Pandemic over !

[Pliny]

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

You mean you created your own reality? We do all like to believe what we want and you are not immune.

[bloodyminded]

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

Well, then ignore my parenthetical remark (since it is parenthetical after all--divorced from the thesis and thrust of my remark): Even if he were wrong, that doesn't mean his intent was bad.

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Dave_ON]

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.

Then we are in basic agreement. I would still posit that everyone is deserving of common courtesy. Respect is perhaps the wrong term to use as it doesn't properly convey my meaning. I agree biblical literalists/creationists are indeed the at issue, though it's a shame they've absconded the terms. If you take the creation myth for what it is, an explanation of the universe as was commonly understood given the information available at the time, you get quite a different picture. One can be a creationist, in the true sense of the word that is, in that the universe appears to have been initiated by someone or something of intelligence.

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.

Indeed and by far an in large most people who are religious feel that spirituality or religion is a methodology for understanding the metaphysical universe.

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?

Extreme and blind devotion to anything benefits no one as this causes one to discount possibilities before they are given due consideration.

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.

You tend to get more flies with honey than with vinegar, but that's just my observation.

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 key to my statement is "in the classical sense", let me be more clear. I was specifically referring to the Platonic school of skeptical thought, aka ancient skeptic. It derives from the Greek word Skepsis and quite literally means inquiry or consideration. The central tenets of this philosophy are that our epistemic abilities are indeed limited and therefore we should reserve judgment in all things as we can never "know" everything, only guess. Modern skepticism as you refer to it is an entirely different creature, indeed the very fact that modern skeptics pass judgment based on a limited number of facts runs counterman to the very core of skepticism. ie because we cannot know everything and consider all possibilities, what do we really "know"? Incidentally it was skepticism that gave rise to the Agnostic (no knowledge) school of religious thought.

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.

Now we're getting somewhere, we can never really prove anything, even with a preponderance of evidence, we can at best infer based on the facts available to us at the time. Again we're back to classical skepticism, judgment cannot be made in the absence of all the facts, ergo judgment (in the context of finality) can never be passed and we must re-evaluate prior conclusions.

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.

"Belief" is merely a term for the conclusions we reach and hold to be true based on our perception of the world. For some that may be based on intuition, emotion, second hand information/opinions or physical evidence. All these methods eventually lead to a "belief" of some sort. Again because as you have already stated science doesn't "prove" anything, it is merely a belief derived from physical evidence.

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.

So we agree, one must always be open to the possibility that they concluded incorrectly and prepared to revise their conclusions based on new information.

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?

Not sure what you're attempting to infer by this statement. The question of course is ridiculous given our current knowledge, the same could be said about teaching the geocentric theory. However, let's look at it from a different perspective, do you think logically that based on the evidence that was available at the time that the flat earth theory was postulated that this was at all an unreasonable conclusion? Based on the physical evidence they had available, ie. what they could see with their eyes, a flat earth is the most logical conclusion. This question only serves to prove my central premise, we form opinions, theories what have you based on the evidence available to us at the time. When new ideas, thoughts, or evidence come to light these conclusions need to be revisited and revised as necessary. The true danger is believing you arrived at a final conclusion that is beyond refutation.

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

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?

I can't speak to what Pliny does or doesn't believe, however I certainly didn't state that vaccination was a bad thing, quite to the contrary I mentioned how they have served to eliminate things such as small pox or polio. The issue here is we're not dealing with those terrible and almost always fatal diseases. We're dealing with the flu and this is what I took issue with. Why create a panic unnecessarily, what good does that do? Are you suggesting the ends justify the means? If whipping the general populace into a hysterical frenzy achieves heard immunity that's ok? Realistically what percentage of flu sufferers actually die vs. other diseases we routinely immunize for. I would say they're substantially lower then the likes of small pox or other such diseases.

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.

Again not calling into question their effectiveness, merely the redirection of resources for something that in the vast majority of cases is not fatal.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Dave_ON

[Guest TrueMetis]

You mean you created your own reality? We do all like to believe what we want and you are not immune.

Cause that's what accidentally not reading a sentence right means.

The fault with religion lies in it's organizations not with religion itself. And the same is true of the Priests of science.

You know you sounds exactly like a creationists, quick how old is the earth? You're ascribing so many positions to scientists that just don't exist.

[segnosaur]

Then we are in basic agreement. I would still posit that everyone is deserving of common courtesy.

Everyone? What about those who are holocaust deniers/neonazis or who wish to spread racism? What about those who are scam artists? What about those who are slandering people? What about trolls? Do you think those people deserve "common courtesy"?

Granted, Pliny is not on the same level as a holocaust denier, but he has:

- Repeatedly made false claims, even after those claims had been dealt with (showing a general unwillingness to actually 'debate')

- Repeatedly ignored requests/questions when they would damage his argument again, showing a general unwillingness to debate.

- Repeatedly made claims that maligned the abilities of people that I respect (and in some cases know personally)

- Recommended a course of action that can cause the death of individuals

That's not exactly the type of person I can respect.

In the past, I have engaged in debates with people who had beliefs that were not 'skeptics'. In some cases, the people showed a genuine willingness to debate: They didn't continually rehash things that had been dealt with, and they actually answered questions when posed of them. I had a lot more respect for those people than I do for pliny.

You tend to get more flies with honey than with vinegar, but that's just my observation.

Perhaps you do. But given the fact that Pliny has openly stated that he's quite happy to wallow in his ignorance suggests that not even honey can catch that particular fly.

The fact is, in this thread, I have offered clear, non-insulting explanations for science. I've offered analogies to try to make things easier to understand, and posed questions that should have made it easier for people to understand the failure of the non-scientific approach. None of that worked. Instead, all I get is a rehash of previously debunked statements.

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.

So we agree, one must always be open to the possibility that they concluded incorrectly and prepared to revise their conclusions based on new information.

There is, however, a difference between a legitimate challenge to existing scientific ideas/thoughts, and they type of nonsense that Pliny seems to believe in.

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?

Not sure what you're attempting to infer by this statement.

Some people such as Pliny believe that because science doesn't "know everything/is elitist/etc" that we must be accepting of ideas coming from outside science. The idea of a flat earth is one such idea. If you decide you have to accept the non-scientific views of the anti-vaxers, then you should be prepared to accept the non-scientific views of the flat earthers. On the other hand, if someone accepts the anti-vax side, they must either give an actual logical justification for the double standard, or you must admit hypocrisy.

However, let's look at it from a different perspective, do you think logically that based on the evidence that was available at the time that the flat earth theory was postulated that this was at all an unreasonable conclusion?

Irrelevant. I'm not talking about the flat earth theory in an historical context. I'm talking about flat earth believers in our modern times.

I can't speak to what Pliny does or doesn't believe, however I certainly didn't state that vaccination was a bad thing, quite to the contrary I mentioned how they have served to eliminate things such as small pox or polio. The issue here is we're not dealing with those terrible and almost always fatal diseases.

Ummm... small pox and polio were not "almost always fatal". In fact, according to Wikipedia, 99% of all polio sufferers show no real long term effects from the disease. And even though Smallpox is more dangerous, mortality is around 30%.

We're dealing with the flu and this is what I took issue with. Why create a panic unnecessarily, what good does that do? Are you suggesting the ends justify the means?

If whipping the general populace into a hysterical frenzy achieves heard immunity that's ok?

Well, what if doing so actually saves lives? Is a few less people in the morgue worth the hassle of individuals who might panic unnecessarily?

Oh, and by the way, I never claimed I supported the way the H1N1 influenza was handled. I am dealing only with the clinical effects of the vaccine and influenza itself.

Realistically what percentage of flu sufferers actually die vs. other diseases we routinely immunize for. I would say they're substantially lower then the likes of small pox or other such diseases.

Yes, they probably are. But so what? Do you think the hundreds of lives saved by vaccination are not important, just because they wasn't going to be thousands of deaths?

The important issue is not how virulent influenza is compared to other diseases. The issues are:

- Can the same benefit (saving lives/preventing influenza illness) be accomplished in other ways? The answer is, unfortunately not. Even hand washing (something that seems to be championed) has minimal effect when preventing influenza infections

- Can the money/resources used save more lives if used in other ways? No, because overall, the influenza vaccine saves money, by reducing the need to treat seriously ill flu sufferers, and reducing the amount of time people are absent from work.

Again not calling into question their effectiveness, merely the redirection of resources for something that in the vast majority of cases is not fatal.

I see...

So, just what do you think those medical resources used to handle influenza should be used for?

[segnosaur]

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.

Which is of course a useless answer. Not unsurprising coming from you.

So, I will try to reword it to remove any ability you have to dodge the question:

Given the fact that you have criticized both the government and vaccine manufacturers, what groups or organizations do you feel should fund influenza vaccine studies, so that you yourself accept their results as valid. And no, I'm not looking for "the ones who wish to find out". Give me examples of companies/organizations.

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

However, by pointing to one study that gave information on funding and saying you want 'more honesty', you are falsely suggesting that other studies to not make similar claims.

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.

Which is of course a lie. I have pointed out multiple times in this thread about examples where hard evidence has trumped "the consensus". Yet you once again repeat the same cr*p.

Is it any wonder that skeptics appear 'elietist'? Why exactly do you expect to be treated with courtesy when you repeat claims like that?

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.

Actually, the only case I am familiar with regarding false information deliberately published, is an anti-vaccine study published by Wakefield. Ironic, isn't it?

What do you feel would happen to someone attempting to publish a study showing the flu vaccines are ineffective?

Same thing that happened when Raymond Dart ended up providing evidence for his ideas about the evolution of man... The evidence gets published, and the majority altered their opinions.

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

Well given the fact that the majority of people in north America

- Don't believe in evolution

- Don't know that an electron is smaller than an atom

- Can't find Iraq on a map

my concern for their lack of scientific knowledge is well founded.

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.

Nope, the problem is, the affect of believing in non-scientific nonsense is much more dangerous to humankind than the mis-steps that valid science has made.

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.

And I never claimed science was 'flawless'. What I pointed out is that it is infinitely better than the non-scientific giberish of the scam artists you listen do.

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.

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.

Ah, the mythical "flawed fact". Indicating more that you have no idea how medical studies work.

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

And the fact that he's stating opinions on subjects that he has no background in, and that deal with stuff he sells on his own web site doesn't bother you at all?

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

Sorry, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

Yes you do. Of course, instead of the 'theories' of Jones you believe in the 'theories' of Mercola et al.

Do you still consider anecdotes of no value?

When it comes to issues of public health and drug safety/effectiveness, then yes, I 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?

I keep bringing it up because it illustrates your inability to think logically. You held up his offer as 'valid'. In just a couple of minutes I discovered a flaw that showed his offer was not genuine. Yet you were unable to detect that flaw. Why is that?

Its a little like taking math advice from someone who says 2+2=5. If you're not smart enough to detect such a basic flaw, then there is something wrong.

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.

Ummm... do you even know what a 'double blind' study is? From the looks of things you don't.

In a double blind study, you inject one group of people with the vaccine, and one people with a placebo. The thing is, nobody is told at the time which group they are in... not the doctor, not the patient. So there is no way for the doc to assume "the vaccine must work so the patient can't be sick". That's the whole point of "double blind".

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.

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

A rather typical response from you....

Mother Teresa's faults are well documented for those that want to look for them. And when you're presented with them, your reaction is to use a snarky comment. (Rather ironic isn't it, considering that now that I'm in the minority going against consensus?)

Continue your "good" work saving people from their ignorance. You can leave me with mine.

Which is, of course, the most accurate statement you've mad.

For all your complaints about 'elitism', and how mean I am, the fact is, you yourself are admiting you have no interest in facts.

Edited August 26, 2010 by segnosaur

[Pliny]

Which is of course a useless answer. Not unsurprising coming from you.

So, I will try to reword it to remove any ability you have to dodge the question:

Given the fact that you have criticized both the government and vaccine manufacturers, what groups or organizations do you feel should fund influenza vaccine studies, so that you yourself accept their results as valid. And no, I'm not looking for "the ones who wish to find out". Give me examples of companies/organizations.

Useless answer?

I would think there were people genuinely interested in finding out.

Some might be interested in knowing and some may be opportunistic in using it to forward their beliefs. Perhaps that the sky is falling.

I would say that scientific organizations and scientists in general wish to know and find out things for the pure reason of knowing and explaining things around us. Here I put scientists

There are quite a few people who would also like to have this knowledge if it serves to improve their understanding. Here I put the general public interested in new discoveries.

Then there are those who wish to apply science to new applications. The innovator and entrepreneur.

Then there are those who wish to manipulate findings to suit their objectives and "beliefs" for purposes of control or oppression, mainly. Here are the politicians and skeptics and their organizations. While they all invent the proper reasons and proclaim the collective good as the objective they see the necessity for control and it is the overriding principle in their activities - man must be controlled for his own good. The flaw is in that they exclude themselves from the equation.

I really like Shakespeare's take on this, "Do not, as some ungracious Pastors do, tell me of the steep and thorny way to heaven, whiles, like some puff'd and restless libertine, he, the primrose path of dalliance treads."

Now, I suppose it is obvious that I wish to dominate and control and that is my objective. I do, but I wish to dominate and control my own life not other people's lives. I would prefer they have control over their own lives. I think this difference between skeptics and myself is evident in the argument.

However, by pointing to one study that gave information on funding and saying you want 'more honesty', you are falsely suggesting that other studies to not make similar claims.

Which is of course a lie.

I never made that suggestion at all. You assumed I am making that suggestion.

I have pointed out multiple times in this thread about examples where hard evidence has trumped "the consensus". Yet you once again repeat the same cr*p.

I have pointed out several times where hard evidence has finally triumphed and trumped the consensus. Such as the Copernican theory.

Aren't you arguing that the consensus today is based upon hard evidence which makes it irrefutable. And here's the rub...you argue nothing is irrefutable. I believe that is your argument and is rather circular in itself let alone when presented in argument of opposing views.

Is it any wonder that skeptics appear 'elietist'? Why exactly do you expect to be treated with courtesy when you repeat claims like that?

All who argue against the view of the skpetic will be treated the same.

Skeptics do not appear elitist. They are elitist.

Actually, the only case I am familiar with regarding false information deliberately published, is an anti-vaccine study published by Wakefield. Ironic, isn't it?

Not ironic. Symptomatic that that is the "only" study you found.

What do you feel would happen to someone attempting to publish a study showing the flu vaccines are ineffective?

Same thing that happened when Raymond Dart ended up providing evidence for his ideas about the evolution of man... The evidence gets published, and the majority altered their opinions.

BS. It would have to fight to get published. More than likely, corroborative studies would have to be presented in overwhelming number until they could no longer be ignored. Not many will climb that mountain. It is easier to just go along and let someone else spend their life in frustration.

Well given the fact that the majority of people in north America

- Don't believe in evolution

- Don't know that an electron is smaller than an atom

- Can't find Iraq on a map

my concern for their lack of scientific knowledge is well founded.

What is your "concern" about their lack of scientific knowledge?

They will hurt themselves? They will damage the planet?

They will pass the flu onto you? They can be easily duped?

All of the above?

ahhh....it's in your next statement....

Nope, the problem is, the affect of believing in non-scientific nonsense is much more dangerous to humankind than the mis-steps that valid science has made.

How did we ever make it this far?

You condemn the general public's general knowledge of science but then what really matters, the scientific method, is too difficult to understand anyway and we should accept it's conclusions without question.

Ah, the mythical "flawed fact". Indicating more that you have no idea how medical studies work.

They are the worst for flawed facts. Is there any wonder why Mercola has such appeal.

And the fact that he's stating opinions on subjects that he has no background in, and that deal with stuff he sells on his own web site doesn't bother you at all?

I make my own judgments. I find just as much crap on his site as I do on government approved medical sites. They both believe themselves correct.

Yes you do. Of course, instead of the 'theories' of Jones you believe in the 'theories' of Mercola et al.

Come on. I am a little more discerning than that. I take everything with a grain of salt. But then again I don't think every thing is as serious as you do. You are a very serious person and everything should be taken seriously. That is why science is so important.

But Segnosaur, what of the things we know nothing of? What dangers to humanity lurk among us of which we have no knowledge? I think your desire is for us all to live our lives in fear constantly.

You are just far too serious about it, Segnosaur.

Yes...if we don't believe in evolution we are doomed. We must not believe in non-scientific nonsense. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny must die! Or at least become secular. They are proving harder to kill than God even.

If we don't know an atom is larger than an electron we will all perish.

Of course how stupid to go to war when we can't find where the battles are supposed to be fought. That's just common sense. We all need to know where Iraq is on the map.

When it comes to issues of public health and drug safety/effectiveness, then yes, I consider anecdotes of no value.

What anecdotes do people act on?

You know, that someone believes chemotherapy and radiation cured their cancer is an anecdote. Many, and I would say the bigger majority of people act on those anecdotes without knowing a thing about the science. You are suggesting people not accept anecdotes and even if based in science they are of no value.

I know I am an idiot for assuming you meant "all" anecdotes are of no value. Whether anecdotes are backed by science or not, they are still anecdotes. Now will you say they are not anecdotes because they are backed by science. But an anecdote is an anecdote. If I say it is backed by science does it make it less of an anecdote?

If it is actually backed by science that would be what is required to give the anecdote value.

People must only accept anecdotes when they are too stupid to understand the science, right?

I keep bringing it up because it illustrates your inability to think logically. You held up his offer as 'valid'. In just a couple of minutes I discovered a flaw that showed his offer was not genuine. Yet you were unable to detect that flaw. Why is that?

Its a little like taking math advice from someone who says 2+2=5. If you're not smart enough to detect such a basic flaw, then there is something wrong.

Why is it that I couldn't detect that basic flaw?

What was the flaw again? Something about $10,000 isn't worth the effort.

Ummm... do you even know what a 'double blind' study is? From the looks of things you don't.

In a double blind study, you inject one group of people with the vaccine, and one people with a placebo. The thing is, nobody is told at the time which group they are in... not the doctor, not the patient. So there is no way for the doc to assume "the vaccine must work so the patient can't be sick". That's the whole point of "double blind".

Yes, I do.

Someone does know who gets the vaccine and who gets the placebo. The experimenter. He has to know so the proper group gets the vaccine and the other group gets the placebo.

The experimenter is the administrator and the tabulator of the results. He is supposed to be just an observer.

The double blind test tries to eliminate any human element that might contaminate the results.

One big question with the experimenter is, does he want to know something or does he want to prove something? And another factor is whether or not his expertise is being employed by someone else and doe she want to know something or doe she want to prove something. Now, if you believe that the Aryan race is superior experimentation is how it is proven and experiments are designed to establish that fact. So the belief supersedes the results. Now all manner of statistics can be assembled to confirm and forward the belief. Experiments are a harder evidence but if the belief is there then experiments will be done until they agree with the belief. Now I know a lot of times this fails but if the political will or the belief is strong enough then it will stubbornly persist. The publication of the Bell Curve in 1994 tells us how persistent beliefs can be.

A rather typical response from you....

Mother Teresa's faults are well documented for those that want to look for them. And when you're presented with them, your reaction is to use a snarky comment. (Rather ironic isn't it, considering that now that I'm in the minority going against consensus?)

Well, I am not a proponent of do-gooders. And I would suspect Mother Theresa had her flaws. That she used the poor I have no doubt. The point was she did not publicly vilify or look down upon those she was pretending to help nor did she use the poor to condemn others, as far as I know, so in that I think she really "believed" her help was real. If, as you point out, she is just like all the rest of the do-gooders - I don't find that impossible to believe.

So the point is that someone like yourself who looks at people as generally stupid, is being a bit elitist and disingenuous when he says he is trying to "help".

You are convinced in your beliefs, as are creationists. Are you trying to help them? I suppose how you come across is that you have tried to help them but failed. So they can now be humiliated.

For all your complaints about 'elitism', and how mean I am, the fact is, you yourself are admiting you have no interest in facts.

I don't think I have said you are mean. I have said you are elitist.

I think I have said I don't find you particularly mean.

Oh, I have interest in facts. And I will argue them to be true or not. The fact is you are selective in your facts.

Now even in the hard sciences there are assumptions that you accept as fact and others that you don't.

In the field of physics you accept the fact that a thing called gravity exists. And plainly their are observations that seem to indicate there is a force called gravity. However no one has come up with an energy, a particle, a mass, or piece of this thing called gravity.

No one is going to attempt to prove "gravity" does not exist. The observation of it's effects are there for anyone to observe and no one will deny that there must be something called gravity.

But if I follow your logic I cannot say that gravity exists because no one has ever found that particle or energy that it must be comprised of for it to be a force in the universe. And I must argue there is no gravity.

So what of life? or God?

You have made the conclusion that it does not exist because no particle or energy has been identified to say it exists. However, if we observe we see matter animated. How is this possible?

By electro-chemical impulses, of course. But you know what, that doesn't explain the fact there is an awareness of itself. Even if life were explained as an electro-chemical process. It doesn't explain the awareness of it. Can an electro-chemical process be aware of itself?

It seems being aware of being aware is not convincing enough for some to realize there is something called life and like gravity, or even time, neither of which has an identified particle or energy, has yet been explained. Because it is observable from the body that gravity and time can affect it we conclude they exist. However, we must conclude awareness doesn't exist because there is no energy or particle that clearly identifies it even though we can clearly see in all of animated matter it's effects, which are essentially actions based upon purposes and decisions.

[GostHacked]

Thought this would have been relevant to post here.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/09/06/swine-flu-vaccine.html

The WHO declared last month that the swine flu pandemic that started in June 2009 was over, after it killed about 18,600 people worldwide, far fewer than the worse-case scenarios in which authorities said millions could die.

And far less than seasonal flue. And to say the vaccines were effective. ....

Some 350 million doses of the vaccine were administered worldwide, according to WHO figures.

350 million .. .there are about 7 billion of us on this planet. Not enough doses to stop the pandemic if there actually was one.

Not sure if there is any weight to this item (noted in the comments)

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2760&end=2780&view=yes&id=3581#newspost

They filed for a patent for the vaccine a year before H1N1 was declared a pandemic.

[Pliny]

Thought this would have been relevant to post here.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/09/06/swine-flu-vaccine.html

And far less than seasonal flue. And to say the vaccines were effective. ....

350 million .. .there are about 7 billion of us on this planet. Not enough doses to stop the pandemic if there actually was one.

Not sure if there is any weight to this item (noted in the comments)

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2760&end=2780&view=yes&id=3581#newspost

They filed for a patent for the vaccine a year before H1N1 was declared a pandemic.

Yeah. That's pertinent as well as googling where H1N1 vaccinations were halted due to concerns about side effects. Western Australia was among a few places that halted their programs for children.

Safe and effective?

Nonetheless, Segnosaur has dropped the discussion after it went on a tangent about beliefs and the, I think, illegitimate use of the scientific method to forward those beliefs.

[Keepitsimple]

I think I might have said something like this before but contrary to the doomsday scenarios, H1N1 may be a blessing to us all. Usually, as flu viruses evolve, they take on many of the characteristics of the previous seasonal flu. The H1N1 mortality rate was over 10 times LESS fatal than seasonal flu. If THAT characteristic becomes part of seasonal flu going forward, hundreds of thousands of lives will be spared - not to mention untold millions of dollars in healthcare costs. Who would the big losers be? Why, the pharmaceutical companies......so watch out for some new sensational stories about the Flu as we lead up to winter. Follow the money.

[Oleg Bach]

Whatever big pharmaceutical needs to sell off next......

I think the next pandemic might be a sexually treated disease and won't you know they will have complete cure-all in pill form.

Nazis are still at it and they are still inferiour - they use liberalism to debase the population - having said that....the nex pandemic will be severe mental illness and a strong dellusion that will be international in scope..it might must be me but I see more and more crazy people - not just the poor but well dressed crazy people of means.

[Pliny]

I think I might have said something like this before but contrary to the doomsday scenarios, H1N1 may be a blessing to us all. Usually, as flu viruses evolve, they take on many of the characteristics of the previous seasonal flu. The H1N1 mortality rate was over 10 times LESS fatal than seasonal flu. If THAT characteristic becomes part of seasonal flu going forward, hundreds of thousands of lives will be spared - not to mention untold millions of dollars in healthcare costs. Who would the big losers be? Why, the pharmaceutical companies......so watch out for some new sensational stories about the Flu as we lead up to winter. Follow the money.

I wonder and worry about what kind of lobbying is going on to get some "political will" behind the "science". Does mandatory strike a chord?