Re: A recent paper examining reasons for increasing whooping cough incidence

[punter]

>"less X NOW causes more X LATER". Is that simple enough for you Tristan? <

Very simple. So simple in fact that I already understood that was your
original point and responded germanely when I said "It is of no
consequence whether you are talking about a minute or a millennium."
Saying X rises (or falls) in one thing will precipitate a change in Y
which would eventually lead to a fall (or rise) in X is a
contradiction.

It must be stressed though that this is different to saying that there
are negative feedbacks which can MITIGATE the magnitude of the INITIAL
rise (or fall). Negative feedbacks are of course not a contradiction.

> Not me Tristan, have you read the paper? This is their proposal. I
just though it sounded reasonable enough. >

OK. You're clearly relaying (and endorsing) the opinions of some
people who are clearly making it all up as they go along. Better?

> Dunno about vastly more given the vaccination rate for teenagers and adults is estimated to be around 11%. What do you think? Are things so different in this age group now, then they were prior to vaccine intro? >

"Vastly", "somewhat", who cares? It is still a contradiction. >

So you don't think any immunity can ever be gained from exposure to
pertussis (naturally or otherwise). I wonder if Tasha would care to
weigh in on this point. She is an advocate of natural immunity to
pertussis. >

Tasha is free to hold any opinion on immune system memory she likes as
are you but if you want to persuade people to vaccinate their children
it needs to be shown that a) germs cause disease; b) the immune system
has a memory when it comes to fighting these disease causing germs; c)
vaccines can stimulate that memory; and d) vaccines are reasonably
safe.

There are many who question vaccines who agree with some of those
premises. I don't agree with any of them.

Although I will say that if it could be proven that d) was right then
I would probably leave this debate for good. I would still consider
vaccines to be a pointless waste of money but so are many things and I
could handle that. But until such time as vaccines are proved to be
safe - and for that to happen I want to see an adult take the entire
vaccine schedule adjusted for their body weight (preferably
multiplied) - I will continue to warn against them. So there you go.
The ball is in your court. You can shut me up for good. I think Greg
has made the same promise too. Take a weight adjusted dose of the
infant vaccination schedule - come out all right - and we will no
longer warn people against taking them.

How fair is that? JC, Ashley, KB and every other skeptic has so far
declined this generous offer. Will you accept it?


>What, the whole ramble about how doctors are fudging all the vaccine effects to give themselves high fives? Yeah, that sure was convincing<

What? You didn't find it persuasive? Surely not! I personally find
the notion that people act in their own self- interest extremely easy
to believe but obviously you find it much easier to believe that a
small subset of them are perfectly altruistic angels.

I should stress I use the term self-interest in the way economists use
it, rather than the way it is often caricatured.

At any rate you wanted some feedback and so I am giving you some. The
paper's conclusion requires an internal contradiction so we can say
that it is flat out wrong. I provided an alternative explanation that
you are welcome to believe or not. But I suspect not.

On Jan 29, 11:15 pm, Peter McCarthy <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Quote: Tristan]
> "What you are saying is that less X causes more X. That is a blatant
> contradiction."
>
> Sure, but that isn't what I said.  If you want it really really simply put
> then - "less X NOW causes more X LATER".  Is that simple enough for you
> Tristan?
>
> [Quote: Tristan]
> "and you're clearly making this all up as you go"
>
> Not me Tristan, have you read the paper? This is their proposal.  I just
> though it sounded reasonable enough.
>
> [Quote: Tristan]
> "wouldn't this mean that this group of people must have been spreading
> vastly more cases of pertussis to susceptible infants?"
>
> Dunno about vastly more given the vaccination rate for teenagers and adults
> is estimated to be around 11%.  What do you think?  Are things so different
> in this age group now, then they were prior to vaccine intro?
>
> [Quote: Tristan]
> "Change "the lifelong" to "any" and I complete agree with you."
>
> So you don't think any immunity can ever be gained from exposure to
> pertussis (naturally or otherwise).  I wonder if Tasha would care to weigh
> in on this point.  She is an advocate of natural immunity to pertussis.
>
> [Quote: Tristan]
> "That was why I provided my initial explanation - it has the distinct
> advantage of not requiring an internal contradiction."
>
> What, the whole ramble about how doctors are fudging all the vaccine
> effects to give themselves high fives?  Yeah, that sure was convincing...
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Again, No.  After intro of the vaccine, pertussis incidence did decrease.
> > However, OVER TIME the incidence has increased again.  Mainly in
> > teenagers
> > and adults.  The paper proposes that this is (at least in part) due to
> > the
> > fact that the reduction in incidence of pertussis following intro of
> > the
> > vaccine has lead to a reduction in the natural priming effects of
> > sub-clinical cases of pertussis in teenagers and adults. <
>
> > It is of no consequence whether you are talking about a minute or a
> > millennium. What you are saying is that less X causes more X. That is
> > a blatant contradiction.
>
> > >No.  If they had more exposure this is obviously going to mean MORE cases
> > of pertussis amongst such people.  The point is that the cases were
> > generally LESS SEVERE because the higher incidence of exposure kept
> > their
> > immunity higher .<
>
> > Even assuming that were true - and you're clearly making this all up
> > as you go - wouldn't this mean that this group of people must have
> > been spreading vastly more cases of pertussis to susceptible infants?
> > So we would be back to the old less disease causes more disease
> > quandary.
>
> > >The effect is essentially that in the
> > case of B.pertussis it seems the lifelong immunity is never attained
> > (either from natural exposure or from vaccination). <
>
> > Change "the lifelong" to "any" and I complete agree with you. That was
> > why I provided my initial explanation - it has the distinct advantage
> > of not requiring an internal contradiction.
>
> > Of course it would never pass the all-important peer-review.
>
> > On Jan 28, 10:59 am, Peter McCarthy <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Tristan, I don't think the point is that less exposure means more
> > disease.
> > > What the paper proposes is that vaccination has pushed the incidence of
> > > disease away from younger people into older generations.  As already
> > noted,
> > > the pertussis vaccine does not confer lifelong immunity. As such, once
> > > people have lived long enough for their immunity to wane, they are
> > > susceptible again. Also as stated in this group, it has been estimated
> > that
> > > only approximately 11% of australian adults are sufficiently vaccinated
> > > against pertussis. Because the disease was never eradicated, incidence
> > has
> > > shifted to this population. This leads to the kinds of outbreaks we are
> > > seeing.
>
> > > [Quote: Tristan]
>
> > > "So what you are saying is that before vaccines, people of a certain age
> > > had more exposure to pertussis and this led to less cases of pertussis
> > > amongst such people."
>
> > > No.  If they had more exposure this is obviously going to mean MORE cases
> > > of pertussis amongst such people.  The point is that the cases were
> > > generally LESS SEVERE because the higher incidence of exposure kept their
> > > immunity higher
>
> > > [Quote: Tristan]
> > > After the introduction of the vaccines there was less exposure to
> > pertussis
> > > amongst this same group of people and therefore more cases of pertussis
> > > amongst them.
>
> > > Again, No.  After intro of the vaccine, pertussis incidence did decrease.
> > > However, OVER TIME the incidence has increased again.  Mainly in
> > teenagers
> > > and adults.  The paper proposes that this is (at least in part) due to
> > the
> > > fact that the reduction in incidence of pertussis following intro of the
> > > vaccine has lead to a reduction in the natural priming effects of
> > > sub-clinical cases of pertussis in teenagers and adults.  It is important
> > > to understand that currently there is no pertussis vaccine that imparts
> > > lifelong immunity.  The effectiveness of the pertussis vaccine wanes over
> > > time such that if no more vaccinations are given from childhood,
> > teenagers
> > > and adults are likely to be more susceptible to pertussis infection
>
> > > [Quote: Tristan]
> > > So according to you, if there is more exposure then this means less
> > disease
> > > and vice versa.
>
> > > No.
>
> > > [Quote: Tristan]
>
> > > What you are effectively saying is this:  As a disease falls amongst a
> > > particular population, so do their immune responses to it. This then
> > leads
> > > to an increase in said disease amongst them.
>
> > > This is what is being said about B. pertussis.  This is not a
> > > generalisation about all diseases. The effect is essentially that in the
> > > case of B.pertussis it seems the lifelong immunity is never attained
> > > (either from natural exposure or from vaccination).  As such, long
> > periods
> > > between natural exposure or vaccination lead to reduced immunity
> > (compared
> > > to someone with recent exposure/vaccine) and thus, greater susceptibility
> > > to whooping cough.
>
> > > On Jan 27, 2012 5:49 PM, "punter" <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >...and end with a question
> > > > completely unrelated to the thread. <
>
> > > > I asked how the DP(T) vaccine could confer herd immunity. I am pretty
> > > > sure that the concept of herd immunity was the entire crux of your
> > > > initial post. Indeed you said: "So, something has happened to herd
> > > > immunity since the initial success of the vaccine... " as being the
> > > > very thing you were trying to explain.
> > > > Personally I think the notion of herd immunity for a supposedly
> > > > bacteria toxin caused disease like pertussis makes no sense -
> > > > irrespective of whether the supposed immunity is conferred by vaccines
> > > > or natural exposure. But we will run with it for now.
>
> > > > Getting back to your explanation:
>
> > > > >In the pre-vaccine era, exposure to pertussis in teenage and adult
> > years
> > > > was more common, meaning that immunity was continually boosted and
> > > > thus, people in this demographic had stronger immune responses (the
> > > > downside obviously being primary exposure to babies was commonly
> > > > fatal).  The significant reduction in pertussis  following
> > > > introduction of the vaccine has resulted in a reduction of the
> > > > natural
> > > > boosting effects of exposure to teenagers and adults.    As such,
> > > > through waning of the immune response to pertussis, teenagers and
> > > > adults become more susceptible to clinical cases of whooping cough. <
>
> > > > So what you are saying is that before vaccines, people of a certain
> > > > age had more exposure to pertussis and this led to less cases of
> > > > pertussis amongst such people.
>
> > > > After the introduction of the vaccines there was less exposure to
> > > > pertussis amongst this same group of people and therefore more cases
> > > > of pertussis amongst them.
>
> > > > So according to you, if there is more exposure then this means less
> > > > disease and vice versa.
>
> > > > What you are effectively saying is this:  As a disease falls amongst a
> > > > particular population, so do their immune responses to it. This then
> > > > leads to an increase in said disease amongst them.
>
> > > > I remember where I used to work one of the favourite arguments amongst
> > > > people there was that higher oil prices would cause lower economic
> > > > growth which would in turn lead to lower oil prices. I asked them how
> > > > high oil prices could possibly cause low oil prices and strangely they
> > > > had no answer but to tell me to shut up as I wasn't the great
> > > > authority that they imagined themselves to be.
>
> > > > Now I note that JC describes this line of argument as "sensible".
>
> > > > That isn't quite the word I would use.
>
> > > > Here is a question, if more exposure means less disease why on earth
> > > > would we describe these diseases as being 'communicable'.
>
> > > > On Jan 26, 1:02 am, Peter McCarthy <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sorry Tristan, this is a thread I put up to discuss a paper about how
> > > > > waning immunity to pertussis, combined with reduced incidence of
> > contact
> > > > > with wild pertussis (following vaccine intro), could have led to a
> > > > > situation where the age demographic of whooping cough cases has
> > shifted.
>
> > > > > If you want to have a thread that espouses yet another tired anti
> > vaccine
> > > > > trope then do it elsewhere. You provide no references, you present an
> > > > > unintelligible rant about natural selection (or something), you then
> > > > > present your other favourite anti-vax trope and end with a question
> > > > > completely unrelated to the thread.
>
> > > > > There is nothing in your post that warrants my attention other than
> > the
> > > > > fact it is polluting an otherwise perfectly reasonable thread I
> > started.
>
> > > > > Good night.
> > > > > On Jan 25, 2012
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mumof8]

Hi Peter,

Sorry my mistake, what I should have said was that the article
actually says that the vaccine used to protect against those two
strains but since they mutated they are now resistant to it.

"They found while the vaccine now in use was effective against some of
the strains circulating in Australia IT MAY NO LONGER protect against
two strains, known as MT27 and MT70."

That is why I am saying that this is an example of the vaccine
actually making things worse, especially if the increasing incidence
of pertussis is tied to this, which it could well be. The other
factor is, are these mutating strains more dangerous than the ones
that are being eliminated?

A new study has come out on pneumococcus bacteria that have the
ability to mutate so that vaccines no longer protect recipients from
them, I know it is not whooping cough but since it is a very similar
finding to the pertussis mutations I thought it would be of interest.

"Dr Bowden and colleagues identified a number of recombined serotypes
that had managed to evade the vaccine. One in particular grew in
frequency and spread across the US from east to west over several
years. They also showed that during recombination, the bacteria also
traded a number of other parts of the genome at the same time, a
phenomenon never before observed in natural populations of
pneumococcus. This is of particular concern as recombination involving
multiple fragments of DNA allows rapid simultaneous exchange of key
regions of the genome within the bug, potentially allowing it to
quickly develop antibiotic resistance."

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-01-genetics-reveals-pneumococcus-bacteria-evolve.html

As for babies and whooping cough, I understand the need to protect our
most vulnerable members of society, and parents should do whatever
they can to protect their babies. For me that would mean keeping my
baby away from the general public as much as possible until they get a
little older, and I would also make sure my baby is fully breastfed,
and if they still succumbed to illness I would use alternative
medicine to help my baby fight it off, which has worked wonders for my
family.

For parents who believe in vaccination, they could once again make
sure their baby is fully breastfed, and also only expose baby to
people in the family that have been vaccinated until they are able to
be vaccinated themselves. This seems like a much simpler solution
than vaccinating the whole community especially when immunity seems to
only last a few years at the most. These simple things would enable
parents to keep the risks down to a much more acceptable level without
risking members of the community in the process.

Cheers
T

[Mumof8]

Hi Peter,

When you put it in to percentages like that it doesn't look so good
for those unvaccinated, but I have to wonder how much close contact
with the infected individuals would play in to these numbers. If say
the unvaccinated children were in the same classes as the infected
individuals, and the rest of the children unaffected were in different
classes that did not mix with the infected children.

Regardless though, I would expect that some children that are
unvaccinated get sick, just as some vaccinated children will get sick,
the difference is how well the children deal with the illness. I would
believe that children whose immune systems have been strengthened
through good nutrition, healthy lifestyles and avoidance of
antibiotics etc would be much better able to deal with illnesses with
less adverse outcomes than say children whose parents believe that
vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs are the key to children's good
health, but unfortunately I am unaware of any studies at this stage
that demonstrate this, so this purely my opinion.

That is interesting that socio-economic factors made such a difference
with whites vs black communities in regards to pertussis outbreaks it
makes you wonder if the black communities had better living standards
would they have needed the vaccine at all?

But I give you credit for turning the study I provided to back up my
own argument in to one that can also back up yours ;)

Cheers
T

[Peter McCarthy]

Hey Tristan, I've been away working so didn't have a chance to get back to you on this post.

[Quote: Tristan]

It must be stressed though that this is different to saying that there
are negative feedbacks which can MITIGATE the magnitude of the INITIAL
rise (or fall). Negative feedbacks are of course not a contradiction.

No, my example is exactly defined as an example of negative feed back.  You can't have it both ways Tristan.

And you never answered my question; Are things so different now in the 11% of vaccinated adults that would give premise to your question -

[Quote: Tristan]
"wouldn't this mean that this group of people must have been spreading vastly more cases of pertussis to susceptible infants?"

Do you have an answer? Or is this more of "The World According to Tristan"?

As for your demands
[Quote: Tristan]

it needs to be shown that a) germs cause disease; b) the immune system
has a memory when it comes to fighting these disease causing germs; c)
vaccines can stimulate that memory; and d) vaccines are reasonably
safe.

I'm pretty sure we can confidently say that all of those things have been shown.  The only one I can see as a problem might be d.) for which the word "reasonably" is largely context dependent.  What I perceive as reasonable may not be perceived in the same way as you. 

Now, an interesting question I could ask you might be:

What are the actual rates of vaccine associated injury in Australia versus the incidence of vaccine-preventable disease in unvaccinated/incompletely vaccined?  A breakdown for each vaccine or disease would be even better but I'd take a general overview in the first instance.

Given your notion that vaccines are not "reasonably safe" - I wonder if you can come up with these statistics so that we can put this whole thing to bed once and for all?

As for your challenge to take the entire infant vaccine schedule etc etc... 

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.  Take the entire schedule in one hit? When does anyone do that??    Would it not be much simpler and far less of a grandstanded event to just look at the incidence of vaccine injury statistics I'm asking for above?  And anyway, would you really take notice of a single example one person surviving it anyway?  One example would be enough to convince you??  Seriously!!   Babies routinely complete the vaccination schedule unharmed.  There are your examples.  People routinely get vaccines updated before they travel.  My sisters partner had about 10 jabs over one month to catch up on vaccines his mum had skipped as a kid.  He needed the update for a trip to South America they recently returned from.  In fact, I just had dinner with him tonight and I can assure you, he's doing a-okay.  No vaccine-related injuries to report. 

Enough crap.

Your request does nothing but further demonstrate how desperate you are to find some way of detracting from the facts in this debate.  You wish to turn this matter into a circus?  Go find yourself another clown.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

[JC]

Hi Greg,
Thanks for posting that data that you finally managed to get from the
Government on your page:
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated

So it shows that if you're not vaccinated, you're between two and six
times more likely to get whooping cough. Brilliant stuff.

John

[JC]

Greg,
I should've of course explained it. Cases in the unvaccinated group
form 31.2% of notifications, yet the unvaccinated group only account
for 5 % of the age matched population. That's six times more cases
than they should be presenting with, if the vaccine did nothing. Put
it another way - the vaccine makes you six times less likely to get
whopping cough. At worse, by different ways of calculating it, the
vaccine halves your chances of getting it.
Great stuff that.

John

[punter]

<Hey Tristan, I've been away working so didn't have a chance to get
back to
you on this post.
[Quote: Tristan]
It must be stressed though that this is different to saying that
there
are negative feedbacks which can MITIGATE the magnitude of the
INITIAL
rise (or fall). Negative feedbacks are of course not a contradiction.
No, my example is exactly defined as an example of negative feed
back. You
can't have it both ways Tristan. >

Really. That is odd considering you never once mentioned the idea of
negative feedback. And it wasn’t - you were trying to make the
argument that less exposure, in and of itself, meant more disease. Not
that less exposure led to some secondary factor whose effects are
amplified when the first factor increases which – to some degree -
ameliorates the effects of the increase in the first factor.

That is the difference. Negative feedbacks can only stop trends from
spiralling out of control. But they can never cause a trend to
reverse. You argued the latter. If you were only trying to argue why
the trend couldn’t spiral out of control then there simply would have
been no point to it as an explanation for the observed phenomena.

>And you never answered my question; Are things so different now in the 11%
of vaccinated adults that would give premise to your question -
[Quote: Tristan]
"wouldn't this mean that this group of people must have been
spreading
vastly more cases of pertussis to susceptible infants?"
Do you have an answer? Or is this more of "The World According to
Tristan"? <

Que? I have no idea how different they are. It is your story not mine.
If hardly anything has changed why offer it up as an explanation for a
particular phenomena?

As for your demands
[Quote: Tristan]
it needs to be shown that a) germs cause disease; b) the immune
system
has a memory when it comes to fighting these disease causing germs;
c)
vaccines can stimulate that memory; and d) vaccines are reasonably
safe.
I'm pretty sure we can confidently say that all of those things have
been
shown. The only one I can see as a problem might be d.) for which the
word
"reasonably" is largely context dependent. What I perceive as
reasonable
may not be perceived in the same way as you.

I'm pretty sure that the germ theory makes precisely zero sense and
has about as much chance of correctly explaining disease then if I
blamed it all on pink elephants. But concentrating on d) would
certainly be your optimal strategy.

>Now, an interesting question I could ask you might be:
What are the actual rates of vaccine associated injury in Australia
versus
the incidence of vaccine-preventable disease in unvaccinated/
incompletely
vaccined? >

That’s an interesting question? It rests on the assumption that I need
to prove that they are dangerous rather than that pharma companies,
governments etc have to prove that they’re safe. Now you can choose
whatever or whoever you want as the burden of proof for anything you
like. But telling people that we don’t know for sure exactly how
dangerous vaccines are hardly seems to me like a great selling point.
I just can't see it convincing those who don't have a massive bias to
believing it in the first place.

<As for your challenge to take the entire infant vaccine schedule etc
etc...
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here. Take the entire
schedule in one hit? When does anyone do that?? >

No one. Well except babies. So that is why I reckon it only fair that
those who think it a good idea put our fears to rest.

<Would it not be much
simpler and far less of a grandstanded event to just look at the
incidence
of vaccine injury statistics I'm asking for above? >

Well it would definitely be more likely to give you the result that
you like.

Of course it wouldn’t do much to persuade those of us who don’t
automatically believe everything the government tells us would it?

You seem to have this strange notion that I need to prove something to
you. You are on this site for a purpose. To give those of us who
question vaccines an education. You can ask me to show you that you
are wrong but very little will come of it if I don’t. On the other
hand, if you want to prove me wrong well now that would be something.

<And anyway, would you
really take notice of a single example one person surviving it anyway?
>

Yep. Very much. Indeed I will be there to watch you do it - anywhere
in Australia.

> One
example would be enough to convince you?? <

One example with a multiple of one would be extremely compelling. One
example with a multiple of 4 or 5 would be absolutely - beyond a
shadow of a doubt - persuasive.

<Seriously!! Babies routinely
complete the vaccination schedule unharmed. There are your examples.
People routinely get vaccines updated before they travel. My sisters
partner had about 10 jabs over one month to catch up on vaccines his
mum
had skipped as a kid. He needed the update for a trip to South
America
they recently returned from. In fact, I just had dinner with him
tonight
and I can assure you, he's doing a-okay. No vaccine-related injuries
to
report. >

If babies do it without any dramas then you can too – but of course I
believe they don’t do it without harm do I? Therein lies the point.

As for your sister’s partner the adult dose is often the same as the
infant dose and even where it differs it is only usually double the
amount. A child gets a 0.5 mL Hep B shot the day they are born. If a
newborn weighs 3kg and you – say - 75 kg then that means you would
need to get a 12.5mL shot.

Frankly, I suspect that most people would pull out of the challenge
after their reaction to that. But that is only a tiny fraction of what
a baby goes through. If you continue then at 2 months you will need
around 40mL of injections and around a further 30mL of oral rotavirus
vaccine.

I suspect that many wouldn’t survive that. But if you did and wanted
to keep going then you need to do the same thing again at 4 months.
And 6 months. (Maybe a bit less to take into account the growth in
most babies during that time).

If by some miracle you survive all this then it gets a little easier.
At 12 months there will only be around 30mL of injectable vaccine.

<Enough crap.
Your request does nothing but further demonstrate how desperate you
are to
find some way of detracting from the facts in this debate. You wish
to
turn this matter into a circus? Go find yourself another clown. >

Fair enough. Nothing in the world less fair than asking people to put
their money where their mouth is. I can completely understand why
vaccine proponents invariably become very indignant when asked to do
this.

By the way, I’m an economist so I give primacy to the idea of
“revealed preference”. That is why as far as I am concerned more truth
is revealed by one person putting their money where their mouth is
than by a million statistical data points. So it isn’t a circus act it
is a perfectly reasonable request. If it were any other consumer good
we would expect its supporters to do no less – indeed much, much more.

[punter]

<<Would it not be much
simpler and far less of a grandstanded event to just look at the
incidence
of vaccine injury statistics I'm asking for above? >

Well it would definitely be more likely to give you the result that
you like.

Of course it wouldn’t do much to persuade those of us who don’t
automatically believe everything the government tells us would it?>

Sorry, I should clarify what I said here. A well designed study
between fully vaxed and fully unvaxed children would - in theory - be
very worthwhile. But such a thing has never been done and most likely
never will be. The only way to do it is to ensure that doctors who
make diagnoses don't know the vaccination status of the patients.
Strictly speaking the recipients of vaccines and non-recipients would
need to be randomised too but this is unlikely to happen.

We can do retrospective studies - and some have been done. But, they
are so prone to selection and author bias that they are nigh on
useless.

So a "good" study would be worthwhile. But it is never going to
happen. And it still wouldn't prove as much as one solitary
vaccination defender taking a weight-adjusted dose.

[Peter McCarthy]

Getting back on track here.  I wanted to cover this here too but JC has beaten me too it. I did make a note of it on the debating science thread though.

Greg, you have some explaining to do I reckon.

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear Tristan,

I am ignoring your showboating in favour of keeping this thread on track.  It seems you are getting confused about just what you are arguing.

Point 1.) - You already indicated you understood how the theory described in the paper resembles a negative feedback loop

[Quote: Tristan]What you are effectively saying is this:  As a disease falls amongst a particular population, so do their immune responses to it. This then leads to an increase in said disease amongst them.

[Quote: Peter] This is what is being said about B. pertussis.  This is not a generalisation about all diseases. The effect is essentially that in the case of B.pertussis it seems the lifelong immunity is never attained (either from natural exposure or from vaccination).  As such, long periods between natural exposure or vaccination lead to reduced immunity (compared to someone with recent exposure/vaccine) and thus, greater susceptibility to whooping cough.

Now, a quick explanation of how this is an example of negative feedback.

Pertussis incidence = X
Exposure/Vaccination status = Y

In a community; as X increases (pertussis incidence) so does Y (exposure).  When Y increases it results in an increased immunity to pertussis leading to a reduction in X (pertussis incidence).  As X declines so does Y resulting in reduced immunity to pertussis and an increase in X.  Classic negative feedback.

If you replace Y with a vaccine, you artificially push X down.  However, if the vaccine is not permanent then X will eventually return leading to an increase in Y (exposure).

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Point 2.) - As for the rest of your confusion
[Quote: Tristan]

Que? I have no idea how different they are. It is your story not mine.
If hardly anything has changed why offer it up as an explanation for a
particular phenomena?

I'll try and remind to of the "story" so you can get back to answering my question.

way back when, I said [Quote: Peter]

>No.  If they had more exposure this is obviously going to mean MORE cases
of pertussis amongst such people.  The point is that the cases were
generally LESS SEVERE because the higher incidence of exposure kept
their
immunity higher .<

Then you said [Quote: Tristan]

Even assuming that were true - and you're clearly making this all up
as you go - wouldn't this mean that this group of people must have
been spreading vastly more cases of pertussis to susceptible infants?
So we would be back to the old less disease causes more disease
quandary.

then I said [Quote: Peter]

> Dunno about vastly more given the vaccination rate for teenagers and adults is estimated to be around 11%. What do you think? Are things so different in this age group now, then they were prior to vaccine intro? >

and then you said [Quote: Tristan]

 "Vastly", "somewhat", who cares? It is still a contradiction.  >

Clearly you got a bit muddled about whether something was or wasn't a contradiction and forgot the point of your original question.

You wondered if vastly more cases of pertussis were spread by adults to babies, back in the days prior to vaccine.  I indicated that I don't think an average vaccination rate of 11% in adults is sufficiently high enough to distinguish between pre- and post- vaccine times.  I asked you if you thought there was some other defining feature that might justify your question. 

Unsurprisingly, the answer is obvious, adults passed the disease to babies before and they still do it now.  Here's a question for you:

Why don't you try spending less time trying to derail threads in future and stick to their actual point?  You'll end up getting answers to your questions much faster and save everyone a lot of unnecessary reading.

[punter]

<In a community; as X increases (pertussis incidence) so does Y
(exposure).
When Y increases it results in an increased immunity to pertussis
leading
to a reduction in X (pertussis incidence). As X declines so does Y
resulting in reduced immunity to pertussis and an increase in X.
Classic
negative feedback. >

No. It is a classic contradiction.

A classic negative feedback would be: As the sun heats up (X) so too
does the temperature of the earth (Y). This leads to an increase in
evaporation which leads to an increase in cloud cover (Z) which blocks
out some of the sun. This ameliorates some of the effects of the
increase in Y caused by an increase in X. But it has no effect
whatsoever on X itself.

That is a negative feedback.

(NB: This example is for illustrative purposes only. Cloud cover is a
very complicated thing.)

An increase in X CANNOT lead to a decrease in X no matter how many
intervening steps you take in between. X can change of course, but it
does so exogenously.

<You wondered if vastly more cases of pertussis were spread by adults
to
babies, back in the days prior to vaccine. I indicated that I don't
think
an average vaccination rate of 11% in adults is sufficiently high
enough to
distinguish between pre- and post- vaccine times. I asked you if you
thought there was some other defining feature that might justify your
question. >

Sorry, now I see where we got our wires crossed. Let's go back one

step further: This is what I said:

"So what you are saying is that before vaccines, people of a certain
age

had more exposure to pertussis and this led to less cases of
pertussis
amongst such people."

When I said back in the days before vaccines I wasn't referring to the
time before ADULTS were vaccinated I was referring to the time before
INFANTS were . The reason I did this was because your original
explanation and our discourse never ventured into the area of what
might have been happening as a result of adult vaccination it was
entirely predicated on the consequences of infant vaccination for
pertussis on the adult population.

When you brought up the 11 per cent I admit to some confusion. I don't
know why you brought it up as it had nothing to do with the
discussion. So that is why I said it was still a contradiction.
Because it was. And a red herring thrown in for good measure.

And you still haven't answered my question. How can herd immunity work
for a vaccine that doesn't even purport to prevent the bacteria (just
the toxin it causes)?

Or is this just me derailing thread with pesky anti-vax trope
questions that can't be answered?

[JC]

Have you already forgotten the long explanation I wrote for you on
this subject on another website?

John

[Peter McCarthy]

Dear Tristan,

This is the last time I'm going to talk about negative feedback with you.  You example is exactly the same as mine.

As the sun heats up (pertussis incidence in the general population increases) this leads to an increase in the earths temp (pertussis exposure increases).  This leads to an increase in evap/cloud cover (increased immunisation within the population) which blocks out some of the sun (reduces susceptibility to pertussis thus reducing its incidence in the general population).

You've been told.  Now stop contradicting me.  It's getting painful.

[Quote: Tristan]

When you brought up the 11 per cent I admit to some confusion. I don't
know why you brought it up as it had nothing to do with the
discussion. So that is why I said it was still a contradiction.
Because it was. And a red herring thrown in for good measure.

This is obfuscation, not an answer.  You could just agree with me and make it clear you were simply trying to stay in a discussion you knew you were out of your depth in.  I won't mind.

[Quote: Tristan]

And you still haven't answered my question. How can herd immunity work
for a vaccine that doesn't even purport to prevent the bacteria (just
the toxin it causes)?

Start your own thread and ask the group, why just rely on me?  Or try finding out for yourself...

[Greg Beattie]

John
I don't expect you'll follow it but go back and read my response at
http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated

Unfortunately I was unable to post it to Jason's blog, so if someone
else can get his site to work they are welcome to post it for me.
Greg

On Feb 6, 10:30 am, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> Thanks for posting that data that you finally managed to get from the

> Government on your page:http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-...

[Greg Beattie]

Peter
I've answered this now on the "Debating science" thread. It's you who
has some explaining to do.
Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

Responded.

[punter]

<As the sun heats up (pertussis incidence in the general population
increases) this leads to an increase in the earths temp (pertussis
exposure
increases). This leads to an increase in evap/cloud cover (increased
immunisation within the population) which blocks out some of the sun
(reduces susceptibility to pertussis thus reducing its incidence in
the
general population). >

Again. No.

You are saying that blocking out the sun and making the sun cool down
are one and the same. But they most definitely are not.

Similarly, reduced susceptibility to pertussis CANNOT lead to a
reduction in the incidence of pertussis IF the reduced susceptibility
came about due to an increase in incidence.

You can't make every variable dependent. At least one has to be
exogenous (independent) otherwise your model is meaningless. A
contradiction.

That is why when you learnt maths you learnt you were always supposed
to have one variable (usually "y") by itself. That was the dependent
variable.

If x changed y which subsequently changed x then none of those
Cartesian graphs would make any sense.

You CAN introduce a third variable which affects y but is also
dependent on x. Eg. y=2x - 1/2z where z=x^2 when 0<x<2 and y=2 when
x>=2. No contradiction there. And the graph makes sense. Y rises
monotonically (this is important) but its rate of rise slows down
dramatically as x nears 2.

In my analogy it is a bit messy because cloud cover is dependent on
the variable we are interested in (earth's temperature) rather than
the independent variable (sun heating up). So we need to say something
like: y+z = lnx. Where z=0.5y. But regardless, y (and hence) z don't
affect x which is changing exogenously. Rearranging we would get y=
lnx/(1.5). As x rises so does y (monotonically), but the effect isn't
as great as if cloud cover didn't change.

Now I know you find this painful. I have taught plenty of people maths
and am all too aware that many find the subject difficult. Don't worry
I don't hold it against you and consider the failing to be on my part
for not explaining it well enough.

All models must have at least one exogenous (independent) variable.
That doesn't mean that this variable has "free will" but it means that
whatever is changing it is not one of the other variables in your
model. Without at least one exogenous variable the model is trivial
(ie leads to an infinite number of solutions).

(Obviously all models need to have an endogenous (dependent) variable
otherwise there wouldn't be any point.)

When we say there is a "negative feedback", we are not saying that we
have found the impossible - ie a function where all variables are
endogenous - but that the phenomena can be represented by a function
that is monotonically increasing but whose SECOND derivative wrt the
independent variable is negative.

There you go. Now YOU'VE been told.

>This is obfuscation, not an answer. You could just agree with me and make
it clear you were simply trying to stay in a discussion you knew you
were
out of your depth in. I won't mind. <

OK. I will admit I had absolutely no idea why you brought up something
that had nothing to do with anything. It was a mistake of me to try
and follow it.

>Start your own thread and ask the group, why just rely on me? Or try
finding out for yourself... <

I already know JC's explanation (he said that it was because pertussis
caused pertussis). But if you don't want to answer it that is fine by
me.

On Feb 7, 6:41 pm, Peter McCarthy <drpjmccar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Tristan,
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.- Hide quoted text -

[Peter McCarthy]

Look Tristan, I think I may have assumed a level of comprehension on your part that was more generous than is productive to this point so I'm going to break this down very simply for you.

Transmission of B.pertussis occurs in the wild at some amount.  We can call this X if you like.

The amount of B. pertussis transmission in the wild dictates the rate of infection that leads to onset of illness.  We can call this rate Y if you like.  Increasing B. pertussis transmission in the wild = increasing rate of infection and thus increased illness (ie. As X increases so to does Y).

Infection with B. pertussis leads to an immune response that defeats the B. pertussis (hopefully)  We can call immune response Z if you like.  Increasing X --> increasing Y --> increasing Z.

The immune system has memory, resulting in immunity to B. pertussis. Lets call immunity to B. pertussis M.
Increasing X --> increasing Y --> increasing Z --> increasing M

Immunity reduces the rate of infection leading to onset of illness.  This effectively reduces the amount of B. pertussis transmission in the wild.
Thus, increasing M in the community --> decreasing Y (and thus also a reduction the amount of X)

Reduced infection means less frequent immune responses.
So increasing M --> decreasing X,Y and Z.

It is well documented that immunity to B. pertussis wanes over time.  As such, as X,Y and Z decline, there is nothing to sustain M.  This, in turn results in reduced immunity in the community (in the case of pertussis).
decreasing X,Y and Z --> decreasing M.

Unless B.pertussis were completely eliminated, waning of immunity (ie a gradual reduction in M) leads to susceptibility to B. pertussis which leads to increases in the rate of infection.
So, as M decreases, Y (and thus X) increases. And then Z increases  leading to an increase in M.

Increasing M --> decreasing Y (and X), thus decreasing Z thus decreasing M --> increasing Y (and thus increasing X) --> increasing Z --> increasing M etc etc.


I call this negative feedback.  It's a simple concept.  Importantly, this is not a contradiction.

Pertussis causes an immune response that leads to immunity for some amount of time.  Immunity prevents infection thus reducing transmission thus reducing incidence in the community. IMMUNITY NEGATIVELY FEEDS BACK ON PERTUSSIS INFECTION.  ITS A LOOP BECAUSE AS INFECTION DECREASES SO DOES IMMUNITY LEADING TO MORE INFECTION.  I can't make it any simpler than this.

Pertussis immunity, either gained naturally or from a vaccine is not permanent.  Thus, as it wanes, infection increases leading to increased immune response and eventually increased immunity in the community (and probably a few very sick babies).  The cycle repeats over and over unless there is some way of stepping in and preventing immunity from waning.

This is where vaccines should be able to step in.  A problem thus is that for pertussis, there seem to be a few factors that mean one off vaccination is not sufficient provide lasting immunity.  The paper addressed how more frequent boosting of pertussis vaccination in the community (mainly teens/adults) might help prevent the waning of immunity (M) and thus lead to a situation where pertussis transmission in the wild (X) were eliminated.

That is more what this thread is about.  Not idiotic, nonsensical mathematics lessons.

[punter]

>I call this negative feedback. It's a simple concept. Importantly, this
is not a contradiction. <

You only called it a negative feedback after I brought the term up. In
an act of desperation you thought you would try and make it sound like
that was what you were trying to argue all along. It wasn't. And you
don't understand what negative feedback is. You think (or more likely,
hope) that the concept of negative feedback provides an opportunity to
say x = not x. It doesn't.

>Pertussis causes an immune response that leads to immunity for some amount
of time. Immunity prevents infection thus reducing transmission thus
reducing incidence in the community. IMMUNITY NEGATIVELY FEEDS BACK
ON
PERTUSSIS INFECTION. ITS A LOOP BECAUSE AS INFECTION DECREASES SO
DOES
IMMUNITY LEADING TO MORE INFECTION. I can't make it any simpler than
this.<

I will elaborate further.

Two similar but very different examples:

1) Better climate leads to an increased fertility of rabbits and 10
million more rabbits are born than normal this year. Foxes love
rabbits and the fox population rises because they have more to eat.
This increase in foxes reduces the total number of rabbits from what
it would otherwise be so instead of having 10 million more rabbits,
there are only 7 million more at the end of the year. And the fox
population has grown. This is a negative feedback in a linear system
(for modelling rabbits).

2) Humans introduce more foxes to curtail a rabbit population.
Unfortunately they introduce too many and before you know it, the
foxes have eaten every single rabbit. Thus the foxes starve. Thus,
more foxes actually leads to the demise of all foxes. But this is a
non-linear model - the introduction leads to a step change
(instantaneous) in one of the variables. Because there are no marginal
changes in X (as the derivative is undefined) you are not actually
saying that a decrease in X is leading to an increase in X so it is
not a contradiction.

If we were to make this into a linear model for illustrative purposes
(imagine the foxes are increased gradually or their population grows
as a result of an increase in the local wild chicken population) as
the rabbit population dwindles so too will the foxes ability to eat
leading to a negative feedback such that the resulting situation would
be slightly more foxes than originally and less rabbits. Hence a
negative feedback but there will still be a higher fox population and
a lower rabbit one.

But you are proposing a complete feedback loop and these apply only to
non-linear models - ie where there is a step change brought about when
a particular variable hits some threshold. It makes no sense applied
to your example. You would need to say when and more importantly why
that 'threshold' is hit and how this step change would be made.

>A problem thus is that
for pertussis, there seem to be a few factors that mean one off
vaccination
is not sufficient provide lasting immunity.<

Vaccinations are like sacrificing virgins in order to make it rain. If
one virgin sacrifice is followed by rain then that is proof positive
the priest was right all along. If it isn't followed by rain, that
simply proves that more virgins need to be sacrificed. Either way the
priest wins.

The pertussis vaccine doesn't provide immunity to disease any more
than sacrificing virgins makes it rain, but no matter whether the rate
of pertussis after the introduction of the vaccine rises or falls,
either outcome will be used as proof that more people need to be
vaccinated more often. The whole thing is nothing more than a
ridiculous superstition.

There you go - another tired old anti-vaccine trope for you.

[Peter McCarthy]

[Quoting: Tristan]

You only called it a negative feedback after I brought the term up. In
an act of desperation you thought you would try and make it sound like
that was what you were trying to argue all along. It wasn't. And you
don't understand what negative feedback is. You think (or more likely,
hope) that the concept of negative feedback provides an opportunity to
say x = not x. It doesn't.

I honestly don't give a damn what you think it should be called  The point is it isn't a contradiction.  You have finally demonstrated you understand the model. Huzzah.

[punter]

Firstly you make a contradiction, I pointed it out but elaborated for
the benefit of clarity how it is different to a negative feedback. You
got very hopeful at this point and said. "Yes! Yes! That is what I
meant all along. Negative Feedback! That's the one!"

I then pointed out that full negative feedback loops can only happen
in non-linear models and now you are saying: "Yes! Yes! Non-linear!
That's the one! I meant that all along!"

Good one.

> You have finally demonstrated you understand
the model.<

Yeah. I can't imagine how anyone could doubt that yours is the
superior mathematical mind.

[JC]

Thanks for the link Greg.

I had a read of your response, but I can't see how it's relevant to my
analysis of your figures. Please note, I haven't made any comment in
this thread on what you have had to say about them yourself, or Meryl
for that matter. You make comments about the inclusion of the very
young i your group despite what the table footnote specifically
states. What I like too is the breakdown of the vaccination rates by
age group, which make little difference to the conclusion I drew. Oh,
and then of course you make the same worn out claim about
notifications, without addressing the quality controls that are in for
diagnosing causes of death.

I still can't find anything in your response that refutes my
conclusion that the figures show that cases in the unvaccinated group
form 31.2% of notifications, yet only account for 5% of the age

matched population. That's six times more cases than they should be

presenting with. The vaccine makes you six times less likely to get

whopping cough. At worse, by different ways of calculating it, the
vaccine halves your chances of getting it.

I thank you again for the figures. You said you wanted a discussion,
so you got one. I think they show how protective the vaccine is.

Well done.

John