Posts
3008
Joined
7/6/2008
Location
Edgewater, FL
US
Edited Date/Time
2/7/2015 5:13pm
This shows the results of the falsified claim that immunizations are bad. The results are in. Immunization is a good thing and doesn't pose any known dangers to children. Even if they did, the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/the-devastat…
Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/22/the-devastat…
Some of these flu shots and other things I'm a little Leary of, I know some people might need them but I think they over sell them and try to scare people.
The Shop
I say cautiously because I have seen so many blatant lies stated as fact in the media and the internet at large, it is hard to know who is being truthful. I have personally performed exactly zero studies on the health effects of vaccines, so I have to take a chance and believe one side or the other. The pro-vaccine side seems more credible to me.
The deciding factor is effectiveness. Even then, a 100% truth claim is impossible. We do have a pretty clear indication of what works and what doesn't. It's the best we can do as humans, if you have something that produces a better result, please do share.
Until then, I'm going with medical science. I will also say that faith healing or anything based on the bible is straight up child abuse. Then again, you know it is.
Edit: The chart came from the center for disease control.
That sounds like a damn fine justification for induction. No?
Okay let's go with the philosophy 101 course on deduction
1) Gay men exist
2) Keyboard warrior is a man.
3) Therefore keyboard warrior is a gay man.
This is a sound philosophical argument. The conclusion logically follows. It is the same basis that any apologist uses to justify their own arguments for god. The problem? Well first of all, is it true? If not, is there any way to correct it without some inductive argument? Not that I'm aware of.
I'm certainly not confusing methodology with truth. I'm pointing out that your perspective is looking for absolute truth, which is unreasonable. Especially when you seek to discredit inductive reasoning as a whole. It is just silly to even suggest that, because in order to demonstrate that claim, you would have to discredit every single scientific discovery ever made. Science is the epitome of induction. You are the reason why people really don't like philosophy. People just blowing hot air with nothing but disregard for objective reality.
You jump back and forth between the history of philosphy, manipulate definitions, and obviously have an object for doing so...not that you've stated it yet, but it's there. Apologists are the only philosophy buffs that use the arguments that you use.
If it were me writing that Washington Post article, I would have stopped short of pointing to the 2014 spike as an impact of vaccine deniers unless I could show, for example, that the National Association of Vaccine Deniers were extra active in January 2014. With no evidence that vaccine denial was any different in 2014 than it was in 2013, I would be afraid that by implying a correlation I would get nailed for overstating my case.
IN ANY CASE - that is nit picking, I don't disagree with the essence of your post - if I didn't already have 5 reflective minutes invested in this post, I wouldn't click Submit. Have fun quarreling you guys, g'night.
I understand you agree with me, I'm just curious about the wording of the previous post. It sounded like you may have thought at one time that immunizations were bad. IMO, it wasn't the science that mislead people, it was the celebrity aspect.
correlates with
Marriage rate in Kentucky
Correlation: 0.952407 (this is extremely high if you know about stats)
And warrior, you are basically saying that I misused the word sound. Okay, fine. The point still stands and I'll be waiting for you to prove every single scientific discovery wrong in order to make the case that induction is unreliable.
You'd need to run a different test to calculate the relationship such as a Granger Casuality Test, Convergent Cross mapping etc etc.
He took the correlation between intelligence and iPhone owners joke I posted pretty hard.
This proves that you both get the point and miss the point at the same time. How do you determine if and/or any claim is valid and/or sound? How about evidence? Can you demonstrate the conclusion is false, aside from simply asserting that you aren't gay?
Also, I did not say that induction is unreliable, I said that it cannot be rationally justified because it begs the question.
It cannot be rationally justified, but it produces results that become more and more reliable over time. This is a claim that is demonstrably true, by any definition you want to use of truth. So, why would I give a single fuck about your rationality if I can demonstrate that you are wrong? This is an example of you using poor philosophy.
You like to throw around science a lot on these forums and take your attacks on religion as if science points us to this mysterious thing you call truth.
It does point us to truth. It's not a point A to B journey, but science has completely destroyed religion in terms of any objective truth. Your plan here is to basically argue semantics until people simply forget the importance of evidence and objective verifiability. It's something that is expected from an apologist driven by outdated philosophy, but it is pretty ineffective.
thank you
Pit Row
There needs to be a great deal of thought given to the profits behind vaccinations and the drug industry, and think about the influences these have on charts or any other kinds of studies that are endorsed by the media. Things that happen behind closed doors are hard to stomach but they are a reality. There is a danger in falsified studies aswell.
We have a strong dairy industry in Canada and massive taxes on dairy aswell. There were studies being conducted at major universities finding negative side-effects to the consumption of dairy, and their funding was pulled because of those findings.
For example, why push dairy on to consumers if dairy is in fact bad for you. Maybe it isn't even all bad for you but it has as many benefits as negative side effects. Why not EDUCATE the consumer rather than try to push a product on them when it comes to health. Let the consumer decide for themselves.
It is really difficult to determine what is a legit medical enhancement vs. what is a marketing strategy with minimal medicinal purpose.
www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
Any food/nutrient can be bad for you
Too much H2O is toxic
Too much vitamin c is toxic
Too much sugar is toxic
Pretty much every nutrient has an LD50 dosage
You can look it up, it's all about dosage
LD50 is the dosage at which a substance becomes lethal for 50% of the population
Should be stop consuming water?
Should we stop consuming vitamin c? I mean it's toxic correct?
I'm sure that unless your lactose intolerant, dairy has more benefits than it has negatieve effects
I would provide some studies but I don't have the time
Eat organic and avoid the chemicals, JOKE
Science can't adequately explain consciousness, let alone higher consciousness.
Whoops: wrong quote, for borg.
The media is really playing up "anti-vaxx" people in the last few months. The reaction to Measles has been worse than Ebola! There was a Measles case in San Diego recently that caused a clinic to immediately shut down and quarantine people who visited for 21 days. This was a better response than the Ebola outbreak we were having a couple months ago.
This article http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/california-measles-outbreak-is-up-to-87-cases-in-7-states-mexico/ar-AA8CkOx even suggests staying away from Farmer's Markets.
This recent push for vaccines seems fishy to me. I think we're all educated enough to make our own decisions as well.
Post a reply to: The dangers of falsified science.