UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2010, 07:01 PM   #51
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
How is it elitist of me to conclude from your statements that you've not studied epidemiology? Someone who had wouldn't make the claims you're making. It's simple deduction. Sorry if deductive reasoning hurts your feelings!

Salamencia is correct in pointing out that "you cannot say that simply because some diseases were 'on their way out', vaccination can't have helped." First of all, your graphs show that improvements in medicine and hygiene caused human morbidity to sharply decline; but the decline did not reach zero, and vaccination (in theory) allows for that zero endpoint to be reached. Second of all, we cannot know how steeply the curve would have dropped had vaccination programs been introduced in the time prior to these graphs, i.e. prior to the advent of antiseptics, antipyretics, and anaesthetics.

To put it into perspective, I could show you a graph of human mortality from cardiac arrest as a function of time and I could show you that people were living into their seventies well before bypass surgery was first practiced routinely in hospitals. But if I were to then claim, "This proves that bypass surgery is not beneficial for preventing cardiac arrests," I would be lying to you and I would be misrepresenting the historical data I cited to you. Sure, changes in medicine which predate the first successful cardiac bypass can be attributed to a sharp increase in human longevity, but that is not to say that cardiac bypasses are a sham.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 07:07 PM   #52
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
This is not meant as evidence for or against vaccines. This is, however, pertinent to the topic as first set forth by the OP, and I thought some of you might like to read it. I was just linked to it by a friend on Facebook:

Doctor behind vaccine-autism link loses license
Quote:
Without a license to practice medicine, and the growing evidence to the contrary, it's going to harder for him to prove that claim.
Amen.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 07:23 PM   #53
EarthKwake
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
How is it elitist of me to conclude from your statements that you've not studied epidemiology? Someone who had wouldn't make the claims you're making. It's simple deduction. Sorry if deductive reasoning hurts your feelings!
You're basically implying that anyone who doesn't have exactly your views on this subject is uneducated. Which is completely elitist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Salamencia is correct in pointing out that "you cannot say that simply because some diseases were 'on their way out', vaccination can't have helped." First of all, your graphs show that improvements in medicine and hygiene caused human morbidity to sharply decline; but the decline did not reach zero, and vaccination (in theory) allows for that zero endpoint to be reached. Second of all, we cannot know how steeply the curve would have dropped had vaccination programs been introduced in the time prior to these graphs, i.e. prior to the advent of antiseptics, antipyretics, and anaesthetics.

To put it into perspective, I could show you a graph of human mortality from cardiac arrest as a function of time and I could show you that people were living into their seventies well before bypass surgery was first practiced routinely in hospitals. But if I were to then claim, "This proves that bypass surgery is not beneficial for preventing cardiac arrests," I would be lying to you and I would be misrepresenting the historical data I cited to you. Sure, changes in medicine which predate the first successful cardiac bypass can be attributed to a sharp increase in human longevity, but that is not to say that cardiac bypasses are a sham.
Your analogy is flawed. The graphs are not showing the lifespans of those infected with these diseases, but simply mortality rates. If you graphed over time human mortality of cardiac arrest and found that that rate decreased steadily over several decades, and a certain "magic pill" was introduced that did nothing to slow or increase that rate of decline, then yes, one could reasonably infer that "magic pills" probably are nothing but bogus.

And that is exactly what one can reasonably infer about vaccines from the graphs I gave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
This is not meant as evidence for or against vaccines. This is, however, pertinent to the topic as first set forth by the OP, and I thought some of you might like to read it. I was just linked to it by a friend on Facebook:

Doctor behind vaccine-autism link loses license
Wasn't Jesus persecuted by the Romans only because they feared him? Those who are afraid often react by lashing out against those preaching new ideals. Besides, upon closer examination of the issue, it seems that he was accused of just about everything except being wrong. Who cares if he wasn't authorized to do this and that? His results remain the same regardless of how ethically he went about it.

"While the GMC has thoroughly trounced Wakefield's research, another British researcher told the Northern Echo earlier this year that a link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine and autism is still plausible."

Last edited by EarthKwake; 08-03-2010 at 07:27 PM.
EarthKwake is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 07:54 PM   #54
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
I didn't misread the charts. I think you're getting hung up on the fact that I made a comparison which was medical but whose x and y axes were not the same as your graphs. Let me make the same analogy but non-medically and see if you can follow ...

Suppose Charley has two grandfathers, Grandpa George and Grandpa Joe. Suppose they are each going to give Charley money for his birthday. Charley's mother has told them not to give Charley more than a combined £100 for his birthday. They draw straws to see who will gift Charley money first. Grandpa George gets to go first. Suppose he gives Charley £90. "Oh, gee! Thanks, Grandpa George!" After hugs and kisses, Charley looks to Grandpa Joe. But all Grandpa Joe is able to give Charley is £10.

Charley, you, says, "Gee, Grandpa Joe. You must not have very much money if all you can give me is £10." You decide that since Grandpa Joe's returns were so much less impressive than Grandpa George's, Grandpa Joe must be the poorer and Grandpa George the richer.

Is this logical? No. This is poor logic. Good logic would instruct you to not jump to hasty conclusions. From the information given, you cannot deduce how large a sum Grandpa Joe would have been able to give you had he gotten to go first. Maybe it would still have only been £10. But maybe it would have been £20. Or £30. Or maybe it even would have been £99 and 99 pence. You have no way of knowing because the end result was that Grandpa Joe had to go second and, between your two grandpas, the £100 limit was reached.

It's the same thing for these graphs you're citing. You are absolutely right that improvements in human hygiene and in non-vaccine medications predate most of the vaccines we use today. And you are absolutely right that the dropoffs in human morbidity are much more impressive to the left of the vaccines' introduction than to the right of them. But what you cannot claim is, "Even had the vaccines been introduced 300 years earlier, they still would not have had a remarkable effect on human morbidity. We would still only see the marginal drop-offs seen in these graphs. Vaccines do not work." You cannot conclude this because things which came before the vaccines had already greatly lowered the ceiling to near ground level. You cannot undo what has been done. You cannot rewrite history or travel backwards in time. And so you cannot possibly know what the impact would have been of vaccines in the world of 1750 or 1842, etc. There's just no telling.

In other words, the doctor you cited is taking advantage of the fact that most people are not trained in biostatistics. He is taking advantage of the fact that while they may be familiar with basic statistical knowledge, they will succumb to common (and incorrect) inferences from the data presented. That is to say, they will misread the graphs. They will fill in the holes with their own inappropriate conclusions, rather than simply taking away what was really stated and introducing nothing new to the scene.

It is as Salemencia said: you can't claim "hygiene is 15x better than vaccines" from these graphs. All you can claim is that "changes in hygiene saved 15x as many lives as later vaccine programs did." The two sentences sound similar. And it is tempting to conclude the first sentence upon hearing the second. But you can't do that. It's a logical fallacy.

EDIT: to put it to you another way, suppose a hostage situation. There are 20 hostages inside a bank. Suppose Superhero A comes to the scene first, and Superhero B comes to the scene second. Suppose that Superhero A is only capable of rescuing 15 hostages at most, whereas Superhero B is capable of rescuing 18 hostages at most. Since Superhero A came first, he will rescue the first fifteen hostages. This leaves only five hostages remaining for Superhero B to rescue. You may want to conclude, then, that Superhero A is the more effective hero, but you can't do this. All you can accurately say is, "Superhero A saved 3x as many hostages as Superhero B." Yes, yes he did. But not "Superhero A can save 3x as many hostages as Superhero B can save." This is not necessarily true -- and in fact in this case it was stated from the beginning not to be true.

Last edited by Talon87; 08-03-2010 at 08:00 PM.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:02 PM   #55
EarthKwake
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 190
So if I am incorrect (or at least hasty) in determining that vaccines had nothing to do with reducing mortality rates, then how can you say that vaccines did? The entire pro-vaccine argument is no more valid, seeing as they claim that vaccines eliminated polio, etc., when there's actually no way of telling. In fact, all you've stated throughout this entire debate is that "there are no definitive studies". You're striking down my arguments repeatedly with that line, and yet your arguments also have nothing definitive backing them up. In fact, it's as senseless as debating Creation vs. Evolution, because there is absolutely no evidence anyone can agree upon. Show me statistics that explicitly state that vaccines prevent diseases, and I may start considering your arguments.
EarthKwake is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:03 PM   #56
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
You did not just claim that there is no evidence for evolution. I'm done even trying to teach you. Good-bye.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:06 PM   #57
EarthKwake
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
In other words, the doctor you cited is taking advantage of the fact that most people are not trained in biostatistics. He is taking advantage of the fact that while they may be familiar with basic statistical knowledge, they will succumb to common (and incorrect) inferences from the data presented. That is to say, they will misread the graphs. They will fill in the holes with their own inappropriate conclusions, rather than simply taking away what was really stated and introducing nothing new to the scene.
And I wasn't citing any specific doctor, those graphs came from many different reputable sources. They all point in the same direction, so they are not trying to "mislead" anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
EDIT: to put it to you another way, suppose a hostage situation. There are 20 hostages inside a bank. Suppose Superhero A comes to the scene first, and Superhero B comes to the scene second. Suppose that Superhero A is only capable of rescuing 15 hostages at most, whereas Superhero B is capable of rescuing 18 hostages at most. Since Superhero A came first, he will rescue the first fifteen hostages. This leaves only five hostages remaining for Superhero B to rescue. You may want to conclude, then, that Superhero A is the more effective hero, but you can't do this. All you can accurately say is, "Superhero A saved 3x as many hostages as Superhero B." Yes, yes he did. But not "Superhero A can save 3x as many hostages as Superhero B can save." This is not necessarily true -- and in fact in this case it was stated from the beginning not to be true.
Then perhaps at least it can be stated that Superhero B is superfluous, if Superhero A can rescue the vast majority anyway.
EarthKwake is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:07 PM   #58
EarthKwake
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
You did not just claim that there is no evidence for evolution. I'm done even trying to teach you. Good-bye.
There you go again with snarky elitist remarks and no data to back your claim up. I hope you have a very mediocre career as a failed doctor who will undoubtedly lead his patients to their doom.

EDIT: And if you're such an authority on the subject (oh wait, but you don't have a degree in Evolutionary Studies, so you must have no idea what you are talking about :o) then you should know that most "textbook evidence" has been disclaimed as false and misleading. Not that I don't believe in macroevolution, there's just nothing to back up that claim, and at least I have the balls to admit it.

Last edited by EarthKwake; 08-03-2010 at 08:10 PM.
EarthKwake is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 08:16 PM   #59
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Claim? What claim? I don't need data to back up the two-fingered salute to a religious fundamentalist. I refrained from concluding that was what you were (on the basis of vaccine paranoia), but now that you've up and admitted it with your "no proof for evolution" retardation, I've lost all patience for you as a forumgoer. Religious fundamentalists are BY FAR the worst people with whom to try and hold a debate. They claim any position but their own is untenable, deny ALL evidence from authorities on the topics, and cite dubious sources. Just as you have in this thread! GO FIGURE!

Doesn't mean I'll not treat you as a patient. We treat everybody. Rapists. Pedophiles. And the braindead, too.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 09:46 PM   #60
EarthKwake
Boulder Badge
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Claim? What claim? I don't need data to back up the two-fingered salute to a religious fundamentalist. I refrained from concluding that was what you were (on the basis of vaccine paranoia), but now that you've up and admitted it with your "no proof for evolution" retardation, I've lost all patience for you as a forumgoer. Religious fundamentalists are BY FAR the worst people with whom to try and hold a debate. They claim any position but their own is untenable, deny ALL evidence from authorities on the topics, and cite dubious sources. Just as you have in this thread! GO FIGURE!

Doesn't mean I'll not treat you as a patient. We treat everybody. Rapists. Pedophiles. And the braindead, too.
Excuse me? Religious fundamentalist? I'm sorry, but you've crossed the line. I'm an atheist, as I said in my above post, because clearly you cannot read. I'm starting to doubt that you are anything more than an upstart twelve-year-old that's bought into the "vaccinations are necessary to survival" shit that drug companies have been spewing forth, and now are debating it on a Pokemon forum. It's no wonder nobody else has bothered debating with you, because you have no valid points and drop to such low levels as calling someone a religious fundamentalist because they say that evolution has no credible evidence. Go to proverbial hell.
EarthKwake is offline  
Old 08-03-2010, 10:03 PM   #61
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by EarthKwake View Post
Excuse me? Religious fundamentalist? I'm sorry, but you've crossed the line. I'm an atheist, as I said in my above post, because clearly you cannot read.
Clearly, you are mentally handicapped: because telling me "I believe in macroevolution" does not translate into telling me "I am an atheist."

Now we're just degrading ourselves into verbal abuses, though. You and I cannot get along, and you will not listen to reason. You will also not pay heed to credible medical literature, all the while linking us to dubious sites which in some cases make patently false claims.

In short, you refuse to trust our sources and we refuse to trust yours. So we're at an impasse. No debate can be had.
Talon87 is offline  
Old 08-04-2010, 08:21 AM   #62
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Talon, EK, try to stop being completely unreasonable, k?

Quote:
You're basically implying that anyone who doesn't have exactly your views on this subject is uneducated. Which is completely elitist.
And I would say that anyone who disagrees with me that, for example, force = mass x acceleration, is uneducated in classical mechanics. If this were a matter of opinion, yes that would be elitist, but when it's a matter of scientific fact, no. As I said, smallpox says hi.

On the matter of who should get vaccinations, I'd give the choice to people old enough sure, but any parent denying their child protection from polio, tetanus, diptheria etc is as bad as a parent who molests or beats their child, imho.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?

Last edited by Concept; 08-04-2010 at 09:04 AM.
Concept is offline  
Old 08-04-2010, 09:05 AM   #63
Stlbk
taco...
 
Stlbk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 877
Send a message via AIM to Stlbk
Yay for smallpox!
Stlbk is offline  
Closed Thread

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.