An acquaintance of mine posted a link to this and I wanted to see what y'all though. (I'm particularly interested in CT's take and the viewpoint of Hatrackers on both sides of the vaccination issue.)
(Yes, you'll need to change the 0 to an o in .com)
I haven't had time to look at it closely yet (tougher than they thought summer class = lots of students asking for help). A quick browse catches the emotional undertone more than any serious analysis of the data. Also, using weasel words like "official data" and "unscientific and untrue" suggests that the author doesn't know the first thing about approaching things "scientifically". (And the comparison of the vaccine industry to Bill Gates/Microsoft is a little bizarre).
It's obvious that I'm skeptical of their claims, but I have no way of looking critically at the data they present. I though that some Hatrackateers might be able to elucidate or otherwise wax eloquent on the data. Once again, I welcome viewpoints from both sides of the issue.
posted
Oh god. That is the sort of thing that deserves to be savaged with surgical accuracy.
It looks on initial viewing to be a bunch of spurious correlations being theorycrafted into decisive proof of the pointlessness of vaccines and herd immunity. I can't offer a comprehensive analysis of it or even say for sure that it's crap because I totally don't have the time to go into it, but, to the people who shall no doubt savage this in time, I want to note how reliant this is on the concept of a bunch of profiteering drug companies gouging us on vaccines whose actual costs are absolutely minimal and often provided at cost by public care services.
quote:Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No.
Yeah wow great way to desperately misappropriate graph comparisons there, guys.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that analysis is one of the most moronic I've seen in a while. I love how they assume trendlines always continue, and think that vaccine researchers somehow have denied that anything else can reduce disease occurrence (never mind the huge literature on the vast improvements due to sanitation).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without even looking, I can tell you that one of the key problems with these sorts of claims is that the graphs are read [incorrectly]. Specifically, the x-axis and y-axis aren't indicating what the writer thinks they are indicating, and cross-comparisons are often made amongst "mortality rate" and "number of deaths," or "incidence" and "prevalence," etc.
Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, all the author is saying is that overall, mortality rates are going down but is then jumping to the conclusion that it must be completely unrelated to vaccination, therefor vaccinations are unnecessary.
For some reason, they ignore the possibility that vaccinations are a contributing factor to the overall better health of the population.
They also use trend lines to make predictions, which leads me to believe that if we stop vaccinating people, by 2020 we'll actually have a negative death rate due to disease, and having measles or mumps will bring people back from the dead! Graphs don't lie!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I will go peruse later. It has just been too long a day already, so I'm off to go cheer on some Vor games.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wonder Dog, I think your linkage has served as a bridge back to this site. It may or may not mean a lot of fallout for Papa Janitor, but I think that the horses have left the barn already, so not too much to do about it.
spambuster, you are welcome to Hatrack. I am sorry to have caused offense, particularly if you are the host or writer of the article at that site. I do disagree with you -- in several languages, based on (correctly interpreted) hard data, and, yes, from the perspective of one very tough life, albeit richly rewarding. But that is no excuse for discourtesy.
So, welcome to Hatrack.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er... oops. Sorry if I've inadvertently attracted new posters who aren't interested in civil discussion.
I know a lot of people who are very emotional about this issue, and I've heard a lot of talk about various medical or scientific linkages between vaccination and... lots of stuff, especially autism. (My nephew is autistic, but I've yet to hear my sister express an opinion on vaccinations either way...)
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it.
I love this line!
I debate this, considering my experiences in the Army (You know, working at USAMRIID and helping train researchers from the CDC), but I doubt I could and remain civil.
I wonder if he knows where Hoffa is buried......Geraldo still wants to know.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: You are one sad dude. In your face is hard info and you don't like it.
Don't like it? Hell, I love it. I love finding out about pages like these so I can distribute them to epidemiologists and medical researchers and they laugh so hard they take me out for drinks later
(NOTE: THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. drinks at 8)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: As far as I can tell, all the author is saying is that overall, mortality rates are going down but is then jumping to the conclusion that it must be completely unrelated to vaccination, therefor vaccinations are unnecessary.
For some reason, they ignore the possibility that vaccinations are a contributing factor to the overall better health of the population.
They also use trend lines to make predictions, which leads me to believe that if we stop vaccinating people, by 2020 we'll actually have a negative death rate due to disease, and having measles or mumps will bring people back from the dead! Graphs don't lie!
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Sooooo funny. It is impossible to engage in informed discourse with those unencumbered by the facts.
... Truly wonderful to see how people react when their world view is challenged with new information.
I'm sorry, you're acting as if nobody on this forum has encountered anti-vaccination arguments before.
The thing is, is that if you want to strut around like this, you should make your own claims.
So inbetween these deriding sessions, spambuster, how about you, you know, make some claims here. Tell someone "Oh, I don't think you're right about your interpretation of this website, because ________________________"
Fill in the blank, boyo. Do something. Don't just primp uninformatively and congratulate yourself on how much you're not like the ig'nant forumgoers.
Or, if you feel like it, continue acting just the way you are now and save pretty much everyone here the need to deal with any ambiguity pertaining to whether or not you are at all worth any time or effort!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
eveyone knows vaccines are the work of satan!
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: "Which is kind of like putting bike tires on an SUV and trying to play Beethoven on it."
You are one sad dude. In your face is hard info and you don't like it.
Tough life.
She's female automatically failing your argument.
IP: Logged |
posted
Death rates from, say, measles have gone down because general health care has improve.
But when I was young virtually every kid got measles at one time or another. It was just a fact of life. A few died but most lived. Personally, I had most of the common childhood diseases but somehow managed to avoid mumps.
Now, virtually no one gets measles, and of the very few who do get it, a tiny percent die. But, if only a microscopic few get it, and an even more microscopic few die from it, where is the problem.
Perhaps we should go back to the good old day and let every kid get measles, them God can sort out who lives and who dies.
One look at the charts shows that around 1965 there was a massive down turn in both the number of cases and the number of deaths from measles. What do you suppose the odds are that 1965 was right around the time that vaccinations were required?
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: One look at the charts shows that around 1965 there was a massive down turn in both the number of cases and the number of deaths from measles. What do you suppose the odds are that 1965 was right around the time that vaccinations were required?
Now that's just crazy talk.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are the people not coming up with the goods.
You haven't done anything but (1) sign up, and (2) criticize posters here, so you're hardly in a position to suggest that we do anything you have not done.
You haven't even explained why you decided to engage in this behavior. Who are you, what are you doing here, and do you honestly hope to do anything here or did you just sign up to finger-wag at clueless plebeians, or what. what is going on, what are you doing, do you have anything to add, or is this basically all we get.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'll give you that all of the graphs reference official-sounding data sources. I don't have the resources or background to refute those claims. However, there are numerous statements like
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
... which are based on subjective interpretations of the references by the author, then used to support conclusions that suit the author's claims. This approach to supporting an argument isn't scientific, objective or trustworthy.
Which is why it's ironic to accuse other researchers of claims that are "Unscientific" and "Untrue". Scientific research has nothing to do with "truth"; it examines fact and draws tentative conclusions that seem fit the data, but is prepared to reconsider everything as new data comes along. The author is being as "unscientific" as the people he accuses of "unscientific" claims.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the two things I am most interested in are:
1. The data all seems to be compilations extracted from slipshod anthroposohic books, and they are often used to make spurious claims. The quote I already provided is a good example of very poor and inferred association. The fact that many nations have a wide disparity in the productivity and efficiency of their individual health care systems turns into "Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No." — statistically, this is a causal kind of error. It ignores the likely real associations (for instance, it is probable that the non-linear correlation is the result of variance within the programs countries use to manage their healthcare internally!) to come down to conclusions that they want, but which aren't true.
In this example, they came down to the conclusion that paying for healthcare does not bring you better health or a longer life. This is more or less patently false results misappropriated from data associations, and study of national sub-populations, similarly, patently disprove the notion. For instance, there is a statistically significant improvement in both quality of life and life expectancy between people who do not pay for healthcare and people that do. There is also an even wider gulf — monumental, even — between citizens of countries that effectively have no health care, and citizens of countries that do have health care. There are gulfs between the life expectancies of citizens before and after the collapse of functioning medical systems. In all of these cases while there are issues of comorbidity, there is plenty of causal extrapolation as well.
So, bam. A minor example of a false statement in that article. I say minor because while normally an error like that is pretty huge and discrediting, it's only a drop in the bucket to everything that appears to be wrong with that article.
2. The sidebar of that particular page is loaded with links to stories, evidently from the same data aggregate / blog / whatev, about how vaccines cause autism. See, when the site you're looking at is still tied up in the Thimerosal scare, it automatically raises some flags.
Edit: just in case there was any confusion, this is not, of course, a response to spam guy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Wonder Dog [June 26, 2009 01:48 AM] for addressing something specific.
You say:
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
is subjective interpretations ....
It is well-known doctors are poor at diagnosis. The page you refer to for example cites the example of over-diagnosis of measles by ten times the actual rate.
You then complain that having cited evidence in addition to it being well-known you say this is
quote: used to support conclusions that suit the author's claims.
But the "claim" is a conclusion based on clear evidence and a well-known issue over accuracy of diagnosis.
So how can citing evidence which fully backs a conclusion [which is also well-known] be an "approach to supporting an argument" which "isn't scientific, objective or trustworthy"?
That cannot be the case. What is the case is you do not like where the evidence takes you so you do not want to go there. All is rhetoric and no substance.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
(My next post after this one is my response with spambuster's post above. Sorry for the confusion.)
Look, it's not our job as casual readers and non-experts to pick apart the data - it's our job to read critically and decide for ourselves. As for determining the veracity of the data and the analysis given, that's why I asked ClaudiaTherese, who is a professional medical researcher, to give her expert opinion.
The article's author says that the data (which may or may not be accurate; I can't say one way or the other) supports his/her claims about vaccinations. To get the data to support these claims, the author engages in intellectually dishonest and unscientific rhetoric, which doesn't encourage me to take them or their claims or those who vehemently defend these claims seriously.
If this data truly supports the conclusions that
a) Vaccines are ineffective. and b) Vaccines cause more harm (physically, social economically) than good.
then a reasoned debate and calm presentation is going to help convince readers and the community at large, not name calling, fighting, or pseudo-scientific biased writing. I'm all for underdogs to introduce ideas and information that the establishment doesn't agree with, but the onus is still on the underdogs to give a convincing, rational argument.
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Samprimary [June 26, 2009 01:38am].
Who is criticising whom? You folk are the ones posting the attacks on an open public forum.
When someone responds you complain.
This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique.
You just issued some derisive commentary and did not offer what is known as 'substantive critique.'
This is how you hopped on to the forum. If you don't understand why that kind of tone matters, you are doomed to never successfully advocate your point of view because you start off by being rude.
It's the ultimate bad-faith argumentation. You definitely don't help that by moving straight to obliquely dismissing wonderdog's post by labeling it 'all rhetoric and no substance.'
Yeap, I can see where this is going.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
spambuster: Look friend, you want to spin your graphs your own way, and nothing we say is going to sway your opinion.
It's questionable whether your graphs are an accurate representation of data, but even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they're 100% accurate, they still don't tell the story you want them to tell.
Do you know that during the summer, incidents of drowning skyrocket? Also during summer, ice cream sales are much higher than during the winter. I think we can clearly see that drowning victims must eat a lot of ice cream.
Throwing two lines on a graph doesn't tell you much. Especially when you interpret them by ignoring other important data. Especially when you add a lot of personal anecdotes and "well-known" issues like inaccurate diagnosis or OMG-vaccines-cause-autism which has been repeatedly debunked.
We don't trust your data, and your lack of explanation and attitude doesn't help your case any.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I understand that the CDR Weekly reference is meant to support the "well-known"* idea that
quote: Doctors are poor in accuracy of diagnosis and follow fashions.
But going claim that
quote: Correspondingly, when vaccination was introduced, they will tend to follow the fashion of not diagnosing measles, where they believe it controlled by vaccination. This following of fashions has been seen in other areas, including Coroner diagnoses of causes of death.
...is a subjective interpretation without any external support other than a non-specific reference to the behavior of Coroners. It also happens to conveniently support the author's claims. Flipping a supported claim into a subjective claim on the sneak isn't scientific, although it can be quasi-effective rhetoric.
(*In this case, "well-known" doesn't mean squat to the average reader like me, other than that you think I'm dumb. If you or the author want to convince me to take another look at these claims, emotionally-charged bias should be kept to a minimum.)
On a personal note - I'm sorry I stirred the hornet's nest. I was looking for rational discussion, and maybe a chance to have my skepticism tempered by people who know more about this than I do. Name calling and emotional arguing isn't my thing and wasn't my intention.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just caught up to where Claudia was on this article and I do indeed see that the author of the wordpress site has indeed on multiple occasions actually read the graphs entirely incorrectly. Oh dear.
edit --
quote:On a personal note - I'm sorry I stirred the hornet's nest. I was looking for rational discussion, and maybe a chance to have my skepticism tempered by people who know more about this than I do.
look man, I don't think you did anything wrong. Your initial post was appropriately and even respectfully skeptical.
posted
Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:11 AM] sidesteps the main issues of what the official mortality statistics show.
And says:
"The data all seems to be compilations extracted from slipshod anthroposohic books"
Incorrect. All data is from official government records.
"they are often used to make spurious claims."
Inapplicable for reason stated.
"The quote I already provided is a good example of very poor and inferred association."
How so? Specific data shows for example the US pays substantially more for healthcare than other comparable first world nations but has poorer outcomes. If you have specific data showing the contrary, where is it?
The same drugs cost less outside the US such as in Canada so paying more does not get any better outcome there either.
The statement "The fact that many nations have a wide disparity in the productivity and efficiency of their individual health care systems" is erroneous because comparable first world nations are compared side-by-side.
And this criticism does not stand up:- ' "Does paying for healthcare bring you better health and a longer life? No." — statistically, this is a causal kind of error.
It ignores the likely real associations'
And to support that argument a saddle-back hypothesis is put forward:-
"... (for instance, it is probable that the non-linear correlation is the result of variance within the programs countries use to manage their healthcare internally!) to come down to conclusions that they want, but which aren't true."
How can higher rates of US infant mortality than other first world countries result from "variance within the programs" the US uses compared to other countries? It cannot.
And what is also being ignored are the substantial declines in mortality which took place before any national healthcare programs were introduced.
The official UK data shows clearly that the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 made no difference to the steady and substantial decline in mortality which continued after the NHS was introduced as before.
So to argue against this is clearly inappropriate.
Similarly to claim "study of national sub-populations" assists and that there is "statistically significant improvement in both quality of life and life expectancy between people who do not pay for healthcare and people that do" is comparing apples with concrete.
The data being inappropriately criticised in this way was comparing first world nations.
It is like saying people who eat will live longer than people who are starving. And people who can afford healthcare will likely have a far better living conditions than those who cannot - which is what the data show - as living conditions improve, so does health and life-expectancy.
"So, bam."
Collapse of argument.
And here is more of the same - if you cannot argue with the facts you divert onto ad hominem without any consideration of the facts provided like:-
"The sidebar of that particular page is loaded with links to stories, evidently from the same data aggregate / blog / whatev, about how vaccines cause autism .... it automatically raises some flags."
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Says: "This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique."
But if you look back you will see that I was responding to what you folks were saying which cannot be called "good critique".
If you also look back you will see that when "critique" is provided [good or bad] it gets "good critique".
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
"I do indeed see that the author of the wordpress site has indeed on multiple occasions actually read the graphs entirely incorrectly. Oh dear."
Really? Graph after graph shows mortality steadily declining before any vaccines and continuing to decline steadily after.
It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not.
So claims like "vaccines have saved millions of lives" do not stack up such as shown by the UK data. They have not.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by spambuster: Samprimary [June 26, 2009 02:17 AM]
Says: "This forum does not 'complain' in response to good critique.
You did not come in with good critique."
But if you look back you will see that I was responding to what you folks were saying which cannot be called "good critique".
If you also look back you will see that when "critique" is provided [good or bad] it gets "good critique".
So people on this site made unkind references to the site, and you responded with unkind and direct personal attacks, and you are excusing your behavior on others?
Weak logic. Hypocritical, too, but there you go.
quote:It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not.
Why, whatever am I to say in the face of such an unspecific and ironclad assertion?
quote:he more people immunized, the more lives saved. Immunization saves the lives of more than 3 million people worldwide each year, and prevents illness and lifelong disability in millions more.
The introduction of a new vaccine leads to an often dramatic fall in the number of people infected. When immunization coverage drops, diseases reappear.
Analysis has shown that vaccinations are among the safest of injections and serious reactions are very rare. Comparing the risk of disease with the risk of vaccine shows that 1000 out of every 1 million people infected with measles will contract encephalitis, while only 1 person out of every 1 million vaccinated with measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) will do so.
In addition, immunization can protect the unimmunized by preventing the spread of certain infectious diseases through so-called herd immunity. When enough people in a community are immunized, diseases do not spread.
Cites WHO as evidence but where is the reliable data?
And where is it for kids in the UK, USA and Australia? They don't live in the third world. Again, comparing apples with concrete.
The UK, US and Australian data does not support WHO's claims for first world kids.
And whenever WHO cites data like this it is almost invariably from "estimates" and they never produce the data or calculations upon which those "estimates" are based, nor do they say who made them nor the assumptions involved.
These kinds of claims are constantly made by health officials across the world but when data like that shown in the graphs you do not like is produced to show their claims are invalid you complain but fail to produce relevant data to refute it.
And if you want to look at the third world, where are the independent reliable objective studies to back these claims up?
Where are the independent objective unbiased studies showing the rates of adverse reactions?
That is really helpful
Kalokerinos showed that one in every two aboriginal children died as a result of vaccination and published a book on this.
Not only did health officials and medical professionals not act on that we see him being criticised as if committing some major crime.
And then in the same couple of lines from you we see personal attacks immediately following claims of "unkind and direct personal attacks". Here we go:-
"Weak logic. Hypocritical, too, but there you go."
Where is the hypocrisy? It is not from me.
Can't you engage in any form of discourse without resorting to this kind of behaviour?
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Who criticises this statement: "It is plainly unscientific to claim the introduction of vaccines had any major effect on overall mortality rates. It just did not."
And says:-
"Why, whatever am I to say in the face of such an unspecific and ironclad assertion?"
How unspecific? It is backed up by the data which you avoid addressing:-
quote: Specific data shows for example the US pays substantially more for healthcare than other comparable first world nations but has poorer outcomes. If you have specific data showing the contrary, where is it?
I had always heard it's because we're paying for the R&D costs of new drugs and treatments. (Though a Google search turned up several pages claiming that, none of them were big names I recognized, so take it with a grain of salt. I doubt Africa is footing an equal piece of the bill, but I can't verify it.) They don't get passed on to other countries that can't afford it, so our bills go up. You'd have to figure out who we're subsidizing, average out all our costs, and divide by the average results to see what the real cost/benefit comes out to.
Plus, there's the difference in collective bargaining in nations with socialized medicine versus our "get what the market will bear" approach. I love the free market, but it's not terribly efficient in cases where you have to have something not easily produced. Let's face it, I can't just fake years of school and go start my own drug company tomorrow to correct market problems. There probably needs to be some price regulation here - taking into account how much profit must be added to make investors bother with lawsuit prone industries.
At the same time, collective bargaining only gives you a great price on certain drugs. My step dad is allergic to the base used in many generic medicines and has to use the name brand stuff. Does he get a better price in Canada? Are there enough versions of the same pill for him to even be able to buy what he needs in Canada? So collective bargaining ain't perfect, either - supposedly free or not.
Drugs are only cheap if someone else is paying is basically what my argument comes down to. We're that someone else.
All of that will drive up the price without improving our results. So while paying for healthcare might not give us longer, better lives, it might very well be giving other people longer, better lives.
Whether you find that worthwhile is, of course, an entirely different point. Personally, I'm ok with it.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, I think it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data.
Spambuster, I would be happy to walk you through the problems with this data, if you're willing to be patient and not lash out at me with insults every time the analysis is conclusively shown to be bad. Are you willing to sit through a brief education?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This started out with a really simple point - that vaccines have not been responsible for the huge decreases in infectious disease mortality and the official mortality statistics show that in the clearest of terms. And the introduction of vaccines would not have prevented that downward trend continuing.
TomDavidson wishes to contest that. So in a nutshell what is your point?
You say the data is wrong. Like the statistics from the UK's Office for National Statistics shown in the UK graphs?
_____________________________ ON BEHAVIOUR
I previously asked of another poster on this page Samprimary:-
"Can't you engage in any form of discourse without resorting to this kind of behaviour?"
And look who takes over the job. Nice. Personal attacks instead of dealing with the facts:-
Raymond Arnold [June 26, 2009 06:47 AM] who says
"Obvious Troll"
And TomDavidson [June 26, 2009 06:51 AM] who says
"it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data."
And:-
"if you're willing to be patient and not lash out at me with insults every time"
That is what you people are doing constantly here and you appear to choose not to see it. Classic projection.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
spambuster, to many of us who are regulars here you fit the description of a troll pretty darn well. You've posted one link, and haven't really given any defense for the criticisms that have been brought up. What Tom is asking, I believe, is for you to calm down a little and join him (and others) is a closer look at the points, why he thinks they're faulty, and why you think they are valid.
I, for one, hope to be able to partake. I'm too busy to read through much of your link, but I hope to learn something from the discussion here.
From the graphs I have looked at and the conclusions that are drawn in the link, I need more analysis to believe what you are saying. The graphs seem very simplistic, and the conclusions seem, IMO, to be making claims that are not justified.
Just as an example, towards the bottom of the page:
quote:This graph demonstrates that the administration of tetanus vaccine is likely to be pointless and puts children especially at risk of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
I look at the graph, and just do not see how that conclusion can be drawn. It seems WAY too simplistic. I look at graphs for a living, and I believe that the simpler the graphs are, the more they are omitting. I like really complicated graphs.
ETA: WonderDog posted the link, not you.
[ June 26, 2009, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
TomDavidson wasn't making a personal attack when he said "it's obvious that "spambuster" here doesn't have the background necessary to even understand the criticisms of this data.", he was simply stating a conclusion that I'm sure many of us have come to.
There is a right way to analyze data and a wrong way. Several people here have pointed out major problems in the analysis of the data ("drowning victims must each ice cream" and "measles will bring people back from the dead in 2020" are excellent examples).
I have no background in medicine but I don't need one to see the obvious errors in analysis made here. If you can't see these analysis errors then there are only 2 reasons: 1) you don't know enough about data analysis to recognize them
2) you don't *want* to know about analysis errors since you've already made up your mind based on *something* and aren't willing to be swayed by facts.
So, if it's option 1 then there are a lot of people here who can help you out. If it's option 2 then I suggest everyone else just start ignoring you now since we all know it's futile to do anything else... maybe if we ignore you long enough you'll go away and let us "be wrong" in peace... (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is worth noting that whenever you join a community and go against the grain, the burden of proof is on you. That may seem unfair, but it's true. I've frequented other messages boards, to my dismay mostly mommy message boards, in which this particular debate is not nearly so one-sided. A lot of moms out there are taking this stuff seriously and are failing to vaccinate their children. One outspoken woman I finally stopped arguing with a few months ago was absolutely certain that vaccinating against diseases has made them deadlier because we no longer have natural immunities to them.
I'm not as good at explaining data analysis as others on this board. Actually, I'm pretty bad at it -- I can read the charts myself and form a picture in my own mind about what is wrong, but I'm terrible at relaying that to others. So I'm not going to try here.
But Spambuster, if you really want to learn, it's not going to be quick. Tom can't tell you anything "in a nutshell."
Another thing worth noting, Spambuster, is that public though this forum may be, we are also a community. Over the course of many conversations, most of us have learned a thing or two about the others. So while on other more anonymous forums your style of barging in here and throwing your weight around would be perfectly acceptable, here it is considered troll behavior. If you're interested in joining the community, the best idea is to sit back and lurk for a bit.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
