Tämä rokotetutkija ei halua nimeään julkisuuteen

Kuva 16: Sikotaudin/ mumps puhkeaminen hyvin (kattavasti) rokotetussa väestössä: 92% (sairastuneista) oli rokotettu ja 8% rokottamattomia. 2006 USA



Mielenkiintoista.

löpinää, vai katsoitteko edes graafeja? Kyse on tilastoiduista tiedoista!

yksiselitteisesti osoitetaan miten tuossa sinun linkittämässäsi tekstissä VÄÄRISTELLÄÄN tietoisesti asioita. Jos et sinne uskalla mennä, tässä vielä lainaus:

Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Obomsawin included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn't resist checking it out, and I found that the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data:

Respectful Insolence"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience, history, and pseudohistory (and anything else that interests him)

Latest Posts Archives About RSS Contact Who (or what) is Orac?. Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)

Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.

Search.

Recent Posts

.Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

Dr. Oz crosses the Woo-bicon yet again

Anti-vaccine nonsense is everywhere...like Elvis

The race to flee Andrew Wakefield

Andrew Wakefield on Good Morning America? Who says "tell both sides" medical journalist about pseudoscience is dead?

The Vaccine Times: For parents, by parents

The Nobel disease meets DNA teleportation and homeopathy

Work interferes with skepticism yet again...but maybe not for you

Misdirected criticism by someone from whom I would never have expected it

You knew it was inevitable...the Wakefield Downfall parody

Recent Comments.Mike on Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

Mojo on Dr. Oz crosses the Woo-bicon yet again

Tsumanai on Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

reasonablehank on Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

Tsumanai on Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

Matthew on Bravo! Homeopathy deconstructed by the CBC

dt on The race to flee Andrew Wakefield

One Queer Fish on As Andrew Wakefield's defenders circle the wagons

Anonymous on The race to flee Andrew Wakefield

Juha Leinivaara on Anti-vaccine nonsense is everywhere...like Elvis

Winner, Best Health Policies/Ethics Weblog of 2008

Archives.January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July 2010

June 2010

May 2010

April 2010

March 2010

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

May 2009

April 2009

March 2009

February 2009

January 2009

December 2008

November 2008

October 2008

September 2008

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007

November 2007

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

January 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

September 2006

August 2006

July 2006

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

Non-Orac Insolence.Medicine

AIDSTruth.org

Aggravated DocSurg

Alternative Medicine and Cancer

Australian Council Against Health Fraud

Autism News Beat

Bioethics Web Log

Black Triangle

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Confessions of a Quackbuster

Correcting the AIDS Lies

Dr. Len's Cancer Blog

Ethics of Vaccines

Focus on the AIDS/HIV connection

Health Care Renewal

Neurodiversity Weblog

Notes from Dr. R.W.

Polite Dissent

The Quack-O-Meter

QuackWatch

Stop Jenny McCarthy

Science-based Medicine

Terra Sigillata

White Coat Underground

Science

Bad Astronomy Blog

Deltoid

Good Math, Bad Math

Improbable Research

In the Pipeline

Living the Scientific Life

The Loom

MacResearch

Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship

The Panda's Thumb

Pro-Science

Real Climate

The Red Notebook

SciAm Observations

Science After Sunclipse

Science Creative Quarterly

Talk Origins Archive

Skepticism and critical thinking

Action Skeptics

Bad Science

The Bronze Blog

Butterflies and Wheels

Center for Inquiry

Church of Critical Thinking

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

The Crackpot Page

Crank dot Net

Critical Thinking Community

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

denialism blog

The Fallacy Files

Handbook of Fallacies

Holy Smoke

The Inoculated Mind

The Mad Revisionist

Memoirs of a Skepchick

The Millennium Project

Mondo Skepto

Museum of Hoaxes

NeuroLogica Blog

A Photon in the Darkness

Podblack Blog

James Randi Educational Foundation

Rationally Speaking

The Rogues Gallery

Skepticblog

Skeptic Magazine (UK)

Skeptico

SkepticReport.com

The Skeptic's Dictionary

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

The Skeptics Society

Snopes.com: Urban Legends

Stop Sylvia Browne

The Straight Dope

Stupid Evil Bastard

What's the Harm?

Combatting Holocaust denial

Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum

History on Trial

The Holocaust Controversies

Holocaust Denial On Trial

The Holocaust History Project

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Blog carnivals

Grand Rounds (Medicine)

The History Carnival

The Skeptics' Circle

Science and Surgery.American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association for Cancer Research

American College of Surgeons

American Society of Breast Surgeons

American Society of Clinical Oncology

Association for Academic Surgery

The Society of Surgical Oncology

Society of University Surgeons

« Utter defeat and devastation at the hands of science | Main | Quackery promotion zones? »

The intellectual dishonesty of the "vaccines didn't save us" gambit

Category: Antivaccination lunacy • Autism • Medicine

Posted on: March 29, 2010 8:00 AM, by Orac

If there's one thing about the anti-vaccine movement I've learned over the last five or so years, it's that it's virtually completely immune to evidence, science, and reason. No matter how much evidence is arrayed against it, it always finds a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent it to combat the evidence. Not that this is any news to readers of this blog or other skeptical blogs that make combatting anti-vaccine propaganda one of its major themes, but it bears repeating often. It also bears repeating and emphasizing examples of just the sort of disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of anti-vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt about vaccines among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to me; that is, at least until I actually took the time to look into them.

One example of such a myth is the claim that "vaccines didn't save us." The anti-vaccine website Vaccine Liberation has archived a set of graphs purporting to show that the death rates of several vaccine-preventable diseases, including whooping cough, diptheria, measles, and polio were falling before the vaccines for each disease were introduced. The website quotes Andrew Weil:

Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.

Bill Maher has said similar things about vaccines, and the "vaccines didn't save us" gambit is a staple of anti-vaccine websites, being spread and parroted hither and yon throughout the blogosphere by credulous anti-vaccinationists. One particularly idiotic blogger wrote:

The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.

Vaccines are a concoction of chemical adjuvants and preservatives coupled with virus fragments and have clearly been implicated in the astounding rise in neurological disorders around the world, yet the 'popular' media has embedded itself as a spokesperson for the pharmaceutical cartel and simply does not report in any responsible way the real situation.

Ah, yes, the truly brain dead "toxins" gambit. Of course, it is true that better sanitation is a good thing and has decreased the rate of transmission of some diseases for which sanitation can do so, many infectious diseases are transmitted person-to-person through the air from aerosolized drops of saliva from coughs and sneezes or from being deposited on objects that people touch frequently, like doorknobs and other fomites.

The "vaccines didn't save us" strategy is a distortion, as I will show. The best way to demonstrate this is to go on to the very first website that currently shows up on a Google search for "vaccines didn't save us." Although the post is from November, it's the main post that's been spreading this lie since then. Entitled Proof That Vaccines Didn't Save Us, it's one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest posts that I've ever seen. I say that not because it uses a common anti-vaccine distortion, but rather because it ups the ante by adding a new one clearly designed to address the criticism of the old one. It hides it in plain sight, too, which is why I have to give the blogger props for sheer chutzpah. Actually, I have to give props to the person who devised the graphs used in this post, Raymond Obomsawin, PhD. They represent the classic anti-vaccine lie, combined with some very clever cherry picking. I won't take them all on in this post. Maybe I'll take some of them on in a future post. What I will do, however, is to take on the first several, because they represent a common anti-vaccine theme that is very similar to the one archived by the Vaccine Liberation website.

In fact, let's look at the Vaccine Liberation page first. Notice that there are six graphs, four of which are for vaccine-preventable diseases for which widespread vaccination was undertaken, two for which it was not. All of them show decreasing death rates from the diseases. Wow! It seems like slam dunk evidence, doesn't it? Vaccines didn't save us! After all, death rates were declining years before the vaccine, and they were declining for the diseases that didn't even need a vaccine!

Death rates.

Here's the problem. It's not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving. More importantly, supportive care was improving. For example, take the case of polio. Before the introduction of the iron lung and its widespread use, for example, if a polio patient developed paralysis of the respiratory muscles, he would almost certainly die. The iron lung allowed such patients to live, some for decades. No doubt improved nutrition also played a role as well. However, if you want to see the impact of vaccines, take a look at this graph from the CDC of measles incidence, not death rates:

Similar results were seen most recently from several other vaccines, including the Haemophilus influenza type B vaccine, as the CDC points out:

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.

In the post to which I referred, the most intellectually dishonest graph is this one:

Note how this graph, unlike all the other graphs used to make the claim that "vaccines didn't save us" actually uses incidence data, in this case from Canada from 1935 to 1983. I was immediately suspicious of this graph, though. The reason should be obvious; the decline in measles incidence is far too smooth. Measles incidence typically varies greatly from year to year. Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Obomsawin included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn't resist checking it out, and I found that the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data:

Note how Obomsawin left out a section of ten years (1959 to 1968) during which measles was not nationally reportable. Also note how he's, to be charitable, cherry picked the years to produce the impression of a smoothly declining measles incidence from 1935 to 1958. As I said, it doesn't get much more intellectually dishonest than that, nor does it get much more intellectually dishonest than this description of Obomsawin:

"He has produced academically and/or professionally over eighty-five (85) articles, reports, policy documents, presentations, and publications."

A search of Pubmed reveals only one peer-reviewed publication from 1978, and it's only a commentary.

Jostain syystä tuli noin hirveästi tavaraa.

Kuva 16: Sikotaudin/ mumps puhkeaminen hyvin (kattavasti) rokotetussa väestössä: 92% (sairastuneista) oli rokotettu ja 8% rokottamattomia. 2006 USA Mielenkiintoista.

että näkee sen virallisen graafin jonka tietoja Mr. Obomsawin oli käyttänyt väärin.



Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Obomsawin included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn't resist checking it out, and I found that the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data:



Note how Obomsawin left out a section of ten years (1959 to 1968) during which measles was not nationally reportable. Also note how he's, to be charitable, cherry picked the years to produce the impression of a smoothly declining measles incidence from 1935 to 1958. As I said, it doesn't get much more intellectually dishonest than that, nor does it get much more intellectually dishonest than this description of Obomsawin:



"He has produced academically and/or professionally over eighty-five (85) articles, reports, policy documents, presentations, and publications."



A search of Pubmed reveals only one peer-reviewed publication from 1978, and it's only a commentary.

graafi tuhkarokon esiintymisestä



http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/upload/2010/03/the_intellectual_disho…

löpinää, vai katsoitteko edes graafeja?

Kyse on tilastoiduista tiedoista!

Ai juu: vale, emävale, tilasto :)

Tilastojen mukaan jäätelö aiheuttaa hukkumiskuolemia. Ai et usko? No, tilastojen mukaan kun lämpötila nousee (siis kesällä), ostetaan enemmän jäätelöa ja hukutaan useammin.

Tilastothan eivät valehtele, eihän?

-rolleyes-

kerrotaan hinkuyskärokotteen ja kätkynkuolemien yhteydestä.



2/3 103:sta vastasyntyneestä rokotettiin hinkuyskää vastaan. Kuolemantapauksia 6,5 % 12 tunnin sisällä rokotuksesta, 13 % 24 tunnin sisällä, 26 % kolmessa päivässä, 37 % viikossa, 61 % 2 viikossa ja 70 % 103:sta kätkytkuolemasta tapahtui 3 viikon kuluttua hinkuyskärokotteen antamisesta.

kuva 27 Torch W, Neurology -32(4-Pt.2)A, 1982, pp. 169-170



kuva 28 The Lancet - Vol.345; 8957; 1995, pp. 1062-1603



kuvat 29-31 Infectious Disease in Clinikal Practice -NO.6. pp. 449-454; (1997)



Lähteet ovat luotettavat. Tulkitsijasta näyttää riippuvan tekstin sisällön ymmärrys.

kerrotaan hinkuyskärokotteen ja kätkynkuolemien yhteydestä. 2/3 103:sta vastasyntyneestä rokotettiin hinkuyskää vastaan. Kuolemantapauksia 6,5 % 12 tunnin sisällä rokotuksesta, 13 % 24 tunnin sisällä, 26 % kolmessa päivässä, 37 % viikossa, 61 % 2 viikossa ja 70 % 103:sta kätkytkuolemasta tapahtui 3 viikon kuluttua hinkuyskärokotteen antamisesta.

Eipä löydy graafin lähteenä olevaa tutkimusta pub medistä, eikä kyllä myöskään Neurology-lehden arkistohaulla, vaikka sieltä löytyy vanhempiakin juttuja. Että hmmmm hmmm taas.

kuva 28 The Lancet - Vol.345; 8957; 1995, pp. 1062-1603

---

Lähteet ovat luotettavat. Tulkitsijasta näyttää riippuvan tekstin sisällön ymmärrys.

Mikähän lehti se mahtoikaan julkaista sen Wakefieldin "tutkimuksen"?

Vuonna 2004 suuri lääkeyhtiö GlaxoSmithKline jäi kiinni nolosta tempusta. Se oli antanut julkistettavaksi tuloksia lääketutkimuksesta, jossa oli testattu masennuslääke paroksetiinia lapsilla. Tulokset olivat ilmestyneet vuonna 2001 tieteellisessä Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychiatry -lehdessä artikkelissa, jonka johtopäätös kuului: paroksetiini on yleisesti hyvin siedetty ja tehokas lääke masennuksen hoitoon lapsilla.

Tulokset perustuivat tutkimukseen, joka kulki koodinumerolla 329. Sitä yhtiö ei kuitenkaan ollut julkistanut, että tutkimuksen 329 mukaan paroksetiini ei ollut sen tehokkaampi kuin plasebo. Eikä sitä, että se oli tehnyt paroksetiinista kaksi muutakin tutkimusta, joista toisen tulokset olivat ristiriitaisia, ja kolmannen mukaan plasebo oli tehokkaampi kuin paroksetiini. Lisäksi oli ilmennyt, että yhtiö oli peitellyt paroksetiinin mahdollista, harvinaista sivuvaikutusta, itsemurha-alttiuden kasvua.

Yhtiöstä vuoti ulos sisäisiä muistioita, jotka osoittivat, että sen markkinointihenkilökuntaa oli ohjeistettu salaamaan lääkkeelle kielteisiä tuloksia ja tiedottamaan lääkäreille vain myönteisistä tuloksista.

GlaxoSmithKline selvisi sotkusta USA:ssa sopimalla asian oikeusistuimien ulkopuolella ja maksamalla 1,8 miljoonan euron arvoiset sakot. Lisäksi se velvoitettiin perustamaan julkinen rekisteri, jossa se kertoo tiivistelmät kaikkien teettämiensä kliinisten tutkimusten tuloksista.

nämä te aina osaatte olla tutkimaata läpikotaisin

kuva 28 The Lancet - Vol.345; 8957; 1995, pp. 1062-1603

---

Lähteet ovat luotettavat. Tulkitsijasta näyttää riippuvan tekstin sisällön ymmärrys.

Mikähän lehti se mahtoikaan julkaista sen Wakefieldin "tutkimuksen"?

Lancet ei siis ole luotettava julkaisu...

niinkuin muillakin aloilla. Mutta kun ruvetaan väittämään jostain asiasta laaja-alaisesti että se ja se aiheuttaa jotain, niin näyttöä pitäisi olla pikkusen enemmän kuin jotkut epämääräiset tukijat vuodelta 1982, joitten tutkimuksia ei löydy edes niistä julkaisuista missä ne muka on julkaistu.

ja nautttia näemmä tämänkin palstan suuresta arvonannosta, vaikka uskottavuus näiden rahahuijausten takia on mennyt ajat sitten ainakin rokotuskriittisten silmissä?

kerrotaan hinkuyskärokotteen ja kätkynkuolemien yhteydestä. 2/3 103:sta vastasyntyneestä rokotettiin hinkuyskää vastaan. Kuolemantapauksia 6,5 % 12 tunnin sisällä rokotuksesta, 13 % 24 tunnin sisällä, 26 % kolmessa päivässä, 37 % viikossa, 61 % 2 viikossa ja 70 % 103:sta kätkytkuolemasta tapahtui 3 viikon kuluttua hinkuyskärokotteen antamisesta.

Jos 70 prosenttia kätkytkuolemista tapahtuisi aina 3 viikkoa rokotteen antamisesta, kyllä sen olisivat ajat sitten jo huomanneet kaikki. Joten tässä on taas esimerkki siitä miten lähdekritiikki kannattaa ja maalaisjärjen käyttö. Olet törmännyt yksinkertaisille tarkoitettuun harhautukseen ja niellyt syötin täysillä. Seuraavaksi kannattaa tarkistaa, mitä sulle yritetään myydä siellä mistä tekstin kopsasit.

Vuonna 2010 JAMAssa julkaistun yhdysvaltalaistutkimuksen mukaan kätkytkuolemien syy saattaa olla serotoniinin puute aivoissa. Pieneen ryhmään perustuva tulos näytti, että kuolleiden vauvojen aivorungossa oli vähemmän serotoniinia kuin vertailuryhmässä. Serotoniin synteesiin liittyvää tryptofaanihydroksylaasia (TPH2) oli 20 prosenttia vähemmän. Myöhemmät tulokset ovat vahvistaneet serotoniinivajeen todennäköisesti aiheuttavan kätkytkuolemia, mutta tutkimuksen pienuuden takia tulokset pitää varmistaa lisätutkimuksissa. Serotoniinivajeen ei kuitenkaan yksin uskota aiheuttavan vauvojen kuolemaa, vaan laukaisevaksi tekijäksi tarvittaisiin esimerkiksi nukkuminen vatsallaan.[3][4][5].



Australialainen lääkäri Archie Kalokerinos on esittänyt, että C-vitamiinin määrällä olisi merkitystä. Eri tutkimusten mukaan vauvojen rokotuksilla vaihtelevasti joko ei ole tai on erittäin vähän merkitystä kätkytkuoleman kannalta. Muita teorioita ovat muun muassa immuunijärjestelmän häiriöt, aineenvaihduntahäiriöt tai jokin vika sydämen toiminnassa. On havaittu, että kätkytkuoleman uhreilla on esiintynyt tavallista useammin nuhaa tai hengitystietulehduksia. Näiden mahdollisesta yhteydestä kätkytkuolemaan ei kuitenkaan ole tarkempaa tietoa. Lisäksi uskotaan, että kätkytkuolema on tavallista yleisempää erityisten nuorten tai raskauden aikana alkoholia ja heroiinia käyttävien äitien vauvojen kohdalla.lähde? Myös alhaisella syntymäpainolla ja odottavan äidin tupakoimisella[4] epäillään olevan osaa kätkytkuolemiin.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several studies have failed to provide sufficient evidence of a causal link between vaccinations and SIDS. They state:



From 2 to 4 months old, babies begin their primary course of vaccinations. This is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The timing of these two events has led some people to believe they might be related. However, studies have concluded that vaccines are not a risk factor for SIDS.[63]

alle 5 vuotiaiden kohdalla ennen ja jälkeen CDC:n määräysten.



Kuva 26



Poiminnot



1999 25 henkeä

2000 19

2001 13

2002 12

2003 88



lähde: Center for Diseace Control Vital Statistics Reports Covering 1999-2003 reported in Miller, N, 2, Vaccine Safety Manual, New Atlantean Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2008, p.97

syy, joka on rokotteet. Sattumalta nämä kuolemantapaukset tapahtuvat rokottamisten jälkeen, mutta yhteyttä rokotteisiin ei tietenkään ole.