How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak • Hacker News Board

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#131

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

moheeb wrote: post #130

mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is ba…

I think you haven't looked closely. I know for a fact that the MMR vaccine itself comes with a warning (from the manufacturer!) that it may cause a reaction in some patients. I doubt the manufacturer would place such a warning unless they had data to back it up.

You assume that any of the anti-vax arguments are based on the manufacturer's warning, which is not the case for anything I've seen.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#132

Post by mikeash » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 10:19 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #123

mikeash wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is ba…

"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always…

Why do you assume that I'm assuming? I've looked into this a lot (I myself was an unvaccinated child and I've had plenty of exposure to this stuff) and these are the conclusions I've reached, not assumptions I've made.

You think I haven't asked people where they're coming from in a non-hostile way? I've had tons of non-hostile conversations about this stuff.

If you want to present some data for that side, then I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, stop insisting that it must somehow be there, because as far as I can tell it's not, and I'm not just assuming this is the case.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#133

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 11:00 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #125

13years wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always…

> For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes. It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.

Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines.

If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change.

An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you want someone to listen to you and your goal is to educate, then you will not get very far with your approach.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#134

Post by 13years » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 11:13 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #132

13years wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always…

Why do you assume that I'm assuming? I've looked into this a lot (I myself was an unvaccinated child and I've had plenty of exposure to this stuff) and these are the conclusions I've reached, not assumptions I've made. You think I haven't asked people where they're coming from in a non-hostile way? I've had tons of non-hostile conversations about this stuff. If you want to present some data for that side, then I'd be…

Yet I did. The link to pubmed.

I mean I'm not here to try to convince you of their argument. However, the 1 pubmed article I referenced mentioned there are over 165 studies supporting issues with mercury in vaccines. Is this not interesting data? The researches behind the article seem to think so as their objective is to undercover why there are discrepancies with these results vs those that have said there are no issues.

I mean it takes time to follow all this stuff. Certainly more than I have, yet with a little effort it seems easy enough to see the source of information is not all coming from some personal blogs as I just pointed out.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#135

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 11:30 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #133

Ygg2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes. It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.

Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change. An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you w…

You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv...

In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this:

For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#136

Post by 13years » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:07 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #135

13years wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change. An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you w…

You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference…

Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..."

It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#137

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:26 AM UTC

13years wrote: post #136

maxerickson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference…

Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like.…

"Concerns with validity" gives it too much credit. It's crap. It's dismissible.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#138

Post by 13years » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 3:28 AM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #137

13years wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like.…

"Concerns with validity" gives it too much credit. It's crap. It's dismissible.

It is all a matter of whether you want to personally feel superior like you are crushing an argument to onlookers or do you want to make a difference in the world by engaging in a conversation in which people will more likely be receptive to learn.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#139

Post by Ygg2 » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 4:02 AM UTC

13years wrote: post #136

maxerickson wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference…

Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like.…

Dude. Cherry picking data renders any discussion of validity meaningless. It is crime against science. It's means your study is worth less than paper it is written on and that your reputation is essentially right next to earth's molten core.

Re: How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

#140

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 9:27 AM UTC

13years wrote: post #138

maxerickson wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Concerns with validity" gives it too much credit. It's crap. It's dismissible.

It is all a matter of whether you want to personally feel superior like you are crushing an argument to onlookers or do you want to make a difference in the world by engaging in a conversation in which people will more likely be receptive to learn.

Someone who brings that paper to a discussion isn't trying to engage, they're flogging a point of view.