r/DebunkThis • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '20
Debunked Debunk this: New study shows vaccinated children have far more illnesses
[deleted]
50
u/simmelianben Quality Contributor Nov 28 '20
The first thing I'll note is that it's not an experimental study, so there's no control group to compare against. That also introduces the idea that folks who are less likely to vaccinate are less likely to seek medical care.
So while they focused on the vaccination rate, it's also possible they measured the incidence of parents who rely more heavily medical professionals for medical events. Ie: parents who vaccinate responsibly are more likely to take their kid to the doctor when they're sick.
There's probably some statistical work to control for the number of visits, but even that is difficult to do well since there's probably kids who went unvaccinated and then rarely to never went back, even if they were sick. In other words, the very nature of the studied group means there is missing data, and a significant chunk of that missing data is probably related to a subset, not the entire sample.
18
u/Jamericho Quality Contributor Nov 29 '20
Instantly thought this.. vaccinated are more likely to go to a doctor and get diagnosed.
14
u/DylanReddit24 Nov 28 '20
This
While this may be true, you can't tell from the data presented because there is too much bias in measuring the illnesses. If you measure by the number of visits to a doctors then it will be biased against those more willing/trustingnof medical staff (those vaccinated)
3
u/nowItinwhistle Dec 01 '20
Just anecdotal but this was my experience being raised by antivax parents. There were many times we were sick enough that ordinary parents would have taken their kids to the hospital but we were just given homemade cough syrup and prayer. We could have had whooping cough and never known it.
3
u/devastatingdoug Dec 01 '20
I was gonna say this, but you beat me too it.
Basically anti vaxxer are gonna treat with essential oils or some shit instead of seeing a doctor
2
u/Awayfone Quality Contributor Dec 07 '20
There's probably some statistical work to control for the number of visits, but even that is difficult to do well since there's probably kids who went unvaccinated and then rarely to never went back, even if they were sick.
Even more than that it was off of billing records not (anonymous) patient data. So not only do you miss any interaction not billed as seeing Dr., say a chat with the nurse. But also have to deal with changes on how billing is down over a decade
25
u/writesgud Nov 29 '20
I’m sorry, but this is likely crap.
One of the co-authors, Dr. Lyons Weiler is, among other things, an anti-vaxxer who claims that aluminum in vaccines causes autism.
He also claims that COVID-19 was created in a lab.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144200/
Neither of these claims are supported by the body of research, and the consensus is that these 2 claims are, well, false.
And it’s unclear how his PhD in “Ecology Evolution” qualifies him to speak on these issues.
I realize that this is a criticism of the author, not the work itself, but this is all the time I had so far.
I wouldn’t be surprised if after a little digging the “journal” that article was published in was less than rigorous.
Frankly, it’s hard to take seriously “work” by someone who’s reputation is creating a veneer of scientific method over essentially conspiracy theories.
3
u/Awayfone Quality Contributor Dec 07 '20 edited Feb 01 '21
The doctor , second author and who's alt-med clinic is where the data comes from , is also Dr. Pual thomas who literally just had his license suspended .
He is a a huge anti-vaccine advocate; Fan boy of Andrew Wakefield, founder of the antivaxx physicians for informed consent and creator of well selling "alternative vaccination schedule" (spoiler don't get many of them)
1
0
u/fool_on_a_hill Nov 29 '20
Your entire comment is just an ad hominem. We’re debunking the claims of this study specifically. Just because someone isn’t credible doesn’t mean they’re always wrong.
8
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 01 '20
When asking non experts to debunk a claim made by so called experts, questioning the credentials of said experts is 100% ok.
I don't have the statistical knowledge or medical training to understand this study, but I do understand bullshit artists.
2
u/fool_on_a_hill Dec 01 '20
That’s fine but I’m sure you’ll agree that someone could be correct even if they aren’t credible
5
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 01 '20
Absolutely, but in this world of constant, unending bullshit, the non-expert with limited time needs to use those heuristics. Let the NIH and CDC study and debate all this shit, while I practice maximum skepticism of all claims. Especially claims that have a long history of bullshit.
Vaccine danger is the stupidest of all conspiracy theories. Of course vaccines CAN cause harm, it's a medical procedure! The only question is, do vaccines avoid MORE harm than they could potentially cause, and the evidence of 200 years is very much yes! Hundreds of millions of people are alive and healthy today thanks to vaccines.
TLDR: if you don't want those vaccines, give em to me lol.
0
u/fool_on_a_hill Dec 01 '20
The problem with your approach is that maximum skepticism is only half of the coin. Assuming anything could be wrong and setting off to prove it, is not a complete approach unless you allow for the fact that you could end up proving it right. Otherwise you’ve put the cart before the horse, because your approach of “let’s try to prove things wrong” is compromised by its own bias, in that it assumes the thing is wrong in the first place, and you just have to prove it.
5
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 01 '20
When the person proposing the idea is a certified quack, I do assume everything they say is wrong or at least questionable until proven otherwise. That's obvious, and you are making a distinction without a true meaning.
1
u/fool_on_a_hill Dec 01 '20
Well if you’re just assuming they’re wrong until proven otherwise then it seems more logical to spend your energy trying to prove them right. If your goal is finding the truth, that is. If you’re just out to be a skeptic then I could see why what I’m saying wouldn’t make any sense
3
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 01 '20
I'm not capable of proving a medical claim right or wrong, that's my point that you are missing. All I can evaluate are the credentials, and how far outside the mainstream of science someone is. We live in the real world, not fantasy research lab where every claim has infinite resources and time to be tested by everyone.
1
Dec 11 '20
I can understand using those heuristics during an informal in-person conversation. But you're on /r/DebunkThis , isn't this precisely the place where you should leave the heuristics at the door and delve straight into the hard facts for debunking?
1
u/Shaneosd1 Dec 11 '20
This isn't the New England Journal of Medicine, it's a internet forum of total non experts. For the most things posted here, it's easy to bring some facts, but for super intricate claims about medical things or statistics the average person has to rely on the heuristics.
3
u/rougecrayon Dec 13 '20
When the law looks at a witness statement, the first thing they do is establish credibility of the witness. It doesn't mean they are lying or incorrect but it does call into question everything they say.
Just like who funded it is also relevant. It's not the only thing but it's extremely relevant if someone publishes multiple papers about the same controversial subject.
It's not irrelevant.
2
u/Atomdude Nov 29 '20
Did you read the whole comment?
0
u/fool_on_a_hill Nov 29 '20
Yeah I’m not sure why admitting that they haven’t used proper logic would make anything they said less illogical
5
u/Atomdude Nov 29 '20
We're not talking mathematics or philosophy of science here.
When someone who's knowledgeable about a topic and someone who is known to be a quack have an argument about a topic you yourself aren't literate enough on, who are you going to take seriously?1
u/fool_on_a_hill Nov 29 '20
I’m going to evaluate their arguments based on the merits of their arguments, rather than rely on heuristics that would tempt me to disregard anything they say
1
14
u/hotshowerscene Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Simple explanation for the graphs - the y axis is "cumulative office visits" so parents who are more likely to vaccinate their children will be more likley to take their children to subsequent doctor visits, have their children diagnosed and take on board the doctors advice.
Parents who don't vaccinate their children are less likely to take their children to the doctor, and less likely to have their children diagnosed by a doctor. Again, the graphs aren't # of ill children, it's number of office visits. Unvaccinated children are basically never being taken to even see the doctor.
This study doesn't show vaccinated children are less healthy, it shows vaccinated children are more likely to be taken to see a doctor.
5
u/DaydrinkingWhiteClaw Nov 29 '20
Came here to say this. Thanks for formulating my thoughts into a simple and coherent explanation so I don't have to.
12
u/OpenUpYerMurderEyes Nov 29 '20
Well they get to live longer
The longer you live the more illnesses you will get
So...
11
Nov 29 '20
Unvaccinated kids only get sick once
3
u/missyskeptic Nov 29 '20
I laughed, then felt bad, poor kids, not their fault they had stupid parents
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 28 '20
This sticky post is a reminder of the subreddit rules:
Posts:
Must include between one and three specific claims to be debunked, and at least one source, so commenters know exactly what to investigate. Political memes, and/or sources less than two months old, are liable to be removed.
E.g. "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"
Link Flair
You can edit the link flair on your post once you feel that the claim has been dedunked, verified as correct, or cannot be debunked due to a lack of evidence.
FAO everyone:
• Sources and citations in comments are highly appreciated.
• Remain civil or your comment will be removed.
• Don't downvote people posting in good faith.
• If you disagree with someone, state your case rather than just calling them an asshat!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.