC can tout a 50% efficacy of the flu vaccine.

 

[ViperJock]

Viperjock, do you have anything to say about the CDC's study and conclusions?

What I already said, they can't draw conclusions because they don't have a known infection (without contracting the disease) rate. At least I hope they don't... Do I think the shots work? At least some times. Do I think they fail? at least some times. Do I think there is a nefarious group trying to hurt us with vaccines? no. I think the CDC is trying to do its best to help. I think most groups, if not all, skew data/spin in their own favor.

 

[steveh_131]

The overall vaccination rate of the population studied would have to be 50% for there to be a twice as likely rate. I had initially assumed that this would be true, but it may not be. There is far too much information missing to be able to draw any conclusion.

At a 50% vaccination rate (which we are well under), you would expect 50% of those showing symptoms to be unvaccinated. If 66% are unvaccinated, you're only looking at a 16% difference, which is still nowhere near twice as likely.

Nevertheless, these numbers are quite confusing and I think the reality that we both understand is that they are ultimately meaningless. We have no idea how effective this vaccine is. The only numbers that give us anything concrete are the numbers of vaccinated folks who still contract the flu, which is alarmingly high.

Similarly we have absolutely no idea what harmful effects they could have.

 

[ViperJock]

At a 50% vaccination rate (which we are well under), you would expect 50% of those showing symptoms to be unvaccinated. If 66% are unvaccinated, you're only looking at a 16% difference, which is still nowhere near twice as likely.

Nevertheless, these numbers are quite confusing and I think the reality that we both understand is that they are ultimately meaningless. We have no idea how effective this vaccine is. The only numbers that give us anything concrete are the numbers of vaccinated folks who still contract the flu, which is alarmingly high.

Similarly we have absolutely no idea what harmful effects they could have.

Lets assume that you can do a study that allows 100% exposure. 50% of those infected of n=200. 100 in each group (vaccinated or not) that either have or do not have the disease.

Now out of the 100 people non-vaccinated 66 get sick.
Now out of the 100 people vaccinated 33 get sick.

When I originally ready the article this is how I was thinking it was structured. But the fail is in the exposure rate. You can count everything but how many people were exposed. I'm assuming that somewhere the CDC has rat studies or something that give them more data than we have for human studies. But then rats aren't humans.

I'm a lot less concerned about the so called "dangerous additives" than I am about having a couple weeks out from a bad flu. Dangerous additives and dangerous medical tests and procedures have increased our life span despite the increase in bad environmental conditions and compromised food. Granted there are errors and bad outcomes but as a whole the odds are ever in our favor....

 

[steveh_131]

Lets assume that you can do a study that allows 100% exposure. 50% of those infected of n=200. 100 in each group (vaccinated or not) that either have or do not have the disease.

Now out of the 100 people non-vaccinated 66 get sick.
Now out of the 100 people vaccinated 33 get sick.

When I originally ready the article this is how I was thinking it was structured. But the fail is in the exposure rate. You can count everything but how many people were exposed. I'm assuming that somewhere the CDC has rat studies or something that give them more data than we have for human studies. But then rats aren't humans.

Agreed on all of that.

I'm a lot less concerned about the so called "dangerous additives" than I am about having a couple weeks out from a bad flu. Dangerous additives and dangerous medical tests and procedures have increased our life span despite the increase in bad environmental conditions and compromised food. Granted there are errors and bad outcomes but as a whole the odds are ever in our favor....

Oh, I don't know. My entire family fought off a nasty influenza virus this year. A few days off work. It sucked, that much is certain, but I still won't be risking a vaccine over it.

And I agree that medical interventions are a wonderful thing, when necessary. But with all of the risks associated, I consider the instances of necessity to be fairly few and far between. Influenza just isn't worth it, but everyone has to make that decision for their own family.