OT: Rand Paul is an idiot

[zk]

[quote=poorgradstudent]There’s nothing wrong with alternative, testable hypotheses in science.

[/quote]

Indeed, that’s what science is all about.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Interesting article about Anti-vaccine movement made 100-years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/05/meet-the-crunchy-chemical-hating-anti-vaccine-conspiracy-theorists-from-100-years-ago/

Some of agruments people were making back then about small-pox vaccine were:

(1) Vaccines “caused” an increase in cancer

Before autism was something anti-vaccination activists linked to inoculations (despite substantial evidence to the contrary), other common diseases were said to be the result of vaccination — once again without a demonstration of causality.

“Cancer is reported to be increasing not only in England and the Continent, but in all parts of the world where vaccination is practised,” British activist William Tebb wrote in an 1892 paper.

(2) Vaccines are the result of a conspiracy by the medical establishment Vaccines are the result of a conspiracy by the lamestream media

J.M. Peebles wrote an entire anti-vaccination book after the school system in San Diego refused to let pupils without vaccines attend classes. (Sound familiar?) In the book, Peebles accused the media of refusing to give equal weight to the anti-vaccination argument, as part of an elite power conspiracy theory that, again, should sound familiar.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Anecdote almost always precedes science.[/quote]

Anecdotes do not influence scientific outcomes – at least not real science.

Anecdotes do have plenty of influence on the “I read something on the internet” brand of science that many people practice – Including Rand Paul – whom by the way is an idiot.

[scaredyclassic]

Still, anecdotes…or rather, stories and the emotions they trigger, are how we are wired to understand the world.

Well most of us anyway. Except for the brain I as of piggington.

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Still, anecdotes…or rather, stories and the emotions they trigger, are how we are wired to understand the world.

[/quote]

We’re wired to do/think/feel/understand a lot of different things that really don’t translate well into living in a civilization. A small tribe, maybe. That’s kind of what we’re wired for. But not a civilization. It is up to us as rational beings to understand this, and to develop methods of coping with living in a civilization despite our wiring.

So far, I have to say we humans have been sucking at that. We continue to assault, kill, and rape each other. We’re xenophobic and ignorant. Etcetera.

If we want to survive in a tribe, we’re wired wonderfully. But to thrive in a civilization, not so much. If we don’t understand and accept this, we’ll never thrive. And if we keep listening to the wrong people, we’ll never understand and accept this.

Listen to me, motherf’ers, and everything will be great.
(kidding)

[CA renter]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]
If you had talked to these two families, you would probably have a totally different opinion about these “idiots.”[/quote]

I wouldn’t. Children with regressive autism sometimes regress rapidly at about the same age that MMR vaccines are given. So there will be many instances where the regression occurs immediately after the vaccine is given. That doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. Many people in their 80’s have had strokes immediately after drinking a glass of water or watching tv. That doesn’t mean the water or the tv caused it. Ordinary people being 100% convinced of anything because of an anecdote won’t change my mind, especially if large studies have been done contradicting whatever they’re convinced about.

[quote=CA renter]
Remember that those who are ahead of science tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It doesn’t help anyone’s cause to call those who have a different opinion “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists.” Anecdote almost always precedes science. Those “idiots” just might be right.[/quote]

This is a case commonly made for following non-science. What’s never mentioned (I think it’s scientific illiteracy rather than intentional misdirection) is that for every quack who’s ridiculed by the current scientific establishment and turns out to be right, there are hundreds or thousands who are wrong. For every anecdote that turns out precede science, there are a thousand or a million that don’t.

Science won’t always be right. Almost always, but not always. But when it’s wrong, it’s not afraid to admit it. If it’s afraid to admit it, it’s not science. When new evidence comes out, science deals with it unemotionally and updates the science on the matter. Science is always looking for the truth. The real truth. How many endeavors can you say that about? If you start letting mommy and daddy convince you, clearly there’s emotion in the way of figuring out what really happened. And your odds of being right plummet dramatically.[/quote]

I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.

There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. If that doesn’t make you question your “science,” then nothing will.

Believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. We must ALWAYS be willing to question our existing beliefs when evidence (even anecdotal) indicates that we just might be wrong.

[njtosd]

[quote=CA renter]

Remember that those who are ahead of science tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It doesn’t help anyone’s cause to call those who have a different opinion “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists.” Anecdote almost always precedes science. Those “idiots” just might be right.[/quote]

Remember that those who are ridiculous also tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Yes, there will be a small number of people who are harmed by vaccines. But, overall, unless there are clear contraindications (egg allergy, etc.) being vaccinated is safer than not being vaccinated. For anyone who is interested, all of the reported vaccine adverse events since 1990 are here: http://vaers.hhs.gov/index. (Not sure whether someone else has pointed that out already.) My sister had varicella pneumonia (chicken pox in the lungs) in the 1960s at the age of 4. She was hospitalized where she contracted measles. She recovered, but it was a huge issue. Can’t understand why anyone would risk that.

[njtosd]

For example, based on the data contained in the VAERS system there have been, at most (including coincidences, etc.), 338 deaths in the U.S. since 1990 attributable to all of the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccines combined. In contrast, in 1921 ALONE, diphtheria ALONE was responsible for more than 15,000 deaths. For those out there who don’t know how death from diphtheria occurs, the diphtheria toxin results in a “pseudomembrane” slowly growing over the trachea, eventually suffocating the victim. Parents and/or family members watched this happen over 15,000 times in 1921. I’m sorry, Rand Paul IS an idiot.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]

Remember that those who are ahead of science tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It doesn’t help anyone’s cause to call those who have a different opinion “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists.” Anecdote almost always precedes science. Those “idiots” just might be right.[/quote]

Remember that those who are ridiculous also tend to be ridiculed by the current scientific establishment. It’s a cost benefit analysis. Yes, there will be a small number of people who are harmed by vaccines. But, overall, unless there are clear contraindications (egg allergy, etc.) being vaccinated is safer than not being vaccinated. For anyone who is interested, all of the reported vaccine adverse events since 1990 are here: http://vaers.hhs.gov/index. (Not sure whether someone else has pointed that out already.) My sister had varicella pneumonia (chicken pox in the lungs) in the 1960s at the age of 4. She was hospitalized where she contracted measles. She recovered, but it was a huge issue. Can’t understand why anyone would risk that.[/quote]

Agree very much with what you’ve said in the bolded part (and why we paid a fair amount of money to buy batches of thimerosal-free vaccines that were separated and then given individually over a longer period of time), but if we know that even a few people might have major reactions to these vaccines, instead of denying the very real experiences of some parents, why not work on a test to determine which children are affected by these vaccines? Just calling these people “idiots” isn’t very convincing.

[njtosd]

Unless you have a child with a demonstrated thimerosal sensitivity (and I”ve not seen any recorded cases of such), the portion of my text that you bolded doesn’t come into play. BTW, when you are quoting me, please do not add emphasis without noting “emphasis added by CARenter” (or whoever) or better yet, please don’t change my text at all and instead use your comments to express your views. You have sort of changed the meaning of what I said by bolding – as that text describes a very minor exception.

Please see Am. Acad. Of Ped. Summary of vaccine studies showing (among other things) complete lack of evidence of problems with thimerosal or a benefit in stretching schedule of vaccination. But perhaps the AAP is part of a conspiracy against children – you never know …….. https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

PS when did you buy the non-thimerosal vaccines?

[scaredyclassic]

I’m pretty rational but I used to believe the universe was sending me signs. Once I was lost in a major city in the middle of the night and I put some money in a gumball type machine and received…..a compass….woah!

Mere coincidence?

It would be very difficult to persuade me so.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.

There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. […][/quote]

Speaking of the “I read something on the internet” brand of “science” …

[zk]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m pretty rational but I used to believe the universe was sending me signs. Once I was lost in a major city in the middle of the night and I put some money in a gumball type machine and received…..a compass….woah!

Mere coincidence?

It would be very difficult to persuade me so.[/quote]

Movie scene:
Setting: bad part of town in the middle of the night
[Noir cinemetography]
[Dark, dramatic music]
[Dramatic Narrator] “Lost in a major city in the middle of the night…”
[scaredy] “ooh! a gumball machine!”

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]
I’m talking about incredibly dramatic and permanent changes happening within ~24 hours after a vaccination. A perfectly normal child becoming totally unresponsive to their own parents and siblings within a day.
[/quote]

What does how dramatic and permanent the changes are have to do with anything? Those same exact changes happen to children who haven’t taken the vaccine. And as far as the timing goes, as I said, regressive autism frequently regresses, sometimes quite rapidly, at the same age that vaccines are given.

[quote=CA renter]

There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had this very experience. If that doesn’t make you question your “science,” then nothing will. [/quote]
Science is always open to questions. That’s the beauty of it. No real scientist would ever say, “don’t question my work.” If there weren’t several large studies that had already tested the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, I would question the science of this matter. I would hypothesize that vaccines might have something to do with autism, and test that hypothesis. That’s how science works. Fortunately, that has already been done. Science has already shown that that hypothesis is incorrect.

So you have the science disproving your hypothesis, and you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for what’s happening: If millions of children get vaccines at around the same age that many thousands of children’s autism regresses, there’s going to be many instances where the timing is such that the vaccine appears to cause the autism.

Before science had advanced enough, it seemed as obvious to humans that the sun revolved around the earth as it does to you that vaccines cause autism.

[quote=CA renter]
Believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. [/quote]

Well of course believing that you know everything there is to know about the world is idiotic. How does that pertain to this discussion?
[quote=CA renter]
We must ALWAYS be willing to question our existing beliefs when evidence (even anecdotal) indicates that we just might be wrong.[/quote]
Yes, we must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. The belief that vaccines don’t cause autism has been questioned. It’s been questioned enough that major studies have been done to test that belief. Science has shown that vaccines don’t cause autism.

We must always be willing to question our beliefs when evidence indicates we might be wrong. But the evidence no longer indicates that vaccines cause autism. Science took what had been anecdotes and turned it into testable data. The data show that vaccines don’t cause autism.

If you look at the anecdotes too close a perspective, and can’t see the larger picture, you’re going to have a distorted view. That’s what’s happening here.

[quote=CA renter]

but if we know that even a few people might have major reactions to these vaccines, instead of denying the very real experiences of some parents, why not work on a test to determine which children are affected by these vaccines? [/quote]
Nobody is denying that reactions have occurred in children with egg allergies and thimerosal sensitivities. But those reactions are not autism.

[quote=CA renter]
Just calling these people “idiots” isn’t very convincing.[/quote]

Fortunately, calling Rand Paul an idiot wasn’t the argument I was putting forth. The argument I’m making is in the posts I’ve made.

What’s not convincing is sticking to anecdotal evidence when that evidence has been turned into data, tested, and turned out to be incorrect.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=zk][quote=scaredyclassic]I’m pretty rational but I used to believe the universe was sending me signs. Once I was lost in a major city in the middle of the night and I put some money in a gumball type machine and received…..a compass….woah!

Mere coincidence?

It would be very difficult to persuade me so.[/quote]

Movie scene:
Setting: bad part of town in the middle of the night
[Noir cinemetography]
[Dark, dramatic music]
[Dramatic Narrator] “Lost in a major city in the middle of the night…”
[scaredy] “ooh! a gumball machine!”[/quote]

what are the odds?

[Author]

Posts