I see vaccines in here a lot, and I respect that we need continuing diversity of viewpoints on voat- particularly in this sub. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but provide my viewpoint as a scientist.
The article opens with drug resistant bugs in medical institutions along with oveer-prescribing doctors and the pathetic state of western media. These are all very true from what I understand. Most telling to me is that we don't use copper for handrails, door knobs, and other common surfaces (copper essentially kills microorganisms), likely because it 'costs too much' to provide an actually safe environment.
Taken point wise:
Make it clear that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are only getting their information from Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carey and other celebrities with absolutely no scientific credentials.~~
The author mentions several doctors listing their credentials and belief in the dangers of vaccines. Doctors can believe whatever they want, their role is to diagnose disorders-not produce research. Its about the same difference between an electrician and an architect. A researcher/scientist makes the idea as an architect, and the doctor prescribes the right pattern of wiring (treatment).
It's not even the doctor's job to effectively deliver medication, that's a pharmacist's job: to keep you from taking drug combinations that will kill you (which doctors frequently prescribe, not knowing mechanisms of action beyond their initial training).
Always equate the views of the CDC, medical journals and pharmaceutical company spokespeople with “science.” Some people will try to tell you that science is a method, not a conclusion, that scientific truths cannot be determined by consensus or by appeal to authority, but you can just ignore them.~~
While you might have a good case for denying the CDC credibility (government agency after all), and pharmaceutical companies (profit.), medical journals -are- science. That's where research goes, which are individual contributions of scientific knowledge.
The worst part is the 'some people' section. I'm not sure the author understands the dangers of crowdthink and authoritarian worship if continually demonstrated facts are scary to them.
The truth is: No. If you are not qualified, you are not qualified. Years spent learning a topic on your own don't compare to years spent learning the topic through trial and error on the subject. I see this kind of behavior from undergraduates sometimes, they believe they understand a topic just because they saw a 101 section on it. Scientific consensus is rare, and if you take consensus to be 100% it's never ever happened.
Sure you can find scientists who disagree, but that's a very small list they link.
Remind your readers that, however heart wrenching or tragic, anecdotal accounts are just that. They are not scientific, they don’t say anything about relative risk, and should play no role in influencing your opinion about vaccines.
~~
Relative risk is subjective. People remember stories of pain and loss stronger; take the very common story of a young person dying in a drunk driving accident. This case is almost the inverse, it's so common that its almost lost its emotional pull. The 'many' cases of problems after vaccination are attention grabbing precisely because they are rare.
Take for example the thousands of stories from parents whose children were perfectly healthy until they received one or more vaccines and then suddenly lost the ability to speak, to walk, to feed themselves, or who started having seizures, stopped breathing or died. Many of the parents in these cases report that their doctors insist the vaccines had nothing to do with their child’s injury, even when no other explanation is apparent. Indeed, the vaccine manufacturers and the CDC insist that most such cases are simply coincidences and have nothing to do with the vaccines. But given the well-documented degree of conflict of interest and fraudulent practices within the CDC and the medical research community as a whole, many parents are understandably skeptical of such claims.~~
Also take for example the lack of statistical controls, sample sizes, correlative effects (such as a child's age of vaccination for school and the early detection window for autism), or [again] lack of scientific training by parents. Death is terrible to have happen to a child, but people are altogether too good at seeing patterns that do not exist, and having opinions on topics they really don't know anything about.
Remind your readers that “correlation is not causation.”
~~
Ah, here it is-the one thing everyone remembers from statistics class.
The two graphs noticable don't control for vectors of infection such as changes in living conditions, medical theory and practice, and social health from.. when? 1900?
They go on to mention 1950's views on measles as a mild condition everyone got as a child then overcame. Nevermind that the whole landscape of contagious diseases and antibiotic overuse conflates this.
The article's getting a bit repetitive now so I'll get to the point.
Whenever possible, present the debate as if there are no legitimate reasons to choose not to vaccinate – only “personal beliefs” and “irrational fears.”~~
There are legitimate reasons to debate any topic. But when you go against an entire body of evidence and knowledge based on personal beliefs, anecdotes, a flawed understanding of inferential statistics, and a wild distrust of things outside your experience you end up battling nearly everything.
I'm not a proponent of forcing vaccinations. I'm not a proponent of forcing much of anything. I just can't believe that so many people suddenly think they've become experts on topics just because they can read the words, google the ones they don't know, and think that gives them the whole idea of it.
I don't blame them. Western media is awful, the internet has no guarantees to accuracy, and the actual research is locked up behind paywalls. There just seems to be some kind of intermediary missing from the picture.
Yes, I am a pharmaceutical company shill: being paid to follow mostly unknown online communities consisting of small numbers of people who might on a chance post something negative about my employer.
Or it may be the case that just not everyone sees the world the same way you do.
I am so sick of reddit right now. A post about aspartame being pulled from Diet Pepsi was derailed first by claims that aspartame is safe and consumers are stupid, then immediately turned to vaccines. Damn they are seriously pushing this shit.
I don't even feel obligated to respond to this wall of text that starts as an appeal to authority, works it's way through ad hom straw men about celebrities and then ends with a little dash of incredulity that people would dare question known liars in big pharma and the government.
It might just be the case that if you had posted less of a long, rambling, incoherently argued garbage article that someone could actually respond to it with a less wordy comment. I stopped typing because honestly that article should be at least 5 separate ones.
Your list of fallacies is one half ass effort to try and dismiss my arguments, but you might want to look a little harder at the article and see just how many of those fallacies it has.
I'm not a proponent of forcing vaccinations. I'm not a proponent of forcing much of anything. & There just seems to be some kind of intermediary missing from the picture.
I wanted to start there because that's where we completely agree.
The truth is: No. If you are not qualified, you are not qualified. Years spent learning a topic on your own don't compare to years spent learning the topic through trial and error on the subject. I see this kind of behavior from undergraduates sometimes, they believe they understand a topic just because they saw a 101 section on it.
This is where we vary slightly. I think the truth is that you absolutely can obtain the same level comprehension and understanding of the science without being 'qualified.' Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Buckmeister Fueller, Thomas Edison, Lenardo da Vinici, the Wright Bros. etc. were all autodidacts. It was likely more prevalent historically but with the rise of free and pirated education materials there is nay a reason to believe it could not happen today. Even hands on experience isn't out of the realm of possibility to the extremely motivated. I am aware that the majority shouldn't be considered the equivalence of a qualified scientist most of the time, but certainly not ever.
I also believe you discount how much science is purchased, even in it's education. Funding bias is a well known phenomenon, as well as plain corruption and greed. Absolutely nothing should be taken at face value all the time; the notion in of itself is the antithesis of scientific inquiry, no matter how great the consensus.
I think that you are right about those particular people, but that those people are so memorable precisely because they were so rare. They seem to be almost that 'exception proving the rule'.
Its not just hands on experience that counts though, its going to conferences 4+ times a year, spinning ideas with people in the field, and working with brilliant coworkers every day 8+ hours a day that really adds up. Unless someone is able to not sleep, I don't see how you can really match that level of integration.
I don't doubt funding bias though, it just doesn't hold up over time. I really just forgot about that portion when writing that post.
Thanks for being about the only poster managing to write something coherent out in reply!
I refer my judgement to Penn and Teller's Bullshit excerpt on vaccination. Sure, it is incredibly brief and not entirely rigorous, but there are a lot of very scary diseases out there. I would rather risk my kids against the vaccinations than the scary diseases.
Anyone who defers any sort of scientific judgement to a pair of stage magicians really, really should rethink their decision-making methodology. Neither Penn nor Teller have any credentials whatsoever to analyze, evaluate or even report on the research on vaccine efficacy and safety. Why on earth would you defer any judgement whatsoever to a man who pretends to be a mute for yucks? That's just crazy.
Penn and Teller are just the spokespeople for the writers. They don't have to do any thinking or decision making. They merely have to present the facts as researched by the writers. Most importantly, they explain things in a way that even a layman can explain. So when I have a retarded relative say, "But it might give my kid autism!" I can show them the 30% or so that got knocked over by the diseases and they can understand that better than the confusing and complicated "facts" that are so hard to digest. It's not the most rigorously researched show but you can take people that do know what they're talking about (in this case, I nominate myself) and vet individual episodes or segments.
Their argument: 1% of 7 billion vaccinated people who may get autism < 40%+ of 7 billion un-vaccinated people who would have been stricken and/or killed by diphtheria, polio, measles, mumps, etc.
Reality: 1% of 7 billion < 40% of x% of 7 billion, where x is the percentage who will catch the disease if there is no vaccination.
The fact that you don't know the value of x, and it was not discussed in this "model of great science". you are able to draw that conclusion.
Their argument was bs glossed up to seem like science, pandering to a crowd that will only watch a 90 second video.
I understand the science behind it too. Now, first of all, autism is an established non-factor: There are studies that debunk the link and the original guy that made the link lost his medical licenses for his paper.
Then there's herd immunity. 40% of x% looks really uncertain. But we rely a lot on herd immunity. So long as only a very minor fraction is anti-vax, then x is very small and the risk the antivaxxers is taking is significant, but small. But the more people that go anti-vax then the bigger x is. Consider the recent measles outbreak.
I like to share the Penn and Teller skit because it's very easy to digest and get the message across. As I said, it's not comprehensive, but it's great for advocacy and awareness.
Exactly. x is not some uniform or linear number, we are talking about a adapting infections which can mutate, it's just not the same as just taking some percentages off of a whole when one of the ratio quantities can vary nonlinearly.
view the rest of the comments →
Greasetrap ago
I see vaccines in here a lot, and I respect that we need continuing diversity of viewpoints on voat- particularly in this sub. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but provide my viewpoint as a scientist.
The article opens with drug resistant bugs in medical institutions along with oveer-prescribing doctors and the pathetic state of western media. These are all very true from what I understand. Most telling to me is that we don't use copper for handrails, door knobs, and other common surfaces (copper essentially kills microorganisms), likely because it 'costs too much' to provide an actually safe environment.
Taken point wise:
The worst part is the 'some people' section. I'm not sure the author understands the dangers of crowdthink and authoritarian worship if continually demonstrated facts are scary to them.
The truth is: No. If you are not qualified, you are not qualified. Years spent learning a topic on your own don't compare to years spent learning the topic through trial and error on the subject. I see this kind of behavior from undergraduates sometimes, they believe they understand a topic just because they saw a 101 section on it. Scientific consensus is rare, and if you take consensus to be 100% it's never ever happened.
Sure you can find scientists who disagree, but that's a very small list they link.
The article's getting a bit repetitive now so I'll get to the point.
I'm not a proponent of forcing vaccinations. I'm not a proponent of forcing much of anything. I just can't believe that so many people suddenly think they've become experts on topics just because they can read the words, google the ones they don't know, and think that gives them the whole idea of it.
I don't blame them. Western media is awful, the internet has no guarantees to accuracy, and the actual research is locked up behind paywalls. There just seems to be some kind of intermediary missing from the picture.
Vercingetorix ago
Nice. Voat already has its very own pharmaceutical company shill. Is it hard to divide your time between reddit and here?
Greasetrap ago
Yes, I am a pharmaceutical company shill: being paid to follow mostly unknown online communities consisting of small numbers of people who might on a chance post something negative about my employer.
Or it may be the case that just not everyone sees the world the same way you do.
FriedBizkit ago
I am so sick of reddit right now. A post about aspartame being pulled from Diet Pepsi was derailed first by claims that aspartame is safe and consumers are stupid, then immediately turned to vaccines. Damn they are seriously pushing this shit.
OWNtheNWO ago
I don't even feel obligated to respond to this wall of text that starts as an appeal to authority, works it's way through ad hom straw men about celebrities and then ends with a little dash of incredulity that people would dare question known liars in big pharma and the government.
Greasetrap ago
It might just be the case that if you had posted less of a long, rambling, incoherently argued garbage article that someone could actually respond to it with a less wordy comment. I stopped typing because honestly that article should be at least 5 separate ones.
Your list of fallacies is one half ass effort to try and dismiss my arguments, but you might want to look a little harder at the article and see just how many of those fallacies it has.
catechumen ago
I wanted to start there because that's where we completely agree.
This is where we vary slightly. I think the truth is that you absolutely can obtain the same level comprehension and understanding of the science without being 'qualified.' Benjamin Franklin, Michael Faraday, Buckmeister Fueller, Thomas Edison, Lenardo da Vinici, the Wright Bros. etc. were all autodidacts. It was likely more prevalent historically but with the rise of free and pirated education materials there is nay a reason to believe it could not happen today. Even hands on experience isn't out of the realm of possibility to the extremely motivated. I am aware that the majority shouldn't be considered the equivalence of a qualified scientist most of the time, but certainly not ever.
I also believe you discount how much science is purchased, even in it's education. Funding bias is a well known phenomenon, as well as plain corruption and greed. Absolutely nothing should be taken at face value all the time; the notion in of itself is the antithesis of scientific inquiry, no matter how great the consensus.
Greasetrap ago
I think that you are right about those particular people, but that those people are so memorable precisely because they were so rare. They seem to be almost that 'exception proving the rule'.
Its not just hands on experience that counts though, its going to conferences 4+ times a year, spinning ideas with people in the field, and working with brilliant coworkers every day 8+ hours a day that really adds up. Unless someone is able to not sleep, I don't see how you can really match that level of integration.
I don't doubt funding bias though, it just doesn't hold up over time. I really just forgot about that portion when writing that post.
Thanks for being about the only poster managing to write something coherent out in reply!
Mylon ago
I refer my judgement to Penn and Teller's Bullshit excerpt on vaccination. Sure, it is incredibly brief and not entirely rigorous, but there are a lot of very scary diseases out there. I would rather risk my kids against the vaccinations than the scary diseases.
Vercingetorix ago
Anyone who defers any sort of scientific judgement to a pair of stage magicians really, really should rethink their decision-making methodology. Neither Penn nor Teller have any credentials whatsoever to analyze, evaluate or even report on the research on vaccine efficacy and safety. Why on earth would you defer any judgement whatsoever to a man who pretends to be a mute for yucks? That's just crazy.
Mylon ago
Penn and Teller are just the spokespeople for the writers. They don't have to do any thinking or decision making. They merely have to present the facts as researched by the writers. Most importantly, they explain things in a way that even a layman can explain. So when I have a retarded relative say, "But it might give my kid autism!" I can show them the 30% or so that got knocked over by the diseases and they can understand that better than the confusing and complicated "facts" that are so hard to digest. It's not the most rigorously researched show but you can take people that do know what they're talking about (in this case, I nominate myself) and vet individual episodes or segments.
catechumen ago
Their argument: 1% of 7 billion vaccinated people who may get autism < 40%+ of 7 billion un-vaccinated people who would have been stricken and/or killed by diphtheria, polio, measles, mumps, etc.
Reality: 1% of 7 billion < 40% of x% of 7 billion, where x is the percentage who will catch the disease if there is no vaccination.
The fact that you don't know the value of x, and it was not discussed in this "model of great science". you are able to draw that conclusion.
Their argument was bs glossed up to seem like science, pandering to a crowd that will only watch a 90 second video.
Mylon ago
I understand the science behind it too. Now, first of all, autism is an established non-factor: There are studies that debunk the link and the original guy that made the link lost his medical licenses for his paper.
Then there's herd immunity. 40% of x% looks really uncertain. But we rely a lot on herd immunity. So long as only a very minor fraction is anti-vax, then x is very small and the risk the antivaxxers is taking is significant, but small. But the more people that go anti-vax then the bigger x is. Consider the recent measles outbreak.
I like to share the Penn and Teller skit because it's very easy to digest and get the message across. As I said, it's not comprehensive, but it's great for advocacy and awareness.
Greasetrap ago
Exactly. x is not some uniform or linear number, we are talking about a adapting infections which can mutate, it's just not the same as just taking some percentages off of a whole when one of the ratio quantities can vary nonlinearly.