4 ms·

> Our current data tools are nowhere near good enough for us to be so confident in most domains of medicine, such as vaccination. I think you're conflating thi

by _bxg1 7y ago

> Our current data tools are nowhere near good enough for us to be so confident in most domains of medicine, such as vaccination. I think you're conflating things like nutrition with the whole of biology. There are lots of things we understand quite well, and have mountains of data on, and vaccines are one of the best examples of those. Nutrition science is famously unreliable, but there are reasons for that beyond just the intrinsic complexity of the domain itself: - It grabs headlines because it's something individuals can control themselves, and because it has a direct relationship to mass-market priorities like physical appearance. So the media jumps at every opportunity to sensationalize a study that may not actually be making any bold claims. - Billions of dollars are funneled by megacorps into sham studies that pollute the discourse, for their own profit-seeking motives. All three factors can also apply to drugs, especially mental-directed ones (because the human psychology is a whole other layer of complexity). The opioid crisis had nothing to do with the science, but with greed and addiction. The drugs themselves were safe; you can overdose on anything. But none of these apply to vaccines. Their relationship to the human body is comparatively simple. They aren't a home-remedy. They aren't (relatively speaking) a big business. They also aren't some new, unproven technology. They are one of the most widely-deployed and successful medical inventions ever created by man. There are few things in the world that we have so much conclusive data around. There's plenty of true information on the internet. The past several years have made it abundantly clear that true information does not win out against false information rooted in fear. Don't be part of the problem.

breck 7y ago
> There are lots of things we understand quite well, and have mountains of data on, and vaccines are one of the best examples of those. Point me to this "mountains of data" in a usable form. There should be a site right, that contains a simple big table of all vaccinations administered worldwide and how the results went? I don't want to see some static PDF with a paltry 10,000 data points. We are all savyy programmers here and know that a relatively simple table could be created so any parent can do a simple single query against all the world's medical live data to see if vaccines are safe, right? That would be science. That would be Six Sigma. But I can't do that. So I need to take a bet on who to believe: scientists pushing non-science or non-scientists. I recently talked to some doctors here who recently were in Samoa helping the Measles outbreak there. Two children died from getting vaccines there in 2018 (https://www.immune.org.nz/hot-topic/infant-deaths-samoa-tragic-outcome-error-preparing-mmr-vaccine https://www.immune.org.nz/hot-topic/infant-deaths-samoa-trag...). Clearly those deaths shouldn't have happened. Where's the push to bring Six Sigma to the medical world? Instead it's "vaccines are safe", read the PDF. We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. Our medical data infrastructure is very very bad. > They are one of the most widely-deployed and successful medical inventions ever created by man I agree in the ranks of medical inventions vaccines are amazing. But still, not the best comparison group. How effective was the flu vaccine this year? Surely I should be able to see that information in a single query. But I can't. (the rough answer from doctors I've sampled is about 30%, or 70% ineffective). People are right to be skeptical of medical advice until some dramatic innovation comes to the space.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  > We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real. It's impossible to never take anything on any level of trust. When your scenarios get more and more elaborate (a secret worldwide conspiracy to push vaccines? we can't even cooperate on simple stuff), at some point you have to ask yourself, "Is my skepticism driven by real information, or by what-ifs?" That's how you distinguish conspiracy theories from not: what prompted the question? Not that an increase in open data would ever be a bad thing. But it's a huge logistical challenge, and it shouldn't be required for something this well-known.
  - breck 7y ago
    > And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real. That's a fair point. You're right, you do need to take some things on trust at some point. I don't know what the solution is. If I knew the answer I would have built it by now :). But I do hope we don't start censoring skeptics and instead overcome them by building things.

by _bxg1 7y ago

breck 7y ago

> There are lots of things we understand quite well, and have mountains of data on, and vaccines are one of the best examples of those. Point me to this "mountains of data" in a usable form. There should be a site right, that contains a simple big table of all vaccinations administered worldwide and how the results went? I don't want to see some static PDF with a paltry 10,000 data points. We are all savyy programmers here and know that a relatively simple table could be created so any parent can do a simple single query against all the world's medical live data to see if vaccines are safe, right? That would be science. That would be Six Sigma. But I can't do that. So I need to take a bet on who to believe: scientists pushing non-science or non-scientists. I recently talked to some doctors here who recently were in Samoa helping the Measles outbreak there. Two children died from getting vaccines there in 2018 (https://www.immune.org.nz/hot-topic/infant-deaths-samoa-tragic-outcome-error-preparing-mmr-vaccine https://www.immune.org.nz/hot-topic/infant-deaths-samoa-trag...). Clearly those deaths shouldn't have happened. Where's the push to bring Six Sigma to the medical world? Instead it's "vaccines are safe", read the PDF. We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. Our medical data infrastructure is very very bad. > They are one of the most widely-deployed and successful medical inventions ever created by man I agree in the ranks of medical inventions vaccines are amazing. But still, not the best comparison group. How effective was the flu vaccine this year? Surely I should be able to see that information in a single query. But I can't. (the rough answer from doctors I've sampled is about 30%, or 70% ineffective). People are right to be skeptical of medical advice until some dramatic innovation comes to the space.

_bxg1 7y ago
> We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real. It's impossible to never take anything on any level of trust. When your scenarios get more and more elaborate (a secret worldwide conspiracy to push vaccines? we can't even cooperate on simple stuff), at some point you have to ask yourself, "Is my skepticism driven by real information, or by what-ifs?" That's how you distinguish conspiracy theories from not: what prompted the question? Not that an increase in open data would ever be a bad thing. But it's a huge logistical challenge, and it shouldn't be required for something this well-known.
- breck 7y ago
  > And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real. That's a fair point. You're right, you do need to take some things on trust at some point. I don't know what the solution is. If I knew the answer I would have built it by now :). But I do hope we don't start censoring skeptics and instead overcome them by building things.