Re:A new book critiques medicine
by mistermann on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @10:34AM
(#20450418)
>>> at the end of the day smallpox is eradicated, polio is cornered (I hope to see the eradication day), meleases is reduced to very small levels (eradication looks more difficult). All of them used to kill a lot of people.
>> a) were vaccines the only factor involved in this improvement
> a) Yes
Once again, a confident binary answer to an extremely complex problem.
How did you form this conclusion? Do you have anything you could show to substantiate it? Something like some charts demonstrating that incidents of all of these illnesses were essentially constant, and then only upon introduction of vaccines they began to decline? I've done some reading on this specific topic, I am interested to know if you have. (I happen to have great philosophical interest in the actual vs self-perceived basis of knowledge among zealous advocates on any matter.)
> b) Absolute safety is imposible.
I notice you kind of jump between two conversational styles, the first style ("a) Yes" above) is confident proclamation of a specific truth with no substance to back it up, and then now more of a highly rhetorical, subtle changing of the subject style. And to make it even more interesting, you then include a mathematical formula to give an impression of certainty, but in the process you've completely removed the actual point of contention (harm due to vaccines) from the discussion. Things like this are what I am looking for in these conversations: how do pro-vaxxers come to believe ("know")the things they believe.
Even if absolute safety isn't possible (something you have no way of knowing), safety isn't a binary, it's a continuum.
Have we done everything we can to study vaccine safety? Are there any flaws in the current system? Have you even done any reading on what the system actually consists of?
I will offer you a second chance to demonstrate how much you know about this, by reminding you of a question in my earlier comment that you seem to have accidentally missed:
>> In both cases we only can show that the correlation is so small that we can't reject the null hypothesis.
> And by what means has any correlation been studied? What specific data is used?
> Has a machine learning approach that examines all vaccination records and compares it to all subsequent patient medical issues, of all kinds, not just autism, ever been performed? Does the necessary data for this even exist? I wonder if that fact could even be determined from reading any official websites on vaccine safety.
I'm interested to know your answer to this - perhaps you are aware of something I am not, and I can learn something new. (Also, please do not accidentally overlook the questions earlier in my comment, and if I happen to have failed to answer any of your questions, please point that out that failing as well and I will rectify it.)
>> a) were vaccines the only factor involved in this improvement
> a) Yes
Once again, a confident binary answer to an extremely complex problem.
How did you form this conclusion? Do you have anything you could show to substantiate it? Something like some charts demonstrating that incidents of all of these illnesses were essentially constant, and then only upon introduction of vaccines they began to decline? I've done some reading on this specific topic, I am interested to know if you have. (I happen to have great philosophical interest in the actual vs self-perceived basis of knowledge among zealous advocates on any matter.)
> b) Absolute safety is imposible.
I notice you kind of jump between two conversational styles, the first style ("a) Yes" above) is confident proclamation of a specific truth with no substance to back it up, and then now more of a highly rhetorical, subtle changing of the subject style. And to make it even more interesting, you then include a mathematical formula to give an impression of certainty, but in the process you've completely removed the actual point of contention (harm due to vaccines) from the discussion. Things like this are what I am looking for in these conversations: how do pro-vaxxers come to believe ("know")the things they believe.
Even if absolute safety isn't possible (something you have no way of knowing), safety isn't a binary, it's a continuum.
Have we done everything we can to study vaccine safety? Are there any flaws in the current system? Have you even done any reading on what the system actually consists of?
I will offer you a second chance to demonstrate how much you know about this, by reminding you of a question in my earlier comment that you seem to have accidentally missed:
>> In both cases we only can show that the correlation is so small that we can't reject the null hypothesis.
> And by what means has any correlation been studied? What specific data is used?
> Has a machine learning approach that examines all vaccination records and compares it to all subsequent patient medical issues, of all kinds, not just autism, ever been performed? Does the necessary data for this even exist? I wonder if that fact could even be determined from reading any official websites on vaccine safety.
I'm interested to know your answer to this - perhaps you are aware of something I am not, and I can learn something new. (Also, please do not accidentally overlook the questions earlier in my comment, and if I happen to have failed to answer any of your questions, please point that out that failing as well and I will rectify it.)