Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Beast publishes vaccine nutter op-ed and puts kids at risk (195 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  calling names? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Citizen, HudsonValleyMark, ER Doc

    you're the one calling me a mouthpiece, pally. Not well received.

    I'm not talking about the newly cited bills (you had not mentioned them, so how could I), I'm talking about what you wrote previously in terms of flu vax safety need and efficacy.

    Now you want to change the subject and move to another area? Here are bills that laudably want to devote funds to vaccine safety in 2006 and 2007. They didn't pass. it's 2012.

    I like the idea of funding vax safety. Why does funding a different agency than CDC to do it solve anything?

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 05:40:09 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  speaking of which (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ender
      Frieden: CDC generally finds more than 1/2 of kids who die from #flu haven't been vaccinated; many also have chronic health problems.
      @HelenBranswell via TweetDeck

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 06:44:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  BMJ: CDC data on flu deaths "a mess" (0+ / 0-)

        http://www.bmj.com/...

        "US data on influenza deaths are a mess. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu seasons."

        For those who are unfamiliar, BMJ us the British Medical Journal

        •  that's specifically Peter Doshi (0+ / 0-)

          not BMJ as in editorial position. Peter's been on CDC's case for years about this. The CDC thinks he's wrong. it's a great discussion, the back and forth.

          It is not, however really about what you are using it for.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:17:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Again, where's the independent study? (0+ / 0-)

      The gist of my first post is that no independent study exists showing the flu vaccine to be effective or necessary.

      You did not reference any study or research that supports your claim.  

      "By the way, please provide data to show that the flu vax isn't necessary. I've provided CDC unsponsored data to show that pediatric deaths occur, and (I would argue) therefore it is necessary without doubt."

      I didn't say that the flu vax isn't necessary - I said that there's no independent data showing that it IS necessary.

      Again.  Proof, please.  

      It's not changing the subject to bring to light the cosy relationship between the CDC and Big Pharma. This is part of the problem.

      By definition, a study funded by a company that has a pressing financial interest in its outcome is flawed. Again, you wouldn't take at face value an Exxon-funded study that denies climate change, would you?

      It's not changing the subject to bring attention to the way vaccines are marketed in the US, which is directly related to the junk science in the approved trials.

      Again, you have not proved your point.

      You have not referenced a single independent study that proves the flu vaccine is safe or effective.

      Without that study, you are implying that the vaccine is safe and effective, which is by definition, misinformation

      You've also misused the term astroturf; it's generally used to reference a movement that appears to be grass roots but is corporate-funded (Tea Party/Koch Bros). People that question the effectiveness of vaccines in which no independent data exists don't have a monetary stake in the matter, as does your friend Dr. Monto.

      While the snarky asides (Pally?) are somewhat amusing, again, where's the study?

      •  actually I have no point to prove (0+ / 0-)

        you've written several obnoxious posts insisting  and demanding that a false value of 'independent' is somehow useful or necessary (it's not - what's useful is study design and reproducibility. That's what makes it science, not who funds it).

        It's rather a meritless line of attack that has no relevance in the real world, and is a waste of time to keep responding to.

        In support, you've either cited meaningless bills from 2006 or 2007, or an iconoclast like Peter, who is worth reading if only for the responses he gets. The more you cite, the more it's clear you don't understand what you read, but that you have an agenda to push that I'm not especially interested in and that isn't supported by anything you've said.

        Enjoy your day.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:37:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You made a claim but offered no proof (0+ / 0-)

          You make a claim: "Daily Beast publishes vaccine nutter op-ed that puts kids at risk," and yet back it up with no data other than industry-underwritten studies.

          In any other field the type of data that supports your claim would be discredited because of conflict of interest.  Why is the idea of an unbiased study is so threatening to you?

          The house bills introduced in 2006 and 2007 aren't meaningless, and only serve to show that the influence of pharmaceutical companies is bipartisan. In case you're not familiar, those bills called into question vaccine studies because of the lack of ethics and outrageous conflicts of interest.

          Why is it all right to let the people who have a financial stake in the matter control the trials? Do you believe that the CDC which holds co-patents on vaccines has any interest in being objective?

          And if 2006/7 seems like ancient history to you, I wonder if the primary study that the CDC uses to promote the flu vaccine (from 2009), a study underwritten by the drug companies that produces the vaccine is ancient as well.

          Again, you have provided no study and referenced no material (other than pharmaceutical industry funded) that supports your claim.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site