Vaccines

Given that the benefit of reducing the incidence of measles is well established, I think to argue against vaccination you'd need good evidence that the risk could outweigh that benefit.

That is why I so generously conceded at the bottom of my flyer: "In case of Measles once again becoming endemic, Vaccine benefits might outweigh the risks, but hard to say with absolute certainty since risks are not fully known and benefits are small."

Benefits in reducing the incidence of measles is well established, but benefits in regards to reduction of risk of death or permanent damage is very small. 

It depends on whether you want to go with the small risks of Measles disease which are well understood by analysis of data on the whole population, or the risks of the vaccine (produced by a powerful self-interested industry that sloshes a lot of money around) based on limited studies of much smaller sample sizes over shorter periods of time with all sorts of potentially confounding variables.

You've only seen regular healthy unicorns?

I thought the funny watermark (a not-so-subliminal message) and sole reference to google would be disarming... make it seem less pretentious... and therefore more likely to be well received.

Yeah, only the regular types ... no come to think of it I've not seen too many of those either.

I suppose your intention was ok, though it happened to distract me a bit.

At least we appear to accepting natural selection in this thread :)

I was curious as to whether expertise made a difference in that regard (since expertise is proposed to be "anyone whose interests may be threatened by people that don’t just blindly accept what they say as ‘fact’", rather than knowledge and experience).

Come on Dr. Linda, go ahead and explain which facts on the sheet are incorrect. I need your help to make my unicorn flyer bullet proof.

That is why I so generously conceded at the bottom of my flyer: "In case of Measles once again becoming endemic, Vaccine benefits might outweigh the risks, but hard to say with absolute certainty since risks are not fully known and benefits are small."

That doesn't really strike me as a "generous concession", considering you've posted figures showing the pre-vaccination death rate from measles  was several hundred a year, whereas the number of deaths currently reported after vaccination is 7 a year.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the figures suggest that vaccination greatly reduces the death rate, "but hard to say with absolute certainty [etc]"?

At least we appear to accepting natural selection in this thread

I don't think there is anyone on this forum who has said that there is no natural selection. I certainly wouldn't say that, but that's for the other thread.

[Edited out the rest of what I had to say because, on scanning back through the thread, I found that I was merely repeating myself. Who would have thought?]

That doesn't really strike me as a "generous concession", considering you've posted figures showing the pre-vaccination death rate from measles  was several hundred a year, whereas the number of deaths currently reported after vaccination is 7 a year.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the figures suggest that vaccination greatly reduces the death rate, "but hard to say with absolute certainty [etc]"?

I would take out the word "greatly".

We don't know how low the death rate today would be if the down-trend were allowed to continue. Perhaps it would be 1 in 100,000 with today's knowledge and care.
We don't know what the death rate is for the vaccine.
If just 1 death in 10,000 were linked to the vaccine that would put the vaccine risk at parity with the 1963 death rate of the actual disease. Among 10,000 kids 1-2 years old 3 or 4 are likely to die anyway. So you can bet that trying to link any death of a trial participant to the vaccine will be extremely contentious. Billions of dollars and public trust are at stake.

I would also suggest you don't take the advice of people you hold in contempt (regardless of whether you try not to for other reasons).

I hold nobody in contempt - contempt is an attitude and is therefore avoidable but I know myself well enough to know that I would fall into it if it weren't for my faith.  It is not a good tactic to infer that somebody is wrong but not give reasons why and such an attitude can lead others to look down on you.  That is all I was saying.  Don't read any more into it.

And now this...



Just when you thought the debate was settled over MMR and autism...

Dr. Zimmerman - whose expert testimony the Justice department used to deny thousands of families compensation for claims that the MMR vaccine caused autism in their children - has provided a sworn affidavit that he privately told Justice department lawyers in 2007 that he actually believed the vaccine could cause autism in some kids. He was fired the next day.

This seems to be quite a tangled story. More details here:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/01/21/w...es-autism/

I hold nobody in contempt - contempt is an attitude and is therefore avoidable but I know myself well enough to know that I would fall into it if it weren't for my faith.  It is not a good tactic to infer that somebody is wrong but not give reasons why and such an attitude can lead others to look down on you.  That is all I was saying.  Don't read any more into it.

I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...1#pid21391

Linda