Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

Well there is so much to dine out on and adducing previous behaviour when it's germain to the point being made is perfectly acceptable.

 

 

But you didnt admit the error about the lights - you imply that with a master switch then blinking red would still be acceptable.

 

Since you are still wishing to rake that up I'll leave you with it.

 

But, I did admit I was wrong, as the quote clearly shows.

 

This contradicts your claim-

 

But hey, we all know you won't EVER admit when you are wrong, as evidenced by red lights on a trailer....

 

and thus your claim was incorrect. I'll leave you with that.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2016 at 21:04 ----------

 

Ok, well that's your choice. No point in me even responding to your argument then.

 

I didn't put forward my argument, like I said-

 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing for and providing evidence for the above, with people whose logical ability is so degraded that they are unable to differentiate 'scientific method' from the current study system.

However, if you'd continued to read it, the full quote is

 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing for and providing evidence for the above, with people whose logical ability is so degraded that they are unable to differentiate 'scientific method' from the current study system.

 

However, here's one of your own taking a completely different approach, and publishing a paper expressing his opinion that "most published research findings are false":-

 

http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/RSS2015N...ed.0020124.pdf

 

(John P. A. Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences)

which, being a paper by a long established and well respected professor, should be right up your street. His conclusion is that "most published research findings are false" which I believe you disagree with? Your turn.

[LeMaquis]

If you listen to this U.S Congreesman,it does seem like a cover-up is taking place.

 

http://www.aircrap.org/2015/08/05/congressman-wants-cdc-investigated-for-tampering-with-mmr-study/

 

Bill Posey's voting record shows that he is anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-Obamacare but for one thing at least, a fence along the border with Mexico.

 

In other words a right-wing redneck nutcase.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Bill_Posey.htm#Immigration

[MAC33]

Attack the message not the messenger.

 

After taking the time to listen to the video from the link i posted,Bill Posey sounds like a perfectly sane guy to me.

 

Rejecting anti-vax testimony or any testimony on any subject on the grounds that you believe this guy to be a 'nutcase' is immature.

 

Can you imagine what would happen in a court of law if this brandishing of witnesses were allowed?

 

Again,attack the content of the speech from the Congreesman if you are able to find untruths.

 

How is it ever possible to ever make an informed decision on this subject or any subject for that matter with such a biased view?

 

Sadly,this attitude of yours does seem to be all too common amongst the public on this subject.

Edited February 17, 2016 by MAC33

[onewheeldave]

Attack the message not the messenger.

 

After taking the time to listen to the video from the link i posted,Bill Posey sounds like a perfectly sane guy to me.

 

Rejecting anti-vax testimony or any testimony on any subject on the grounds that you believe this guy to be a 'nutcase' is immature.

 

Can you imagine what would happen in a court of law if this brandishing of witnesses were allowed?

 

Again,attack the content of the speech from the Congreesman if you are able to find untruths.

 

How is it ever possible to ever make an informed decision on this subject or any subject for that matter with such a biased view?

 

Sadly,this attitude of yours does seem to be all too common amongst the public on this subject.

 

Hear, hear- spot on.

 

I find it really galling how these pseudo-rationalists with their rote-learnt crib sheets of terms (strawman, ad hominem etc, etc) which they use to bully and silence those unfamiliar with them, rather than actually engaging with the points raised, time and again 'win' their arguments due to wearing down their opponent with evasions and personal attacks.

 

They go on, as we see in this thread, to make ad hominem atacks themselves, either considering themselves immune, or, more likely, IMO, don't actually realise they're doing it, as they lack the logical ability to see what they've done.

 

We live in a world where people of low intellect, but, an abililty to rote-learn, can simply visit a crib sheet site, such as-

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

 

and bang out accusations of fallacious arguments, while themselves using the very same fallacious arguments, but, because they either don't actually understand them, or, lack the basic logical ability to apply them appropriately, don't apply the same rigorous standards to themselves.

[Obelix]

Rejecting anti-vax testimony or any testimony on any subject on the grounds that you believe this guy to be a 'nutcase' is immature..

 

I'm not rejecting the "evidence" because he's a nutcase. I'm rejecting it because it's worthless and does not counteract or falsify many decades of properly designed double blind research showing the efficacy and safety of vaccination.

 

So that leads me to my point - with all that evidence showing it's safe, and all the evidence showing that people still die of the measles why are you so desperate to want to stop people being vaccinated and thereby increasing the death rate amongst young children from wholly preventable diseases?

[unbeliever]

I'm not rejecting the "evidence" because he's a nutcase. I'm rejecting it because it's worthless and does not counteract or falsify many decades of properly designed double blind research showing the efficacy and safety of vaccination.

 

So that leads me to my point - with all that evidence showing it's safe, and all the evidence showing that people still die of the measles why are you so desperate to want to stop people being vaccinated and thereby increasing the death rate amongst young children from wholly preventable diseases?

 

Quite so.

Worrying about side-effects from a vaccine is one thing. Enough paranoia and one might continue worrying in spite of the evidence.

It's quite another thing to suggest that the vaccines do more harm than good. That's just madness.

 

Measles killed many millions of children each year, mostly under 5 years old, in the west before wide-spread vaccination. It still does in less developed parts of the world.

Is there any indication that the hypothetical (and in my view disproven) side-effects of the vaccine are in the same league in terms of their harmfulness?

[onewheeldave]

Is there any indication that the hypothetical (and in my view disproven) side-effects of the vaccine are in the same league in terms of their harmfulness?

 

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

 

no-one has suggested that "the side-effects of the vaccine are in the same league in terms of their harmfulness".

 

What they are concerned about, is that the side-effects exist at all, that they can be life-destroying, and that parents should have choices. Not just the choice as to whether or not to vaccinate (as many of those opposing MMR are actually very much in favour of vaccinations), but, the choice to have single vaccines as an alternative to MMR.

 

---------- Post added 17-02-2016 at 10:43 ----------

 

I'm not rejecting the "evidence" because he's a nutcase. I'm rejecting it because it's worthless and does not counteract or falsify many decades of properly designed double blind research showing the efficacy and safety of vaccination.

 

You watched the video in question?

[MAC33]

I don't read much about follow up studies comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. There appears to be very few of these studies.

 

Anyway,as has happened on so many occasions these studies will nearly always conclude what the funder wants.

 

The VAERS database--reported cases of vaccine adverse effects--- the figures are truly staggering.

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/index

 

Alarm bells should be going off......

Edited February 17, 2016 by MAC33

[Eater Sundae]

I don't read much about follow up studies comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. There appears to be very few of these studies.

 

Anyway,as has happened on so many occasions these studies will nearly always conclude what the funder wants.

 

The VAERS database--reported cases of vaccine adverse effects--- the figures are truly staggering.

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/index

 

Alarm bells should be going off......

 

All Vaers does is trigger an alarm. Much like a burglar alarm, it is then necessary to check whether it is a burglary or just a false alarm.

 

I agree that what is needed is analysis of the numbers. These include the numbers vaccinated, numbers not vaccinated, changes in those vaccinated, changes in those not vaccinated. And then there's the whole issue of what %age of the public were vaccinated and how this provides protection to the population as a whole, as well as occurrences of the disease in those who were and were not vaccinated.

[Obelix]

I don't read much about follow up studies comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. There appears to be very few of these studies.

 

Anyway,as has happened on so many occasions these studies will nearly always conclude what the funder wants.

 

The VAERS database--reported cases of vaccine adverse effects--- the figures are truly staggering.

 

https://vaers.hhs.gov/index

 

Alarm bells should be going off......

 

And as I demonstrated earlier the number of cases reported is very very small to the number of people vaccinated and the case rate is very much less than the serious case rate reported for things like polio and measles. You want the numbers again or are you just going to ignore them again?