Two doses of MMR 'may not protect from mumps'

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres. Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.

and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere. And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

Shame you hadn't checked the references before you plagiarised. Still,
you're used to embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should get back to editing that comic book of yours, it's
clear your talents are wasted here.

Que her instead to continue evading the subject in order to
promote vaccine. That's what she's here for, and that's what she does.


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

Pitiful.

Yes, you are.


PeteyB you utter maroon. It doesn't matter how much you try and weasel
out of it, or how stupid you're prepared to look.

You're the one snipping responses you can't respond to, not me.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

It says nothing about the differences, let alone highlights them. It's
utterly irrelevant.

It demonstrates the range of possible values for vaccine effectiveness.
That's all it was designed to do.

No. It was designed to measure the effectiveness of a school entry
immunisation law...

Which required analysis of the vaccine's effectiveness, Dimwit.

And the results were favourable for that law. Have
you still not read it?

Have you still not grown a brain? The measurement of the vaccine's
effectiveness was the subject of the discussion, not whether the
vaccine program was considered effective overall. Have you looked up
non sequitur lately?

It's pathetic that you have to
pretend to be this stupid just to evade that simple point. Or do you
prefer we conclude that you actually *are* this stupid?

So you still haven't read it.

So you really are that stupid.


:
"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong.

This study has nothing to say on the issue. As you know.

We have many studies on antibody titre outcomes, with most of those
values over 90%. This study of vaccine-induced immunization in the
real world shows the highest confidence value for immunization at 77%.
Anyone with comic book level reading capacity would get that.

This study says absolutely nothing about antibody titres. Still not
read it?

Still stupid?


No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant.

It doesn't compare them at all, let alone directly.

The comparison in inferred from what virology has already taught us
about these disparities, Dimwit.

Bless. If john had studies that backed his point he should have given
them, rather than giving one that was not only irrelevant but showed
immunisation in a good light.

Another non sequitur. Answer this: Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization? Well?

I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

Petey demonstrates yet again that not only is his arithmetic lacking,
he never got any farther.

So Rosalind says, yet her rebuttal fails to explain *why* she says
this. How amusing.

Petey, anyone with an education beyond high school would understand. It
is indeed amusing.

So amusing she is unable to answer the question. Is the confidence
level for the 91% estimate as high as the confidence level for the 77%
efficacy of vaccine used in the study? Well?



You really are an utter arse. If you must plagiarise, try a more
reliable site--that's almost all of them.

Whereas you cite no references in support of anything you say, which is
good, because the few times you've tried, you've only managed to
embarrass yourself.

Petey, on the many times I've cited references, I've always read them
beforehand.

Then you are truly dimwitted. When you read studies on a disease not
being discussed, you should not later claim that you thought it was
relevant. When you read a chart, try not to add too many zeros to your
citation, resulting in a 1000% variance from the reported data. I
mean, while you're not writing that book on science you talk about.

I am an editor, Petey, not an author.

Sure you are, Rosalind.

And of course, I did not
misunderstand a chart; I simply took a number from the CDC.

You should leave number analysis to those more capable than yourself.

You, on the other hand exposed your ignorance of all of the sciences
when you claimed that vitamin C turned hydrogen into oxygen.

We know that paraphrasing has become your favorite tool for telling
lies. Without that, what have you got?

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity. But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?


Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval..


Shame you hadn't checked the references before you plagiarised. Still,
you're used to embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should get back to editing that comic book of yours, it's
clear your talents are wasted here.

Que her instead to continue evading the subject in order to
promote vaccine. That's what she's here for, and that's what she does.


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

Pitiful.

Yes, you are.


PeteyB you utter maroon. It doesn't matter how much you try and weasel
out of it, or how stupid you're prepared to look.

You're the one snipping responses you can't respond to, not me.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

It says nothing about the differences, let alone highlights them. It's
utterly irrelevant.

It demonstrates the range of possible values for vaccine effectiveness.
That's all it was designed to do.

No. It was designed to measure the effectiveness of a school entry
immunisation law...

Which required analysis of the vaccine's effectiveness, Dimwit.

And the results were favourable for that law. Have
you still not read it?

Have you still not grown a brain? The measurement of the vaccine's
effectiveness was the subject of the discussion, not whether the
vaccine program was considered effective overall. Have you looked up
non sequitur lately?

It's pathetic that you have to
pretend to be this stupid just to evade that simple point. Or do you
prefer we conclude that you actually *are* this stupid?

So you still haven't read it.

So you really are that stupid.


:
"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong.

This study has nothing to say on the issue. As you know.

We have many studies on antibody titre outcomes, with most of those
values over 90%. This study of vaccine-induced immunization in the
real world shows the highest confidence value for immunization at 77%.
Anyone with comic book level reading capacity would get that.

This study says absolutely nothing about antibody titres. Still not
read it?

Still stupid?


No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant.

It doesn't compare them at all, let alone directly.

The comparison in inferred from what virology has already taught us
about these disparities, Dimwit.

Bless. If john had studies that backed his point he should have given
them, rather than giving one that was not only irrelevant but showed
immunisation in a good light.

Another non sequitur. Answer this: Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization? Well?

I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

Petey demonstrates yet again that not only is his arithmetic lacking,
he never got any farther.

So Rosalind says, yet her rebuttal fails to explain *why* she says
this. How amusing.

Petey, anyone with an education beyond high school would understand. It
is indeed amusing.

So amusing she is unable to answer the question. Is the confidence
level for the 91% estimate as high as the confidence level for the 77%
efficacy of vaccine used in the study? Well?



You really are an utter arse. If you must plagiarise, try a more
reliable site--that's almost all of them.

Whereas you cite no references in support of anything you say, which is
good, because the few times you've tried, you've only managed to
embarrass yourself.

Petey, on the many times I've cited references, I've always read them
beforehand.

Then you are truly dimwitted. When you read studies on a disease not
being discussed, you should not later claim that you thought it was
relevant. When you read a chart, try not to add too many zeros to your
citation, resulting in a 1000% variance from the reported data. I
mean, while you're not writing that book on science you talk about.

I am an editor, Petey, not an author.

Sure you are, Rosalind.

And of course, I did not
misunderstand a chart; I simply took a number from the CDC.

You should leave number analysis to those more capable than yourself.

You, on the other hand exposed your ignorance of all of the sciences
when you claimed that vitamin C turned hydrogen into oxygen.

We know that paraphrasing has become your favorite tool for telling
lies. Without that, what have you got?

PeterB

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval..


Shame you hadn't checked the references before you plagiarised. Still,
you're used to embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should get back to editing that comic book of yours, it's
clear your talents are wasted here.

Que her instead to continue evading the subject in order to
promote vaccine. That's what she's here for, and that's what she does.


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

Pitiful.

Yes, you are.


PeteyB you utter maroon. It doesn't matter how much you try and weasel
out of it, or how stupid you're prepared to look.

You're the one snipping responses you can't respond to, not me.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

It says nothing about the differences, let alone highlights them. It's
utterly irrelevant.

It demonstrates the range of possible values for vaccine effectiveness.
That's all it was designed to do.

No. It was designed to measure the effectiveness of a school entry
immunisation law...

Which required analysis of the vaccine's effectiveness, Dimwit.

And the results were favourable for that law. Have
you still not read it?

Have you still not grown a brain? The measurement of the vaccine's
effectiveness was the subject of the discussion, not whether the
vaccine program was considered effective overall. Have you looked up
non sequitur lately?

It's pathetic that you have to
pretend to be this stupid just to evade that simple point. Or do you
prefer we conclude that you actually *are* this stupid?

So you still haven't read it.

So you really are that stupid.


:
"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong.

This study has nothing to say on the issue. As you know.

We have many studies on antibody titre outcomes, with most of those
values over 90%. This study of vaccine-induced immunization in the
real world shows the highest confidence value for immunization at 77%.
Anyone with comic book level reading capacity would get that.

This study says absolutely nothing about antibody titres. Still not
read it?

Still stupid?


No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant.

It doesn't compare them at all, let alone directly.

The comparison in inferred from what virology has already taught us
about these disparities, Dimwit.

Bless. If john had studies that backed his point he should have given
them, rather than giving one that was not only irrelevant but showed
immunisation in a good light.

Another non sequitur. Answer this: Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization? Well?

I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

Petey demonstrates yet again that not only is his arithmetic lacking,
he never got any farther.

So Rosalind says, yet her rebuttal fails to explain *why* she says
this. How amusing.

Petey, anyone with an education beyond high school would understand. It
is indeed amusing.

So amusing she is unable to answer the question. Is the confidence
level for the 91% estimate as high as the confidence level for the 77%
efficacy of vaccine used in the study? Well?



You really are an utter arse. If you must plagiarise, try a more
reliable site--that's almost all of them.

Whereas you cite no references in support of anything you say, which is
good, because the few times you've tried, you've only managed to
embarrass yourself.

Petey, on the many times I've cited references, I've always read them
beforehand.

Then you are truly dimwitted. When you read studies on a disease not
being discussed, you should not later claim that you thought it was
relevant. When you read a chart, try not to add too many zeros to your
citation, resulting in a 1000% variance from the reported data. I
mean, while you're not writing that book on science you talk about.

I am an editor, Petey, not an author.

Sure you are, Rosalind.

And of course, I did not
misunderstand a chart; I simply took a number from the CDC.

You should leave number analysis to those more capable than yourself.

You, on the other hand exposed your ignorance of all of the sciences
when you claimed that vitamin C turned hydrogen into oxygen.

We know that paraphrasing has become your favorite tool for telling
lies. Without that, what have you got?

PeterB

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.


But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,
otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.



Shame you hadn't checked the references before you plagiarised. Still,
you're used to embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should get back to editing that comic book of yours, it's
clear your talents are wasted here.

Que her instead to continue evading the subject in order to
promote vaccine. That's what she's here for, and that's what she does.


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

Pitiful.

Yes, you are.


PeteyB you utter maroon. It doesn't matter how much you try and weasel
out of it, or how stupid you're prepared to look.

You're the one snipping responses you can't respond to, not me.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

It says nothing about the differences, let alone highlights them. It's
utterly irrelevant.

It demonstrates the range of possible values for vaccine effectiveness.
That's all it was designed to do.

No. It was designed to measure the effectiveness of a school entry
immunisation law...

Which required analysis of the vaccine's effectiveness, Dimwit.

And the results were favourable for that law. Have
you still not read it?

Have you still not grown a brain? The measurement of the vaccine's
effectiveness was the subject of the discussion, not whether the
vaccine program was considered effective overall. Have you looked up
non sequitur lately?

It's pathetic that you have to
pretend to be this stupid just to evade that simple point. Or do you
prefer we conclude that you actually *are* this stupid?

So you still haven't read it.

So you really are that stupid.


:
"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong.

This study has nothing to say on the issue. As you know.

We have many studies on antibody titre outcomes, with most of those
values over 90%. This study of vaccine-induced immunization in the
real world shows the highest confidence value for immunization at 77%.
Anyone with comic book level reading capacity would get that.

This study says absolutely nothing about antibody titres. Still not
read it?

Still stupid?


No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant.

It doesn't compare them at all, let alone directly.

The comparison in inferred from what virology has already taught us
about these disparities, Dimwit.

Bless. If john had studies that backed his point he should have given
them, rather than giving one that was not only irrelevant but showed
immunisation in a good light.

Another non sequitur. Answer this: Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization? Well?

I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

Petey demonstrates yet again that not only is his arithmetic lacking,
he never got any farther.

So Rosalind says, yet her rebuttal fails to explain *why* she says
this. How amusing.

Petey, anyone with an education beyond high school would understand. It
is indeed amusing.

So amusing she is unable to answer the question. Is the confidence
level for the 91% estimate as high as the confidence level for the 77%
efficacy of vaccine used in the study? Well?



You really are an utter arse. If you must plagiarise, try a more
reliable site--that's almost all of them.

Whereas you cite no references in support of anything you say, which is
good, because the few times you've tried, you've only managed to
embarrass yourself.

Petey, on the many times I've cited references, I've always read them
beforehand.

Then you are truly dimwitted. When you read studies on a disease not
being discussed, you should not later claim that you thought it was
relevant. When you read a chart, try not to add too many zeros to your
citation, resulting in a 1000% variance from the reported data. I
mean, while you're not writing that book on science you talk about.

I am an editor, Petey, not an author.

Sure you are, Rosalind.

And of course, I did not
misunderstand a chart; I simply took a number from the CDC.

You should leave number analysis to those more capable than yourself.

You, on the other hand exposed your ignorance of all of the sciences
when you claimed that vitamin C turned hydrogen into oxygen.

We know that paraphrasing has become your favorite tool for telling
lies. Without that, what have you got?

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.

Petey, although you are squirming to avoid it, this conversation began
when you plagiarised whale.to and failed to notice that john had, as
usual, cited irrelevant references.



But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

Amazing. Petey really is stupid enough to think that people haven't
noticed that the study under discussion showed absolutely nothing about
the relationship between antibody titres and immunity.
And that people haven't noticed the incredible correlation between how
wrong he is and the pointless insults he spouts.


And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,

Absolutely incredible. Your grasp of maths is apparently just as shaky
as your grasp of chemistry.

The confidence level, Petey, applies to the interval. It does not apply
to *any* of the values in the interval. Just a tad of common sense
(regardless of your lack of maths) should have told you it's not
possible to be simultaneously 95% confident that a true value is all of
the values between 77% and 93%.

As you've been told before, Petey, you really should STFU when you
haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're embarrassing your
corporate masters again.


otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.

See? The wronger you get, the louder are your half-witted accusations
of others' stupidity.





Shame you hadn't checked the references before you plagiarised. Still,
you're used to embarrassing yourself.

Maybe you should get back to editing that comic book of yours, it's
clear your talents are wasted here.

Que her instead to continue evading the subject in order to
promote vaccine. That's what she's here for, and that's what she does.


cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

Pitiful.

Yes, you are.


PeteyB you utter maroon. It doesn't matter how much you try and weasel
out of it, or how stupid you're prepared to look.

You're the one snipping responses you can't respond to, not me.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

It says nothing about the differences, let alone highlights them. It's
utterly irrelevant.

It demonstrates the range of possible values for vaccine effectiveness.
That's all it was designed to do.

No. It was designed to measure the effectiveness of a school entry
immunisation law...

Which required analysis of the vaccine's effectiveness, Dimwit.

And the results were favourable for that law. Have
you still not read it?

Have you still not grown a brain? The measurement of the vaccine's
effectiveness was the subject of the discussion, not whether the
vaccine program was considered effective overall. Have you looked up
non sequitur lately?

It's pathetic that you have to
pretend to be this stupid just to evade that simple point. Or do you
prefer we conclude that you actually *are* this stupid?

So you still haven't read it.

So you really are that stupid.


:
"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong.

This study has nothing to say on the issue. As you know.

We have many studies on antibody titre outcomes, with most of those
values over 90%. This study of vaccine-induced immunization in the
real world shows the highest confidence value for immunization at 77%.
Anyone with comic book level reading capacity would get that.

This study says absolutely nothing about antibody titres. Still not
read it?

Still stupid?


No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant.

It doesn't compare them at all, let alone directly.

The comparison in inferred from what virology has already taught us
about these disparities, Dimwit.

Bless. If john had studies that backed his point he should have given
them, rather than giving one that was not only irrelevant but showed
immunisation in a good light.

Another non sequitur. Answer this: Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization? Well?

I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

Petey demonstrates yet again that not only is his arithmetic lacking,
he never got any farther.

So Rosalind says, yet her rebuttal fails to explain *why* she says
this. How amusing.

Petey, anyone with an education beyond high school would understand. It
is indeed amusing.

So amusing she is unable to answer the question. Is the confidence
level for the 91% estimate as high as the confidence level for the 77%
efficacy of vaccine used in the study? Well?



You really are an utter arse. If you must plagiarise, try a more
reliable site--that's almost all of them.

Whereas you cite no references in support of anything you say, which is
good, because the few times you've tried, you've only managed to
embarrass yourself.

Petey, on the many times I've cited references, I've always read them
beforehand.

Then you are truly dimwitted. When you read studies on a disease not
being discussed, you should not later claim that you thought it was
relevant. When you read a chart, try not to add too many zeros to your
citation, resulting in a 1000% variance from the reported data. I
mean, while you're not writing that book on science you talk about.

I am an editor, Petey, not an author.

Sure you are, Rosalind.

And of course, I did not
misunderstand a chart; I simply took a number from the CDC.

You should leave number analysis to those more capable than yourself.

You, on the other hand exposed your ignorance of all of the sciences
when you claimed that vitamin C turned hydrogen into oxygen.

We know that paraphrasing has become your favorite tool for telling
lies. Without that, what have you got?

PeterB

In article .com,
PeterB wrote:

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
snip weadelling, ad hominem, and plain old nursery games.

Rosalind (aka cathy) always snips what she cannot answer.

PeterB always reverts to insults (e.g. name calling) when he starts
feeling his back to the wall.

You plagiarised whale.to. You selected one of the many pages of
whale.to in which john cites a study to back up his point which in fact
is irrelevant or contradicts him.

You've lied about what has been said, making the idiot claim that
because this particular study doesn't analyse the disparities between
vaccine-induced immunization and antibody titre, it can't be used to
highlight those differences.

A study that doesn't discuss topic X can't be used to back up claims
about topic X. That seems pretty clear to me, at least.


"Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than
would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry lawon mumps activity in a school district. JAMA 1987;257(18):
2455-8 "

Unfortunately the article cited shows nothing of the kind:

"Sixty-three cases of clinical mumps occurring in a New Jersey school

district presented an opportunity to determine compliance with the
state's 1978 mumps "new entrants" school immunization law,
investigate the effect of the law on the pattern of the outbreak,
estimate the efficacy of mumps vaccine, and quantitate the economic
impact of the outbreak. Only students in kindergarten (K) through
grade 5 would have been affected by the immunization law. Students
in the sixth grade were nearly seven times more likely to develop
mumps than students in grades K through 5. The observed differences
between the sixth graders and those in grades K through 5 most
likely reflect the fact that sixth graders were not covered by the
school law. Vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 91% (95% confidence
interval = 77% to 93%). The total direct cost of the outbreak was
$10,937 (clinic costs plus total cost to households). This outbreak
demonstrates the significant impact of appropriate school
vaccination laws on limiting the morbidity and economic and social
costs of mumps.

In fact, it simply shows a vaccine efficacy around what would be
expected.

It depends on what you expect. If you argue that vaccine-induced
immunization is as good as antibody titres, this study proves you
wrong. No one in virology makes such a claim anyway, and the fact this
study doesn't compare those disparities directly isn't relevant. I
know you want to promote vaccine, but you can do it more honestly than
this. The 95% confidence interval is associated here with a wide range
of possible values, with the lowest being 77%. Probabilistically
speaking, the lower the efficacy, the higher the confidence value,
meaning the 91% "estimate" has a much lower confidence level than the
77%.

PeterB, you need to take some time off and get someone to explain to
you what a confidence interval is. Your claims about it, and about
the associated probabilities, are nonsensical. As Wolfgang Pauli once
said, "That's not right. That's not even wrong."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.

Petey, although you are squirming to avoid it, this conversation began
when you plagiarised whale.to and failed to notice that john had, as
usual, cited irrelevant references.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study rests in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.


But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

Amazing. Petey really is stupid enough to think that people haven't
noticed that the study under discussion showed absolutely nothing about
the relationship between antibody titres and immunity.

Incredible. Roslind (cathy, whoever she might be), is stupid enough to
think this study must broach the results of every other study in order
to determine its relative impact against antibody titres. And she
claims to be an editor. I wonder which comic book that is?


And that people haven't noticed the incredible correlation between how
wrong he is and the pointless insults he spouts.

*chuckles*


And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,

Absolutely incredible. Your grasp of maths is apparently just as shaky
as your grasp of chemistry.

Coming from someone who quotes a chart and gets it 1000% wrong, that's
quite amusing.

The confidence level, Petey, applies to the interval. It does not apply
to *any* of the values in the interval.

What did I just say, dimwit? It's the reason that the 77% figure is
more certain (by far) than the 93% figure. Something you are careful
to avoid admitting.

Just a tad of common sense
(regardless of your lack of maths) should have told you it's not
possible to be simultaneously 95% confident that a true value is all of
the values between 77% and 93%.

Rosalind's way of admitting I was right in the post that explained this
earlier. How pathetic.

As you've been told before, Petey, you really should STFU when you
haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're embarrassing your
corporate masters again.

*chuckles* She's good for a laugh, though.

otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.

See? The wronger you get, the louder are your half-witted accusations
of others' stupidity.

Poor Rosalind. She is all things (soccer mom, chemist, hellfire
preacher, editor) to all people. Which one should we believe? I say
none of the above.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.

Petey, although you are squirming to avoid it, this conversation began
when you plagiarised whale.to and failed to notice that john had, as
usual, cited irrelevant references.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study rests in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.

Petey. It doesn't say a damn thing about the relationship between
antibody titres and immunity. You know it, as does everyone else, and
if you had bothered checking the study before you plagiarised whale.to,
you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself.



But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

Amazing. Petey really is stupid enough to think that people haven't
noticed that the study under discussion showed absolutely nothing about
the relationship between antibody titres and immunity.

Incredible. Roslind (cathy, whoever she might be), is stupid enough to
think this study must broach the results of every other study in order
to determine its relative impact against antibody titres. And she
claims to be an editor. I wonder which comic book that is?

Petey, bleatingly insisting on the study's relevance when anyone
who's interested has looked at it is not enhancing your credibility.



And that people haven't noticed the incredible correlation between how
wrong he is and the pointless insults he spouts.

*chuckles*


And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,

Absolutely incredible. Your grasp of maths is apparently just as shaky
as your grasp of chemistry.

Coming from someone who quotes a chart and gets it 1000% wrong, that's
quite amusing.

The confidence level, Petey, applies to the interval. It does not apply
to *any* of the values in the interval.

What did I just say, dimwit?

Well, Petey, you just said "It applies to every value in the
interval". You were utterly, 100% wrong, since as I just pointed out,
it applies to *none* of them.

Petey, since you don't know any maths, you're making a bit of a
dick of yourself.

It's the reason that the 77% figure is
more certain (by far) than the 93% figure.

And here's the thing.

No, it isn't. You don't understand what you're discussing, Petey.
You simply haven't a clue.

Look, a given confidence level applies to an interval, Petey, and it is
not higher or lower for any part of that interval; it does *not* apply
to the values in the interval, and you are talking nonsense.

Something you are careful
to avoid admitting.

Petey, I've already said you were wrong several times.


Just a tad of common sense
(regardless of your lack of maths) should have told you it's not
possible to be simultaneously 95% confident that a true value is all of
the values between 77% and 93%.

Rosalind's way of admitting I was right in the post that explained this
earlier. How pathetic.

Cecil, you appear to be confused as to what you have and haven't
said. What you actually said was that the confidence level was higher
for the lower figure, which if you knew any maths at all, you would
know is bull****.

And then you said that the confidence level applies to all of the
values within an interval. Chuckles indeed.


As you've been told before, Petey, you really should STFU when you
haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're embarrassing your
corporate masters again.

*chuckles* She's good for a laugh, though.

This bit's good-it's where Petey demonstrates that his lack of
maths extends to the standard deviation:


otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.

See? The wronger you get, the louder are your half-witted accusations
of others' stupidity.

Poor Rosalind. She is all things (soccer mom, chemist, hellfire
preacher, editor) to all people. Which one should we believe? I say
none of the above.

Say Petey, instead of simply proving me right by indulging in an ad
hominem attack, why don't you give us all a laugh by explaining your
statement that the standard deviation has a "more certain" lower
number?

Hint: it's bull****. There may be good reasons for relying on the
positive or negative standard deviation depending on what you're
studying, but yours isn't one of them.

Go back to peddling your supplements, Petey. At least you occasionally
get things right when you stick to doing that. And I suggest a little
less vituperation when you haven't a clue what you're talking
about.



PeterB

cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.

Petey, although you are squirming to avoid it, this conversation began
when you plagiarised whale.to and failed to notice that john had, as
usual, cited irrelevant references.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study rests in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.

Petey. It doesn't say a damn thing about the relationship between
antibody titres and immunity. You know it, as does everyone else, and
if you had bothered checking the study before you plagiarised whale.to,
you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study sits in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.


But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

Amazing. Petey really is stupid enough to think that people haven't
noticed that the study under discussion showed absolutely nothing about
the relationship between antibody titres and immunity.

Incredible. Roslind (cathy, whoever she might be), is stupid enough to
think this study must broach the results of every other study in order
to determine its relative impact against antibody titres. And she
claims to be an editor. I wonder which comic book that is?

Petey, bleatingly insisting on the study's relevance when anyone
who's interested has looked at it is not enhancing your credibility.

You're babbling, Rosalind.

And that people haven't noticed the incredible correlation between how
wrong he is and the pointless insults he spouts.

*chuckles*


And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,

Absolutely incredible. Your grasp of maths is apparently just as shaky
as your grasp of chemistry.

Coming from someone who quotes a chart and gets it 1000% wrong, that's
quite amusing.

The confidence level, Petey, applies to the interval. It does not apply
to *any* of the values in the interval.

What did I just say, dimwit?

Well, Petey, you just said "It applies to every value in the
interval". You were utterly, 100% wrong, since as I just pointed out,
it applies to *none* of them.

It's obvious it applies to all of them in aggregate, Dimwit, otherwise
I wouldn't be discussing individual probabilities. You're being
transparent, as usual.

Petey, since you don't know any maths, you're making a bit of a
dick of yourself.

Rosalind has no argument, but remains motivated. A sort of Olympic
Idiot.

It's the reason that the 77% figure is
more certain (by far) than the 93% figure.

And here's the thing.

No, it isn't. You don't understand what you're discussing, Petey.
You simply haven't a clue.

Prove your case. You can't do it, can you?

Look, a given confidence level applies to an interval, Petey, and it is
not higher or lower for any part of that interval...

Rosalind knows we weren't discussing the 95% CI, but the prospect for
individual probabilities at the low end of the estimate. This is pure
obfuscation.

; it does *not* apply
to the values in the interval, and you are talking nonsense.

If you are you referring to the 95% CI, of course not. No one said it
does.

Something you are careful
to avoid admitting.

Petey, I've already said you were wrong several times.

Rosalind is sacrificing herself on the sword of pharm-bloggery. Hey,
they has a ring to it.


Just a tad of common sense
(regardless of your lack of maths) should have told you it's not
possible to be simultaneously 95% confident that a true value is all of
the values between 77% and 93%.

Rosalind's way of admitting I was right in the post that explained this
earlier. How pathetic.

Cecil, you appear to be confused as to what you have and haven't
said. What you actually said was that the confidence level was higher
for the lower figure, which if you knew any maths at all, you would
know is bull****.

Prove it, Rosalind.

And then you said that the confidence level applies to all of the
values within an interval. Chuckles indeed.

If that were true, Dimwit, I would never have said the 77% was a more
reliable estimate.


As you've been told before, Petey, you really should STFU when you
haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're embarrassing your
corporate masters again.

*chuckles* She's good for a laugh, though.

This bit's good-it's where Petey demonstrates that his lack of
maths extends to the standard deviation:

Unintelligible gibberish. Typical of Rosalind.


otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.

See? The wronger you get, the louder are your half-witted accusations
of others' stupidity.

Poor Rosalind. She is all things (soccer mom, chemist, hellfire
preacher, editor) to all people. Which one should we believe? I say
none of the above.

Say Petey, instead of simply proving me right by indulging in an ad
hominem attack, why don't you give us all a laugh by explaining your
statement that the standard deviation has a "more certain" lower
number?

Be my guest, Rosalind. You can't do it, can you?

Hint: it's bull****. There may be good reasons for relying on the
positive or negative standard deviation depending on what you're
studying, but yours isn't one of them.

That's a very persuave argument you have there. Dimwit.

Go back to peddling your supplements, Petey. At least you occasionally
get things right when you stick to doing that. And I suggest a little
less vituperation when you haven't a clue what you're talking
about.

Thanks for reading everything I write, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.


PeterB

PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:
cathyb wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Incredible. Everyone has read the abstract, and Petey is *still*
claiming that it was relevant to the point john was making. I'm not
sure if this makes him look as stupid as claiming that vitamin C turns
hydrogen into oxygen, but it certainly comes close.

We know that paraphrasing has become Rosalind's favorite tool for
telling lies. And her comic book analysis is supposed to pass for
science. She claims to be an editor, but conveniently ignores the
questions put to her: 1) Are antibody titres equivalent to
immunization?

I answered that quite some time ago; no-one has ever claimed that they
are. It's one of your little straw men.

The straw is in your head. Antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunization, therefore any study citation demonstrating a level of
vaccine-induced immunity lower than known antibody titre values
supports the statement that vaccine-induced immunity is not consistent
with antibody titres.


Any study intended to evaluate the efficacy of a school-entry
vaccination law that does not even touch on antibody titres does not
show anything about the relationship between antibody titres and
vaccination-induced immunity...

You already admitted that antibody titres are not equivalent to
immunity. The reason for re-vaccination is based on the fact that
percentages for antibody titres are higher than vaccine-induced
immunity (though even that doesn't guarantee immunity.) In other
words, you have been arguing against yourself.

No. I've been arguing that you plagiarised a portion of whale.to that
provided irrelevant references to back up its point. As you did.
Dishonesty squared.

More dimwitted sidestepping.

Petey, although you are squirming to avoid it, this conversation began
when you plagiarised whale.to and failed to notice that john had, as
usual, cited irrelevant references.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study rests in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.

Petey. It doesn't say a damn thing about the relationship between
antibody titres and immunity. You know it, as does everyone else, and
if you had bothered checking the study before you plagiarised whale.to,
you wouldn't be here embarrassing yourself.

The study demonstrates a lower real-world level of vaccine-induced
immunity than is suggested by widely accepted antibody titre outcomes
over the past half century. Don't tell me. Because the study doesn't
compare antibody titres with immunization in these particular children,
there is no such thing as an antibody titre and we can pretend the
study sits in a vacuum. How convenient for you and your vaccine
promoting friends.


But of course you know this. So why do
you persist in embarrassing yourself?

*chuckles*

Here you plainly admit that to be the case, yet
persist in your dimwitted non sequiturs in order to promote vaccine.


and 2) Is the confidence level for the 91% estimate as
high as the confidence level for the 77% immunization noted in the
study?

I have answered this elsewhere; your asking it at all is yet more
evidence of your lack of knowledge in the topics on which you choose to
post. Bless.

No, Rosalind, you have not answered that question elsewhere.

Actually, Cecil, I have. And if you knew anything at all about
statistics, you'd be cringing right now.

Since antibody titre values are normally in the upper 90s, even using
the 91% estimate makes the point. That is why the study was cited.

The irrelevant study (you know, the one that made no reference to
antibody titres) was cited in the hope that there would be idiots
stupid enough not to look up the actual study. That's you.

Having admitted that antibody titres provide higher values than
vaccine-induced immunity, you continue to argue against yourself. Is
there a study evaluating your stupidity against the size of your brain?
No, but if there was one evaluating your stupidity alone, it would be
more than enough to tell us you're a dimwit.

Amazing. Petey really is stupid enough to think that people haven't
noticed that the study under discussion showed absolutely nothing about
the relationship between antibody titres and immunity.

Incredible. Roslind (cathy, whoever she might be), is stupid enough to
think this study must broach the results of every other study in order
to determine its relative impact against antibody titres. And she
claims to be an editor. I wonder which comic book that is?

Petey, bleatingly insisting on the study's relevance when anyone
who's interested has looked at it is not enhancing your credibility.

You're babbling, Rosalind.

And that people haven't noticed the incredible correlation between how
wrong he is and the pointless insults he spouts.

*chuckles*


And here
you avoid answering it, once again. The answer to the question is
"No."

It's not, you know, Petey. I suggest you look up my reply to you
elsewhere. And also meditate upon the fact that confidence levels don't
apply to a specific number, but to an interval.

Ah. Nothing to say. What a surprise.

You're right, I usually respond to your idiotic word games. But then,
it's never really an option if I'm bothering to reply at all. The
interval includes 77% at the low-end, 93% at the high end, and
everything in between. It applies to every value in the interval,

Absolutely incredible. Your grasp of maths is apparently just as shaky
as your grasp of chemistry.

Coming from someone who quotes a chart and gets it 1000% wrong, that's
quite amusing.

The confidence level, Petey, applies to the interval. It does not apply
to *any* of the values in the interval.

What did I just say, dimwit?

Well, Petey, you just said "It applies to every value in the
interval". You were utterly, 100% wrong, since as I just pointed out,
it applies to *none* of them.

It's obvious it applies to all of them in aggregate, Dimwit, otherwise
I wouldn't be discussing individual probabilities. You're being
transparent, as usual.

Petey, since you don't know any maths, you're making a bit of a
dick of yourself.

Rosalind has no argument, but remains motivated. A sort of Olympic
Idiot.

It's the reason that the 77% figure is
more certain (by far) than the 93% figure.

And here's the thing.

No, it isn't. You don't understand what you're discussing, Petey.
You simply haven't a clue.

Prove your case. You can't do it, can you?

Look, a given confidence level applies to an interval, Petey, and it is
not higher or lower for any part of that interval...

Rosalind knows we weren't discussing the 95% CI, but the prospect for
individual probabilities at the low end of the estimate. This is pure
obfuscation.

; it does *not* apply
to the values in the interval, and you are talking nonsense.

If you are you referring to the 95% CI, of course not. No one said it
does.

Something you are careful
to avoid admitting.

Petey, I've already said you were wrong several times.

Rosalind is sacrificing herself on the sword of pharm-bloggery. Hey,
they has a ring to it.


Just a tad of common sense
(regardless of your lack of maths) should have told you it's not
possible to be simultaneously 95% confident that a true value is all of
the values between 77% and 93%.

Rosalind's way of admitting I was right in the post that explained this
earlier. How pathetic.

Cecil, you appear to be confused as to what you have and haven't
said. What you actually said was that the confidence level was higher
for the lower figure, which if you knew any maths at all, you would
know is bull****.

Prove it, Rosalind.

And then you said that the confidence level applies to all of the
values within an interval. Chuckles indeed.

If that were true, Dimwit, I would never have said the 77% was a more
reliable estimate.

Gosh, Petey, it's right here in this post.

Of, bugger this , I think I'll skip.



As you've been told before, Petey, you really should STFU when you
haven't a clue what you're talking about. You're embarrassing your
corporate masters again.

*chuckles* She's good for a laugh, though.

This bit's good-it's where Petey demonstrates that his lack of
maths extends to the standard deviation:

Unintelligible gibberish. Typical of Rosalind.


otherwise it would be as meaningless as your argument. It's also true
that application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty to
the lower number, which is the reason why health studies usually report
a conservative estimate, because those values are more certain. If you
now make the predictable (and lame) observation that this study fails
to provide such a breakdown for every value in the interval, I'll just
have to point out that you are being your typical dimwitted self.

See? The wronger you get, the louder are your half-witted accusations
of others' stupidity.

Poor Rosalind. She is all things (soccer mom, chemist, hellfire
preacher, editor) to all people. Which one should we believe? I say
none of the above.

Say Petey, instead of simply proving me right by indulging in an ad
hominem attack, why don't you give us all a laugh by explaining your
statement that the standard deviation has a "more certain" lower
number?

Be my guest, Rosalind. You can't do it, can you?

Hint: it's bull****. There may be good reasons for relying on the
positive or negative standard deviation depending on what you're
studying, but yours isn't one of them.

That's a very persuave argument you have there. Dimwit.

Go back to peddling your supplements, Petey. At least you occasionally
get things right when you stick to doing that. And I suggest a little
less vituperation when you haven't a clue what you're talking
about.

Thanks for reading everything I write, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.


PeterB

Say, Petey, that was a very long post to say, er, absolutely nothing.

Here's the thing, Petey.

1. There are lots of studies out there with lots of different values
for post-vaccination antibody titres. The one john cited in the piece
you plagiarised had nothing--nothing!--to say about the relationship
between titres and immunity, and nor did it try to. Remember, it was an
assessment of a school-entry vaccination policy that did not even touch
on antibody titres. He was simply being dishonest.

2. You don't know any maths. The lower end of a confidence interval is
not more probable than the higher, and nor is the negative standard
deviation, as a quick perusal of any basic text would tell you.

3. You have made an utter dick of yourself, yet again, by plagiarising
and pretending to a knowledge you simply don't have (I believe that's
called bull****ting).

4. But what I truly adore is your ability to call someone else a dimwit
while making statements a 15-year-old maths student would blush
at."...application of standard deviation attributes greater certainty
to the lower number." Tee-hee. It shows a certain brazen idiocy one can
only admire.