A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old February 18th 04, 02:11 AM
Jonathan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...

Credible sources are not difficult to find - often it is challenging
for a lay person to separate the cedible from the incredible.

It can be difficult for even an expert to separate the credible from
not-so-credible. Incredible claims are bit easier to spot.


Perhaps you can supply the algorithm.


Algorithm for what? Spotting incredible claims? I haven't tried to
make a formal algorithm for it. I find it to be sort of like spotting
water in the ocean or trees in the forest, but I'm not sure I could
devise an algorithm for those either if someone was having trouble
doing so.


You said they are easy to spot but are unable to provide a method by
which others can replicate your acumen?


I quite agree with that
particular aspect of what you are saying. Assessing the credibility
of the sources of information is an important aspect of doing any type
of research.


I don't expect anyone to be an altruist 24/7. The
idea that accepting funding for research won't taint the results is
IMO a big part of the problem.


That's where we disagree.


BIG TIME!


Then again - I have no idea on what you base your statement.

For more information on this
particular issue and how it can bias results, may I suggest the book
"Tainted Truth : The Manipulation of Fact In America" by Cynthia
Crossen, a reporter and editor for the Wall Street Journal.


A "reporter"? That's the last source I would go to for credible.
Using NYT, WSJ, Time Magazine etc as a credible source of scientific
information is just a hair short of whaleto.


Depends.


On what? If you want scientific data, mught I recommend scientific
publications? Distilled sound bites for mass consumption is to
science like like readers digest condensed books is to literature.

I don't consider the National Inquirer credible. I do
consider the Wall Street Journal to be reasonably so.


If you want business or political news, perhaps - but as a regular
reader, the reporting of science is marginal. They aren't in the
business of reporting science, though, so I can deal with it.

Not infallible,
but their reporters can be considered to be professionals, with the
knowledge and ability to discern what is fact and what is opinion.


No, they cannot discern fact from opinion - as they report opinions,
not facts. Read a science based article in WSJ and see what is
reported - it often is their interpretation of the opinions of the
researchers, not the content of research.

I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge
whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than
your own prejudices.


Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a
number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with
some remarkable quotes.

Now, consider that some of your sources lack credibility as well.
While I don't give the anti-vac sites much consideration myself, I
also find it hard to place much faith in the pro-vaccination
information provided by the CDC given that, with only a small amount
of effort I found to very credible sources that indicate that ALL of
the vaccine policy makers are financially beholden to the vaccine
producing industry.

See? Your suggestion that people sell their souls for pieces of
silver - disgusting.

I have suggested no such thing.


"financially beholden"?


Not the same thing as 'selling their souls for pieces of silver'.


OK - fine by me. You have a strange use of language.

You
put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact.


I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should
have known...

The
members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of
funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially
beholden'. Do you dispute that?


Yes - I do. Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.

If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For
this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the
expert "beholden" to me?

Do you think that blinding as a part
of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment
administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order
to achieve the desired results?


Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge
of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results.
They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not
intended to keep policy makers "ethical".


Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less
subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental
studies?


Because the data are in? I can pretty much look at a publication and
figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to
do this. You?

A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any
lack of integrity by the participants.


You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially
beholden"


I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in
integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me,
financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious
bias on even those with the highest ethical standards.


That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the
impact on decisions using real data.

Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted.


Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of
funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel
graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds?


No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction.

This is just as true of policy
making committee members as it is of research study administators.


Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad
thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put
right out on the table for everyone to see.


It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But
putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any
effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my
opinion.


I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?


Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.

We know Dick Cheney has ties to
Haliburton. Do you think that those ties had no effect regarding
Haliburton recieving lucrative government contracts? Just everybody
knew about the bias, did that somehow negate it?


First - Dick is not a scientist. Second, he didn't have a whole lot
of credibility in the eyes of many to begin with. Third, how do you
know it made a difference?

Their decisions are going to be strongly biased in
the pro-vaccination direction.

Not because of research grants but because they believe in the
science.

I've no doubts that they see it that way. But I'm not so sure that
people who weren't being supported by research grants from vaccine
producers would be equally convinced by the same facts.


You don't live in a peer review world, do you.


Actually, yes I do.


OK - have you ever done funded research, served on a panel for which
you were paid an honmorarium, made a presentation as an invited
speaker for which you were paid, or otherwise accepted money for
scientific research?

Have you ever published a scientific article and if so, in what
discipline?

I'm not contesting your statement - I just wanted to get a feel for
your perspective.

Therefore, I am left to make my
decision based on a very little evidence that I consider to be
credible. Still, that's life.

That is not life - that is YOUR life. Is there anyone you trust?

I don't care who or what - there is always a potential bias. There is
always an agenda. When these are on the table for all to see, then
you have accountability. When it's in a footnote, you have a possible
issue.


Yes, there is always a potential for bias. But simply making a bias
known is not sufficient to guarantee accountability. See my example
above regarding Haliburton.


In the scientific arena, I believe it is. I am not a big fan of
politicians.

There is a difference between selecting between two rational medical
alternatives and opting to ignore sound medical advice entirely.


Yes, but we weren't discussing someone who had chosen to ignore sound
medical advice entirely. We were discussing someone who had selected
between two rational medical alternatives.


In the context - I have the impression that this is not the case.


You
are actually advocating that patients should do only what you advise
them to do - including advocating that patients doing research should
believe only the sources that you consider credible and disbelieve the
sources that you don't consider credible. In other words, they should
do as you say.


I give folks choices every day. If a physician said - you have two
choices, we can try drug therapy for your ulcer or we can operate -
here are the benefits and risks - I recommend trying drugs first - and
then the patient says, no, I want surgery, that's fine. However, if
the office policy is to have all the kids vaccinated unless there's a
medical reason not to, then the doc has every right not to have
unvaccinated kids in the practice. See the difference?


No. I've stated repeatedly that he certainly has that right. What
I've also stated is that, by exercising that right the physician is
saying - via his actions - that his patients needn't bother to do any
research on their own. They can either accept his recommendations or
find another doctor.


There are no choices regarding office policies. If the office policy
is that all patients WILL be weighed every visit and WILL have their
blood pressure taken, and a patient doesn't believe that those two
things are relvent, appropriate, or valuable, then they don't meet the
requirementas of the practice. Period.

If faced with treatment alternatives, I think most physicians welcome
a dialog and discussion and will allow freedom of choice. I firmly
believe that medical decision making is a partnership where the
physician has a primary consultative role, not a decision making role.
However, I also believe that if a patient continually refuses to
accept the treatment program agreed to or required by office policy,
then they are no longer holding up their end of the partnership.

Then you need to accept and support the choice made by the
pediatrician NOT to have an unvaccinated child in his practice.


Sure. I can accept that and support his right to do so. But I won't
accept the simultaneous claim that he supports patients doing their
own research and making their own choices. His actions would belie
such a belief.


The existance of an office policy regarding vaccinaqtion doens't
"belie" squat - other than the position of the pediatrician - all of
my patients will be vaccinated unless medically contraindicated.

Who exactly is "he" and if its the Malkins ped, then you went way too
far with the "belief belie" presumption.

But then again, you aren't her doctor and you have no legal or ethical
liability for the outcome.

I don't think her doctor should have any legal liability for the
outcome. I do think that is a legitimate issue. In fact, I consider
such liability issues to be a big problem in our society. I'm not sure
what you mean by 'ethical liability' though. That's a new term to me.
Would you care to define it?


Medicine is practiced under legal and ethical guidelines. Ethics
relates to the concept of right and wrong in the absence of
legislation. Liability relates to consequences when there is a breach
of conduct - be it ethical or legal.


Sorry, but you're not clear here. I understand the concept of ethics
and of liability, but I'm still not sure what you mean by ethical
liability.


In a civil action of negligence, the ethical standard is applicable
irrespective of the legal standard.

js
  #112  
Old February 18th 04, 06:26 PM
abacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...


I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge
whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than
your own prejudices.


Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a
number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with
some remarkable quotes.


No, you provided me with a number of quotes from Ms. Malkin. Here, we
were discussing Ms. Crossen. Different people. To my knowledge, you
have dismissed Ms. Crossens' book without having read anything she's
written.

You
put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact.


I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should
have known...



The
members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of
funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially
beholden'. Do you dispute that?


Yes - I do.


But you don't dispute the fact that those financial relationships
exist. That was the undisputed fact I was referring to. The effect
of those relationships is certainly debatable.

Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.


Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as
they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect
of bias due to those relationships.

If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For
this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the
expert "beholden" to me?


To some extent yes. To what extent they are beholden depends on a
number of different factors, not least of which is the amount of money
you are paying the expert for his/her time. Another factor is how
easily the 'client' can be replaced with another versus how easily the
'expert' can be replaced by another. Small sums of money obtained
from clients that are easily replaced by other clients are not likely
to create much of a problem in the sense of the expert feeling
'beholden' to the client but large sums of money from a client that
cannot be easily replaced do.

Do you think that blinding as a part
of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment
administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order
to achieve the desired results?

Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge
of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results.
They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not
intended to keep policy makers "ethical".


Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less
subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental
studies?


Because the data are in?


And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.

I can pretty much look at a publication and
figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to
do this. You?


Yes.

A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any
lack of integrity by the participants.

You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially
beholden"


I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in
integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me,
financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious
bias on even those with the highest ethical standards.


That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the
impact on decisions using real data.


Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I
don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs
myself.

Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted.


Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of
funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel
graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds?


No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction.


I suspect it runs both ways.

This is just as true of policy
making committee members as it is of research study administators.

Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad
thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put
right out on the table for everyone to see.


It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But
putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any
effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my
opinion.


I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.


LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these
folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by
virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable. I
think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as
fallible.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?


Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.


LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to
achieve the results their sponsors want.

Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any
more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on.

Bye.
  #113  
Old February 19th 04, 12:51 AM
Jonathan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...


I note that you dismiss this particular writer without any knowledge
whatsoever of anything she has written, based on nothing more than
your own prejudices.


Not at all - I have read a half dozen of her recent articles and a
number of her not so recent pieces as well. I even provided you with
some remarkable quotes.


No, you provided me with a number of quotes from Ms. Malkin. Here, we
were discussing Ms. Crossen. Different people. To my knowledge, you
have dismissed Ms. Crossens' book without having read anything she's
written.


"Ma'am, this thread started with an account of a pediatrician who had
discharged the patient because the parents objected to a single
vaccination - specifically the Hep B vaccination for their newborn -
not to any and all vaccinations. Specifically, what the article said
was:"

The author I was referring to is Malkin - but you are right, your
reference was back to Ms Crosson. You are also right - I have not
read the book to which you refer. I have read some of her work as a
journalist. I am not a big fan of journalistic exposes - be they
published in hardcover or soft. There is no accountability, there is
no review. I read a few reviews of her work and found some people
less than supportive of the quality of the data - quality in terms of
the facts used in the anecdotes. I am also left with the impression
that the book exposes the media's misuse of data. I hardly believe
that this is the case here.

However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her
bias:

""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still
believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open,
verifiable
and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American
medicine,
however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating."

Regardless, much of her expose revolves around interpretation of study
data by the media and politocs, not by scientists.

You
put the malicious spin on what I believe is an undisputed fact.


I dispute your opinion - you allege it's an undisputed fact. Should
have known...



The
members of the CDC committee on vaccine policy are all recipients of
funding from vaccine manufacturers. That makes them 'financially
beholden'. Do you dispute that?


Yes - I do.


But you don't dispute the fact that those financial relationships
exist.


Not at all - in fact, I'll argue that in the absence of the
relationship there wouldn't be a need for this discussion as the
number of medical innovations would shrink dramatically.

That was the undisputed fact I was referring to. The effect
of those relationships is certainly debatable.


You used the term BEHOLDEN to characterize the relationship. That is
what you called undisputed - that the relationship RESULTS in some
sort of obligation - that is what the term beholden means.

Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.


Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as
they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.


Sufficient for what?

It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect
of bias due to those relationships.


Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get.
Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is
what transparency does.

If I want advice about something I go to the expert for advice. For
this advice, I pay the expert for his/her time. Does this make the
expert "beholden" to me?


To some extent yes. To what extent they are beholden depends on a
number of different factors, not least of which is the amount of money
you are paying the expert for his/her time. Another factor is how
easily the 'client' can be replaced with another versus how easily the
'expert' can be replaced by another. Small sums of money obtained
from clients that are easily replaced by other clients are not likely
to create much of a problem in the sense of the expert feeling
'beholden' to the client but large sums of money from a client that
cannot be easily replaced do.


The value of a consultant is in objectivity. I have an idea, though -
go to any recently published scientific article in JAMA. Take a look
at the lead author and the sponsorship statement. Then go back in
time with that same author and see what else he has published and look
at the sponsorship. I bet you dollars to donuts that he has worked
for a range of sponsors - all of whom likely compete with each other.
Is this possible under your scenario?

Do you think that blinding as a part
of experimental protocol is done because otherwise experiment
administrators would 'sell their souls for pieces of silver' in order
to achieve the desired results?

Blinded studies are intended to exclude the influence of the knowledge
of treatment assignment has on subjective interpretation of results.
They are not intended to keep the researcher "ethical". They are not
intended to keep policy makers "ethical".

Right. And why do you think that policy makers would be any less
subjective regarding the interpretation of the results of experimental
studies?


Because the data are in?


And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.


OK - do it.

I can pretty much look at a publication and
figure out what results are significant. Then again, I'm trained to
do this. You?


Yes.


OK - how well?

A subtle unconscious bias can easily occur without presupposing any
lack of integrity by the participants.

You weren't arguing subtle unconscious bias - you said - "financially
beholden"

I'm sorry, but I don't interpret "financially beholden" as lacking in
integrity or "selling one's soul for pieces of silver". To me,
financially beholden means that there will be a subtle unconscious
bias on even those with the highest ethical standards.


That is a bit too nebulous and arbitrary. Measure it and tell me the
impact on decisions using real data.


Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I
don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs
myself.


As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of
anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data.

Beholden - Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted.

Yes. Do you disagree that someone who accepts large amounts of
funding for research they are personally involved in would not feel
graditude and indebtedness to the company providing such funds?


No. In fact, I bet the "beholdenness" is in the other direction.


I suspect it runs both ways.


No, you told me earlier that it is undeniable fact that it runs from
scientist to company. Noqw you only suspect it to be so? And you
suspect that there is counterveiling beholdeness?

This is just as true of policy
making committee members as it is of research study administators.

Everyone has his or her set of biases - that is not necessarily a bad
thing and what is even more relevant is that these biases are put
right out on the table for everyone to see.

It is important that those biases are right out on the table. But
putting them on the table and then pretending they don't have any
effect just because you're aware of them is, well, naive in my
opinion.


I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.


LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these
folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by
virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable.


I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who
violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many,
some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long.

I
think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as
fallible.


When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial
thing.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?


Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.


LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to
achieve the results their sponsors want.


You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant
to be a yes man.

Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any
more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on.


Chicken. Got a bit too close to home?

Bye.


Which leaves us with what?

No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you
grinding?

js
  #114  
Old February 19th 04, 09:15 PM
abacus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...



SNIP

However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her
bias:

""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still
believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open,
verifiable
and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American
medicine,
however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating."


Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to
her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true.

SNIP

Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.


Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as
they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.


Sufficient for what?


Sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships.
Oh, wait. I think I said that before in the very next sentence.

It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect
of bias due to those relationships.


Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get.
Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is
what transparency does.


The effects of bias can be reduced or eliminated from experiments
through the use of randomization. To reduce or eliminate the effect
of bias from policy-making committees, it is necessary to have
competing points of view represented at the table. That simply isn't
happening in the vaccine-policy committees. Their membership consists
entirely of people with financial ties to the vaccine producing
industry.

And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.


OK - do it.


http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html

Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who
arrived at completely different conclusions.


Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I
don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs
myself.


As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of
anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data.


You might try reading the book yourself before dismissing it. You
asked a question that I could not answer in a single post, so I
provided a site for the type of evidence you requested. If you don't
care to bother to read it, that's fine. But dismissing it on the
basis of hearsay evidence isn't particularly convincing to me. I've
already formed my opinion of it based on its actual contents.

SNIP


I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.


LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these
folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by
virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable.


I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who
violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many,
some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long.


Yeah, right. You know, I used to have that sort of faith in some
professions. Doctors and scientists and priests seem trustworthy kind
of folks just by the very virtue of their professions. Did you catch
the headlines the other day? It's estimated that over 11,000 Catholic
priests have abused young boys.

Look, I'm not disparaging these people, even though you seem to take
it that way. I really think that the people on these committees are,
for the most part, intelligent well-educated men and women of high
integrity doing their level best to make good decisions. I also think
the vast majority of Catholic priests are good men, working hard to
make the world, or at least their parish, a better place to live.

I'm even willing to suspend judgement on Michael Jackson. Maybe he's
completely innocent. I don't know. But I wouldn't let my son spend
the night over at his house. And I'm not comfortable with decisions
made by a committee composed entirely of members with the same bias,
even if that bias is openly admitted in all cases.

I
think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as
fallible.


When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial
thing.


When your livelyhood comes into conflict with your integrity it is not
a trivial thing either.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?

Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.


LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to
achieve the results their sponsors want.


You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant
to be a yes man.


I'm not so sure about that. You seem to get upset when someone
disagrees with you about even trivial matters. How many consultants
have you listened to when you disagreed with them?

Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any
more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on.


Chicken. Got a bit too close to home?


No. Just got better things to do with my time. The only reason I'm
responded to this post is because I came down with a bad flu last
night and am typing this from home while I'm recovering.

Bye.


Which leaves us with what?

No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you
grinding?

Must I have an axe to grind? Is it so hard to believe that I'm just
another soul searching for truth and reason in this world?

Why do I discuss these issues? I just enjoy needling reasonable men
with discomfiting facts and pointing out behaviors that ought cause
them cognitive dissonance. Been nice chatting with you, but I simply
have other things I need to attend to - especially now that I've had
an involuntary absence from work and will have to play catch up.
  #115  
Old February 20th 04, 04:32 AM
Jonathan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...



SNIP

However - here's a quote from her book that speaks volumes to her
bias:

""Despite the many temptations modern scientists face, they still
believe their discipline is self-correcting because it is open,
verifiable
and subject to close review by scientific peers. In American
medicine,
however, all three of these pillars are deteriorating."


Yes, of course. The reason she made such a statement must be due to
her own bias. It can't possibly be because what she says is true.


As I pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. There have
always been examples of system malfunctions but those are hardly
sufficient to prove systematic malfunction.

SNIP

Do you understand the context of the financial
relationships? Even more relevant - do you understand that these
relationships are not secretive, back door, or otherwise hidden? They
are right out front - the extent of the financial relationship, the
character of the relationship, and the timing of the relationship.

Having the relationships out in the open as opposed to hidden is, as
they say in mathematics, a necessary but not a sufficient condition.


Sufficient for what?


Sufficient to eliminate the effect of bias due to those relationships.
Oh, wait. I think I said that before in the very next sentence.

It is necessary, yes, but it is not sufficient to eliminate the effect
of bias due to those relationships.


Try and eliminate bias in an experiment and see how far you get.
Cambell and Stanley suggest to build it into the design - and that is
what transparency does.


The effects of bias can be reduced or eliminated from experiments
through the use of randomization.


The bias due to selection can - not the bias due to the design, as you
suggest. Randomization does nothing for external validity other than
to provide the necessary evidence of internal validity threats due to
selection. You said you did research - this shouldn't be a new thing
for you.

To reduce or eliminate the effect
of bias from policy-making committees, it is necessary to have
competing points of view represented at the table. That simply isn't
happening in the vaccine-policy committees.




Their membership consists
entirely of people with financial ties to the vaccine producing
industry.


The membership consists of people with expertise on the issues which
is valued by a variety of customers - be they regulatory or
commercial. These members get PAID to be part of the committee - are
they therefore not beholden to the government?

And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.


OK - do it.


http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html

Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who
arrived at completely different conclusions.


Again, I will refer you to Ms. Crossen's book "Tainted Truth". I
don't care to try to summarize an entire book in a few paragraphs
myself.


As far as I can tell, she provides vignettes, not data. The plural of
anecdote (as Jeff is fond of saying) is not data.


You might try reading the book yourself before dismissing it.


I tend to rely on primary data - not interpretation of anecdote by
journalists. I discount all such "exposes" for the simple reason that
they are not data based. I'm sorry if you think that the op ed page
is the same as JAMA.

You
asked a question that I could not answer in a single post, so I
provided a site for the type of evidence you requested. If you don't
care to bother to read it, that's fine. But dismissing it on the
basis of hearsay evidence isn't particularly convincing to me. I've
already formed my opinion of it based on its actual contents.


Good for you. It's 10 years old, and it's not at my local library. I
checked.

Its a literary expose, not a science based analysis. Its opinions,
not facts. It's anecdotes, not data.

OK - which one of these statements izs a mischaracterization?

SNIP



I would argue that the most valuable asset of a scientist is his
integrity and objectivity. When all the world knows that there is a
financial association between the information source and his
evaluation of the science, the last thing he is going to do is allow
any bias to influence his decision.

LOL! First you claim others are expecting 24/7 altruism from these
folks and that's ridiculous. Quite right. Now you claim that by
virtue of their profession, their integrity is unquestionable.


I have faith in the integrity of my peers. Are there those who
violate this ethical/moral/integrity code - no doubt. Do all, many,
some, or few. In my experience it is few and they don't last long.


Yeah, right. You know, I used to have that sort of faith in some
professions. Doctors and scientists and priests seem trustworthy kind
of folks just by the very virtue of their professions. Did you catch
the headlines the other day? It's estimated that over 11,000 Catholic
priests have abused young boys.


I'm not a Catholic priest. I am a scientist (ret).

Look, I'm not disparaging these people, even though you seem to take
it that way.


You said yuou had no faith in their recommendations:

"I also find it hard to place much faith in the pro-vaccination
information provided by the CDC given that, with only a small amount
of effort I found to very credible sources that indicate that ALL of
the vaccine policy makers are financially beholden to the vaccine
producing industry."

I'm sorry - I took offense when you equated the whaletoo with the CDC
sites. To me, that is one of the biggest insults possible - and even
John would agree but for obviously different reasons.

I really think that the people on these committees are,
for the most part, intelligent well-educated men and women of high
integrity doing their level best to make good decisions. I also think
the vast majority of Catholic priests are good men, working hard to
make the world, or at least their parish, a better place to live.


Clearly you don't as you believed the headline without any data
whatsoever.

I'm even willing to suspend judgement on Michael Jackson. Maybe he's
completely innocent. I don't know. But I wouldn't let my son spend
the night over at his house. And I'm not comfortable with decisions
made by a committee composed entirely of members with the same bias,
even if that bias is openly admitted in all cases.




I
think they are human beings, same as the rest of us and just as
fallible.


When your livelyhood depends on your integrity it is not a trivial
thing.


When your livelyhood comes into conflict with your integrity it is not
a trivial thing either.


No - and that is my point exactly. It cannot be in conflict in that
without one, the other is not possible.

Why do you think that just because bias is known that it
doesn't affect the outcome?

Because the credibility of a scientist requires it. The minute a
scientist has compromised his credibility in the scientific community
is when the value of his consultancy and participation in research
goes out the window.

LOL! Consultants are hired and retained based on their ability to
achieve the results their sponsors want.


You sure do a lot of laughing. I certainly never hired a consultant
to be a yes man.


I'm not so sure about that. You seem to get upset when someone
disagrees with you about even trivial matters.


"credible sources are difficult to find."
"vaccine policy makers are financially beholden..."

Not trivial points.

How many consultants
have you listened to when you disagreed with them?


All of them. I pay them for that opinion.

Look, I've got to go now. This is too long for me to respond to any
more. Enjoyed our chat, but I think I'd better move on.


Chicken. Got a bit too close to home?


No. Just got better things to do with my time. The only reason I'm
responded to this post is because I came down with a bad flu last
night and am typing this from home while I'm recovering.

Bye.


Which leaves us with what?

No answer to the question of your perspective. What axe are you
grinding?

Must I have an axe to grind?


I asked for your perspective basis - you suggest you have a scientific
background and are trained in medical/drug evaluation, statistics, and
epidemiology. I'm just curios if in fac that is true.


Is it so hard to believe that I'm just
another soul searching for truth and reason in this world?

Why do I discuss these issues? I just enjoy needling reasonable men
with discomfiting facts and pointing out behaviors that ought cause
them cognitive dissonance. Been nice chatting with you, but I simply
have other things I need to attend to - especially now that I've had
an involuntary absence from work and will have to play catch up.


You argue semantics and inuendo based on anecdote and supposition
while arguing the possibility of scientific bias in spite of
transparency and completeness.

Strange. Very strange. And certainly enough to understand why you
prefer to run away.

js
  #116  
Old February 20th 04, 03:48 PM
Jonathan Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column

(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...

snip

I didn't have a chance to look at your examples yesterday, but I did
today.

And once the data are in, the results cannot be manipulated? I beg to
differ. The results are, indeed, still subject to interpretation
based on the biases of the person examining the data. I can provide
you with examples of different experts examing the same data to come
to completely different conclusions if you like.


OK - do it.


http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewin...air/hyman.html

Two different analyses of the same data by two different experts who
arrived at completely different conclusions.


The two reports do not come to two completely different conclusions.
The interpretation of the ten SAIC studies is identical - however, one
author is not willing to accept the amount of evidence sufficient to
generalize the results to all phenomena or ready to agree that all
alternative explanations have been ruled out. As far as the ten
experiments are concerned - as far as the interpretation of the
statistical validity of the results - both articles agree.

Thanks for proving my point. Data tables do not lie.

Now, what biases influenced the second researcher? Why is he biased
to the disagreement side? What beholdenness would you like to argue
is driving his hesitancy to take the SAIC results beyond the ten
studies? A difference in scientific opinion is not evidence of
impropriety.

js
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 April 13th 04 05:42 PM
Homeschoolers to be vaccinated al gu Pregnancy 20 March 1st 04 05:28 AM
vaccine genocide in Uganda update john Kids Health 1 December 11th 03 03:31 PM
Vaccination is NOT immunization/Breastfeeding *is* immunization! Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 30 October 6th 03 09:16 PM
CAN YOU LOSE YOUR HAIR FROM A VACCINE? john Kids Health 3 September 25th 03 04:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.