Red flags in FDA 5 - 11 yo vax analysis?

It is more of an epistemological and trust issue than an intelligence one. I know a woman personally who is very intelligent but she buys into every conspiracy theory. It is very tough on her family, because they are all very intelligent too. And of course, she’s a crazy antivaxxer and even denies the existence of COVID except as Bill Gates’ tool for population control, or some such similar nonsense.

When someone says something loudly and confidently, why do folks always just follow along?

I can’t get to every “red flag” in the article, but I did talk to a friend in the industry about this because I want to get my children vaccinated and I’m willing to hear both sides of the risks. Hopefully I’ll have a little more time to dive into this gentleman’s assertions, but from the get go he’s off to a poor start showing his true level of understanding of the issue.
My friend in the industry said that it’s very common for a vaccine study of this type to have a small sample size as they know the vaccine works, they’re just testing its viability in an extended age group. If Toby was as enlightened as he wants you to believe, it seems like he would actually know this and not call it a “red flag”. It’s clear he has an agenda. This is just my personal experience but…… my unvaccinated child brought home a fever (not COVID) from school. My second child, also unvaccinated, got the same fever. Neither my wife or I fell ill and we are both vaccinated. So much for the assertion that getting the vaccine weakens your immune system. So far this guy is 100% wrong on points I’ve examined :wink:. Although I concede my personal experience is not exactly a sample size it proves that these folks are not as correct as they want you to think they are. I’m hoping a medical expert will chime in on this forum.
I think it would be a very positive thing to bring Toby up on some kind of lawsuit. People like this need to be held accountable for their actions. They are harming this country and often benefiting themselves in the process.

1 Like

There are qualified people here, but most are not. Why would you even consider the advice of iffy people on the internet? Are you also going to consider treating your kids with essential oils or Christian Science Practitioners? I’m sure your children have a pediatrician who has been to medical school, right? That’s the person you need to talk to. For reliable web sites I would stick to places like CDC.gov . (The “.gov” top level domain name is not up for grabs; it’s only for legitimate government agencies.)

2 Likes

I only looked at one claim: “Does the Pfizer mRNA shot wipe out natural immunity and leave one worse-off than doing nothing as shown in this data from the British government?”

That’s not what the British government report says. What it says is, ‘N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.’ That is, if you’re infected after vaccination, you’re likely to produce lower levels of antibodies against the viral N protein than if you’d gotten infected without being vaccinated. This is not surprising: vaccination keeps you from getting as sick, and if you’re not as sick you don’t make as many antibodies to the parts of the virus you weren’t vaccinated against. In other words, the vaccines work. What the report doesn’t say is that getting vaccinated does anything to existing immunity from prior infection.

In short, the claim I quoted (which is ultimately due to Alex Berenson) is a complete fabrication. I think it’s a mistake to impute motives or assume malice when simple misunderstanding could be at fault, but… this is a bald-faced lie by someone making a great deal of money peddling misinformation with no concern for the death and suffering he’s causing.

12 Likes

My gut feel is that the article is BS. however the gentleman posting this was looking for honest rationale to counter this misinformation. Although I heartily agree with the “moon cheese” analogy someone made, not many folks have posted firm reasons why Mr Toby is in the wrong. I was hoping to contribute to that end. And hopefully someone with medical knowledge will take the time to explain why the “red flags” are misunderstandings blown out of proportion. I’ll admit to being somewhat selfish in that I don’t want to feel the need to spend a Saturday trying to refute BS agreements… especially since many people will end up deciding that they just don’t want to trust anything the government says no matter what the facts are.

3 Likes

You can go with Mr. Toby if you want to. It’s only your kids’ lives we are talking about. But what would be so bad about talking this over with a pediatrician, if you have one?

Hi,

I’m not against talking to a pediatrician but that doesn’t help the concerns of the original post in the immediate sense. I also don’t want to burden a busy doctor with weeding through this mess.

Don’t waste time by reading miscellaneous junk and clickbait on the internet. Then you won’t have any weeds to wade through. Trust the specialists and mainstream media (the latter are commercial competitors with each other and have a pecuniary interest in getting the facts right first and to get scoops). We pay the government to hire specialists for us. Why go elsewhere?

2 Likes

I didn’t say you should bother a doctor with Toby Rogers. But you can certainly raise any legitimate concerns you have with a doctor. And a doctor would be a better source of info than your “friend in the industry.” There are hundreds of anti-vax sites out there and only 24 hours in a day.

Hi Marty - A few posts have been meta, while a few have debunked specific allegations by Rogers. Do you feel that the debunking posts give you sufficient information for your purposes?

Pax Christi -
Chris

2 Likes

The person for whom I was asking supported the Sanders campaign, so they are hardly a Fox News junky. I had hoped I could send a link to this page. Although there are a couple of ideas I consider “good points”, there is too much vitriol and ad hominem, very little actual engagement and some of that is wrong. Kudos to @glipsnort for pointing out a real error in the article.

The response I got from this person to my own analysis above was, “the negativity maybe [Toby] and certainly I’ve been feeling is because of how reckless and self-righteous the FDA and vacc mandate propaganda etc has been.” So writers like Toby are tying into that angst. Dismissing their concerns only increases it.

What I see, @Chris_Falter, honestly, is that people here are also quite ideologically biased. Mostly not as bad as Toby, but not good. I think my own analysis posted above is still the best summary.

On the bad side, @pevaquark got brilliancy points and a cartoon lauding him, but it’s actually quite sloppy. Starting with the worst:

That statement is as bad as the worst statement Toby made. There have been over 700 times as many other Adverse Events as Myocarditis reported. Since the only data we have on the vaccine safety in this cohort is this study, that’s an absolute claim with literally no supporting data. Given the data in the general population, this statement qualifies as pure misinformation.

Table 14 in my copy of the Pfizer report has summary numbers for all 6 scenarios. What do others see?

What is being discussed here is Toby’s article on the Pfizer paper, not a generic consideration of whether vaccines are good. And this argument assumes that others don’t already have the option of a vaccine, so “if kids get the disease they are going to kill thousands!” That’s just spin.

@Mike_Grygus They did a Phase 1 trial (that’s why it’s small). 28 million children are now the target of a Phase 2 and 3 trial. I’d probably let the “other kids” get the first 10 million shots and see how it goes!

Definitely!! And phrases like “tin foil hat” and “conspiracy theory”, plus extreme references like “flat earth” in connection to this article are both common and so far over the top as to be utterly polarizing. Useless language, except for virtue signaling.

@glipsnort I really did LOL when I read that. You and I are easy to love?

I wish I had time to engage with everyone who posted honestly. @Christy I wish we could talk - typing takes SO much time.

Thanks all!

Marty

I have huge problems with this. I don’t not trust specialists but I won’t do it blindly (think tobacco) and I certainly do not trust the media. Stories are generally reported correctly and things like the NYT are of high repute but the majority of popular media most people are exposed to absolutely pushes an agenda. The problem is the media and just telling people to believe them is virtually laughable to so many.

The truth of the matter is many here seem to be tired of the conspiracy like nonsense and have largely just dismissed the article out of hand. Probably rightly so. I know I didn’t read it. But I know for certain OP didn’t come here seeking hand-waiving dismissals.

Vinnie

And your data is for one case. I am speaking in general. I have a fellow educator who is a physics teacher, a masters degree, is extremely well read and generally is against covid vaccines (for people without underlying conditions) and masking (thinks they don’t work and are more about government control). He’s also read about 30 different mask studies and swears they do nothing.

I am not taking about people like that. That is as you said, probably more of a psychological issue. I am talking about the general population which does not know how to get information or determine truth from competing claims beyond looking at the surface of something. The general public which probably never read a peer reviewed study on an issue and just goes by popular media (which unlike you apparently, I strongly question).

People generally don’t understand logic, fallacies and proper reasoning. It’s never actually taught. Not do they understand how to research well or debate. For some it is ignorance for other it is psychological.

Vinnie

1 Like

@moderators I thought BioLogos wasn’t going to offer a platform for anti-vaxxers? That should include Marty’s new man, Toby. I read some of the comments on Toby’s blog post, and there are people who have decided not to vaccinate their children based on his garbage!

The question at stake here is how much trust we have – or should have – in the scientific consensus in general. Some people have a high degree of confidence in it, whereas others are considerably more sceptical.

Unfortunately, some people’s scepticism towards the scientific consensus goes far beyond anything that can be considered reasonable, and even at times descends into outright hostility. Many of us here have to contend with such people on a regular basis, and in some cases we have even ended up running into problems as a result of it. As such, we tend to lean pretty strongly towards the “pro-science” end.

There may be a case for a limited amount of honest and informed scepticism towards the scientific consensus, but it does need to be exercised carefully and with discretion. In some cases (such as anti-vaccination for example), an unjustified scepticism towards science can put people’s lives in danger.

This may give a guide as to when we may be able to question the consensus of mainstream science:

1 Like

This isn’t platforming antivaxxers, it’s asking a question. It’s fine.

3 Likes

This is a meaningless fact. Everything that happens after vaccination is reported as an adverse event, including some things that didn’t happen at all, regardless of whether they had anything to do with vaccination or not. With a new, controversial vaccine being rolled out on a massive scale in a highly politicized environment, there is intense focus on the safety of the vaccines and hyperawareness of anything that could be a problem. It’s a job for statisticians to sift through that data and look for events that are occurring more commonly than one would expect by chance, given the number and characteristics of the people being vaccinated. It’s a job that people are doing and the only adverse events that have been identified as likely being caused by vaccines are blood clotting (with the adenovirus-based vaccines) and myocarditis (with the mRNA vaccines). Meanwhile, other experts are combing through reports in similar databases around the world, all looking for problems. Anything that has escaped detection by this time is either very subtle or very rare indeed.

5 Likes

I said mainstream media like the NYT, ABC, CBS and NBC. They pretty much have to get the facts right to stay relatively trustworthy and commercially viable, or else they have to publish corrections and retractions. I was certainly not referring to popular media like Facebook and YouTube and other social networking apps where there is no accountability.

3 Likes

Or fox or Newsmax or CNN? Still, I think some of those you referenced definitely have agendas. Choosing what to cover and how much time to spend on something and what to ignore will factor in, even if what is reported, is reported accurately. Though I am a fan of the NYT overall.

Also reporters tend to have broadcast journalism degrees. They aren’t experts in fields they report on.

Statements to trust mainstream media will most likely disqualify you from having anything meaningful to say to most anti-vaxxers. You will just be another sheep that drank the kool aid. But back to the problem of logic and reason.

How many people point out how the CDC changed its minds on masks and therefore that don’t trust them. Is this logical thinking or is it fasciitis? Obviously the latter. Most people just can’t see through the fog.

1 Like

Please notice I said facts. Yes, there is spin from any news media, but with respect to the efficacy and advisability of masking and vaccines, I don’t think so. Fox News is a different story.
 

And that is mostly because of the politicization of the issues and misplaced trust, which is what I said earlier.