Immunisations, In Specific Polio

[qwert]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

I just wish that people debating about this type of nonsense would do a few thigs......

1) Stop quoting articles that are not peer-reviewed..........because if it isn't it is basically not trustworthy. If you don't know what peer-reviewed means or how to tell if it is......go and educate yourself even though it will probably hurt your brain.

2) Stop jumping on the bandwagon. Do your research (from peer-reviewed articles) and get the facts rather than what your pot head friend said. I have seen many instances on this site and members youtube channels where they do not even properly identify a fish....why should you believe what they say about something like vaccines if they can't even differentiate species properly????????

3) Once you have gone through the mentally painful process of reading peer-reviewed articles and gotten facts that are studied by REAL SCIENTISTS and not some hippy crack-addict, then feel free to share your opinions, but by that point, there would only be one opinion and that is the true one.

Unfortunately, ‘peer review’ is subject to all of the corrupting influences and bias of ‘personal self interest’, ‘conflict of interest’, and any of several prejudices and cognitive biases such as, confirmation bias, (and confirmation dissonance) and especially ‘academic bias’, ‘funding bias’, and ‘experimenter bias’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

By definition, peer is, “a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.” Strictly speaking, judgment ‘by a group (jury) of one’s peers, would require that ‘kings be judged by kings’, but also that ‘idiots be judged by idiots’, and ‘ignorance be judged by similar ignorance’, (some may submit both are what we have here, but I submit that ‘argumentum ad hominem’ is the last refuge of a failed argument).

IMHO, always question the perspective and objectivity of any opinion.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So are you saying we should believe what we are told by "Science" 100% of the time?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't doctors used to endorse certain brands of tobacco?

Im saying you should base your opinion on facts. I'm saying your statement was asinine. I specifically said you can argue with a scientist that would encompass asking questions and how the data was obtained, is it peer reviewed, can the result be duplicated, was the data set large enough etc.

Yes you should most definitely trust scientists. If you can't tell the difference between a scientist and a shill with a degree that's not my problem.

Unless you are more knowledgeable than any expert in the field then you should definitely accept what the have to say on the subject as most likely being the truth. Yes they may get it wrong from time to time and no their isnt anything wrong with being skeptical but to compare the scientific method to religion is asinine, irresponsible, insulting and completely reprehensible.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So are you saying we should believe what we are told by "Science" 100% of the time?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't doctors used to endorse certain brands of tobacco?

By 1930 there was already research suggesting a link between lung cancer and smoking. Just not a lot of people were listening.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/64/1/4/1637703

The smoking issue has more to do with concerted efforts by the tobacco lobby than by a scietific misstep.


As to whether we should trust science:

You don't need to trust one single scientist or one single research team. However, once large numbers of researchers, working independently of each other, all start arriving at the same (or similar) conculsions, it's time to get on board.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by qwert

Unfortunately, ‘peer review’ is subject to all of the corrupting influences and bias of ‘personal self interest’, ‘conflict of interest’, and any of several prejudices and cognitive biases such as, confirmation bias, (and confirmation dissonance) and especially ‘academic bias’, ‘funding bias’, and ‘experimenter bias’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

By definition, peer is, “a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person.” Strictly speaking, judgment ‘by a group (jury) of one’s peers, would require that ‘kings be judged by kings’, but also that ‘idiots be judged by idiots’, and ‘ignorance be judged by similar ignorance’, (some may submit both are what we have here, but I submit that ‘argumentum ad hominem’ is the last refuge of a failed argument).

IMHO, always question the perspective and objectivity of any opinion.

Good Luck, YMMV.

Read the last post by TylerThomson........he seems to be another guy that knows what he is talking about........

The definition of Peer-reviewed is not up for alternate interpretations ........ to become peer reviewed it has to be approved by other scientists that actually have a clue what the stuff means.....aka they would not ask a guy like you to peer review it because you probably cannot even run a PCR, whereas they would go to other scientists to look over their data and findings to make sure that they didn't make a mistake or make assumptions that are not scientifically backed........

Peer Reviewing is the filter used on scientific findings because sometimes mistakes are made in experiments and it takes other scientists to see that mistake.

[Newview01]

The simple fact the mercury is not used in vaccines anymore is proof we should not rush headlong into what scientists are telling us.

I have no doubt that the vast majority are well intentioned, but to have blind faith in their interpretation of the results of a study seems a bit rash. Not to mention what qwert has stated. And then to make something mandatory given those circumstances?

Edit - I'm not anti-vax, I just am having a hard time believing it is good for our bodies to submit them to the popular vaccination schedules.

[the11fisherman]

I really wish that there were more University Scientists on here so there could be more sense put into this thread..........

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The simple fact the mercury is not used in vaccines anymore is proof we should not rush headlong into what scientists are telling us.

I have no doubt that the vast majority are well intentioned, but to have blind faith in their interpretation of the results of a study seems a bit rash. Not to mention what qwert has stated. And then to make something mandatory given those circumstances?

Part of the process is for other scientists to attempt to re-create and verify studies. The entire system is built around not having blind faith in the results of a study.

We've now got thousand of studies, all coming to the same conclusions.

Also, qwert posted the wrong wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The simple fact the mercury is not used in vaccines anymore is proof we should not rush headlong into what scientists are telling us.

I have no doubt that the vast majority are well intentioned, but to have blind faith in their interpretation of the results of a study seems a bit rash. Not to mention what qwert has stated. And then to make something mandatory given those circumstances?

Edit - I'm not anti-vax, I just am having a hard time believing it is good for our bodies to submit them to the popular vaccination schedules.

Based on what? Your gut?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Part of the process is for other scientists to attempt to re-create and verify studies. The entire system is built around not having blind faith in the results of a study.

We've now got thousand of studies, all coming to the same conclusions.

Also, qwert posted the wrong wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

Ok, without disagreeing with you, whit if in 20 years we find out the horrible consequences of today's vaccinations?

[Donkey Oatey]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The simple fact the mercury is not used in vaccines anymore is proof we should not rush headlong into what scientists are telling us.

I have no doubt that the vast majority are well intentioned, but to have blind faith in their interpretation of the results of a study seems a bit rash. Not to mention what qwert has stated. And then to make something mandatory given those circumstances?

Edit - I'm not anti-vax, I just am having a hard time believing it is good for our bodies to submit them to the popular vaccination schedules.

Actually Newview01 thimersal was removed from vaccines, not because of science but because of hysteria surrounding it and the anti-vaxxers spin.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-heal...statement.html

Public confidence in vaccines and high rates of vaccine uptake are critical to the continued effectiveness of immunization programs. Even when risks are purely theoretical, experience has shown that unaddressed public concerns can drastically decrease immunization coverage, to the detriment of public health. Thus the call to remove thimerosal from vaccines seeks to maintain public confidence by avoiding even theoretical risk.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

Based on what? Your gut?

Yes, just that

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok, without disagreeing with you, whit if in 20 years we find out the horrible consequences of today's vaccinations?

Then we'd have to pull it from the market, compensate people and re-vamp the approval and tracking process.

Mostly, we'd have to figure out how, despite initial research, clinical trials involving thousands of test subjects and 20 years of tracking of adverse effects, we didn't notice these consequences for two decades.

A brief overview of the approval process:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html

It's worth noting, though, that after decades of vaccinations that has yet to happen.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

I really wish that there were more University Scientists on here so there could be more sense put into this thread..........

Wishful thinking .....scientific proof has not, nor will it, change "opinions".

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Wishful thinking .....scientific proof has not, nor will it, change "opinions".

Sad but true is it not?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Wishful thinking .....scientific proof has not, nor will it, change "opinions".

We won't change any true believers opinions, but I think it's worth having the arguments for the fence-sitters to read.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

Ah no ......
Science is about reproducible outcomes.
Religion is about believing in something with absolutely no evidence, no actual witnesses and zero ability to reproduce.
Sorry they are polar opposites.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok, without disagreeing with you, whit if in 20 years we find out the horrible consequences of today's vaccinations?

Well we have already found out the results of no vaccinations. There are not that many of the original polio patients that are still in iron lungs, but you can still find a couple. Maybe ask what their opinion is ????
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-in-iron-lung/

[normstad]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

Science a religion?

Nope.

One doesn't "believe" in science. One either understands it or not. I don't think you do understand it at all.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

Read the last post by TylerThomson........he seems to be another guy that knows what he is talking about........

The definition of Peer-reviewed is not up for alternate interpretations ........ to become peer reviewed it has to be approved by other scientists that actually have a clue what the stuff means.....aka they would not ask a guy like you to peer review it because you probably cannot even run a PCR, whereas they would go to other scientists to look over their data and findings to make sure that they didn't make a mistake or make assumptions that are not scientifically backed........

Peer Reviewing is the filter used on scientific findings because sometimes mistakes are made in experiments and it takes other scientists to see that mistake.

Originally Posted by qwert

‘argumentum ad hominem’ is the last refuge of a failed argument.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

snip
Also, qwert posted the wrong wiki article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

My post was to draw attention to the many factors that can diminish or invalidate the practice and authority of 'peer review'.

from the link SC posted,

"Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.[85] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[86][87] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories[88][89][90] and may be biased against novelty.[91] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[92][93] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. There are also signs of gender bias, favouring men as authors.[94] As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[95] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.[96]

Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.[44][97][98]"

and also a very relevant example,
"Perhaps the most widely recognized failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were rejected by some peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox."[109]

Good Luck, YMMV.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

By 1930 there was already research suggesting a link between lung cancer and smoking. Just not a lot of people were listening.

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/64/1/4/1637703

The smoking issue has more to do with concerted efforts by the tobacco lobby than by a scietific misstep.


As to whether we should trust science:

You don't need to trust one single scientist or one single research team. However, once large numbers of researchers, working independently of each other, all start arriving at the same (or similar) conculsions, it's time to get on board.

Very early in the 20th century scientists were proving that tobacco caused cancer. The problem was that large companies that employeed many people did everything they could think of to try and trivialize the science and spent truck loads of cash to polish up their side of the story. They could even find "experts" that would give some credibility to the safety of their product. It didn't help that many people that enjoyed the product thought they were smarter than those doing the research.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by qwert

My post was to draw attention to the many factors that can diminish or invalidate the practice and authority of 'peer review'.

from the link SC posted,

"Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.[85] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[86][87] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories[88][89][90] and may be biased against novelty.[91] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[92][93] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. There are also signs of gender bias, favouring men as authors.[94] As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[95] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.[96]

Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.[44][97][98]"

and also a very relevant example,
"Perhaps the most widely recognized failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were rejected by some peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox."[109]

Good Luck, YMMV.

Looks like I misread your initial post.

That said, a criticism of the peer review process isn't terribly relevant to the discussion about the efficacy of vaccines except as an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific process by drawing attention away from the relevant point being made.

While it's certainly an imperfect system, it does serve to reduce the number of poor quality papers published and to protect the reputation of journals. Frankly, an overly conservative bias is probably preferable in fields with tangible implications.

I'm honestly curious what point you were trying to make initially.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Looks like I misread your initial post.

That said, a criticism of the peer review process isn't terribly relevant to the discussion about the efficacy of vaccines except as an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific process by drawing attention away from the relevant point being made.

While it's certainly an imperfect system, it does serve to reduce the number of poor quality papers published and to protect the reputation of journals. Frankly, an overly conservative bias is probably preferable in fields with tangible implications.

I'm honestly curious what point you were trying to make initially.

X2

[qwert]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

Looks like I misread your initial post.

snip

I'm honestly curious what point you were trying to make initially.

From my post #110,

Originally Posted by qwert

My post was to draw attention to the many factors that can diminish or invalidate the practice and authority of 'peer review'.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[silver]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

Read the last post by TylerThomson........he seems to be another guy that knows what he is talking about........

The definition of Peer-reviewed is not up for alternate interpretations ........ to become peer reviewed it has to be approved by other scientists that actually have a clue what the stuff means.....aka they would not ask a guy like you to peer review it because you probably cannot even run a PCR, whereas they would go to other scientists to look over their data and findings to make sure that they didn't make a mistake or make assumptions that are not scientifically backed........

Peer Reviewing is the filter used on scientific findings because sometimes mistakes are made in experiments and it takes other scientists to see that mistake.

Is all this peer reviewing you have going on is the same as the peer reviewing that tells us that we are the cause of global warming?

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by qwert

From my post #110,



Good Luck, YMMV.

That doesn't answer the question at all.

Can you provide specific examples where issues with peer review are detrimental to immunological research? I already suggested that an bias toward conservatism is probably helpful in these cases (though detrimental in highly theoretical and fast-changing fields).

It's also a highly useful tool for non-experts. Reading a peer-reviewed article means that, I, as someone without a highly advanced education in a subject, can be assured that the methodology is sound and the conclusions are reasonable based on the data gathered. Without that review, it can be difficult to impossible for non-experts to know if a paper is well written or not.

This was the context that was used to bring it into the thread in the first place.

Further, you've failed to provide any meaningful alternative. If peer review is not useful, what do you propose as an alternative?

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

That doesn't answer the question at all.

Can you provide specific examples where issues with peer review are detrimental to immunological research? I already suggested that an bias toward conservatism is probably helpful in these cases (though detrimental in highly theoretical and fast-changing fields).

It's also a highly useful tool for non-experts. Reading a peer-reviewed article means that, I, as someone without a highly advanced education in a subject, can be assured that the methodology is sound and the conclusions are reasonable based on the data gathered. Without that review, it can be difficult to impossible for non-experts to know if a paper is well written or not.

This was the context that was used to bring it into the thread in the first place.

Further, you've failed to provide any meaningful alternative. If peer review is not useful, what do you propose as an alternative?

He has no alternative. His sole purpose of posting was to cast doubt on the science without offering anything concrete. You'll see the same behaviour from flat earthers, and other people who subscribe to "alternative" world views.

[qwert]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

He has no alternative. His sole purpose of posting was to cast doubt on the science without offering anything concrete. You'll see the same behaviour from flat earthers, and other people who subscribe to "alternative" world views.

I repeat,

Originally Posted by qwert

‘argumentum ad hominem’ is the last refuge of a failed argument.

Good Luck, YMMV.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by qwert

I repeat,


Good Luck, YMMV.

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

He has no alternative. His sole purpose of posting was to cast doubt on the science without offering anything concrete. You'll see the same behaviour from flat earthers, and other people who subscribe to "alternative" world views.

Oh, absolutely. I just wanted to make it abundantly clear to any fence-sitters reading this thread that qwert can't make a comprehensible argument, despite being asked twice to do so. He's resorted to throwing out accusations of logical fallacies without actually understanding what those fallacies actually are (There's no ad hominem here).

The facts remain that vaccines are a tremendous life saving tool, backed by monumental amounts of research conducted by dedicated, often brilliant people.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by silver

Is all this peer reviewing you have going on is the same as the peer reviewing that tells us that we are the cause of global warming?

Sigh, yes it is. I am still waiting for a response to my post asking about the scientists who were caught tampering with climate data.

There is no evidence that proves all scientists are engaged in their research for the betterment of humanity. Until that is the case, I will choose what I believe. Thankfully I still have that option, much to the dismay of some folks around here.