Pandemic over !

segnosaur · August 19, 2010

Well, I have spent the last couple of days doing some looking into statistics on the flu and the flu vaccine. All things considered, I do not believe that the efficacy or risks involved with flu vaccines are worth the efforts behind their promotion and use.

So, do you actually have any real studies which show the vaccines don't work? Or is this just a case of you not being convinced by the dozens of studies which do show they work and have cause no significant side effects?

There are those proponents of skepticism that feel someone disagreeing with scientific conclusion and consensus should be shot or strung up on the nearest Oak tree.

Nope, not that they should be shot or strung up, but that their opinions should be given as little consideration as those who believe in a flat earth or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

So here is the fault of the skeptic. They do not allow for dissent.

We allow for dissent when warranted (i.e. when actual real evidence is provided).

It irks them to no end if someone should disagree with "science".

Science is a method of finding facts about the world. If you're not finding "facts", then what exactly do you think you're finding, and why do you think its worth while?

The skeptic never has been on the other side of "science".

And why should they be?

Skeptics base their opinions on facts. Science is the method for discovering facts. Notice how both of those kind of go together? (i.e. finding facts, and then using them)

Lone "scientists" who differ with the consensus are quickly discredited as quacks and charlatans...

Ah yes, that old argument... I think Carl Sagan said it best:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Just because a few radical ideas (that end up being true) get dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically believe that all such ideas are worth considering. After all, most science dismissed the idea of cold fusion... and what do we have over a decade later? Still no proof that cold fusion exists.

The fact is, most scientific advancement does not come as some giant leap of faith; it comes about through a large series of smaller advancements.

In the extreme, as I have mentioned, contrary views need to be routed out and their protagonists nullified.

So, are you in favor of "flat earth" being taught in geography, and creationist theories being taught in biology class? After all, they're certainly not supported by a majority of scientists, but you seem to think all crackpot theories must be viewed as possibly correct.

I recognize my position as being an opinion and I don't offer my opinion as advice nor would I ask someone to blindly accept my opinion as the final word on a subject. I would ask others to form their own opinions based upon their own due diligence. This formulates the basis for discussion and debate, with the skeptic the discussion and the debate is over not based upon opinion at all but on "science".

There are things that science does well. It tells us that the influenza vaccine is safe, it tells us the vaccine is effective and can save lives.

It does not tell us whether we should force vaccinations, or whether it should even be government policy to offer vaccinations. Hey, it could be someone's opinions that we should let diseases run rampant to hopefully kill off the dumb ones who won't get the shot.

Now, as far as my opinion goes, I hold it for my own reasons, but new data or information may persuade me to change my position and I would hope that others doing their due diligence bring forth that information, as I would, in those discussions.

Sooooo... you claim you're open to "new data", yet when we point to study after study that shows the vaccine is effective and safe, you start talking about how science doesn't "know all the answers" and whatnot.

In exercising one's "due diligence", yes you are alone. It is unfortunate but some, maybe even most people, may not bother at all with "due diligence" and just accept the consensus of authority or
the current expert.

That's the wonderful thing about "science"... You don't just have to accept the consensus of authority. If you have ideas backed by evidence that go against what the majority think, you can get your own paper published. If your ideas are supported by evidence, they will eventually gain widespread support.

This is indicative of their view of the public as generally being ignoramuses.

Unfortunately, our school systems have not been successful at teaching an understanding of critical thinking, skepticism, or science to the majority of people.

Of course, science does not hold opinions.

At last, something you've said that is correct.

You're right, science does not "hold opinions". Its a method of discovering facts about the world.

Science is used by many to forward their own objectives but the skeptics use is to forward their opinions.

Well, if your opinions are not based on facts (something that science is designed to uncover), they are based on ignorance. Frankly, given a choice, I'd prefer to have opinions based on facts than ignorance.

As for the issue of flu vaccines, I wish every one to understand my opinion in the matter is an opinion.

An opinion unsupported by fact... you're certainly allowed to have those, but you should recognize your views are unsupported.

I am going to be a little bit mean here and call skeptics, mere shells of an individual and I hope this debunks the myth that no one but the skeptic may hold an opinion.
...and that's my opinion!

And I'm going to be quite mean and say that I wish you were a better human being, and since you're not going to be one, I hope that you end up deciding to move to the most isolated remote part of the country with all your flu germs so you can avoid infecting me or anyone else in the world.

Edited August 19, 2010 by segnosaur

bloodyminded · August 19, 2010

So, do you actually have any real studies which show the vaccines don't work? Or is this just a case of you not being convinced by the dozens of studies which do show they work and have cause no significant side effects?

Nope, not that they should be shot or strung up, but that their opinions should be given as little consideration as those who believe in a flat earth or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

We allow for dissent when warranted (i.e. when actual real evidence is provided).

It irks them to no end if someone should disagree with "science".

I have found myself on the other side of "science" on many occasions. The skeptic never has been on the other side of "science".

Ah yes, that old argument... I think Carl Sagan said it best:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Just because a few radical ideas (that end up being true) get dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically believe that all such ideas are worth considering. After all, most science dismissed the idea of cold fusion... and what do we have over a decade later? Still no proof that cold fusion exists.

The fact is, most scientific advancement does not come as some giant leap of faith; it comes about through a large series of smaller advancements.

So, are you in favor of "flat earth" being taught in geography, and creationist theories being taught in biology class? After all, they're certainly not supported by a majority of scientists, but you seem to think all crackpot theories must be viewed as possibly correct.

There are things that science does well. It tells us that the influenza vaccine is safe, it tells us the vaccine is effective and can save lives.

It does not tell us whether we should force vaccination, or whether it should even be government policy to offer vaccinations. Hey, it could be someone's opinions that we should let diseases run rampant to hopefully kill off the dumb ones who won't get the shot.

Sooooo... you claim you're open to "new data", yet when we point to study after study that shows the vaccine is effective and safe, you start talking about how science doesn't "know all the answers" and whatnot.

That's the wonderful thing about "science"... You don't just have to accept the consensus of authority. If you have ideas backed by evidence that go against what the majority think, you can get your own paper published.

Unfortunately, our school systems have not been successful at teaching an understanding of critical thinking, skepticism, or science to the majority of people.

At last, something you've said that is correct.

You're right, science does not "hold opinions". Its a method of discovering facts about the world.

Well, if your opinions are not based on facts (something that science is designed to uncover), they are based on ignorance. Frankly, given a choice, I'd prefer to have opinions based on facts than ignorance.

An opinion unsupported by fact... you're certainly allowed to have those, but you should recognize your views are unsupported.

It differs from the "opinion" of skeptics who have decided to forgo any personal point of view on the matter, or any matter for that fact, and accept, because they understand, and others are not intelligent enough to understand, science and the scientific method.

I recommend not allowing "skeptics" to make your decisions for you.

They will recommend the same, I'm sure, because any reasonably intelligent individual will reach the same conclusions as they do.

I am going to be a little bit mean here and call skeptics, mere shells of an individual and I hope this debunks the myth that no one but the skeptic may hold an opinion.

...and that's my opinion!

And I'm going to be quite mean and say that I wish you were a better human being, and since you're not going to be one, I hope that you end up deciding to move to the most isolated remote part of the country with all your flu germs so you can avoid infecting me or anyone else in the world.

Very well said. Very. (I might have omitted the last part, though. But I have insulted enough people not to get too sanctimonious about it.)

Edited August 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

Pliny · August 20, 2010

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-trashes-superbug-report-says-its-doctored/articleshow/6301982.cms

India trashes 'superbug' report, says it's doctored

CHENNAI: A day after the Lancet report on drug-resistant 'superbug' NDM-1 created a global scare, India has hit out at the study, which it said was funded by pharma companies that make antibiotics to treat such cases.

While the Union health ministry issued a statement on Thursday which also takes offence to the naming of the bug after the national capital, the paper's Chennai-based lead author Karthikeyan Kumarasamy dissociated himself from parts of the report.

"The study was funded by the European Union and two pharmaceutical companies, Wellcome Trust and Wyeth, which produce antibiotics for treatment of such cases. It also needs to be highlighted that several of the authors have declared conflict of interest in the publication,"
the health ministry said.

Doctors have criticised the report, saying it appeared to be aimed at hitting at India's booming medical tourism that was taking away business from the West.

Wish we had a little more honesty in some of our studies.

segnosaur · August 20, 2010

CHENNAI: A day after the Lancet report on drug-resistant 'superbug' NDM-1 created a global scare, India has hit out at the study, which it said was funded by pharma companies that make antibiotics to treat such cases.
...

"The study was funded by the European Union and two pharmaceutical companies, Wellcome Trust and Wyeth, which produce antibiotics for treatment of such cases. It also needs to be highlighted that several of the authors have declared conflict of interest in the publication," the health ministry said.

Wish we had a little more honesty in some of our studies.

Which of course is another example of the lack of knowledge and understanding exhibited by Pliny.

Many of the studies (I don't want to say all, but certainly most I've seen (in journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and New England Journal of Medicine have sections where they specifically list things like: Who funded the study, the affiliations of the authors of the study, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Full disclosure of funding and conflict of interest is normal.

Oh, and by the way, not every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine were solely funded by the vaccine manufactures. Many studies are funded by hospitals, government organizations, etc.

Oh, and again, I find it ironic that you'd suggest the honesty of these sorts of studies is compromised by the funding source, yet earlier on you referred to a web site that actually sells various products right on the web site.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were praising an offer from an anti-vax source demanding evidence of the usefulness of vaccines, yet that particular offer was not winnable because the author deliberately chose conflicting conditions for the evidence. You willing to acknowledge that you were duped into believing his offer?

Pliny · August 20, 2010

So, do you actually have any real studies which show the vaccines don't work? Or is this just a case of you not being convinced by the dozens of studies which do show they work and have cause no significant side effects?

I found an interesting one on the skeptic website. There were side effects including some deaths, all told (side effects plus deaths) about half the number of flu deaths.

They do cause a significant number of side effects.

You should check out that site.

Nope, not that they should be shot or strung up, but that their opinions should be given as little consideration as those who believe in a flat earth or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Or....one could recognize them as opinions.

We allow for dissent when warranted (i.e. when actual real evidence is provided).

Well, if you are the one deciding what real evidence is then you are the one deciding when dissent is warranted. It doesn't work that way.

I will grant the "hard sciences" provide a little stronger point of view and that is why their arguments usually only involve themselves.

As for medicine, there are too many variables for most of the studies to be reliable most of them include the human factor but it is influenced economically and politically as well.

If medicine wanted to be perceived more credibly scientifically it would stop taking perks from pharmaceutical companies.

Science is a method of finding facts about the world. If you're not finding "facts", then what exactly do you think you're finding, and why do you think its worth while?

You are finding things that aid in you achieving your objectives.

You don't like Jews you fund scientists to find they are genetically inferior or you are genetically superior. And you get skeptics to demoralize any opposing views.

It is a "fact" that most scientists work for or are paid for by someone. How they get their money weighs heavily on the "facts" they find. Governments offering grants must be convinced their work will be politically aligned and for the "collective good" of course.

It is not arguable that we do nothing about pollution or greenhouse gases. Yet political solutions that will do nothing to lower greenhouse gases are not criticized enough by science and skeptics condemn any criticisms anyway.

The skeptic never has been on the other side of "science".

And why should they be?

They should be a little skeptical, as their name implies, I would think.

Skeptics base their opinions on facts. Science is the method for discovering facts. Notice how both of those kind of go together? (i.e. finding facts, and then using them)

And skeptics have their use of science. They can feel a little superior hiding in the consensus and don't have to think any further than what the last peer reviewed study has come up with to earn itself some accolades from politicians or their employers (Big oil, perhaps) I know you are skeptical of those guys but with governments the well will never run dry. Why you seem to think there is no political slant to scientists given government grants or employed by governments and universities yet every scientist employed by big oil has a corporate slant is kind of odd when you wish to understand how critical thinking is employed.

Lone "scientists" who differ with the consensus are quickly discredited as quacks and charlatans...

Ah yes, that old argument... I think Carl Sagan said it best:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Who is implying that all people who are laughed at are geniuses?

He simply points out some are and some aren't. Skeptics seem to target them all indiscriminately.

Just because a few radical ideas (that end up being true) get dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically believe that all such ideas are worth considering. After all, most science dismissed the idea of cold fusion... and what do we have over a decade later? Still no proof that cold fusion exists.

It is the trait of the skeptic to dismiss them all, none outside the consensus are given consideration. Seems a lack of critical thinking to me.

The fact is, most scientific advancement does not come as some giant leap of faith; it comes about through a large series of smaller advancements.

Getting past the skeptics is the first major break but never the first breakthrough.

So, are you in favor of "flat earth" being taught in geography, and creationist theories being taught in biology class? After all, they're certainly not supported by a majority of scientists, but you seem to think all crackpot theories must be viewed as possibly correct.

I think there are only a few flat-earthers left, if any and it probably could be mentioned for historical interest. I don't think anyone is supporting that.

There are quite a few creationists, do you know why they think their theories are correct?

I know you are not short on theories why they may be incorrect but do you know why they think they are correct? Is it because they can't think? Is it because they only listen to Mommy and Daddy? Could it possibly be that science has yet to demonstrate to them a conclusive explanation for certain experiences in their lives?

They may have had an idea. Who knows maybe one day you will have an idea would you like skeptics to demoralize you and pooh-pooh your idea be3fore science even has a chance to look at it?

I sort of have an idea why creationists believe what they do, they are the same side of the skeptic coin. Don't believe anything that doesn't come from the anointed source.

Anyway, I am not a creationist but I am not about to attempt to demoralize, belittle or nullify them as a person for holding such beliefs. Is it detrimental to them?

Are Muslim beliefs vilified similarly to Creationists beliefs?

That may very well be your next battle but they won't tolerate being laughed at, and skeptics will be an endangered species.

Anyway, people have beliefs if you are not intelligent enough to change their minds, and the onus is on you to do so, if that is your objective, the why demoralize them? Creationists have been known to change their minds...so if you think it is something faulty with their electro chemical functions try and figure out what neuron starts firing differently - I think that's how science would approach it since they seem to have trouble convincing others to change their mind.

If you don't see things the way a skeptic does you obviously have some malfunction of the brain.

There are things that science does well. It tells us that the influenza vaccine is safe, it tells us the vaccine is effective and can save lives.

It isn't telling me that. I don't get that from their studies on influenza vaccines. I get that they consider the studies to be corroborative with their own beliefs, opinions, and thoughts and of others with similar beliefs, opinions and thoughts.

Starting off with preconceived notions, and it is hard not to today with skeptics all over any differing view, is a bit of an introduced slant from the start.

I know it would be all nicey-nicey to rid the world of the flu but it isn't happening. It's a gamble to begin with in even isolating the yearly strains.

It does not tell us whether we should force vaccinations, or whether it should even be government policy to offer vaccinations. Hey, it could be someone's opinions that we should let diseases run rampant to hopefully kill off the dumb ones who won't get the shot.

More than likely the objective would be to kill off those who get the shot. I'm certain they would prefer a controlled kill as opposed to leaving it to the whim of nature.

Many Jews were convinced they needed a shower.

Maybe I am just too skeptical.

Sooooo... you claim you're open to "new data", yet when we point to study after study that shows the vaccine is effective and safe, you start talking about how science doesn't "know all the answers" and whatnot.

They haven't proven to me they are effective and you know the studies show there are risks, so they aren't, entirely "safe" as you imply. If you want to be scientific you must be precise. I am at least precise in my opinions.

Yes, I am open to new data not just study after study that opens the wallets of governments for pharmaceutical companies. Of course opening the wallets of big oil is always corrupt.

That's the wonderful thing about "science"... You don't just have to accept the consensus of authority. If you have ideas backed by evidence that go against what the majority think, you can get your own paper published. If your ideas are supported by evidence, they will eventually gain widespread support.

AS I said, if the skeptics don't kill it first.

Unfortunately, our school systems have not been successful at teaching an understanding of critical thinking, skepticism, or science to the majority of people.

Yes, it must be the failure of the people though. I'm sure you have realized that most of them are idiots. :rolleyes:

If it is true I wonder why that is? Lack of "resources"? I'm sure a study will find that to be the case.

Luckily, you are not the majority and you escaped the unsuccessful school system that our social scientists have provided for us.

At last, something you've said that is correct.

You're right, science does not "hold opinions". Its a method of discovering facts about the world.

Well, it makes some observations and then develops a theory.

Well, if your opinions are not based on facts (something that science is designed to uncover), they are based on ignorance. Frankly, given a choice, I'd prefer to have opinions based on facts than ignorance.

I'm sure anyone would. I'm surprised you would think that someone would prefer opinions based on ignorance.

Let's just say I don't think that all the facts are in yet so I would think your "premature" opinion falls short. At least short of being skeptical.

An opinion unsupported by fact... you're certainly allowed to have those, but you should recognize your views are unsupported.

You haven't one. I don't need to listen to you to know your stand on any issue you just follow along with the crowd.

My views are not entirely unsupported as you imply. You can analyze your own studies, the ones you presented to me and if you reach a different conclusion, that vaccines are "entirely" safe (as you imply). I know you will say they aren't "entirely" safe but when you state they are effective and safe am I supposed to "assume" there might be exceptions to safe?

And I'm going to be quite mean and say that I wish you were a better human being, and since you're not going to be one, I hope that you end up deciding to move to the most isolated remote part of the country with all your flu germs so you can avoid infecting me or anyone else in the world.

My opinion right now is that getting people to wash their hands is an effective and "entirely" safe policy for not spreading disease.

Although some hand wash dispensary companies are capitalizing on that fact, which I could criticize, I still think at this point in time it is a more efficacious effort than the flu vaccination.

I am not entirely against vaccinations but some doubt has been cast upon them lately.

The jury is out.

Is a better human being one that criticizes the beliefs of others and demoralizes one for his view on life because it disagrees with current scientific dogma?

Who knows what we will discover? Maybe that all was created 6000 years ago and the existence of a universe billions of years old is just part of the puzzle created to keep us human beings in the dark about our true origin. I think skeptics would have to have been in charge to bring that one to life.

Or maybe, as one scientist suggested, there may be no objective universe.

Anyway, I'm sure by the time we find out, you will have returned to the dust from whence you think you came. No more to fire a neuron or keep the synapses greased - oh! The fun of it all!

Having a neuron is not really the all of it. It must be continually snapping and popping. When it's not, it turns to dust.

You can check it out. Once that snapping and popping thing stops well...maybe you will change your mind.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Pliny

August 20, 2010

I found an interesting one on the skeptic website. There were side effects including some deaths, all told (side effects plus deaths) about half the number of flu deaths.

They do cause a significant number of side effects.

So what? Water causes a side-effect. All a side effect is is a effect that is not the direct one you are after. Side-effects can be good or bad.

It is a "fact" that most scientists work for or are paid for by someone. How they get their money weighs heavily on the "facts" they find. Governments offering grants must be convinced their work will be politically aligned and for the "collective good" of course.

Scientist get money for there work by being right.

It is the trait of the skeptic to dismiss them all, none outside the consensus are given consideration. Seems a lack of critical thinking to me.

See here's the thing, that's pretty much the opposite of a skeptic. Skeptics consider the evidence and only the evidence.

I think there are only a few flat-earthers left, if any and it probably could be mentioned for historical interest. I don't think anyone is supporting that.

You'd be wrong there. There are actually many flat earther's around still, some are even scientist's.

There are quite a few creationists, do you know why they think their theories are correct?

Because they are stupid or dishonest, there is really no alternative in this case.

I know you are not short on theories why they may be incorrect but do you know why they think they are correct? Is it because they can't think? Is it because they only listen to Mommy and Daddy? Could it possibly be that science has yet to demonstrate to them a conclusive explanation for certain experiences in their lives?

When something isn't explained you don't get to use you bronze-age mythology to fill in the gaps, that shit will get people killed.

I sort of have an idea why creationists believe what they do, they are the same side of the skeptic coin. Don't believe anything that doesn't come from the anointed source.

They don't believe anything that doesn't come from a book that requires circular reasoning to trust.

Anyway, I am not a creationist but I am not about to attempt to demoralize, belittle or nullify them as a person for holding such beliefs. Is it detrimental to them?

Yes.

Are Muslim beliefs vilified similarly to Creationists beliefs?

Muslims can be creationists to.

Is a better human being one that criticizes the beliefs of others and demoralizes one for his view on life because it disagrees with current scientific dogma?

Scientific dogma is an oxymoron.

Yesterday · August 20, 2010

Not knowing why...well maybe if true, but in Poland when the planeload of politicians and such crashed and everyone died...on Polish forum boards this vaccine was fore front and center as one of the reasons for the massive execution. That Poland had refused the vaccine and really upset members of the EU and the UN by doing so. It was said that the IMF had tried to make it a condition on their bailout. I have not confirmed it but I wonder. In this day and age anything is possible. This coupled with the PM there not wanting to allow for open communication and finance with Germany, or Russia for that matter. This guy did not like the rules so they got rid of him. Apparently, rules including the flu vaccine. Why?

I am not going to fight the fact that I said this with anyone. It is ok that some want it and also that some don't. I do not and have never had one. Aren't you glad I can't infect you through the computer? :huh:

segnosaur · August 20, 2010

So, do you actually have any real studies which show the vaccines don't work? Or is this just a case of you not being convinced by the dozens of studies which do show they work and have cause no significant side effects?

I found an interesting one on the skeptic website.

Ummm... THE skeptic website? Can you be more specific? There are at least 3 that I access on a fairly regular basis, not to mention several others that I've viewed from time to time.

Reference please.

(I have noticed a trend... whenever you ask for references, you always seem to end up providing the most steaming pile of useless cr*p, like when you talked about how the death rate was unaffected by vaccination, but referred only to a time frame when vaccinations were already common. I rather suspect this particular request will likewise result in a lot of junk.)

There were side effects including some deaths, all told (side effects plus deaths) about half the number of flu deaths.
They do cause a significant number of side effects.

Wait a sec... are you really judging the safety of the flu by equating vaccine side effects that don't result in death with actual influenza morality?

Do you really think such comparisons are fair? Should you not be comparing things which are equivalent in their seriousness (such as deaths due to vaccination vs. deaths due to the flu, or hospitalizations due to vaccination vs. hospitalization due to the flu)?

Nope, not that they should be shot or strung up, but that their opinions should be given as little consideration as those who believe in a flat earth or that the universe is only 6000 years old.

Or....one could recognize them as opinions.

Ummm... where did I say they weren't opinions? I only pointed out that they were uninformed opinions, based on ignorance, and should be treated as such.

We allow for dissent when warranted (i.e. when actual real evidence is provided).

Well, if you are the one deciding what real evidence is then you are the one deciding when dissent is warranted.

Nope, that's the beauty of science. I am not deciding anything. Believe it or not, "science" is not some monolithic entity, and while in some cases some ideals start with only a minority of adherents, eventually the correct ones win out.

Believe it or not, its happened over and over in science.

As for medicine, there are too many variables for most of the studies to be reliable most of them include the human factor but it is influenced economically and politically as well.

Ah, the annoying sound of ignorance.

Actually, designing a study to control for those variables is actually quite easy... create a double-blind study with a proper control group (usually involving placebos). In any large sample size, variations due to unexpected factors get filtered out. I'd suggest you take a few basic statistics courses.

If medicine wanted to be perceived more credibly scientifically it would stop taking perks from pharmaceutical companies.

I see... so you don't want funding from drug companies, and you complain about "the government" because they were the ones supposedly causing the panic over H1N1.

So, just who do you think should be funding studies into things like drug and vaccine effectiveness?

And once again, your complete and utter hypocracy is noted... you once again complain about the funding of scientific studies, yet earlier you accepted the word of a web site who directly sold sham products to consumers.

The skeptic never has been on the other side of "science".

And why should they be?

They should be a little skeptical, as their name implies, I would think.

Ummm... you do realize that the term 'skeptic' is not the same as 'cynic'.

As I've explained before, being a skeptic does not necessarily mean you automatically view any and all data as untrustworthy. You examine the evidence, judge the reliability of the source, determine if there are potential errors, and apply basic logic.

Ah yes, that old argument... I think Carl Sagan said it best:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Who is implying that all people who are laughed at are geniuses?

Nobody is suggesting that. But we ARE pointing out the foolishness of assuming some people are geniuses, when they can't provide the evidence to back up their foolish opinions.

It is the trait of the skeptic to dismiss them all, none outside the consensus are given consideration.

Nope, its the trait of the skeptic to evaluate evidence. The fact that you have provided absolutely none (other than bizarre rants bordering on conspiracy theories, and a failure to recognize flawed logic) doesn't mean that real evidence gets ignored.

So, are you in favor of "flat earth" being taught in geography, and creationist theories being taught in biology class? After all, they're certainly not supported by a majority of scientists, but you seem to think all crackpot theories must be viewed as possibly correct.

I think there are only a few flat-earthers left, if any and it probably could be mentioned for historical interest.

Why should the number of believers in a flat-earth matter? If your claim is that "Oh big bad science is squashing truths" then how do you know that some lone flat-earth believer isn't right and his ideas aren't being surpressed by the big bad astronomers and geologists trying to protect their research grants based on the idea of a round earth? And if that's the case, we should be prepared to teach his theories.

There are quite a few creationists, do you know why they think their theories are correct?

Ignorance (either will-full or unintentional) combined with indoctrination from a a young age and a lack of critical thinking skills.

There are things that science does well. It tells us that the influenza vaccine is safe, it tells us the vaccine is effective and can save lives.

It isn't telling me that. I don't get that from their studies on influenza vaccines.

I see...

So, just wondering, what exactly do you think is happening when they take a large group of very similar people, give half a vaccine and half a placebo, and the half that gets a vaccine gets few cases of the flu?

Do you think that the placebo they give is actually poison? Do you think that there are evil spirits that get transferred in the injection?

I know it would be all nicey-nicey to rid the world of the flu but it isn't happening. It's a gamble to begin with in even isolating the yearly strains.

Never claimed that we could get rid of the flu. It mutates too quickly when compared to other viruses. But we can cut down on the number of cases and he number of deaths.

It does not tell us whether we should force vaccinations, or whether it should even be government policy to offer vaccinations. Hey, it could be someone's opinions that we should let diseases run rampant to hopefully kill off the dumb ones who won't get the shot.
More than likely the objective would be to kill off those who get the shot.

Except that study after study (some funded by drug companies, some funded by hospitals, and some by government and international agencies) have shown that people who receive the flu vaccine tend to catch the flu less often and die than those who don't get the vaccine.

Sooooo... you claim you're open to "new data", yet when we point to study after study that shows the vaccine is effective and safe, you start talking about how science doesn't "know all the answers" and whatnot.

They haven't proven to me they are effective...

So, the dozen or so studies I've posted where they inject the vaccine into people and they get less cases of illness than those who don't get vaccinated isn't evidence enough for you? What exactly would you find convincing?

(I've already pointed to evidence that shows lower death rates now that we vaccinate against the flu than from decades ago when there was no such vaccination.)

...and you know the studies show there are risks, so they aren't, entirely "safe" as you imply.

Straw man. I never claimed they were safe. Over and over again, I have always used phrases like "no significant side effects. The fact that you would lie and claim I said they were "entirely" safe is rather indicative of your understanding of the issue.

Yes, there are risks of taking the vaccine. However the danger posed by any side effects is miniscule compared to the danger of not getting vaccinated and catching the flu.

Please try not to lie and build up any straw men.

If you want to be scientific you must be precise. I am at least precise in my opinions.

Ummm, my irony meter just exploded.

You claim you are "precise", yet you:

- Falsely state that I claim vaccines are "entirely" safe.

- Claim a challenge made by an anti-vaccination scam site is evidence that vaccinations don't work, while ignoring the fact that they set up the rules of the challenge with contradictory conditions which guarantee that it can never be won

- Regularly mis-use the term 'skeptic'

So, where exactly is your 'precision'?

My opinion right now is that getting people to wash their hands is an effective and "entirely" safe policy for not spreading disease.

While it may be effective, hand washing alone is not as effective as hand-washing+vaccination.

Of course, the problem is, it may not be effective in stopping the flu. You see, the influenza virus is best transmitted when the virus can enter tissue deeper in the body. Hand washing will stop germ transmission to the skin and tissue closer to the surface, but that's never been a common mechanism for the influenza virus.

I am not entirely against vaccinations but some doubt has been cast upon them lately.

Yup... most of that 'doubt' comes from sites that are trying to sell natural products, or people that have been convicted of fraud. Remember one of the rules of a skeptic? Evaluate the source of data...

Is a better human being one that criticizes the beliefs of others and demoralizes one for his view on life because it disagrees with current scientific dogma?

Yes, especially if those non-science beliefs actually end up lowering the quality of life and/or cause death.

Pliny · August 21, 2010

Which of course is another example of the lack of knowledge and understanding exhibited by Pliny.

Many of the studies (I don't want to say all, but certainly most I've seen (in journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and New England Journal of Medicine have sections where they specifically list things like: Who funded the study, the affiliations of the authors of the study, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Full disclosure of funding and conflict of interest is normal.

Oh, and by the way, not every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine were solely funded by the vaccine manufactures. Many studies are funded by hospitals, government organizations, etc.

I wasn't suggesting every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine was funded by the vaccine manufacturers.

The various medical organizations, governmental organizations, unions, etc., have their own interests to protect, insure and safeguard. It's their responsibility, and let's say it is a contributing factor as to why we can effect no seemingly efficacious or beneficial change in our health care system.

A most recent rating of 30 health care systems in the world ranked Canada 30th. Yes, thirtieth out of thirty, and the study did include the US.

It's because those interests that share in the "industry" won't change it. What studies will they forward. Because an agency is affiliated with, and is a "trusted" agency, does not mean that it doesn't take into account it's own interests and the furtherance of such.

We can no more economically afford to find an efficient alternative energy source to replace fossil fuels than we can find a replacement for our health care system. There are too many interests and people dependent upon them as they stand.

Perhaps certain influential individuals in both governmental and non-governmental agencies see their empires threatened. Government loss of revenues from the elimination of the use of fossil fuels would be devastating for those governments. Are they in a big hurry to find alternative energy sources? Not until they have secured replacements for lost revenues.

Are unions, the CMA or anyone in the health care industry ready to find the fountain of youth? Of course not. I would expect it to be suppressed in the interests of the survival of those agencies and the many individuals, including healthcare's use as a tool for taxation by governments, earning their livelihood in the industry.

You can present all the published studies you want, peer reviewed literature means that the peers reviewing the studies have the same political, economic and social interests as those doing the studies. Are they going to make decisions in the interests of the masses, the common good, the collective interests of all? You know, those individuals who are too ignorant and stupid,(I know you hold that concept dear in your heart) to bother with anyway or are they going to decide to aid their own, the Empires, the power brokers and the direct contributors to their well-being? Now tell me how dearly you think of the public?

It is their elitist attitude that is the problem. And it is your elitist attitude that presents the most danger to all of us, collectively. While you feign caring and sharing for the welfare of others, in your little hearts you think of them as no more than useless consumers of resources.

How many times have I seen you and others of the same stripe on this forum refer to, not just your detractors, which would be understandable, but the general public as idiots and ignoramuses that need to be led by the nose and not kept informed.

The internet makes it a bit easier for us to inform ourselves. It seems you have no interest in those piles of useless protoplasm to inform them. It's just too "complicated" for them, isn't it?

If people are interested they can and do understand, if they are not trying to be snowed by elitist interests that would prefer to earn their livelihood out of other people's ignorance.

Oh, and again, I find it ironic that you'd suggest the honesty of these sorts of studies is compromised by the funding source, yet earlier on you referred to a web site that actually sells various products right on the web site.

It's good that you are skeptical. I am skeptical of other sites for the same reason. My suggestion is you do a little further study.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were praising an offer from an anti-vax source demanding evidence of the usefulness of vaccines, yet that particular offer was not winnable because the author deliberately chose conflicting conditions for the evidence. You willing to acknowledge that you were duped into believing his offer?

I mentioned it as a matter of interest. Is that praising it? As a matter of fact I didn't even make note of the website in my post. You researched it and then laughingly advertised it.

As I said there is not anything wrong with healthy skepticism, but you are not skeptics you are policemen with the intent of furthering your own interests in the name of "help". If you did not express your own contempt for the very people you pretend to be helping then you might be more credible as policemen.

There are people who do wish to help others but they do not kick them in the pants, demoralize them oppress them, or nullify them. I never heard Mother Theresa condemn the poor or even condemn capitalists for being greedy. She only wanted to help the poor. She did not determine and state they were too stupid to look after themselves, she did not determine other people were oppressing them and rail about those individuals. It's because she truly wanted to help and that is what she did. She was not concerned about herself or her image. She did not say she was better than anyone else or tout herself as the greatest servant of mankind.

So do a little more critical thinking of the people you wish so very much to save from themselves.

Pliny · August 21, 2010

Nope, that's the beauty of science. I am not deciding anything.

The argument is getting rather circular don't you think?

You should really start looking at human beings as human beings. I suppose you think I am a reason you should hold the general populace in such contempt. Are you that afraid of them? I guess you worry if they have had their vaccination or not or if they washed their hands. Do most of them look too stupid to you to do so?

I know when I smell fear.

Pliny · August 21, 2010

So what? Water causes a side-effect. All a side effect is is a effect that is not the direct one you are after. Side-effects can be good or bad.

Scientist get money for there work by being right.

See here's the thing, that's pretty much the opposite of a skeptic. Skeptics consider the evidence and only the evidence.

You'd be wrong there. There are actually many flat earther's around still, some are even scientist's.

Because they are stupid or dishonest, there is really no alternative in this case.

When something isn't explained you don't get to use you bronze-age mythology to fill in the gaps, that shit will get people killed.

They don't believe anything that doesn't come from a book that requires circular reasoning to trust.

Yes.

Muslims can be creationists to.

Scientific dogma is an oxymoron.

An example of critical thinking?

segnosaur · August 24, 2010

Which of course is another example of the lack of knowledge and understanding exhibited by Pliny.
Many of the studies (I don't want to say all, but certainly most I've seen (in journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and New England Journal of Medicine have sections where they specifically list things like: Who funded the study, the affiliations of the authors of the study, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Full disclosure of funding and conflict of interest is normal.

Oh, and by the way, not every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine were solely funded by the vaccine manufactures. Many studies are funded by hospitals, government organizations, etc.

I wasn't suggesting every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine was funded by the vaccine manufacturers.

The various medical organizations, governmental organizations, unions, etc., have their own interests to protect, insure and safeguard.

You're right, you didn't say every study was funded by vaccine manufacturers. But what you did do was point to one study where the funding was listed and say that you wish there was "more honesty in studies". To me, that implies you were claiming that many/most studies don't disclose who funds them, which obviously is not the case.

Oh, and by the way, I notice that you still haven't answered the question...

Who exactly do you think should be running/paying for those tests that show vaccines are safe and effective. Claiming "People have interests to protect" doesn't answer that question.

A most recent rating of 30 health care systems in the world ranked Canada 30th. Yes, thirtieth out of thirty, and the study did include the US.

Which is irrelevant to the question about whether vaccines work. You didn't refer to the article (yet another case where you didn't provide references), but I'm going to assume that every one of those countries ahead of Canada is probably based on modern science-based principles.

You can present all the published studies you want, peer reviewed literature means that the peers reviewing the studies have the same political, economic and social interests as those doing the studies.

I see... so its some giant evil conspiracy. Got it. And were they also involved in faking the Apollo moon landing?

Whenever one of these studies is done:

- The studies require the use of dozens, if not hundreds of researchers. Do you really expect me to think that in study after study, not one individual has ever come through to say "I was asked to fake data to make the vaccine look better"?

- There are multiple vaccine manufacturers which are often in competition, as well as other drug manufacturers. Wouldn't at least one of them step up to actually publish real studies showing vaccines are dangerous/ineffective, in order to make themselves look better?

It is their elitist attitude that is the problem.

Nope, like I said before, the problem is a combination of lack of critical thinking, combined with general scientific ignorance of individuals coming out of schools.

The fact is, science is hard. Nobody can be expected to be an expert in everything. If someone says "The results of the study had a confidence interval of p=0.05 in a double blind sample over the control group", most people wouldn't understand what it means. So, in that situation were best to assume the experts know what they're talking about (since I doubt most people here have taken university courses in statistics).

How many times have I seen you and others of the same stripe on this forum refer to, not just your detractors, which would be understandable, but the general public as idiots and ignoramuses that need to be led by the nose and not kept informed.

I never said they shouldn't be kept informed. The data should be made available to everyone (and it is). Unfortunately not enough people know how to interpret it.

The internet makes it a bit easier for us to inform ourselves.

Yes, and it also makes it easier for people to listen to people who are scam artists (like one of the people you referenced). For every reputable source like the New England Journal of Medicine, you probably have a sham source like Mercola. For every reputable news site like the NY Times, you have a site peddling conspiracy nonsense (like Alex Jones).

The failure of our educational system is not so much our inability to turn people into medical experts so they can read and understand the studies, its in the inability to teach people the difference between the Times and Alex Jones, and the NEJM and Mercola.

It seems you have no interest in those piles of useless protoplasm to inform them. It's just too "complicated" for them, isn't it?

I have given study after study, with explanations about why they're relevant. I have done my best to explain why anecdotes are of no value. At some point, I have to say I've made enough of an attempt.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were praising an offer from an anti-vax source demanding evidence of the usefulness of vaccines, yet that particular offer was not winnable because the author deliberately chose conflicting conditions for the evidence. You willing to acknowledge that you were duped into believing his offer?

I mentioned it as a matter of interest. Is that praising it? As a matter of fact I didn't even make note of the website in my post. You researched it and then laughingly advertised it.

Ummm... not only did you mention it, but you also made a statement about how "when someone wins the $10,000 I'll take a look". Why exactly did you make that statement? Heck, why did you even bother mentioning it if you didn't have some sort of believe in its validity?

I'm not a mind reader... I can only judge you by what you post. And writing a sentence about how winning a contest will somehow be convincing evidence to you certainly sounds like you consider the particular challenge to be "praise worthy".

If you did not express your own contempt for the very people you pretend to be helping then you might be more credible as policemen.

If you want to complain about how I'm abrasive, then fine. But my ability or inability to be "nice" does not actually have any relevance to the facts.

There are people who do wish to help others but they do not kick them in the pants, demoralize them oppress them, or nullify them. I never heard Mother Theresa condemn the poor or even condemn capitalists for being greedy. She only wanted to help the poor....She was not concerned about herself or her image.

Actually, no she didn't really want to help the poor. Mother Theresa was one of the biggest scam artists around. She and her charities collected millions of dollars (more than enough to fund modern medical centers), yet her 'clinics' were nothing more than cots in an empty room. The money she collected largely disappeared into general church revenues. And when people went to her 'clinics', they often died of easily treatable conditions because she didn't actually bother, you know, having patients treated. She was, in short, a very nasty piece of work, who just happened to have a good publicist.

And yes, she was quite concerned about her image.

Pliny · August 24, 2010

You're right, you didn't say every study was funded by vaccine manufacturers. But what you did do was point to one study where the funding was listed and say that you wish there was "more honesty in studies". To me, that implies you were claiming that many/most studies don't disclose who funds them, which obviously is not the case.

Oh, and by the way, I notice that you still haven't answered the question...

Who exactly do you think should be running/paying for those tests that show vaccines are safe and effective. Claiming "People have interests to protect" doesn't answer that question.

The ones who wish to find out.

Yes, I did point to one study and say I wish there were more honesty in studies.

Which is irrelevant to the question about whether vaccines work. You didn't refer to the article (yet another case where you didn't provide references), but I'm going to assume that every one of those countries ahead of Canada is probably based on modern science-based principles.

Actually, it was an economic study on value for dollar. Not a critique on health care or delivery. Just to keep the record straight.

I see... so its some giant evil conspiracy. Got it. And were they also involved in faking the Apollo moon landing?

This is where I find the greatest influence of the self-appointed policemen that call themselves the "skeptics". Once a theory has reached a consensus then all other studies that do not agree with the consensus are vilified. And the avenues of research are narrowed to agree with the "beliefs" of the majority.

These "beliefs" are quite similar to beliefs one might find in religion. The difference being they are held up to be "fact" and backed by scientific study. As long as everyone is nodding their head in agreement it is a "fact".

Why western science is going by the boards is that some "facts" are assumed to be true and are held common in a wide range of studies. Nothing will change these "facts" because they have been determined by predecessors, probably honestly, and policed by skeptics and other interests, depending upon their influence or "use", and they must be held true and included in further studies.

Science may tolerate skeptics for awhile until they realize that they are actually putting blinders on and reducing avenues of research, limiting scientific study to that which agrees with their "beliefs".

Whenever one of these studies is done:

- The studies require the use of dozens, if not hundreds of researchers. Do you really expect me to think that in study after study, not one individual has ever come through to say "I was asked to fake data to make the vaccine look better"?

- There are multiple vaccine manufacturers which are often in competition, as well as other drug manufacturers. Wouldn't at least one of them step up to actually publish real studies showing vaccines are dangerous/ineffective, in order to make themselves look better?

Only in the rarest of cases is there any intention to deceive. They are unfortunately, and depending upon the interests involved, especially political, not as rare as they should be.

What do you feel would happen to someone attempting to publish a study showing the flu vaccines are ineffective? Well, a hundred studies have shown they are. I can't see you doing anything less than crying bullshit.

I don't have to agree with the prevailing "beliefs" touted as "facts". I can make my own judgement and I don't expectany less of any one else. Unfortunately, there are policemen such as yourself that require goosestepping agreement with every "scientific fact" as being a truism.

You use what you see as the gullibility and naivety of the general public to deny all but the prevailing scientific consensus.

You find no fault in that even if the consensus proves to be wrong and some of the facts must be corrected. You justify it by stating it is such a rare occasion that it is negligible. But when a fact is wrong it may affect a whole area of our lives and of further scientific study. It isn't simply a matter that a "fact" was incorrect.

We must all be allowed to form and hold our own opinions for what ever reasons we have. If you choose not hold opinions and allow the field of science form yours for you then you are entitled to do so.

To suggest science is flawless and without taint form human frailty is not a "belief" of mine.

Nope, like I said before, the problem is a combination of lack of critical thinking, combined with general scientific ignorance of individuals coming out of schools.

The fact is, science is hard. Nobody can be expected to be an expert in everything. If someone says "The results of the study had a confidence interval of p=0.05 in a double blind sample over the control group", most people wouldn't understand what it means. So, in that situation were best to assume the experts know what they're talking about (since I doubt most people here have taken university courses in statistics).

So you have assumed a few things?

Yes, we rely on experts and most of us will assume things. If we care to do our own research we can.

Most of us will not bother unless it is important to us. And of course we, unfortunately, have some self-appointed policemen telling us what we should assume and even policing science and telling it what findings should come out of it's studies because of their assumptions.

I never said they shouldn't be kept informed. The data should be made available to everyone (and it is). Unfortunately not enough people know how to interpret it.

Luckily, you are there to tell them what it all means.

Yes, and it also makes it easier for people to listen to people who are scam artists (like one of the people you referenced). For every reputable source like the New England Journal of Medicine, you probably have a sham source like Mercola. For every reputable news site like the NY Times, you have a site peddling conspiracy nonsense (like Alex Jones).

I would consider the New England Journal of Medicine a credible source but when facts are flawed so are studies.

Mercola has an opinion and I make my own judgment on his informatiion.

The New York Times I consider tarnished by editorial prejudices.

Alex Jones? Are you telling me you don't think Bush was responsible for 9/11?

Sorry, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Our human frailties are a better explanation for our misadventures.

I have given study after study, with explanations about why they're relevant. I have done my best to explain why anecdotes are of no value. At some point, I have to say I've made enough of an attempt.

I agree anecdotes are individual subjective experiences they may be of no value to anyone else and may be mere points of interest. They do, however, influence the individual.

Professional opinion does not like to be considered anecdotal. Does professionalism lend credence to anecdotal analysis? Does scientific opinion lend credence to anecdote?

You cannot say that anecdote is of no value and then expect parents to accept a Teacher's evaluation of your child. It is, however professional, merely anecdotal.

Do you still consider anecdotes of no value?

Ummm... not only did you mention it, but you also made a statement about how "when someone wins the $10,000 I'll take a look". Why exactly did you make that statement? Heck, why did you even bother mentioning it if you didn't have some sort of believe in its validity?

I'm not a mind reader... I can only judge you by what you post. And writing a sentence about how winning a contest will somehow be convincing evidence to you certainly sounds like you consider the particular challenge to be "praise worthy".

I am not a fan of the flu vaccine. I mentioned it because it agrees with my point of view. Why are we arguing if I didn't feel there was some validity to the offer? You can debunk the sight all you like.

I didn't find it before I had made up my mind, I found it after.

If you want to complain about how I'm abrasive, then fine. But my ability or inability to be "nice" does not actually have any relevance to the facts.

It doesn't? If you had a higher opinion of people in general you would allow them their opinions, whether you think them wrong or not. "Facts" assumed to be correct by consensus, even scientific consensus, are not a valid cause for monopoly on opinion.

And once again, starting off with scientific consensus, assumed to be correct, invites all manner of flaws in subsequent study. Because you believe in the "truth" of scientific consensus we close parameters of study - all because consensus fits your beliefs. Much like a website that fits my beliefs.

Actually, no she didn't really want to help the poor. Mother Theresa was one of the biggest scam artists around. She and her charities collected millions of dollars (more than enough to fund modern medical centers), yet her 'clinics' were nothing more than cots in an empty room. The money she collected largely disappeared into general church revenues. And when people went to her 'clinics', they often died of easily treatable conditions because she didn't actually bother, you know, having patients treated. She was, in short, a very nasty piece of work, who just happened to have a good publicist.

And yes, she was quite concerned about her image.

Well, there you go. Another do-gooder proves their worth.

Continue your "good" work saving people from their ignorance. You can leave me with mine. The pandemic is over! I survived it without a vaccine. I didn't get it so I didn't spread it. All is well!

Edited August 24, 2010 by Pliny

Dave_ON · August 25, 2010

Scientific dogma is an oxymoron.

So too is the name TrueMetis, by definition Metis is non specific term for the offspring of French and Natives. Metis is neither French nor Native. However, I digress.

Suffice it to say I find your aspersions towards those of faith unwarranted. I personally am not a religious person by any means, but I respect those who hold those beliefs regardless of my own position. There is much that science cannot and will not be able to explain and I find it equally foolish to blindly believe that science has all the answers. If you honestly believe that there are not scientific zealots you are at best naive. In fact having read the dismissive, derisive and down right mean spirited posts of Segonsaur I find I can scarcely see the line between Religious zealotry and scientific zealotry. Both are utterly devoted to their belief, both are equally convinced they are right.

Finally if you are going to consider yourself a "true skeptic" in the classical sense you have to call into question all assertions. I think it is important to remember that if you cannot disprove something outright that you must accept the possibility regardless of how unlikely it is that it may in fact be correct. By the same token you have to accept that because at the current time the facts lead you to one conclusion that, that is in fact the final and only conclusion. New facts may surface that completely contradict the prior theory. All science can give us is theory based on the facts that are available at the time. To assume we have all the facts in any given situation is arrogant, it's impossible for anyone to account for all factors and all possibilities.

I think Vaclav Haval put it best as it says in my sig. "Follow the man who seeks the truth, run from the man who has found it"

Edited August 25, 2010 by Dave_ON

Dave_ON · August 25, 2010

I think too the OP's main point has been obfuscated by the minutia of whether or not vaccines are effective. I doubt anyone is truly calling into question the efficacy of vaccines. For my part I'm calling into question the necessity of one for the flu. I think the overblown nature of the swine flu pandemic has been downplayed. H1N1 is not nearly as virulent, nor as widespread as say Small Pox. We all agree that vaccines have done a lot to prevent many childhood ailments that would have in years passed caused many deaths. However, where we do not agree is on whether or not a universally distributed vaccine for the flu is worth the time and resources necessary to create it.

What's the cost/benefit analysis break down? If we all agree it was not as bad as it "could" have been then why all the panic for something that "might" have happened? Was that warranted or was it a waste of emotional energy? Do we have stats on how many people were vaccinated vs. those who were not? In reality for a vaccination to be truly effective it needs to be nigh on universal. How realistic is it to vaccinate all 34 million citizens in this country? What is the time this would take and could it be completed in time? I'm also given cause to wonder why folks are so surprised that the pandemic wasn't so severe given the preliminary data we had from the southern hemisphere who's flu season happens in advance of our own. Those numbers were also significantly lower than anticipated. Many questions arise from the whole incident and it's no wonder people are somewhat sceptical when the next pandemic is announced.

segnosaur · August 25, 2010

Suffice it to say I find your aspersions towards those of faith unwarranted. I personally am not a religious person by any means, but I respect those who hold those beliefs regardless of my own position.

I know I wasn't the one you had directed this post towards, but I'd like to take a stab at responding...

For me, the amount of 'respect' I give to those who hold religious beliefs is inversely proportional to the amount their belief contradicts 'facts'. If someone was, for example, a deist and recognized that the 'god' they believed in did not leave direct evidence of their creation, I'd have some respect for them. On the other hand, Biblical literalists/Creationists deserve no such respect, because their beliefs directly contradict the evidence we see around us.

There is much that science cannot and will not be able to explain and I find it equally foolish to blindly believe that science has all the answers.

Nobody claimed science did have all the answers. But it has a methodology to discover what those answers are (when talking about the physical universe), even if they aren't currently known.

Compare that to, for example, religion where they claim to have answers even when they don't. Which do you think is the more dangerous way to deal with the world?

If you honestly believe that there are not scientific zealots you are at best naive. In fact having read the dismissive, derisive and down right mean spirited posts of Segonsaur I find I can scarcely see the line between Religious zealotry and scientific zealotry.

Yes, I'm rude. The difference is, I actually have, you know, evidence behind me. People like Pliny tend to lack the basic critical thinking skills to properly analyze the world around them.

Finally if you are going to consider yourself a "true skeptic" in the classical sense you have to call into question all assertions.

Uhhh... no. The term 'skeptic' (as used by the skeptic movement) does not mean that you "automatically call into question all assertions". It means you follow the evidence. It means you examine the source of data and apply basic logic. So it means that a study conducted by dozens of researchers involving hundreds of subjects, with the results judged/examined by referees with knowledge in the field and no attachment to the authors can and should be given more consideration than the writings by a single individual with no credentials hawking cheesy products on their web site.

I think it is important to remember that if you cannot disprove something outright...

Ummmm... technically, science doesn't "prove" things... what it does instead is it gathers evidence, and when the preponderance of evidence points in one direction (e.g. study after study showing vaccines are virtually safe and effective), then logically it makes sense to assume we're looking in the right direction.

When it comes to vaccines (including the influenza vaccine) there is a mountain of evidence suggesting we'd be better off getting vaccinated, and nothing of consequence indicating we shouldn't. That's not a 'belief' (belief implying that you accept something without evidence). That's a logical conclusion based on the principle of Occam's razor.

That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes in the past, or that some currently established ideas won't be overturned in the future. But when such corrections are made, they get made through proper scientific investigations, not because some scam artist selling cheesy health products manages to convince those with bad judgment of his ideas.

By the same token you have to accept that because at the current time the facts lead you to one conclusion that, that is in fact the final and only conclusion. New facts may surface that completely contradict the prior theory.

I see...

I asked Pliny this question before, but he avoided it (probably because it is one that illustrates the problems with his claims)...

Do you think we should give any value to the idea that the earth is flat? After all, all evidence that we have now points to a round earth, but if your argument is that we should accept that "facts may arise that overturn our theories" then shouldn't we be teaching the 'flat earth' theory in geology class just in case evidence arises later to support it?

I think too the OP's main point has been obfuscated by the minutia of whether or not vaccines are effective. I doubt anyone is truly calling into question the efficacy of vaccines.

Well, some of the things Pliny seems to post seem to suggest he doesn't believe they work at all.

For my part I'm calling into question the necessity of one for the flu. I think the overblown nature of the swine flu pandemic has been downplayed.

Once again, as I have stated many times before in this thread....

The fact that the risk was 'overblown' does not necessarily mean that vaccinations are not a 'good thing'.

So, it only saves thousands of lives instead of 10s of thousands of lives. Do you think the thousands of lives were somehow not worth saving?

However, where we do not agree is on whether or not a universally distributed vaccine for the flu is worth the time and resources necessary to create it.

Well, I have posted studies (oooo.... science) where they actually looked at the cost of vaccinating groups of people, and compared it to the time lost from work due to illness. The result was that money ended up getting saved by the vaccination. Plus you have the cost of hospitalization for those who become seriously ill. (And just wondering, how exactly do you put a dollar value on the suffering from those with even a 'minor' case of the flu? Or on the lives that are lost?)

Do we have stats on how many people were vaccinated vs. those who were not?

We have statistics from previous years. They show that people who get vaccinated end up with fewer illnesses over the course of the flu season than those who do not.

I am unaware of any studies showing how the H1N1 vaccine affected illnesses (unsurprising considering how recent it all was); however A: There were studies showing it caused the required antibody reactions, and B: The method of vaccine manufacture was identical to those of previous years that showed they did reduce illness. Based on that, the most likely conclusion is that the vaccine did work.

In reality for a vaccination to be truly effective it needs to be nigh on universal

Not exactly. While the existence of foolish people who don't get vaccinated does impact herd immunity, those who do get the shot are almost universally protected (at least against the strain the vaccine contains.) They can't get the flu once protected, so they won't pass it on to others, or miss work being home sick, or waste health care resources being in the hospital on a respirator. It is not as ideal as having everyone vaccinated, but its better than nothing.

I'm also given cause to wonder why folks are so surprised that the pandemic wasn't so severe given the preliminary data we had from the southern hemisphere who's flu season happens in advance of our own.

First of all, while it is true that there were fewer deaths in the southern hemisphere from pandemic H1N1 than in seasonal flu in other years, it was hitting younger healthier people more than the elderly. I hate to put a value on human life, but most people would probably consider it sadder when a child dies than when a senior (who has lived a rich full life) does.

Secondly, even though they had a 'mild' flu season there, there were reasons to believe that the experience in the southern hemosphere wouldn't be repeated in North America. The virus was first identified in the spring of 2009 and appeared to start in Mexico. Australia's flu season started soon after that, and given the limited time frame and relative isolation of Australia the virus might not have had time to become 'entrenched'. Compare that to North America, where we had several extra months for the virus to spread at low levels before the official start of flu season, and we had more interaction with Mexican citizens. Due to those factors, its not totally unreasonable to expect we might have more problems with the flu here up north than they did down south.

August 25, 2010

So too is the name TrueMetis, by definition Metis is non specific term for the offspring of French and Natives. Metis is neither French nor Native. However, I digress.

Actually it's not, mètis (lowercase m) by itself just means mixed blood usually. By saying TrueMètis I'm saying that I belong to the distinct cultural group known as the Mètis people (uppercase M).

BTW does anyone know if there is a way to change you name? I've been meaning to add the é to it for a while.

Suffice it to say I find your aspersions towards those of faith unwarranted. I personally am not a religious person by any means, but I respect those who hold those beliefs regardless of my own position.

I don't I will tolerate them however.

There is much that science cannot and will not be able to explain and I find it equally foolish to blindly believe that science has all the answers. If you honestly believe that there are not scientific zealots you are at best naive. In fact having read the dismissive, derisive and down right mean spirited posts of Segonsaur I find I can scarcely see the line between Religious zealotry and scientific zealotry. Both are utterly devoted to their belief, both are equally convinced they are right.

Why is he mean because he's right? Because he's putting an anti-science fool in his place? Or because he's smacking down someone who puts other people at risk because he's compromising heard immunity?

Finally if you are going to consider yourself a "true skeptic" in the classical sense you have to call into question all assertions. I think it is important to remember that if you cannot disprove something outright that you must accept the possibility regardless of how unlikely it is that it may in fact be correct. By the same token you have to accept that because at the current time the facts lead you to one conclusion that, that is in fact the final and only conclusion. New facts may surface that completely contradict the prior theory. All science can give us is theory based on the facts that are available at the time. To assume we have all the facts in any given situation is arrogant, it's impossible for anyone to account for all factors and all possibilities.

I have and I do. I have said many times that nothing is 100% and anything is possible, no matter how unlikely.

I think Vaclav Haval put it best as it says in my sig. "Follow the man who seeks the truth, run from the man who has found it"

Generally the only people who claim to have the absolute truth are the religious so I would agree with that.

Edited August 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

Pliny · August 26, 2010

Why is he mean because he's right? Because he's putting an anti-science fool in his place? Or because he's smacking down someone who puts other people at risk because he's compromising heard immunity?

I herd that!

He isn't right.

I am not anti-science. I believe "skeptics" to be more anti-science than myself.

As I said skeptics close down avenues of research for science by formulating conclusions and touting them as "truth" while some of the facts may be observable they by no means make a theory the final conclusion.

As I said, it is an entirely possible theory that the "creator" of the universe, could have produced a universe that appears to be billions of years old with all the facts, readily there for science to prove and it has only been around since man came into being.

No one has the answers yet, the final theory of everything and I dislike the arrogance, and small-mindedness that is exhibited by the skeptic. And that could be sad of the religious zealot as well.

I agree with Dave that there is not much difference in attitude between the religious and the scientific zealot - and in my view neither are right. However, a religious person will continue with personal challenges and has more human fibre to meet challenges far beyond those of the skeptic who considers himself merely a carbon oxygen machine with capabilities that will always leave him an underachiever regarding his potential.

From this I would conclude that the "skeptic" is much more of a threat to the future of man's potential than someone having "faith in their God" if only because religion will never achieve a monopolistic position. Governments that allied themselves with religion and in the past deemed monopolies by law and can in the future do so with science are a real threat. If that occurs we are in deep do-do.

Science needs to remain as pure as humanly possible without the grubby hands of government or skeptics using it for their own petty purposes. Governments will use it to control populaces and skeptics will use it to forward their beliefs.

As for God or a Prime mover or whatever, it appears by their arguments skeptics have left the realm of science and done the impossible by stating they have proven a negative.

Pliny · August 26, 2010

I think Vaclav Haval put it best as it says in my sig. "Follow the man who seeks the truth, run from the man who has found it"

Generally the only people who claim to have the absolute truth are the religious so I would agree with that.

Does the quote say "absolute" truth?

I would add a qualifier to that quote.

"Follow the man who seeks truth, run from the man who has found absolute objective truth.

August 26, 2010

Does the quote say "absolute" truth?

I would add a qualifier to that quote.

"Follow the man who seeks truth, run from the man who has found absolute objective truth.

Continuously adding qualifiers like that is a game creationists play, and one I have no interest in.

Pliny · August 26, 2010

Yes, I'm rude.

I don't find you particularly rude. You are elitist and arrogant at least in the context of scientific threads.

The difference is, I actually have, you know, evidence behind me. People like Pliny tend to lack the basic critical thinking skills to properly analyze the world around them.

Conjecture.

Uhhh... no. The term 'skeptic' (as used by the skeptic movement) does not mean that you "automatically call into question all assertions". It means you follow the evidence. It means you examine the source of data and apply basic logic. So it means that a study conducted by dozens of researchers involving hundreds of subjects, with the results judged/examined by referees with knowledge in the field and no attachment to the authors can and should be given more consideration than the writings by a single individual with no credentials hawking cheesy products on their web site.

The inclusion of faulty "facts" in an area can taint further study and conclusions. Acting politically upon erroneous data is a disaster in the making. If things don't add up if there is the slightest question political action should not be taken.

One question that might be worth asking regarding this flu pandemic is are there any countries where the vaccine was not made available and how many died in that country of H1N1. I think I will check that myself. Seems worth pursuing. I suppose if they don't have the vaccine they won't have the wherewithal to collect statistics on flu deaths.

Ummmm... technically, science doesn't "prove" things... what it does instead is it gathers evidence, and when the preponderance of evidence points in one direction (e.g. study after study showing vaccines are virtually safe and effective), then logically it makes sense to assume we're looking in the right direction.

"Ummmm"... translation = Hyuk! Hyuk! What a know nothing!

When it comes to vaccines (including the influenza vaccine) there is a mountain of evidence suggesting we'd be better off getting vaccinated, and nothing of consequence indicating we shouldn't. That's not a 'belief' (belief implying that you accept something without evidence). That's a logical conclusion based on the principle of Occam's razor.

Regarding the influenza vaccine there's a mountain of evidence from all the stock holders. Politicians are so easy to convince to do the right thing. Wink! Wink! Nudge! Nudge! Say no more! Say no more!

That doesn't mean that there haven't been mistakes in the past, or that some currently established ideas won't be overturned in the future. But when such corrections are made, they get made through proper scientific investigations...

Meanwhile, how many millions of deaths occur. There were at least six million during WWII.

I asked Pliny this question before, but he avoided it (probably because it is one that illustrates the problems with his claims)...

Do you think we should give any value to the idea that the earth is flat?

I did answer that...and that's not the first time you have conveniently altered what was said or not said. Not very scientific of you nor particularly honest.

After all, all evidence that we have now points to a round earth, but if your argument is that we should accept that "facts may arise that overturn our theories" then shouldn't we be teaching the 'flat earth' theory in geology class just in case evidence arises later to support it?

I think your implication here is that all scientific theories hold the same validity. Not very discerning or "scientific".

Well, some of the things Pliny seems to post seem to suggest he doesn't believe they work at all.

I have answered this question as well. There are those that hold that all vaccines are not effective. I don't believe the flu vaccine is effective. Are all vaccines ineffective? I don't know...if you remember I said previously (another slightly dishonest moment on your part)...the jury is out. But I would probably get one if there were an epidemic of smallpox, either that or intentionally contract a case of cowpox.

Once again, as I have stated many times before in this thread....

The fact that the risk was 'overblown' does not necessarily mean that vaccinations are not a 'good thing'.

The risk was overblown. As was the Bird Flu, SARS,...and numerous other sky is falling events.

So, it only saves thousands of lives instead of 10s of thousands of lives. Do you think the thousands of lives were somehow not worth saving?

Unscientific Conjecture. The number of lives saved cannot be calculated and it damaged a few lives in the process.

Well, I have posted studies (oooo.... science) where they actually looked at the cost of vaccinating groups of people, and compared it to the time lost from work due to illness. The result was that money ended up getting saved by the vaccination. Plus you have the cost of hospitalization for those who become seriously ill. (And just wondering, how exactly do you put a dollar value on the suffering from those with even a 'minor' case of the flu? Or on the lives that are lost?)

I remember that. But in the melee how many hours of work were lost in this particular H1N1 scare. What with the hours on end that hundreds of thousands of people spent in lineups and you know that quite a few had adverse reactions where they lost a day or two of work anyway.

We have statistics from previous years. They show that people who get vaccinated end up with fewer illnesses over the course of the flu season than those who do not.

Unsubstantiated.

Not exactly. While the existence of foolish people who don't get vaccinated does impact herd immunity, those who do get the shot are almost universally protected (at least against the strain the vaccine contains.) They can't get the flu once protected, so they won't pass it on to others, or miss work being home sick, or waste health care resources being in the hospital on a respirator. It is not as ideal as having everyone vaccinated, but its better than nothing.

Well, over half the population of Canada gets the flu shot every year, so factoring in age demographics, it should reduce about half the number of deaths since before the vaccine, which it didn't and thus cannot be claimed to be "effective".

I dont' think flu vaccines did become popular until the mid-nineties and the vaccinated population has increased since, to where it is now, if memory serves, just over 60%.

Unfortunately, they had that bad batch of vaccine in 1976 which scared people off it for a decade and a half. But death statistics from flu during that time don't differ much from statistics from 2000 on. They are a little bit higher probably because of the aging demographic.

First of all, while it is true that there were fewer deaths in the southern hemisphere from pandemic H1N1 than in seasonal flu in other years, it was hitting younger healthier people more than the elderly.

Odd, isn't it!

I hate to put a value on human life, but most people would probably consider it sadder when a child dies than when a senior (who has lived a rich full life) does.

Yeah...that value on human life will be considered at a later date.

Secondly, even though they had a 'mild' flu season there, there were reasons to believe that the experience in the southern hemosphere wouldn't be repeated in North America. The virus was first identified in the spring of 2009 and appeared to start in Mexico. Australia's flu season started soon after that, and given the limited time frame and relative isolation of Australia the virus might not have had time to become 'entrenched'.

If it was there how could it not be entrenched. Is there a scientific explanation for how "entrenchment" is qualified?

Did any Australians die of H1N1? It was too soon to have developed the vaccine. We had trouble with our supply.

Compare that to North America, where we had several extra months for the virus to spread at low levels before the official start of flu season, and we had more interaction with Mexican citizens. Due to those factors, its not totally unreasonable to expect we might have more problems with the flu here up north than they did down south.

We had the vaccine and they didn't until after their flu season.

All in all. I know science doesn't discourage you from having a critical point of view. You can ask all the questions you like. It is you who claim science has the closest version of the truth. Should we follow you, the skeptic?

Edited August 26, 2010 by Pliny

Pliny · August 26, 2010

Continuously adding qualifiers like that is a game creationists play, and one I have no interest in.

If no interest why bother to comment? Probably because other people should be aware of and benefit from your wisdom?

Anyway adding "continuously" is similar to adding "absolute" to truth...wait a minute! Who is it here that is really continuously adding qualifiers?

You are funny!

Edited August 26, 2010 by Pliny

August 26, 2010

Anyway adding "continuously" is similar to adding "absolute" to truth...wait a minute! Who is it here that is really continuously adding qualifiers?

Hmm so I did, I read the quote as already saying absolute, weird

bloodyminded · August 26, 2010

You can present all the published studies you want, peer reviewed literature means that the peers reviewing the studies have the same political, economic and social interests as those doing the studies.

It can mean that, but it sure as hell doesn't always and necessarily mean any such thing. Peer reviewed literature can also mean that the peers hold to similar and well-established standards that genuinely strive towards objectivity.

You're now within the realm of not only conspiracy theory, but a truly massive one; not only is peer review always suspect...but non-peer reviewed sources are actually superior. (Like, for example, scam sites explicitly trying to sell you something, and using illogical methodologies to "prove" their assertions.)

In other words, we are better to trust people who avoid peer review--as if they can't say, literally, anything they want, anything at all.

Why? Why is the potential fallacies of the group more problematic than the potential fallacies of any old Joe Blow who wishes to say anything he wants?

You don't elaborate on this dilemma.

It is their elitist attitude that is the problem. And it is your elitist attitude that presents the most danger to all of us, collectively. While you feign caring and sharing for the welfare of others, in your little hearts you think of them as no more than useless consumers of resources.

????

Segnosaur is suggesting we pay more attention to educated experts than to people who simply don't know much about the subject. This isn't "elitism."

Further, he didn't say it was always perfect and always correct; he said the opposite. But the alternative is quite incontestably worse...in fact, an irrational way to garner information.

How many times have I seen you and others of the same stripe on this forum refer to, not just your detractors, which would be understandable, but the general public as idiots and ignoramuses that need to be led by the nose and not kept informed.

Wrong. Our friend Segnosaur is plainly and incontestably trying to spread an informed opinion on this subject. Even if he were wrong (and he isn't), you are obviously mistaken about his intent.

If people are interested they can and do understand, if they are not trying to be snowed by elitist interests that would prefer to earn their livelihood out of other people's ignorance.

You still haven't explained why peer-reviewed experts are going to earn their livelihood from other's ignorance...while those who engage in non-peer reviewed opinions are not going to.

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

Pliny · August 26, 2010

It can mean that, but it sure as hell doesn't always and necessarily mean any such thing. Peer reviewed literature can also mean that the peers hold to similar and well-established standards that genuinely strive towards objectivity.

And that is the case. It is those who beleive and promote the infallibility of science that I take issue with, not science. I will make up my own mind on science and it's theories.

You're now within the realm of not only conspiracy theory, but a truly massive one; not only is peer review always suspect...but non-peer reviewed sources are actually superior. (Like, for example, scam sites explicitly trying to sell you something, and using illogical methodologies to "prove" their assertions.)

In the case of religion does the Church not conspire to lie? Are the Priests not all in one grand conspiracy to foist upon the populace it's false beliefs? What were the reasons all these seemingly men of good will perpetrated this, and so many of them, and what are the means by which they could maintain such conspiracy? Were there no good men among them so that even today the conspiracy continues? Well, tell me how this conspiracy is possible? Should the Pope admit the charade?

The fault with religion lies in it's organizations not with religion itself. And the same is true of the Priests of science. The fault does not lie in science itself but in it's organizations and with those who would use it for wrongful purposes, such as politicians and skeptics.

Now let me ask of these skeptics here if they themselves had decided that there were no god before they found agreement with their fellow skeptics? Did skeptics play the simple role of confirming to them their already determined beliefs? Science certainly has never claimed to prove a negative although some scientists make the claim.

I would venture to say they held their beliefs before they tripped upon the skeptics.

And is it logical and critical thinking to argue that "flat-earthers" make an equivalent argument to deny the Deist his belief? It isn't too becoming of someone who makes a claim to critical thinking.

In other words, we are better to trust people who avoid peer review--as if they can't say, literally, anything they want, anything at all.

Why? Why is the potential fallacies of the group more problematic than the potential fallacies of any old Joe Blow who wishes to say anything he wants?

You don't elaborate on this dilemma.

The potential fallacies of a group are far more problematic. We believed in heaven and hell for centuries because a group of people in an organization (Religion) claimed they had a monopoly on truth.

We have the same problem already when science is claimed by it's organizations and adherents to have a monopoly on truth. I am not saying science be rejected wholesale as I am not saying religion be rejected wholesale.

The individual, any old Joe Blow, can formulate his own opinions and beliefs, especially regarding life, and you can easily reject or accept them upon your own consideration. I don't know, does that seem like there might be less chance of potential fallacies being problematic? Or does the weight of an organization claiming itself the only source that approaches truth potentially more problematic?

Segnosaur is suggesting we pay more attention to educated experts than to people who simply don't know much about the subject. This isn't "elitism."

No, you're right; that isn't elitism. What is elitist is his opinion of the general public's level of intelligence. They couldn't possibly understand "science". Priests thought people couldn't understand religion either. In reality, they never wanted them to understand. They wanted to remain the experts. I don't think it is difficult to understand that a person who has invested their life and future livelihood in their education might wish to keep the subject erudite - it isn't special if everyone knows. Although that shouldn't be a product of education it is a flaw in human character.

Further, he didn't say it was always perfect and always correct; he said the opposite. But the alternative is quite incontestably worse...in fact, an irrational way to garner information.

nor do I say it is always flawed or always correct. I am not really talking about science but how it is used. Just as Priests used religion for their own aggrandizement. And I wouldn't cast all scientists in the same light. It is those who use it to promote their own views. The worst offenders are politicians and skeptics.

Wrong. Our friend Segnosaur is plainly and incontestably trying to spread an informed opinion on this subject. Even if he were wrong (and he isn't), you are obviously mistaken about his intent.

Of course, he isn't wrong so how could his intent be called into question.

You still haven't explained why peer-reviewed experts are going to earn their livelihood from other's ignorance...while those who engage in non-peer reviewed opinions are not going to.

They certainly have less chance. Did the Priest earn his livelihood from other's ignorance?

He could not have done it himself - he needed the weight of an organization behind him.

Does the scientist presenting and having his research approved through the peer review process face the collective weight of his peers? Could he not perhaps, being human, include data he knows will meet with approval, citing earlier approved works instead of just his own work on it's own merit?

If the idea that we were polluting our atmosphere and creating anthropogenic climate change were not thought of first and it were just a discovery of science that this were happening then there would be less question about it. However, anthropogenic climate change was dreamed up and then studies implemented to prove it. It isn't a process of discovery - it's a process of proving the premise correct. I am just of the opinion that more data is necessary to prove any anthropogenic causal relationship.

Sign In

Pandemic over !

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest TrueMetis

Guest TrueMetis

Guest TrueMetis

Guest TrueMetis

Join the conversation

Tell a friend

Member Statistics

Recent Achievements

Recently Browsing