How an Amish missionary caused 2014's massive measles outbreak

141–142 of 142 posts

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

#141

Post by 13years » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 1:53 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #139

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.…

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.

Countless studies are flawed. There is even the study that suggests as many as 50% of all studies are wrong, including those that are well designed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-p...

Its quite easy to recognize, just see who funded the study and you see a trend of results supporting the funder.

Almost nobody takes the time to investigate a study. You are assuming the person knows the study is flawed to begin with.

How do you know the critique of a study is accurate? The critique deserves as much scrutiny as the original until it can be verified. Otherwise it would be cherry picking data to simply stop when we find an answer that fits our beliefs without doing the same investigation of its statements and sources.

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

#142

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 3:24 PM UTC

13years wrote: post #134

mikeash wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is…

I didn't look at that link because you presented it as "investigations still continue" which is meaningless, considering that investigations still continue into things like general relativity and electromagnetism.

In any case, you might recall that I said I'd never seen any data for these arguments except for the supposed autism link, which is based on fake data. Considering the tone of the paper I think it might be in that category. Maybe not. I'll hold off on spending time investigating until some anti-vaxxer actually mentions one as support for their ideas, because "X argues Y" and "there's data to support Y" does not imply "X argues Y because of data supporting it."

Post reply on HN