Anyone Here Getting A Flu Shot?
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
Obviously, but you seemed to be questioning the use of the test negative method, so I gave another example to illustrate.
If a baseball team proudly announces they have signed a .300 hitter, they would still be admitting that the guy will get out more than he gets hits. The CDC announcing 61% effectiveness is admitting that the vaccine doesn't always work. Much of the public is under the impression that a flu shot is a virtual guarantee to not get the flu, but the CDC is openly admitting that is not true. Saying "61% effectiveness" makes it easier for the public to understand that than if they instead said "absolute relative reduction in odds blah blah."
The vast majority of people will not get the flu in any given year, whether or not they do or do not get a shot.
If 98% of those with a flu shot do not get the flu, a group could try to spin that into a "98% effectiveness" rate if they wanted, but the CDC is not doing that.
You know...there are actually Hawk fans who don't live in Seattle, or Washington. Me being one of them.
Right now I'm in Arizona living amongst the Cards fans, and I've been welcomed here with open arms. I'm guessing that wouldn't be the case if I moved to Frisco.
PHP:
As for Vitamin D, here is an interesting quote:
Assuming these stats are true, if you live in a very warm climate throughout the year like I do, you may not even need to take Vitamin D supps. Just get outdoors 4-5 days a week and you should have all the D your body needs.
Assuming these stats are true, if you live in a very warm climate throughout the year like I do, you may not even need to take Vitamin D supps. Just get outdoors 4-5 days a week and you should have all the D your body needs.
PHP:
so the human body is actually able to take care of itself without random pills? Please.
Relying on pure numbers from studies gives additional problems. We can't just take those results as a reflection of actual reality and try to formulate assumptions from it.
In the first step we need to track down the financing sources of the studies. So if there is some pharmaceutical company connected to the study, red light must start blinking.
The best way to track financing sources is to look up for the names of researchers that have done actual studies that are coming up with the names of pharma companies and their subcontractors (almost everyone of them and that creates next problems... because not every researcher is a piece of shit...).
In general it's "follow the money" approach.
Another problem is what you are discussing here, that is design of the studies. But this is for those who really have patience and time to thoroughly evaluate studies (which calls for evaluation of other connected studies and on and on...).
Statistics is where they do most of cons
Or to say it in a different way, in statistics they are looking for factors that may confirm their theories and desired results (results ordered by manufactures).
Design of modern studies is a perfect con in itself. Manufactures don't ask to check for possible effectiveness of a product, they are asking research centers to actually prove effectiveness of a product (and manufactures are paying for it nice dollar).
So without basic knowledge of the subject and, most often at least basic biochemistry knowledge taking any assumptions out of those studies is highly inappropriate.
In my country there is a paper that was designed by the ministry of health and it lists all the possible negative effects of using vaccines. So what conscious people do here is this. They are going to their GP with that paper and asking him to just sign up this paper. More or less, paper says that GP is aware of the negative effects vaccines can have on a health of patient but, despite this fact he is still sure about his diagnosis and is prescribing vaccines.
Guess what?
They don't want to sign it up. Why? If vaccines are soo good for us and our kids then why not?
I know... signing up paper like this open routs to abuse of the system but, why paper like this was designed in the first place? (maybe vaccines are not soo bananas?)
At one point where there was this swine flu bolox around in 2009 (excuses my words but I'm straight about it), our Polish health minister Ewa Kopacz refused to buy lot of vaccines from manufactures. She actually questioned effectiveness and necessity of those vaccines and, she did it right in front of face of other Western countries like US (primary vaccine eaters) and Germany (they like vaccines but just not that much... Maybe because of their history. BTW, I love Germans).
Of course, media killed her for that and her time as a health minister was done.
BTW, she is a GP practitioner with some good experience (decades).
But I would like you to watch this video. It's translated to English quite well and, you can see from where she is coming from.
Polish Health Minister Ewa Kopacz on the Swine Flu Vaccine - YouTube
P.S If you are too "smart" or intelligent to watch it all then, you should take some kind of vaccine promptly
P.P.S Vaccines will be always a touchy subject because no one wants something bad to happen to his/her kids and family. It's like with the diet. Everyone wants best for their relatives and will do everything to protect them and make them healthy. But business is business right?
because nobody would sign a paper claiming responsibility. Ever. You wouldn't sign a paper stating your seo efforts might not improve your customers ranks. A lawyer wouldn't claim that his defense might not work. a construction worker would not claim that despite best effort, maybe some of the stones aren't led perfectly. But if a doctor doesn't sign a fucking paper hauling his Ass to jail is a worldwide conspiracy. buy a fucking brain.
btw. If your doctor asks whether you want a ct or an mri. Go with the ct. xray way less dangerous than those magnetic beam deathrays.
No its not, its misleading. The public would much better understand chance of getting flu with the shot vs chance of getting flu without the shot. The public don't even know what effectiveness means. What the public sees is a high figure for effectiveness without knowing where it came from.
Also if you ask anybody about increase odds or decreased odds, they will think in absolute terms, not relative terms. Unless of course they are researchers or those who read studies a lot.
so what you're suggesting is that we ditch the scientific method in favor of making up shit because Joe the unemployed might have a hard time deciding whether his dog food money would be better invested in a flu shot.
sounds legit
What are you talking about, did you even read my posts, do you have some reading comprehension problem?
besides, and i will choose different numbers here just for illustrative purposes.
assume the absolute risk for person x of getting the flu this year was 2%.
derived this way 98% chance he doesn't get into contact with anyone carrying the flu virus.
2% chance he does.
If he gets vaccinated, and the vaccine reduces his risk of getting the flu in the event of contact with the virus by 50%, then his relative risk has been reduced by 50%.
But so does his absolute risk. The vaccine changes nothing about the 98% cases. But if his family coughs virus in his face for a week, then 50% of the time he laughs it off. Quick calculation:
2%*0.5 = 1%
50% absolute risk reduction.
What this leaves out is only that he was never likely to get the flu in the first place. But that's irrelevant. You don't grade medicines effectiveness on how much it helps those who don't need help.
assume the absolute risk for person x of getting the flu this year was 2%.
derived this way 98% chance he doesn't get into contact with anyone carrying the flu virus.
2% chance he does.
If he gets vaccinated, and the vaccine reduces his risk of getting the flu in the event of contact with the virus by 50%, then his relative risk has been reduced by 50%.
But so does his absolute risk. The vaccine changes nothing about the 98% cases. But if his family coughs virus in his face for a week, then 50% of the time he laughs it off. Quick calculation:
2%*0.5 = 1%
50% absolute risk reduction.
What this leaves out is only that he was never likely to get the flu in the first place. But that's irrelevant. You don't grade medicines effectiveness on how much it helps those who don't need help.
Absolute risk of person getting flu this year being 2% does not equate to 98% chance he doesn't get into contact with anyone carrying the flu virus.
You lack the capacity to understand that being exposed to the flu does not guarantee one gets the flu.
I don't even need to read the rest your retarded post.