13 ms·

> Kennedy also criticized the fact that the authors did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children to determine whether any aluminium exposure causes harm

by bko 1y ago

> Kennedy also criticized the fact that the authors did not compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children to determine whether any aluminium exposure causes harm, even though they had some data on unvaccinated children. I'm not a scientist, but if you were to tell me "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful", I would think ideally it would give substance X to one group and a placebo to the other group. If not possible, it would look after the fact to see group A that received substance X compared to group B that didn't, large enough sample so it would be relatively controlled for extraneous variables. Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? Another criticism: > Among Kennedy’s criticisms of the Danish study are that the analysis excluded children who had died before the age of two. According to Kennedy, this means that the children “most likely to reveal injuries” associated with aluminum exposure were excluded. From the opinion piece: > The architects of this study meticulously designed it not to find harm. From the outset, Andersson et al. excluded the very children most likely to reveal injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines. The exclusion included all children who died before age two, those diagnosed early with respiratory conditions, and an astonishing 34,547 children — 2.8% of the study population — whose vaccination records showed the highest aluminum exposure levels. I remember looking at some Lending Club loan statistics and their stated yields by Lending Club. I thought it was pretty good at the time. But then I noticed in fine print that from the historical yield calculations, they exclude any loans that defaulted within the first X months. That was not something I expected. I could see why Lending Club excluded these, but what's the rationale, if true, of excluding some populations from the vaccine trial results?

yorwba 1y ago
Hopefully nobody told you that "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful" while pointing to this study, which is not a trial, but a cohort study making use of the fact that different birth years in Denmark received different amounts of aluminum in their already-approved-after-trials early-childhood vaccinations to study the effect on 50 different chronic diseases. They excluded children from the study that didn't fit the demographic they were trying to study (didn't get their early-childhood vaccinations, e.g. because they died too young) or that had other diseases known to cause the chronic diseases they were trying to study (if you have a respiratory tract infection and develop asthma, is that because of vaccines or because of the infection?) so that they could deal with slightly less messy data. Kennedy might've preferred it if they'd done a double-blind trial revealing injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines, but that's not the question they were trying to answer.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  > Kennedy might've preferred it I know it’s not inherently what you were trying to day but frankly, who gives a fuck what Kennedy’s preference is? He has zero medical training, and has no hesitation latching on to garbage conspiracy theories like chem trails, showing his lack of critical thinking skillsthinking skills.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Unfortunately he has power over medical decisions now so a good number of people have to care about his opinions, whether or not they came from the brain worm
  - __d 1y ago
    > but frankly, who gives a fuck what Kennedy’s preference is? About 350 million people have a good reason to care …
blackbear_ 1y ago
> Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? You are right. Indeed, all vaccines and drugs undergo clinical trials testing for safety first, efficacy then, before being approved for sale and distribution. The study in question analyzes data that was routinely collected after the vaccine was approved, that is why they didn't do the randomization themselves. One of these vaccines is DTaP-IPV/Hib aka Pentacel, and the clinical results for it are reported here: https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/published/Clinical-Safety-Review--June-13--2008---Pentacel.pdf https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/... > The two controlled pivotal safety studies, overall rates of serious adverse events were similar in Pentacel and Control subjects. (Tested on about 5,000 children younger than two years old and getting two or three doses of the vaccine). Another trial for that vaccine was recently performed in Japan, also not finding significant rates of adverse events: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32307307/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32307307/
throwawayqqq11 1y ago
> no vaccinated vs unvaccinated comparison You dont need a placebo group, when you have alot of samples with varying exposures. Focusing on the unvaccinated is a strawman. > Exclusion of N children. Cleaning of data is really common practice in statistical analysis, you should declare it though. If you where tasked to summarize performance metrics in a company to find a base line, would you include days where eg. earth quakes hit?
- tialaramex 1y ago
  You don't ever have placebo groups where we are confident that not intervening is unethical. Because he had the same cancer I think Hank Green might have a video about this, but years ago when I got diagnosed with Hodgkins I read the data and there's no placebo trials because scientific medicine (and thus placebo trials) was invented after they had some initial working cures for Hodgkins. So any fool can see a "placebo" trial is just arbitrarily killing a bunch of people to check a box which is awful and they never performed one. We still have excellent reason to believe Hodgkins would kill you because some people, despite being told what's wrong and that we can cure it, will say "No". Crazy, religious, I guess maybe in the US too poor (?) doesn't matter, they decline the cure and those people die, because cancer is bad for you. But they're self-selecting and so do not constitute a placebo trial. It seems ludicrous, but in theory maybe they only die because they're crazy or poor or they believe God will cure them or something. We can't prove it ain't so. We do still run trials, but they're not A vs Placebo, they take the existing "gold standard" treatment you would get if there wasn't a trial and they compare something they think could be better against that.
colingauvin 1y ago
>I'm not a scientist, but if you were to tell me "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful", I would think ideally it would give substance X to one group and a placebo to the other group. If not possible, it would look after the fact to see group A that received substance X compared to group B that didn't, large enough sample so it would be relatively controlled for extraneous variables. Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? You cannot give a placebo vaccine once is it standard of care. No IRB is going to approve a placebo control group for a study (nor should they) on a vaccine that is already SoC. This is why we let actual scientists and doctors design the experiments, and not random HN readers. It would be incredibly unethical to give a placebo vaccine for tetanus. Think about what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that children potentially die of entirely avoidable tetanus, for the sake of running an experiment. At the bare minimum, that is medical malpractice. I won't get into what it is at the other end of the spectrum, beyond this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

by bko 1y ago

yorwba 1y ago

Hopefully nobody told you that "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful" while pointing to this study, which is not a trial, but a cohort study making use of the fact that different birth years in Denmark received different amounts of aluminum in their already-approved-after-trials early-childhood vaccinations to study the effect on 50 different chronic diseases. They excluded children from the study that didn't fit the demographic they were trying to study (didn't get their early-childhood vaccinations, e.g. because they died too young) or that had other diseases known to cause the chronic diseases they were trying to study (if you have a respiratory tract infection and develop asthma, is that because of vaccines or because of the infection?) so that they could deal with slightly less messy data. Kennedy might've preferred it if they'd done a double-blind trial revealing injuries associated with high exposures to aluminum adjuvants in childhood vaccines, but that's not the question they were trying to answer.

FireBeyond 1y ago
> Kennedy might've preferred it I know it’s not inherently what you were trying to day but frankly, who gives a fuck what Kennedy’s preference is? He has zero medical training, and has no hesitation latching on to garbage conspiracy theories like chem trails, showing his lack of critical thinking skillsthinking skills.
- lovich 1y ago
  Unfortunately he has power over medical decisions now so a good number of people have to care about his opinions, whether or not they came from the brain worm
- __d 1y ago
  > but frankly, who gives a fuck what Kennedy’s preference is? About 350 million people have a good reason to care …

blackbear_ 1y ago

> Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? You are right. Indeed, all vaccines and drugs undergo clinical trials testing for safety first, efficacy then, before being approved for sale and distribution. The study in question analyzes data that was routinely collected after the vaccine was approved, that is why they didn't do the randomization themselves. One of these vaccines is DTaP-IPV/Hib aka Pentacel, and the clinical results for it are reported here: https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/published/Clinical-Safety-Review--June-13--2008---Pentacel.pdf https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/... > The two controlled pivotal safety studies, overall rates of serious adverse events were similar in Pentacel and Control subjects. (Tested on about 5,000 children younger than two years old and getting two or three doses of the vaccine). Another trial for that vaccine was recently performed in Japan, also not finding significant rates of adverse events: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32307307/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32307307/

throwawayqqq11 1y ago

> no vaccinated vs unvaccinated comparison You dont need a placebo group, when you have alot of samples with varying exposures. Focusing on the unvaccinated is a strawman. > Exclusion of N children. Cleaning of data is really common practice in statistical analysis, you should declare it though. If you where tasked to summarize performance metrics in a company to find a base line, would you include days where eg. earth quakes hit?

tialaramex 1y ago
You don't ever have placebo groups where we are confident that not intervening is unethical. Because he had the same cancer I think Hank Green might have a video about this, but years ago when I got diagnosed with Hodgkins I read the data and there's no placebo trials because scientific medicine (and thus placebo trials) was invented after they had some initial working cures for Hodgkins. So any fool can see a "placebo" trial is just arbitrarily killing a bunch of people to check a box which is awful and they never performed one. We still have excellent reason to believe Hodgkins would kill you because some people, despite being told what's wrong and that we can cure it, will say "No". Crazy, religious, I guess maybe in the US too poor (?) doesn't matter, they decline the cure and those people die, because cancer is bad for you. But they're self-selecting and so do not constitute a placebo trial. It seems ludicrous, but in theory maybe they only die because they're crazy or poor or they believe God will cure them or something. We can't prove it ain't so. We do still run trials, but they're not A vs Placebo, they take the existing "gold standard" treatment you would get if there wasn't a trial and they compare something they think could be better against that.

colingauvin 1y ago

>I'm not a scientist, but if you were to tell me "this trial shows that substance X is not harmful", I would think ideally it would give substance X to one group and a placebo to the other group. If not possible, it would look after the fact to see group A that received substance X compared to group B that didn't, large enough sample so it would be relatively controlled for extraneous variables. Seems like you would def want to compare the two groups, so what did this study actually do? You cannot give a placebo vaccine once is it standard of care. No IRB is going to approve a placebo control group for a study (nor should they) on a vaccine that is already SoC. This is why we let actual scientists and doctors design the experiments, and not random HN readers. It would be incredibly unethical to give a placebo vaccine for tetanus. Think about what you are suggesting here. You are suggesting that children potentially die of entirely avoidable tetanus, for the sake of running an experiment. At the bare minimum, that is medical malpractice. I won't get into what it is at the other end of the spectrum, beyond this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study