posted
I need to have Jesus tie me to a nightstand and make my inner goddess do the merengue with some salsa moves.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never realized how many chiropractors are on my feed until the vaccine debate sparked back up:
quote: Measles......looking at the wrong group.
So many are missing the point. What is more important than who got infected with measles at Disney?
How about who didn't? Again we are caught looking the wrong way. Everyone is worked up over how many people developed the measles from the outbreak at Disney. I want to know why all the people also exposed, in the same families, on the same rides, in the same long lines, eating the same junk foods, walking around all day under the same hot sun, did not get it. What made the difference?
If we really wanted to understand all this I would imagine that they would be looking more into who escaped the exposure than who did not. I would want to know how many were exposed, how many of them were vaccinated and with how many shots, how many who were exposed were not fully or even partially vaccinated. I would want to take a blood test from them all and see if anti-bodies really made a difference. I would want to see if the anti-bodies detected were to the wild strain or one of the vaccine induced strains. I would want to know if there were other previously not considered metrics found for immunity to measles.
I would want to compare the health status of the exposed who caught the measles and the exposed who did not. I would look for other correlations, look at prior health history, nutritional status, diet and hydration.
All the hype with so little action to critically think and learn from what happened is alarming. There was a very big opportunity there to truly learn about this disease, it's transmission, virulence, immune susceptibility, effectiveness of natural and vaccine immunity, but it was lost.
Which ever side you are on, rather than get scared and push for more mandates I suggest you get focused and push for more research and investigating.
In the meantime, use this opportunity lost as a chance to sharpen your critical thinking and deepen your perspective on the subject. Again, which ever side you are on, do your homework.
posted
we're not taking this opportunity to dramatically question current vaccine theory to potentially fit my preconceived notions by saying that we didn't do something that it was too late to do once we knew an outbreak was happening
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I'm parsing that sentence correctly. You're saying it was too late to examine the immune people once we realized that there was an outbreak?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also: can you imagine rounding up all the uninfected attendees at Disneyland -- including children -- and subjecting them to surveys and blood draws?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah the height of weirdness in it is that anti-vax types are super duper ultra anti Big Med meddling in their bizness and yet what this person is recommending requires basically collecting all the humans in didneyworld during a measles outbreak and telling them to submit to a blood draw
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WE MUST REFLECT ON THAT THIS IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS WHICH WE WOULD GET CRUCIFIED FOR TRYING TO DO SO IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Idk...seems like the author is calling for people to ask (by his standards) better questions...i e focus on understanding before acting. Seems like he isn't calling for any actual action.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So against my better judgement, I opened up a dialogue in the comments section. We're now at the point where 'most children who caught measles were vaccinated'. I'm trying to do a breakdown of the numbers showing how much more likely the unvaccinated were to catch measles, but I'm having trouble finding specific numbers and sources in this outbreak specifically, all the articles are saying is most of the cases were unvaccinated. Anyone know a good article breaking the numbers down to show the effectiveness of the measles vaccine?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually it was more like 40% were vaccinated, and the unvaccinated, about 7 infants who couldn't have vaccines yet and the rest adults. The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness? Is it the 3% of the "not effective" plan to meet at Disney? Or do we have to start asking better questions as Dr Don points out Like why not research better, less toxic ways to protect us? Yes, would the vaccines cost more, maybe, but they would be more safe and people wouldn't second guess them. But we all somewhat understand that big pharma can't profit as much using natural, safer ingredients for vaccines instead of the known toxins currently being used.
posted
i want to bite their heads off. i will bite their heads off with my organic all-natural teeth
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, you're better at this than me. Can you help with a rebuttal to that explaining the numbers and the other garbage there?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After him saying essentially what Stone_Wolf_ did:
Me: And the right answer to Dr. Don's right question is the people who escaped exposure did so because most children are vaccinated and the vaccine has been proven to prevent measles at a 97% effectiveness. The right question is actually why were so many children unvaccinated
Him: Most of the people at Disney who were effected were vaccinated
Him before I can finish putting together the numbers showing this to be false: Actually it was more like 40% were vaccinated, and the unvaccinated, about 7 infants who couldn't have vaccines yet and the rest adults. The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness? Is it the 3% of the "not effective" plan to meet at Disney? Or do we have to start asking better questions as Dr Don points out Like why not research better, less toxic ways to protect us? Yes, would the vaccines cost more, maybe, but they would be more safe and people wouldn't second guess them. But we all somewhat understand that big pharma can't profit as much using natural, safer ingredients for vaccines instead of the known toxins currently being used.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right question is why are people who are vaccinated still getting the dx even with such a high effectiveness?
- what's a pretty good average number of people at disneyland
- what percentage of those people at disneyland did not catch a disease which has been remarked for having about the most incredible infectivity known
- how much does this percentage of vaccinated people who caught it match the general effectiveness rate of the vaccine?
- side question: what does this suggest for what would have happened in disneyland that day if nobody was vaccinated
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. I'm trying to write a post answering all those questions and tying them to an answer to your side question, but do you know what an estimate for the percentage of people at Disneyland who are vaccinated? I can't find that.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that for the following argument, the exact number of attendees is actually irrelevant, but since someone asked...
The Disneyland exposures were from December 17-20.
Disneyland doesn't report attendance numbers afaict, but average daily attendance seems to be around 45,000. However, googling indicates early December is the slowest time of year (around 10,000-15,000 per day) while on the flip side the 2-week school holiday in late December is busier than average. Assuming the low end for the 17, 18, and 19, and above average for the 20 (both a weekend and the beginning of the holiday): 10 + 10 + 10 + 60 = ~90,000 people.
Then you have to take into account Disney's California Adventure, the sister park on the same site that also was a source of exposure. It has half the attendance of Disneyland, so say another 45,000 people. However, some of these attendees both between parks and within parks will overlap (mostly people with multiday tickets). Since it's all guesswork here, let's split the difference and say a grand total of 110,000 people were exposed at Disney parks from the 17-20 of December.
For measles vaccine effectiveness, the 97% number is for those who have had both shots; 93% is the number for those who have received only one. Shot #2 is usually administered around age 4-6, so most pre-school-age children would be included in that 93% number (unless the lowered effectiveness is a long-term issue, which it could be. I couldn't find info.). The inactivated measles vaccine produced in the mid-60's (1963-1967) was a dud and produced no long-term immunity; adults in their late 40's to early 50's should be re-vaccinated, but likely most have not been.
95% is the overall effectiveness number often used for measles vaccine on a group (not individual) level, presumably as a combination of the above factors.
2.5% of California kindergarteners have a personal-belief exemption from vaccination. Due to a lack of other data, I'll be generous and apply that to the entire population (for obvious reasons the rate is way high in children in the past decade and far lower for everyone else, but there's also other less common reasons people may not be vaccinated - poor access to healthcare, etc. - so the overall number should capture that and more).
So with all that in mind: * 5% of people are vaccinated but not immune (5,500 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees). * 2.5% of people are not vaccinated (2,750 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees). * 92.5% of people are immune (101,750 out of 110,000 Disneyland attendees).
Edit: To add some solid numbers to the below percentages (for scale), I'll assume an infection rate of 50 people for the un-immunized group. If vaccination works one would expect (approximately): * 66% of the infected will be vaccinated (100 Disney attendees) * 33% of the infected will be unvaccinated (50 Disney attendees)
The above two numbers look "bad" for vaccines if you're stupid, but remember in terms of overall numbers this is 5% of the vaccinated at risk and 100% of the unvaccinated at risk. If vaccination doesn't work, one would expect (approximately): * 97.5% of the infected will be vaccinated (1,950 Disney attendees) * 2.5% of the infected will be unvaccinated (50 Disney attendees)
quote:Among the 110 California patients, 49 (45%) were unvaccinated; five (5%) had 1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, seven (6%) had 2 doses, one (1%) had 3 doses, 47 (43%) had unknown or undocumented vaccination status, and one (1%) had immunoglobulin G seropositivity documented, which indicates prior vaccination or measles infection at an undetermined time.
The vast majority of "unknowns" are probably adults who were immunized as children but can't specifically remember or prove it (who could?). To again be rather generous toward the anti-vaccination side, let's assume 100% of the unknowns were immunized. The percentages then break down to:
* 54.5% of the infected were vaccinated (60 out of 110) * 44.5% (49 out of 110; 12 too young for vaccination)
Very close to what we'd expect if vaccination works - in fact, "better" because less than 66% of the vaccinated were infected (this becomes unsurprising when you consider the unvaccinated are more likely to create secondary infections in unvaccinated family/community members).
Everywhere I had to make an assumption, I did it in favor of the anti-vaccination side, and still: The data from the Disneyland epidemic without question corroborates the idea that vaccines are effective.
Now I have to figure out how to chop all of that data up to fit into a status comment without losing anything.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That's brill. that's basically all the long-walk homework to drive home the point.
The point that may yet pierce their lambertian impliability.
...
well a guy can dream anyway
Well, let's test it out. Tertiaryadjunct can post it on some naturalnews article claiming the Disneyland outbreak is proof that the measles vaccine doesn't work and see what kind of responses he gets. My bet is he gets accused of being a sheep, shill, and/or that he lacks critical thinking skills.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So after using all of tertiaryadjunct's numbers (thanks again) this is what I get from Dr Don:
quote: It is nicely laid out guess work at the end of the day....none of it has been proven, just assumption and correlation. You really want to discuss it, let's do it one topic at a time....what is immunity that you speak of?
Nicely laid out guesswork...I'm going to throw in the towel because I think all data is going to be considered guesswork, unless it supports his worldview, then I'm sure he'll want that data to be credible.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone who panics so badly when confronted by numbers that he backs up so far as "what is immunity that you speak of" needs to be slapped with a fish.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only guesswork involved is the exact percentage of people who are unvaccinated. All the rest of that was hard data. Unless he's prepared to claim that 45% of the population is unvaccinated, it is obvious as all hell that vaccination is effective.
People like this are going to do whatever they can to support their preesting prejudices, including ignoring the data. I'd call the argument a waste of time, but at least there's a chance some fence-sitting bystanders will use their brains.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I officially bowed out of that discussion. I want to share with you his final thoughts before I did. The data he is referring to is the numbers provided by ta:
quote: Yes, this is not data. With vaccines It is all guess work.
Vaccines have never been shown to produce immunity, only an immune response in antibodies. That is hard data.
Antibodies have not been associated with preventing disease or immunity, that is hard data.
Vaccines have never been shown to prevent transmission.
Vaccines have never been tested with exposure for prevention.
Vaccines have never been tested with a inert placebo.
Never been studied against a neutral control or an unvaxed population.
Never been tested for long term safety.
And you want to play with numbers and make some point? None of the stats what you are trying to use in your equations are supported by facts, JUST SPECULATION. Not good science or critical thinking.
posted
I've been in similar situations..obviously not with this individual...and not this topic...but I've been an arguments before about -what- that data -means-. I was going to try and ask questions about -how to interpret data- & vetteing and obtaining data in the What Do You Think You Kno thread. But I guess I'm a little foggy on the concept...having trouble articulating an intelligent question here.
I guess the question I'm fumbling twords is: is there ANY way that the data could honestly be interpreted as this "doc" is saying...or is it as it appears...that if an angel of God with m agic wings spread wide, flaming sword in hand, literally flying down from the heavens, proclaiming in an unearthly voice "God sent me to tell you that vaccines save lives & all should get them."...that his response would be "that's just speculation!"
I e this guy is unconvincable. No matter the data or its source.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
did you at least say something like 'i feel that further discussion is not going to be productive because you seem committed, intentionally or otherwise, to reduce all actual numbers and data as 'guesswork' and 'speculation' when they do not fit what you already intend to believe, and there's no effective way to address this.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll just quote the ending of the discussion. I lost my cool a little bit, but I did my best. This is after pointing out that the numbers used weren't guesswork but actually were hard data:
Me:
quote: If that's all you took from that and you're so scared of being confronted with the numbers that you want to back up so far as to define simple medical terms, then no I'm not interested in discussing it further with you. People like you generally have an extreme confirmation bias and ignore evidence, data, and facts. Unless you can find a way to bend it to your preexisting views, then I'm sure you'll want those facts to be credible.
When looked at objectively, there aren't two sides to this issue, anymore then there is to whether we are causing climate change. The science is clear, the vaccine is both safe and effective.
Him:
quote: That is not hard data. That is speculation. You are complaining that I wont look at the data when it is you who refuses then says if you don't agree with my speculations I wont play anymore. Slow the roll and take it one concept at a time and we can look at the data, bundle it up or generalize and you are back in the dogma.
Me:
quote: I'm refusing to look at the data?? Well Don, can you point to where on this page you used anything resembling data drawn from reality?
And see, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about. You don't like what the numbers I laid out for you say (numbers drawn from the CDC of the number of infected and their vaccination status) since they contradict the misinformation you are spreading so you write it off as speculation.
Him:
quote: Yes, this is not data. With vaccines It is all guess work.
Vaccines have never been shown to produce immunity, only an immune response in antibodies. That is hard data.
Antibodies have not been associated with preventing disease or immunity, that is hard data.
Vaccines have never been shown to prevent transmission.
Vaccines have never been tested with exposure for prevention.
Vaccines have never been tested with a inert placebo.
Never been studied against a neutral control or an unvaxed population.
Never been tested for long term safety.
And you want to play with numbers and make some point? None of the stats what you are trying to use in your equations are supported by facts, JUST SPECULATION. Not good science or critical thinking.
Me:
quote: Yeah, at least now I see why you wanted me to define immunity to you. Because apparently you aren't familiar with simple terms. Data is variables collected and analyzed to create information suitable for making decisions. Data is measured, collected, and analyzed, where it can be visualized using graphs or images. What you are saying are hard data are actually the conclusions that are supposed to be drawn from data. Data that you did not provide so that we can even begin to evaluate how you drew those conclusions. And then you followed up with claims that certain tests have never run that are so absurd that I don't even know where to begin. So I'm going to leave this discussion as I can see I have a windmill on my hands and I pray that anyone on the fence reading this will recognize the harmful misinformation you are spreading.
Him:
quote: No sir, I have just studied it for a long time, read the books, scoured the papers, been to the seminars and conferences, there is a big one coming up in Nov in SF if you are interested, and can talk from concepts. See, I have read the research, debates and so forth. I can post that because I have already been through the research on it, I ask questions knowing the answers and what you will find. I am just further along in this game than you are, and people reading this should know that. This is what happens when you don't go slow, take one topic at a time, and look at the real data.
If it is important to you you will find it and do the same. I wish you the best at it, there is a lot there. Newbies to the discussion always need to see the papers, because they haven't seen them yet, and that is the problem. Start with a book on the subject, my favorite thus far is Dissolving Illusions. Harm will be decided in time, and yes, windmills are what we are talking about, more than you know.
posted
Feel free to critique my arguments so I can improve on them the next time this comes up, though I'm only getting into this ever again if it's with someone on the fence. I'm finished with discussing it with these types of people.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i want you to get them into the raw milk movement using some woo claim that raw milk helps you be immune to vaccine virus shedding. So that they start drinking unpasteurized milk. And literally die.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next time perhaps you can step through it one piece at a time, so that you can get their agreement on each specific step (it's easy to vaguely hand-wave away a bunch of data, but trying to do that to just a single clear point makes it a lot more obvious and easier to refute).
TL/DR Example:
You:
quote: So, you think that the fact that vaccinated people got infected at Disneyland proves vaccines don't work?
Him:
quote: On the face of it that's so obvious I pity your pathetic little mind.
You:
quote: Ok, lets make and test a couple hypotheses with this outbreak. In order to do that we need to know how many vaccinated vs unvaccinated people there are milling around California. I have some data here saying with this recent anti-vaccination surge, 2.5% of California kindergarteners are unvaccinated. Since that's the current high-water mark, do you think that's safe to apply to the population as a whole, or do you think more than 2.5% of Californians are unvaccinated?
Him:
quote: You underestimate the intelligence of Californians. Both the religious right AND lefty hippies agree on this, it's so obviously right. I'd say 5% of people are unvaccinated geniuses, not 2.5%.
You:
quote: Let's use that, then. We'll make one hypothesis that vaccines work, and another that they don't.
Hypothesis #1: Vaccines work the way vaccinators claim. Claims: Getting 1 shot gives you 93% chance at immunity, getting the recommended 2 gives you a 97% chance [links]. Most people who are vaccinated, but not everyone, get both shots. For this hypothesis, let's take 95% as a generally accepted average for the vaccinated population. Agreed?
Him:
quote: No. As soon as the first shot is administered, children instantly develop autistic scoliosis. Nobody ever gets the second shot.
You:
quote: Ok.
Hypothesis #1: Vaccines work the way vaccinators claim. Claims: Vaccines give you a 93% chance at immunity. Fact: 95% of people are vaccinated, 5% unvaccinated (we agreed on this). Math: 5% of people are not immune because they're unvaccinated, and 6.6% are not immune because the vaccine didn't take.
Hypothesized result: The percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated that are not immune are roughly equal. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see roughly equal numbers of infections of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.
Does that seem right? (remember this is a hypothesis where we are testing the 93% claim)
Him:
quote: What are you getting at? Maybe I'm wrong and 10% of people are unvaccinated. California is full of illegal immigrants, you know.
You:
quote: Ok, let's assume that, then. 10% to 6.3%. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see 60% of the infections in the unvaccinated, and 40% in the vaccinated. Not terribly dissimilar, and definitely the same order of magnitude.
Him:
quote: Get on with it.
You:
quote: Hypothesis #2: Vaccines don't work. Immunity doesn't exist because thetans. Claims: Vaccines are useless. Fact: 90% of people are vaccinated, 10% unvaccinated (we settled on this). Math: 10% of people are not immune because they're unvaccinated, and 90% are not immune because the vaccine is useless.
Hypothesized result: The percentages of vaccinated and unvaccinated that are not immune are wildly different. In a large group of exposed people, we'd expect to see 10% of the infections hit the unvaccinated, and 90% to hit the vaccinated. That's 9x more infections in the vaccinated population, nearly an order of magnitude difference.
Does that seem right?
Him:
quote: Well, vaccines don't work, so obviously.
You:
quote: Well, let's test these hypotheses on the actual data. [link]
45% unvaccinated 12% vaccinated 43% unknown
Where should we put the unknowns? We can assume they're vaccinated, unvaccinated, or a mix of both based on our agreed-on 10% / 90% split (it is pretty likely they break down the same as the rest of the population). To make it the absolute best in your favor, I'm willing to assume they were all vaccinated.
Him:
quote: Clearly the data is broken. We can't use it.
You:
quote: But we can assume they're all vaccinated, which works best in your favor. If they're anything less than 100% vaccinated, it gets even worse for hypothesis #2.
Him:
quote: *Probably runs away or redirects at this point*
You:
quote: So, stacking the deck in your favor:
45% unvaccinated 55% vaccinated
Does this data better fit hypothesis #1 or hypothesis #2? Given that it's a pretty even split and nowhere near an order of magnitude difference, the data clearly supports hypothesis #1. If vaccination didn't work and 49 unvaccinated people caught the disease, then surely around 450 vaccinated people would have caught it too, right? Since there are way more of them? Why didn't that happen?
posted
i recently had something like a seven day back and forth on vaccine stuff with a 40 year old dance instructor i knew back in boulder who is a very sweet and kind lady but was just absolutely trapped in the whole 'but can you say for suuuure? are we asking the right questions?' netherworld and i was an absolute saint and did it point by point and mainly through an elenctic and kind dialogue with her. such citations! forever!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to stay out of it. I really did. And then everyone started celebrating when he posted a chart showing declining mortality rates before the vaccine was introduced as proof that vaccines are not responsible for the incidences of diseases declining. Because, you know, not getting a disease and not dying from it are the same thing.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually really confused by the "vaccines have never been compared with an inert placebo" claim, because that's provably false.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to go self-medicate by reading Methods of Rationality right now to balance out the experience I just went through reading these comments.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw this earlier and thought of your situation, Gaal. I'm not sure if it's a fight you'll ever win.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reminded strongly of debates I sometimes listen to between scientists and creationists*. One of the more compelling, in a 'couldn't look away' sort of thing, was one creationist who also an actual, legitimate astronomer as far as I recall. One of the key points of his defense of creationism ('intelligent design') was that we couldn't really be sure that things like physics, chemistry, biology, very fundamental parts of reality, behaved in the ways we have observed them now back 'when the universe was created' which I can't remember now if in this guy's case was six thousand hears ago or a few hundred.
It's a bit perverse and, frankly, profoundly dishonest (even when it's not intentional deceit) the way opponents of science and rationalism will take one of the bedrock principles that has let science and inquiry make so many discoveries about the world and use it to argue against it: that things should only, in a sense, be considered disproven and never *ultimately* proven. It's twisted and dishonest because of course if that qualifier of science were used for the religious thinking that it was being twisted to defend ('we can't really *know* laws of nature acted the same way in the past!'), it would tear it to ribbons. The level of rigor shifts immediately once it is turned to criticize religious thinking, as it has to for the argument to endure.
It's the same way with the sort of trouble you've been having, Gaal. If the kind of unreasoning, stubborn skepticism such as 'well really what is immunity, anyway?' were applied to an anti-vax attitude, well. There would be a seriously damaged argument for vaccination but the other side would be a smoldering ruin.
It's not a guarantee of course, and the truth is you're unlikely to succeed but I think the only things that stand a chance are an insistence on accepting standards and terms up front to blunt efforts to change the subject and a steadfast refusal to accept the sort of shifting standards 'Dr Don' insists upon. If he will seriously say 'what is immunity, anyway?' then what *possible* cause does he have to object to vaccination?
Anyway, you're fighting the good fight. Unfortunately don't expect to win it publicly! But it's not impossible that you've planted some seeds.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've surprisingly made a lot of headway with my chiropractor brother-in-law, which is the reason I got into all of this in the first place. My nephew will be getting his first dose of the MMR vaccine on his 2nd birthday coming up. He agrees that the vaccine might work, he just still think that there are natural ways to prevent these diseases, we'll just never find out about them because big pharm can't profit off of them. But he's definitely changed his tone somewhat since we first started discussing these issues.
Also this is how my discussion with Dr Don ended:
Him:
quote: they were on their way out, measles is misdiagnosed often, over 90% at times, and a funny thing happens to reporting after a vaccine is introduced, we saw it with polio too
Me:
quote: Ok I'll point you in the right direction. You posted a chart showing the number of people dying from measles was going down before the vaccine. Then made a claim that the number of people getting it was on the way down. Apples and oranges. Of course mortality was declining because medical technology improved even though the same number of people were getting it. Not dying from a disease is not as good as not getting it in the first place.
I really had to resist saying "So were you aware that the claim you were making based off the graph was incorrect before I pointed it out to you and were purposefully dishonest or did it take someone much farther behind in the game than you are to point it out to you?"
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ask questions like that. Courtesy isn't the same thing as not offending someone, and while it might not work with Dr Don it's implrtant to remember it's likely nothing would, really. Not having to field direct, candid challenges is one of the ways he keeps room to argue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. I probably would have but I really didn't want to continue the conversation. He is going to continue his campaign to convince parents to forgo vaccinations regardless of anything I say and anyone else listening in at least now knows not to take everything he says at face value. I didn't have much more of a battle to win and it was incredibly frustrating.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah man, I get it, and I would have had much less patience and very likely been less effective than you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how you managed to learn about epidemiology when we don't really know what immunity is anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the past 2 years or so literally everyone on Facebook has been posting articles about introverts, and how misunderstood they are and how you need to understand them.
Now the new trend is Outgoing Introverts*, which is a whole new level of special snowflake. When will the madness end?
*Outgoing Introverts are defined by things like being grumpy after a long day of work, not always responding to phone calls, hating first dates, and other behavior that you might mistakenly confuse with being a normal goddamn human being but is instead evidence of how deep and unique and perceptive and layered they are.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
IDK...I've classified myself as an extroverted introvert most of my life. I can't speak to what others qualify that as I simply mean that I enjoy the company of others but find it draining and like to recharge my batteries in quiet in solitude.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
extroverts and introverts are quickly becoming all shades of Outgoing Introverts because the whole dichotomy is turning out to be only just a vaguely valid one more related to degrees of social anxiety or lack of thereof
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone tells me that they are an introvert and attempts to give me a list of special instructions for their care and feeding, I will advise them to learn how to deal with their social dysfunction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen those kinds of posts and lists before, since I'm not much of a social network user. I do think there's value in understanding others who may have different patterns of behavior than yourself. However, I definitely don't think that people can be readily sorted into discrete little categories and labeled as such. Reading that list about "outgoing introverts", I am highly skeptical that the category is meaningful and that someone could say "yes I am dating an outgoing introvert and so all of these ten items all apply to them".
It sort of reads like a horoscope. Pretty much anyone can look at that list and say "hey, they are describing me pretty well."
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
