"Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.

Declaration


<p>The CDC has two different terms. "<em>Vaccine Efficacy"</em> is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.</p>
<p>"<em>Vaccine Effectiveness</em>" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm</a></p>;
<p>In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,&nbsp; VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))</p>
<p>Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.</p>
<p>(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.</p>
<p>(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.</p>
<p>(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.</p>
<p>(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.</p>

URL


http://truthsift.com/search_view?statement=Vaccine-Effectiveness-used-to-measure-flu-vaccines-gives-a-higher-score-to-a-flu-vaccine-if-it-damages-the-immune-system-of-the-recipient.&id=386&nid=2823

Details





Attachments


History

Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-17 10:36:46.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-17 10:36:10.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-17 10:34:08.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-17 10:14:51.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-17 10:13:55.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-12 02:46:27.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-09-12 01:49:40.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:23:08.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:19:55.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:19:03.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:17:54.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:17:09.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient.
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: LeftRightWatermelon
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-08-28 09:15:57.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-07-09 11:53:43.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-07-09 11:42:46.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-22 01:19:09.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

(4) If you think argument 3 isn't exactly a proof, note they report a solid VE each year, averaging .42. On what basis is it more likely this positive VE is due to preventing flu, then to assume it is coming from causing damage to the immune system? Mathematically the two terms play similar roles in the formula. The other evidence in this Topic indicates there is a strong case for damaging the immune system. So I submit that this high VE of .42 indicates damage at least as strongly as it indicates efficacy.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-21 06:00:57.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 21:49:29.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 14:08:26.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 13:55:32.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 13:40:30.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 12:33:00.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-19 02:24:55.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-14 00:31:17.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-14 00:30:18.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-13 01:29:28.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 05:01:41.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 05:00:57.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 04:59:16.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 04:53:11.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 04:51:28.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 04:51:02.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm

In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-05-03 04:35:41.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body:

The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo.

"Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,  VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI))

Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this.

(1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc.

(2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%.

(3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.

Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-02-22 14:33:16.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a higher score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body: The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo. "Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,???? VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI)) Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this. (1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc. (2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%. (3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.
Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-02-17 14:20:16.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a high score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body: The CDC has two different terms. "Vaccine Efficacy" is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo. "Vaccine Effectiveness" is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,???? VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI)) Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this. (1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc. (2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%. (3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.
Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-01-19 09:13:44.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title: "Vaccine Effectiveness" used to measure flu vaccines gives a high score to a flu vaccine if it damages the immune system of the recipient
Body: The CDC has two different terms. Vaccine Efficacy is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo. Vaccine Effectiveness is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,???? VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI)) Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this. (1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc. (2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%. (3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.
Proposed Probability: 100.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-01-14 18:23:03.0
Statement Type: STATEMENT
Title:
Body: The CDC has two different terms. Vaccine Efficacy is measured using a double blind randomized placebo test. If the people who got the vaccine got the targeted disease 20 times less than the people who got the placebo, then the vaccine efficacy would be 95%. Getting the vaccine seems to make you 20 times less likely to get the disease than you would if you'd got a placebo. Vaccine Effectiveness is what they usually talk to you about. Here's how they often measure vaccine effectiveness, especially I've noticed for flu vaccines. "Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1 - odds ratio [ratio of odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-positive test results to the odds of being vaccinated among outpatients with influenza-negative test results])" http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6401a4.htm In other words, they take people presenting to the Doc for a respiratory illness and divide them up into 4 groups, first by whether they got the flu vax, and second by whether they have the flu or some other respiratory complaint. Let VF be the guys who were vaxed and have flu,???? VI be the guys who were vaxed and have some other respiratory infection, NF be guys who weren't vaxed and have flu, and NI be guys who weren't vaxed and have some other respiratory infection. Vaccine Effectiveness = 100% X (1-(VF/NF)(NI/VI)) Now the obvious problem with this is, you get a high Vaccine Effectiveness if a lot of people who get the flu vaccine get sick with other respiratory illnesses, independent of whether it helps with the flu. There are three problems with this. (1) This formula seems likely to generate a substantial VE even if the vaccine were actually a placebo. It seems very plausible that people who are likely to go to the Doctor with a respiratory illness are more likely to get Vaxed for flu, either because they are more reliant on doctors, more hypochondriac, or genuinely sicklier. People who never get colds are unlikely to go for flu shots. On the other hand, when they actually get the flu, they'll come in. If many vaccinees are coming in with imagined or minor respiratory complaints and non-vaccinees are not, that would generate a good vaccine effectiveness for a placebo. etc. (2) Even more importantly, a flu vaccine will get a high effectiveness rating if it causes recipients to get a lot of non-flu respiratory illnesses by damaging their immune system. If the only effect a flu vaccine had was to cause recipients to get 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses as placebo recipients, then you would find a vaccine effectiveness of 75%. If a flu vaccine made you twice as likely to get the flu and 4 times as likely to get another respiratory illness, you would find a Vaccine Effectiveness of 50%. (3) The second law of thermodynamics says its a lot easier to screw things up then to fix them. If vaccine makers are being rewarded for screwing up immune systems, you can bet they'll figure out how, especially if they are indemnified against any damage they cause. Even if they have the best of intentions. Getting a vaccine that protects against a specific flu strain you can't even predict easily, without in the process screwing up the immune system or the health of the recipient, that's an incredibly hard project. I don't believe anybody is even capable of it. Getting an injection that screws up the immune system so recipients get more respiratory illnesses? You could probably do that pretty quick by trial and error. When you blundered into it, you'd get rich and everybody would tell you you were a genius and saving mankind.
Proposed Probability: 0.0%
Updater: Eric
Collaboration: Yes
Last Updated: 2016-01-08 14:45:14.0

Comments