News Flash:
For immediate release
Galileo imprisoned – entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts
Today, Galileo Galilei was placed under house arrest for questioning what every scientist and learned individual knows to be true – the Earth is at the centre of the universe and the Sun, stars and all other planets revolve around it.
Galileo, a formerly respected mathematician, physicist and otherwise great thinker, continued to repeat the claims of that debunked astronomer, Copernicus, that the Earth revolves around the Sun – a statement which all real scientists know to be false.
Copernicus used to be a well-respected man with a large following and a great future. His statements insisting that the solar system is heliocentric rather than geocentric could not be allowed to continue because it could cause confusion amongst the masses. Should this be allowed to continue, those who thought Copernicus was on the right track might end up helping to spread his message and scientific fact as we know it to be might be threatened.
The government determined that Copernicus’ ‘evidence’ was simply made-up. His case series of 8 planets was simply too small to be taken seriously and they were not in true order in any case. In addition, it was discovered that he had taken out a patent on a telescope which, should his theory prove correct, could have made him an awful lot of money so he was just a greedy, self-interested clod and nobody should ever have listened to him.
Despite all of the available evidence that Copernicus is nothing more than a fraud, Galileo has continued spouting and repeating his errant nonsense. It was feared that if he were not stopped, citizens might believe him because he is very persuasive and they are not intelligent enough to look at the evidence objectively and make their own decisions.
Therefore, the government today took the unprecedented step of placing Galileo under house arrest and naming him and his theories as deceptive, misleading and dangerous.
Anyone who repeats these ridiculous claims will find themselves in the same situation. The government wants everyone to understand that it takes these sorts of things very seriously. Those who are not qualified to judge the truth of such important issues should shut up and just let the real scientists tell you what to think. It will be much simpler that way and we can all be protected from such dangerous and wrong-minded ideas as those demonstrated by Galileo and the totally discredited fraudster, Copernicus.
In future, all science should be left to those who are qualified to dispense it – the scientists who have studied and published on this issue. They are the only experts and their word shall be considered law when it comes to matters within their areas of expertise. Any non-scientists who opine on these issues will be punished severely for their transgression.
The issue here seems almost moot in terms of coming to an effective conclusion. Let those who don’t support vaccination abstain from it, and let those who support it have access to it. Then, in a few generations, the truth will be revealed. But all this campaigning one with one point of view or the other will not effect the final result either way. It’s just annoying, and a wise man once said not to argue with an idiot. They’ll just beat you down with experience.
I read all these comments and just shake my head. First of all it is common knowledge that the fluvax vaccine in Western Australia caused the reactions the children were hospitalised for, one little baby permanently brain damaged. So why then iis it so far fetched for the vaccine proponents to see that these reactions could be present in other children with other vaccines? All this back and forth talk really solves nothing. It is so easy to put a stop to all this. We have a register that has all the children who are not vaccinated on it. If the government wrote letters to the parents requesting their children’s medical records to see how many of these children suffered asthma, food allergies, autism, diabetes, juvenille arthritis, cancer, constant ear, throat, chest infections etc. and these findings stacked up to the medical records of the vaccinated children then the AVN would effectively be proved wrong. My grandaughter is 8 years old and not vaccinated. I would be happy to provide this imformation although there is not much to provide, she’s never sick. I believe this has been suggested before. Seems pretty easy to me. I wonder why they won’t do it. Perhaps because they know the outcome. If the skeptics are so completeley sure we are wrong why aren’t they pushing for this also so they can prove they are right?
A number of interesting points Jane – and good ones! May I address them one by one to be clear?
1) Influenza vaccine in children is a tricky topic, and one that specifically shouldn’t be used to generalise to other vaccines. Vaccines vary greatly, and side effects from one are not necessarily applicable to another.
2) Influenza vaccine is one that I don’t personally recommend to all individuals unless requested – the population benefits of the vaccine are best seen in at risk groups, and the risk of febrile reaction in the 5-9 age bracket is higher than for other groups. Therefore, in this age group, a decision to vaccinate with the 2012 Fluvax vaccine should be based on careful consideration of potential benefits and risks in the individual.
3) Paediatric vaccinations are recommended for use between 6 months and 5 years, but again only for at risk groups (eg immunocompromise)
In summary for these points, I would not usually recommend the influenza vaccine to anyone but at risk groups, and would be particularly careful in children. The groups usually targeted are:
1) Immunocompromise
2) Institutionalised patients (ie hostel or nursing home residents)
3) Those over 65
4) Pregnant women
5) Health care workers
I think my views are pretty close to the dept. of health and ageing:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/nips2
As someone under point 5), I have the fluvax every year, as soon as it is available. I wouldn’t recommend it to most people unless they fit one of the points above, or there were some other compelling reason.
In reference to your point regarding a register, I would be delighted if such a thing were to come to pass. However, quite often the ethics committees and civil liberty groups kick up a stink if the study endpoints are not specifically stated prospectively, making such databases hard to set up. I am sure it is not impossible – have you considered trying to set one up yourself?
I hope this post helps, and at least satisfies the likes of Meryl and Punter that I do not want universal vaccination, but only when there is objective evidence for them
If I may add a bit more info from the TGA regarding influenza vaccination in children:
http://www.tga.gov.au/safety/alerts-medicine-seasonal-flu-120206.htm
Nocompulsory vaccination says: ” You say that there is no evidence for anything at all that the AVN says – can you please name 1 thing that we say which you believe is not backed by evidence. Then, I can provide you with the evidence.”
Talking about pertussis, the leader of the AVN said: “You didn’t die from it 30 years ago and you don’t die from it today”. Where is the evidence to back up that statement?
Katie, I have dealt with this before – perhaps you just don’t recall? This statement was one of 3 or 4 sentences I was allowed in an interview that ran for over 3 1/2 hours and out of which, the TV station took what they could use against me and left out the rest. In relative terms, you did not die from whooping cough 3 years ago because the risk of death from whooping cough is very low indeed. But that is not to say that nobody dies from the disease – of course they do! But in a country of 22 million people, we have had less than 10 deaths in a decade attributable to whooping cough so it is not one of the bigger risks, I think you’ll agree?
Now, can you show me the evidence to prove that mass vaccination against whooping cough has done anything to reduce either your risk of contracting the disease or of dying from it in Australia.
You said on TV (about pertussis): “You didn’t die from it 30 years ago, and you don’t die from it today.” Where is your evidence for that statement?
Katie, did you mean to post the same comment twice? I’m still waiting for you to answer the question I put to you which is an issue about the science of vaccination.
I am asking the questiona again, because you have yet to show any evidence at all to support your statement that “you didn’t die from it 30 years ago, and you don’t die from it today.” Like – maybe you can provide some numbers from government sources? Some studies? Something? You said: ” You say that there is no evidence for anything at all that the AVN says – can you please name 1 thing that we say which you believe is not backed by evidence. Then, I can provide you with the evidence.”
I am asking for the evidence. Thank you.
Katie – I answered your question and won’t do so again How about answering my question now?
Meryl, I take your point. Soundbites in the popular media are often unrepresentative of your true opinion!
Given Katie hasn’t put any information up regarding the effectiveness of the DTaP, I will in her stead:
Declining pertussis incidence in Sweden following the introduction of acellular pertussis vaccine
Vaccine, Volume 21, Issues 17–18, 16 May 2003, Pages 2015–2021
Reported incidence of pertussis dropped by about 80-90% in Sweden after the introduction of DTaP, about 17 years after the DTwP was stopped.
Daniel, any study with the word incidence in its title (at least for infectious diseases) can be safely ignored. We don’t have incidence data, never did, and almost certainly never will. What they use instead (notification data) is completely useless for any sort of analytical purposes. Notification data was designed to assist public health agencies respond to outbreaks of contagious disease or food poisoning etc. Once the outbreak has stopped it should be thrown away because it has no more use after that. We don’t know how many people with a cough visit a doctor (and the percentage would fluctuate wildly from year to year, place to place) nor do we know how keen doctors are to diagnose certain diseases over others (when the symptoms are ambiguous) and how much this changes from year to year, and this is particularly a problem with so-called vaccine preventable diseases because there is no double-blinding (ie the doctor knows that the child has (or has not) received the treatment).
So – a sustained change in incidence data by 80-90% wouldn’t seem surprising to you at all?
Their data is much more complex than you have described. Have you read the article?
A sustained change in incidence data of 90 per cent would be impressive Daniel. But again, they don’t have incidence data so the question is moot. They might like to call it incidence data and they may even be foolish enough to believe it, but it ain’t incidence data.
When a mass vaccine program is introduced many doctors will simply assume that the disease will become much rarer (due to their faith in vaccinations). Hence they look for that disease less, hence they test for it less, hence the notification data will make it look like the vaccine has done something positive when all that has really happened is that doctors are simply changing their diagnoses to something else. Of course in the absence of other data we don’t know whether the vaccines have actually worked, whether it is all due to doctor bias or some combination of the two. So if you want to see which of the three are the most likely explanations you should look at things like respiratory syncytial virus hospitalisations since the introduction of the diphtheria and pertussis vaccine. I can tell you that RSV was first diagnosed in 1956 and it is now estimated to hospitalise around 2-3 per cent of under 5s in the United States (if you have info on Sweden then by all means provide it). So there you go. We got rid of diphtheria and pertussis (supposedly) and instead got a massive increase in RSV (and other respiratory tract conditions). So of the 3 explanations – on the basis of the empirical data alone – I would side with the idea that doctor bias is responsible for pretty much all the reduction in pertussis (and diphtheria) notifications. It is the same story with EVERY vaccine so-called success story. Another disease(s) with an equivalent range of symptoms increases to make up for the fall in the disease that is supposedly vaccine preventable. The extraordinary thing is how unbelievably obvious it actually is (I am embarassed that it took me 25 years to see through it). Look at the WHO data for polio vs non-polio AFP in the developing world for example. Blind Freddy could see what has happened but apparently the bleeding obvious is just too damn complicated for the great minds of the medical world.
I think you will find it was religion that was the main problem here, not science.
Sian, you’ve completely missed the point. The fact is that religion WAS the science of the day. Today, science is the religion. Get it?
Science and religion are pretty different entities.
One starts at the preposition that certain things must be true, regardless of the evidence observed.
The other relies on observable evidence and accurate prediction.
Can you see why these things are different? Can you see why your views are closer to the first and not the second?
Religion tries to provide a single answer to every question “It was God did it”. Science tries to provide an answer to every question.
There is no comparison. Religion *tries* to stay the same in the face of all evidence. Science changes as new evidence is presented and verified. It was not the scientist’s of Galileo’s day that resisted the idea. They took his idea and tested it, guess what his evidence stood up.
The rock stars of the science world ARE the people that over turn the current thinking of the day, Galileo, Einstein, Newton… sure there was resistance to their ideas that is human nature.
That is why we have the process of science to counter our “gut” and to change in the face of new evidence, their evidence stood all and any tests that were thrown at them. Those that don’t change their stance in the face of overwhelming evidence are more like a religion.
The question about vaccines has been asked and answered, again and again and again, you might not like what the answer is but that is not the fault of the science.
‘The intellectual climate of the time “remained dominated by Aristotelian philosophy and the corresponding Ptolemaic astronomy. At that time there was no reason to accept the Copernican theory, except for its mathematical simplicity [by avoiding using the equant in determining planetary positions].” Tycho Brahe’s system (“that the earth is stationary, the sun revolves about the earth, and the other planets revolve about the sun”) also directly competed with Copernicus’. It was only a half century later with the work of Kepler and Galileo that any substantial evidence defending Copernicanism appeared, starting “from the time when Galileo formulated the principle of inertia…[which] helped to explain why everything would not fall off the earth if it were in motion.” It was not until “after Isaac Newton formulated the universal law of gravitation and the laws of mechanics [in his 1687 Principia], which unified terrestrial and celestial mechanics, was the heliocentric view generally accepted.”
So, despite the obvious challenges Copernicus experienced, science relentlessly advances, despite a small group of people trying to hold it back.
vaccinationists and evolutionists – the religions are so very, very similar
devoid of evidence, emotional arguments, personal attacks against them who think for themselves
I don’t necessarily agree with you on evolution desmun, but the issue is – does one group of people (scientists) ever have the right to tell an individual or a group that they are not entitled to air their views on a scientific issue because the weight of current opinion is in opposition to their evidence? Are we entitled to have our own opinions, defend those opinions with evidence and state what we see as fact, even if the mainstream of the day disagrees with us?
I think you have missed the point here.
To use your analogy of the Gallileo/Copernicus scenario, you are arguing the case for the sun to travel around the earth.
Sian, are you not capable of seeing the analogy here? Kind of sad if that’s the case. I am arguing the case for science to be reproducible, independent and never above question. Please try to consider that.
Interesting that you will defend science on one point and not the other.
I am willing to accept being wrong on both evolution and vaccination.
If you find me a vertebrate fossil in pre-cambrian rock, I will accept that evolution is a significantly flawed theory.
If you do a study which shows major complications of a particular vaccination to be more than 1/100,000 doses, or show that its side effect profile is worse than its benefits, then I will accept that that particular vaccine is not useful.
Many of the complications of vaccination extolled by this website, such as autism and SIDS have been exhaustively studied in large populations, with no correlation found.
When no correlation in population studies exist and there is a lack of a causal mechanism in known biology it becomes difficult to logically argue that your theory has merit.
Hi Daniel,
I’m not defending anything. I have spent 23 years studying vaccination and feel qualified to debate that issue. All I know about evolution, I learned in High School and College and that’s not enough for me to judge the truth or otherwise of the subject. That’s all I was saying.
@Daniel I suspect that if you were to prove that evolution was right your response would be “See and I am right on vaccination too”. However, if it was proven that evolution didn’t happen, then your response would be “They’re two different subjects”. But, for the sake of argument, can we concur that you believe in evolution because of Darwin’s theory? Isn’t it ironic that you so whole-heartedly believe in one man’s theory (that has never been proven), and yet condemn people that have questioned it? By the way, did you know that Darwin – on his death bed – stated he regretted having stated his theory?
@Christine –
I didn’t bring up evolution. I merely said that I was willing to believe it was wrong given the right evidence.
Similarly I am willing to believe I am wrong about vaccination given the right evidence.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, neither does one necessitate the other. In other words, I would never stoop to linking the two in an effort to argue that I was correct. I don’t know where you get the idea that I would make a statement that because I was right about one thing, that I must be right about the next. Such logic is not even close to rigorous!
I don’t agree with the way you use language to portray my argument. “Believe” is a poor word to use in this context, as it implies that I hold a belief without empiric evidence. Rather, I hold a current scientific theory to be the best explanation possible given the available evidence. Precision of thought manifests as precision of speech!
Darwin may have been an original proponent of the theory of evolution, but he also had several contemporaries who had similar opinions, and his theory has made many predictions which have not yet been contradicted. As I said, I would be willing to change my opinion if you were to find such a contradiction – I believe my example of “vertebrate fossil in pre-cambrian rock” to be an apt example. My adherence to the theory of evolution as a good explanation of the origins of our biodiversity lies on the evidence available, not on appeal to authority.
Your last sentence doesn’t make sense – “By the way, did you know that Darwin – on his death bed – stated he regretted having stated his theory?”. Why would a single reported statement change my opinion on a scientific theory? How on earth do you think that this affects the logic or evidence behind the theory? Where in a reasonable logical discussion does this sentence help change anyone’s mind?
Another counterpoint to your statement is that there have been at least two people at Darwin’s deathbed (both family members) who have stated that the “deathbed confession” never occurred – So not only does this point not make any sense in an argument, the event never actually happened!
The issue being “defend with evidence” – unfortunately the evidence does not support your stance on vaccination at all. And the comparison to Galileo? You seem to have it backwards…
Leonie – I have asked this question many times before and never seem to get an answer, strangely enough. You say that there is no evidence for anything at all that the AVN says – can you please name 1 thing that we say which you believe is not backed by evidence. Then, I can provide you with the evidence. Otherwise, you are just making a blanket statement for which, dare I say, you have no evidence.
Daniel: “If you do a study which shows major complications of a particular vaccination to be more than 1/100,000 doses, or show that its side effect profile is worse than its benefits, then I will accept that that particular vaccine is not useful.”
Ummm, no you wouldn’t. Such things have been done many times but you completely ignore them, so why should another study that Meryl does change your mind?
“When no correlation in population studies exist and there is a lack of a causal mechanism in known biology it becomes difficult to logically argue that your theory has merit.”
Again, there are correlations that have been found. But you won’t accept the studies. That is fine, the studies may well have been flawed and you may prefer to believe the studies that don’t find a link, but don’t say they don’t exist.
Let me remind you. You are the one making the positive case here. If you want to show that vaccines are safe and effective than you need to provide the evidence sufficient for that. To show they are safe you can’t just do a study that doesn’t look for (and strangely enough doesn’t find) a correlation and declare that as proof positive of safety. That is every kind of ridiculous. It would be like a judge asking the defendant’s lawyer if he had any information as to his client’s guilt and, having heard him say he didn’t have any, declaring the defendant not guilty.
If you want to prove they are safe then take a weight adjusted dose of the entire infant vaccination schedule. No excuses or obfuscations as to it not making any difference to their efficacy (the test is purely about safety) just take the dose. If you came out unscathed that would confirm in the vast majority of peoples’ minds (it would be sufficient for me) that vaccines are safe as given to babies. If you aren’t prepared to do it (just like all the other vaccine proponents) then we will take that as confirmation that when you claim that they are safe you are lying.
As for evolution, I would like to point out what I learnt from Greg Beattie: that the co-founder of the idea of natural selection and probably the greatest natural scientist of the 19th century – Alfred Russel Wallace – opposed small pox vaccination. He made the mistake of actually looking at the data rather than just blindly assuming that the cartel of physicians must be right. Every time somebody does this in relation to this disgraceful activity – no matter how brilliant, prestigious or noble they are – they are absolutely castigated. Duesberg suffered a similar fate. He couldn’t walk outside to collect the paper without having research grants thrown at him – until he realised that the notion that HIV caused AIDS was barefaced lunacy. And then all the dollars dried up.
But apparently we are all supposed to believe these objective, noble and courageous physicians when they assure us that injecting poisons into our babies is a good idea because, you see, they have done some studies where they looked real, real hard (promise!) to find a link between them and adverse outcomes and what do you know? They couldn’t find anything.
Punter – point by point:
“Ummm, no you wouldn’t. Such things have been done many times but you completely ignore them, so why should another study that Meryl does change your mind?”
Produce them. Why would you say that and not cite any evidence?
“Again, there are correlations that have been found.”
Produce the studies in question please.
“Let me remind you. You are the one making the positive case here.”
No, you are. You state that the level of side effects is too high for vaccines to be acceptable (a positive argument). A good trial will show this. The null hypothesis (my argument) is that there is no causal link (or correlation for that matter). The onus is on you, as you are the one making the extraordinary claim with respect to current widely accepted theories in immunology and medicine in general.
To bring us back full circle – Galileo made extraordinary claims, which he backed with extraordinary evidence.
Seeing as you feel so close to Galileo, care to share the equivalent levels of evidence?
“If you want to show that vaccines are safe and effective than you need to provide the evidence sufficient for that. To show they are safe you can’t just do a study that doesn’t look for (and strangely enough doesn’t find) a correlation and declare that as proof positive of safety.”
Such as a study of over two million person-years with greater than 95% follow up? Specifically looking for correlation with autism? That study has been done:
N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82.
A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.
The relative risks for ASD was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68-1.24). This is strong evidence to accept the null hypothesis – that there is no correlation.
Your partners on this website still insist that autism is caused by the MMR vaccine, in media interviews as recently as two months ago. That puts your group nearly ten years behind this publication….
There are several such studies exploring links between vaccination and autism, SIDS, and a number of other issues. I still haven’t been shown an article demonstrating a high complication rate.
“If you want to prove they are safe then take a weight adjusted dose of the entire infant vaccination schedule.”
Sure, but first you must agree to expose yourself to all vaccine preventable disease at the same time. I want serologic evidence of no prior immunity in yourself first, as well as your word that you have never been vaccinated. If you are unwilling, you are welcome to allow any adult to volunteer in your stead.
I will require serologic or microbiologic evidence of likelihood of transmission for all cases.
I will also expect you to pay for the vaccinations, and supply the necessary equipment for administration, as well as qualified personnel for administration. I reserve the right to veto on the personnel, and to supply my own (at your cost) if necessary.
When you have met the above criteria, I am happy to travel to wherever you have organised within Australia at my own cost. If I do travel and you have not met criteria, then I will expect you to meet the cost of that as well.
“As for evolution, I would like to point out what I learnt from Greg Beattie: that the co-founder of the idea of natural selection and probably the greatest natural scientist of the 19th century – Alfred Russel Wallace – opposed small pox vaccination.”
Major logical fallacy:
Appeal to an authority. Actually, not really even an authority. Wallace was not an expert in medicine, and the understanding of vaccines was limited at the time. Why would a 150 year old statement from an unqualified person enter a rational argument? You don’t even make sense with your logical fallacies!
“Duesberg suffered a similar fate. He couldn’t walk outside to collect the paper without having research grants thrown at him – until he realised that the notion that HIV caused AIDS was barefaced lunacy. And then all the dollars dried up.”
So to add to your lunacy you are now trying AIDS denial as well? This one is a topic for another post – lets stick to vaccination for now…
On a side note – given you have said this, in addition to the above requirements for me to inject “weight adjusted doses of immunisations”, I will no require you to inject 10 ml of whole blood from an HIV infected patient with a demonstrated viral load of >100,000 copies per ml. You must also not take any antiretroviral therapy whatsoever, regardless of how sick you become.
“But apparently we are all supposed to believe these objective, noble and courageous physicians when they assure us that injecting poisons into our babies is a good idea because, you see, they have done some studies where they looked real, real hard (promise!) to find a link between them and adverse outcomes and what do you know? They couldn’t find anything.”
Again with your crown and “belief”. I don’t expect you to believe anything. I don’t expect you to get vaccinated, or to have your kids vaccinated.
I do expect you to present a rational argument if you are going to publicly declare good science to be invalid. You still haven’t done that. Every example you have given in the above post has been an appeal to authority, and you have failed to present a single peer reviewed source, despite being the one making extraordinary claims.
“Again, there are correlations that have been found.”
What? Are you really denying that there are no correlations between certain conditions (at least the official data) and an increase in the number of and number of children receiving vaccinations? I know vaccine proponents like to deny the bleeding obvious but that is ridiculous.
“No, you are. You state that the level of side effects is too high for vaccines to be acceptable (a positive argument). A good trial will show this. The null hypothesis (my argument) is that there is no causal link (or correlation for that matter). The onus is on you, as you are the one making the extraordinary claim with respect to current widely accepted theories in immunology and medicine in general.”
Right. So the null hypothesis is the popular opinion. And here’s me thinking it was the negative view point (ie vaccines don’t work). Thanks for clearing that up Daniel. I hope you stay here for a very long time as I reckon that we all have so much to learn from you. And again, no correlation? How could you expect anybody here to take you seriously?
“To bring us back full circle – Galileo made extraordinary claims, which he backed with extraordinary evidence.”
His claim was only extraordinary in the sense that it seemed to contradict our sense datum. I don’t see how that is in any way comparable to vaccinations. Can you feel vaccines working Daniel? Perhaps you can smell their efficacy?
“N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82.
A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism.
The relative risks for ASD was 0.92 (95% CI 0.68-1.24). This is strong evidence to accept the null hypothesis – that there is no correlation.”
You can’t accept the null hypothesis you either reject it or you don’t (normally this might be nitpicking but in this case it is a fundamental error). And you might like to believe that they desperately scoured for a connection just as I suspect that they did everything in their power not to find one. If you want to find out whether guns can cause death you don’t run a population study between gun ownership and mortality figures you look at the fact that people regularly keel over the moment they get shot. Gun ownership and mortality data might provide you with some evidence that overall the benefits of allowing the ownership of guns outweighs the costs but it sure as hell could never be used to say that guns can’t cause damage. Similarly, if you want to know whether vaccines can cause damage then the first thing you should do is ask the parents what happens to their children in the days and weeks after vaccines.
“Sure, but first you must agree to expose yourself to all vaccine preventable disease at the same time. I want serologic evidence of no prior immunity in yourself first, as well as your word that you have never been vaccinated. If you are unwilling, you are welcome to allow any adult to volunteer in your stead. “
Sorry, but why should I do that? Don’t worry I am more than happy to do so (although I can’t go back in time and not get vaccinated (unfortunately)) but I just don’t see what it has to do with the issue at hand.
“I will require serologic or microbiologic evidence of likelihood of transmission for all cases.”
Que?
At any rate, the AVN will be happy to organise the vaccines for you though. We have many who have said they would but they all back out. Will you be the first to actually go ahead and do it? Somehow I doubt it.
“You don’t even make sense with your logical fallacies!”
Ummm, I was talking about how people are treated when they question this dogma. You may or may not be aware but that is exactly the point of this thread – questioning dogma and what happens to those that do.
“So to add to your lunacy you are now trying AIDS denial as well? This one is a topic for another post – lets stick to vaccination for now…”
Questioning dogma Daniel, questioning dogma.
I will no require you to inject 10 ml of whole blood from an HIV infected patient with a demonstrated viral load of >100,000 copies per ml.”
You’re asking someone who thinks injections of foreign materials are dangerous to inject 10mL of foreign material into themselves? How would that be a demonstration of my beliefs? But like I said previously I will swallow 1000 of any prion, virus, bacteria you like. At any rate you need have no fear about me taking antiretrovirals. I don’t even take Panadol.
“I do expect you to present a rational argument if you are going to publicly declare good science to be invalid. You still haven’t done that. Every example you have given in the above post has been an appeal to authority, and you have failed to present a single peer reviewed source, despite being the one making extraordinary claims.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! First you criticise me for using an appeal to authority (which I didn’t you just didn’t understand the (incredibly obvious) point) then you go and make one yourself. You see Daniel saying something becomes authoritative because it is “peer-reviewed” is an appeal to authority.
As for making extraordinary claims what claims have I made that are extraordinary? Which ones seemingly contradict sense datum? I hope you aren’t going to say that going against the opinion of most “scientists” is in and of itself an extraordinary claim? Wouldn’t that be an, ummm, what’s the term? Oh that’s right! An appeal to authority.
“What? Are you really denying that there are no correlations between certain conditions (at least the official data) and an increase in the number of and number of children receiving vaccinations?”
Where did I say that? You completely misrepresent my argument (logical fallacy: straw man). What you need to do is a population study of reasonable follow up comparing vaccinated with not vaccinated. It should be simple enough – see my reference from the previous post as an example.
“Right. So the null hypothesis is the popular opinion.”
No, the null hypothesis is the assumption that there is no effect. (Logical fallacy: straw man)
“And here’s me thinking it was the negative view point”
Which is exactly why you never get the right answer – you don’t know how to write an answerable question on the topic! Remind me again how much research experience you have? (Logical fallacy: argument from ignorance)
“Thanks for clearing that up Daniel. I hope you stay here for a very long time as I reckon that we all have so much to learn from you. And again, no correlation? How could you expect anybody here to take you seriously?”
The lack of a correlation was in the article I gave you. I didn’t make it up – you just chose to not look at the evidence of over 2 million person years of follow up. I expect people to read what I post and judge for themselves.
“His claim was only extraordinary in the sense that it seemed to contradict our sense datum.”
His claim completely contradicted the accepted version of the way the universe worked. This is demonstrated by the fact that he was imprisoned for challenging the dogma of the time…. I don’t quite get what you are trying to argue here.
“I don’t see how that is in any way comparable to vaccinations. Can you feel vaccines working Daniel? Perhaps you can smell their efficacy?”
I can check their efficacy through population studies – which is how science works. Usually. (Fallacy: argument from ignorance – “if I can’t feel it it can’t be there”)
“You can’t accept the null hypothesis you either reject it or you don’t”
What is the opposite of reject?
“(normally this might be nitpicking but in this case it is a fundamental error).”
Alright, I will humour you. Please explain the “fundamental error”…. and exactly how my interpretation of the data is flawed as a result.
“And you might like to believe that they desperately scoured for a connection just as I suspect that they did everything in their power not to find one.”
They searched through the health records of over half a million children over an average of four years for each child. I think that fits your description quite nicely, no?
“If you want to find out whether guns can cause death you don’t run a population study between gun ownership and mortality figures you look at the fact that people regularly keel over the moment they get shot.”
Yes, but if you want to look for rare events, you can’t do that. (Logical fallacy: False analogy)
“Similarly, if you want to know whether vaccines can cause damage then the first thing you should do is ask the parents what happens to their children in the days and weeks after vaccines.”
….Which is the worst possible kind of evidence you could ever have. Apart from no evidence at all. You haven’t had much exposure to medicine, have you?
“Sorry, but why should I do that? Don’t worry I am more than happy to do so (although I can’t go back in time and not get vaccinated (unfortunately)) but I just don’t see what it has to do with the issue at hand.”
You should do that because I want you to weigh the risks of immunising with the risks of not immunising. If you think you are unsuitable, surely you can find an unvaccinated peer?
“Que?”
I think the sentence was pretty clear. I have just shown it to a few colleagues, who agree. Maybe try reading it again?
“At any rate, the AVN will be happy to organise the vaccines for you though. We have many who have said they would but they all back out. Will you be the first to actually go ahead and do it? Somehow I doubt it.”
As long as you fulfil all the criteria outlined above…
“Ummm, I was talking about how people are treated when they question this dogma. You may or may not be aware but that is exactly the point of this thread – questioning dogma and what happens to those that do.”
Please explain here – I have asked you several times to provide me with the information required for me to change my beliefs, and yet you still haven’t done it. Without being provided with a reasonable alternative, what theory am I meant to accept?
“You’re asking someone who thinks injections of foreign materials are dangerous to inject 10mL of foreign material into themselves? How would that be a demonstration of my beliefs?”
It would demonstrate that HIV causes AIDS…. Which you are so adamant isn’t true. I am happy for the patient to be tested at my expense for other blood borne viruses (although you might get a freebie with the vaccine preventable stuff if he is Hep B positive too!). We perform blood transfusions of tested blood all the time in hospitals, with major side effects being quite rare these days.
“But like I said previously I will swallow 1000 of any prion, virus, bacteria you like. At any rate you need have no fear about me taking antiretrovirals. I don’t even take Panadol.”
Not acceptable. You must have a reasonable risk of being exposed to the virus in a way that would put you at high risk of infection. That was a clause I mentioned previously.
“Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! First you criticise me for using an appeal to authority (which I didn’t you just didn’t understand the (incredibly obvious) point) then you go and make one yourself. You see Daniel saying something becomes authoritative because it is “peer-reviewed” is an appeal to authority.”
“Appeal to Authority” means an appeal to a figure that is supposedly an authority on the topic.
“Peer reviewed” means exactly that.
I don’t see how you have managed to confuse the two.
“As for making extraordinary claims what claims have I made that are extraordinary?”
The ones that contradict massive population studies… surely you got that point in my first post right? Did you actually read any of what was written??
“Which ones seemingly contradict sense datum?”
Because the “sense datum” has always been correct, especially in terms of medicine….???
“Where did I say that? “
Here: “The null hypothesis (my argument) is that there is no causal link (or correlation for that matter).”
Note how you say “your argument” is that there is no correlation. So there is no straw man. Sorry.
“What you need to do is a population study of reasonable follow up comparing vaccinated with not vaccinated. It should be simple enough – see my reference from the previous post as an example.”
I don’t have to do anything. But if you want to do a randomised study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children then I will be happy to look at the results. Oh, and it needs to be actual non-vaccinated children not children who have only received 100 vaccines instead of 101.
“No, the null hypothesis is the assumption that there is no effect. (Logical fallacy: straw man)”
But…you…just….said.
“Which is exactly why you never get the right answer – you don’t know how to write an answerable question on the topic!”
It is true that I never get the right answer from scientists. I really don’t think it is because I am asking the wrong questions though.
“The lack of a correlation was in the article I gave you. I didn’t make it up – you just chose to not look at the evidence of over 2 million person years of follow up. I expect people to read what I post and judge for themselves. “
The study only looked at the one vaccine. In other words it compared autism rates between those who got 6 vaccines and those who got 7. Not only that but they had to “adjust” the data to make it look like the MMR vaccinated were less likely to get ASD then the non-MMR vaccinated (the unadjusted data for autism and other ASD showed the relative risks to be 1.45 and 1.3 respectively rather than the 0.92 and 0.83 reported). And you want to use this mind-numbing idiocy as proof positive that all vaccinations are completely and unequivocally safe? And you also think this is a clear cut case of scientists moving heaven and earth to try and find a link? How desperate are you? Or are you just that credulous? Oh, and I shouldn’t even mention the credibility of a study co-authored by a certain Dr Thorsen shall I?
“His claim completely contradicted the accepted version of the way the universe worked. This is demonstrated by the fact that he was imprisoned for challenging the dogma of the time…. I don’t quite get what you are trying to argue here.”
You just said it. He contradicted dogma and was imprisoned for doing so. There you go. You finally got something. You want to say an “extraordinary” claim is one which challenges dogma. I am saying that that is NOT the definition of an extraordinary claim. Nor is it extraordinary to simply not swallow hopelessly rigged statistical studies by the likes of Thorsen.
“I can check their efficacy through population studies – which is how science works. Usually. (Fallacy: argument from ignorance – “if I can’t feel it it can’t be there”)”
Really? Science works through population studies does it? Is that how they do astrophysics? Molecular chemistry? I must say I wasn’t aware of that. So thanks Daniel. Like I said we all have so much to learn from you on the philosophy of science.
“Alright, I will humour you. Please explain the “fundamental error”…. and exactly how my interpretation of the data is flawed as a result.”
Sure. There is a difference between being exonerated and being found not guilty. Of course you could be not guilty because you have been exonerated but being not guilty doesn’t prove (or even imply) your innocence. The statistical methods you love so much can only find something not guilty it can’t exonerate them. If further evidence comes along which implies guilt then the previous (lack of) evidence stands for naught. That is why you can provide a zillion statistical studies and it won’t mean anything against a challenge, dechallenge, rechallenge.
That is why you cannot “accept” the null hypothesis you can only not reject it. You can’t say that another study won’t come out tomorrow with a positive and significant correlation. It is the vagaries of statistics I’m afraid. Personally, I can’t stand the things and my beliefs on medicine (and other sciences) eschew them completely but if you want to use them here you need to use them correctly.
Like I said, nitpicking on terminology is usually unfair but in this case it is an extremely important distinction. You simply CANNOT use the studies for the purposes you want to use them for.
“They searched through the health records of over half a million children over an average of four years for each child. I think that fits your description quite nicely, no?”
They compared all but one vaccinated to all vaccinated and then “adjusted” the data to get the results they wanted. So no. Surprisingly it doesn’t.
“Yes, but if you want to look for rare events, you can’t do that. (Logical fallacy: False analogy)”
Ummm, looking for associations in rare events is EXACTLY what that approach is good at. (Logical fallacy: false accusation of a false analogy).
“….Which is the worst possible kind of evidence you could ever have. Apart from no evidence at all. You haven’t had much exposure to medicine, have you?”
I try and avoid it of course but at least what I do see I understand. If I went to a doctor who had just prescribed me antibiotics and say “listen Doc I took these tablets you gave me and the next day I was hospitalised with a rash and massive swelling” I can guarantee that that eyewitness account would be more than enough for the doctor to not prescribe me the same antibiotics ever again. Indeed if they did they would most likely be out of practice. But with vaccinations everything is different. What is considered the best evidence in a court of law, any other scientific field and indeed other parts of medicine is considered completely and utterly worthless when it comes to vaccines. We could extend the analogy even further. If my child had a sporadic cough and I took them into a doctor, there is every chance the doctor would see or hear nothing. But they would still take my word about the sporadic cough and they would be thinking croup or whooping cough (and as my children are unvaxed almost certainly the latter). So they would take my sayso here, but if I came back the day after she was vaccinated and she had a rash and swelling there is every chance the doctor would say “Pffft! Coincidence! You can’t prove that it was the vaccine! Do you even know of the exact biological mechanism as to how they could be linked? I thought not! Pfft! Vaccines indeed!”
“You should do that because I want you to weigh the risks of immunising with the risks of not immunising. If you think you are unsuitable, surely you can find an unvaccinated peer?”
OK. I’ve weighed them. And I’m still not getting myself or my kids vaccinated. So what exactly is your point?
Like I said, I’m happy to take any virus/bacteria/prion you like regardless of whether I’ve been vaccinated for them. But let’s not pretend it’s answering a question that anybody has been asked. You don’t want to hold up your end of the bargain (and I don’t blame you) so you will set impossible criteria for me. I suspect of course that you didn’t expect me to say yes but at any rate now you have no excuse (although I’m sure you will think of something else).
“I think the sentence was pretty clear. I have just shown it to a few colleagues, who agree. Maybe try reading it again?”
OK I’ll be specific. All cases of what? Transmission of what?
“Please explain here – I have asked you several times to provide me with the information required for me to change my beliefs, and yet you still haven’t done it. Without being provided with a reasonable alternative, what theory am I meant to accept?”
When did anybody say you had to change your mind? As if we would actually be naive enough to think that people such as you would ever do so? Some people have the ability to change their minds when faced with new facts. Others change their minds when it is convenient to do so. You want to come here and support the dogma then YOU have to provide something. We owe you absolutely nothing. If you want to find something out from us then politely ask a specific question.
But I suspect that when you finish your foray here Daniel you will be just as certain but a lot more angry.
“Not acceptable. You must have a reasonable risk of being exposed to the virus in a way that would put you at high risk of infection “
Oh! It’s not acceptable to his lordship! Well I’m terribly sorry. Please, please forgive my insubordination. Fancy not doing exactly what you tell me to do! How on earth is it my job to take someone else’s blood? If me not doing it reinforces your belief that HIV causes AIDS then that is no skin off my nose.
“ “Appeal to Authority” means an appeal to a figure that is supposedly an authority on the topic.
“Peer reviewed” means exactly that.”
Yes Daniel but why does “peer-review” have any resonance? See if you can answer that coherently without resorting to saying that we should trust the ‘experts’.
“The ones that contradict massive population studies… surely you got that point in my first post right? Did you actually read any of what was written??”
I was trying to be fair to you Daniel. I didn’t think anybody could be so, ummm, ‘courageous’ as to say that not trusting a massively rigged statistical study was an “extraordinary” claim akin to declaring that everything we think we have seen with our own eyes is a lie.
@Dan. I guess that I must have formulated the idea from this particular sentence – “I am willing to accept being wrong on both evolution and vaccination”, and we are fully aware how the provaccine sector will manipulate an argument if it is convenient. However, if you have been aggrieved by this, I do apologize.
I would like to know, though, why people that believe in evolution only ever seem to start from a point half way up the ladder? I have struggled with the concept that some event happened to change the genetic material so that hominoids split to become two branches – one following the Hominidae line eventually to become modern man, and the other branch (Pongidae) to become primates? If we come from the same source, why can we not transplant primate organs successfully into humans?
Another question I have is about hybrids.
“The fact that organisms breed after their kind is supported by scientific evidence. Controlled breeding between members within a kind often develops individuals that display varying characteristics, but the potential for those characteristics to show has existed since the beginning. A crossing between individuals of two species or kinds produces a hybrid. It has been shown that hybrids between kinds are generally sterile. In the very rare case of a fertile hybrid, the hybrid can breed only with a member of one of the parent kinds, not with another hybrid; and the next generation cannot produce offspring. Hybrids between animal kinds occur in nature very rarely, if at all. The mule, a hybrid between a donkey and a horse, is a good example. Although wild horses and wild donkeys existed together for many years in the American Midwest, there is no record of any wild mules being found among them. It is this consistency among kinds that makes a classification system workable”
I guess that being an evolutionist means that you believe that there was a big bang and the earth began 30 billion years ago. Doesn’t this belief take as much faith as religion? Could this blind chance have placed the earth in orbit precisely at the correct distance from the sun to prevent Earth’s inhabitants from burning up or freezing to death, and then maintain this distance without deviation? Or the chance that water expands rather than contracts when it freezes, or the chance that taught each kind of bird to build its distinctive type of nest? Is it by chance that migrating birds navigate by the stars or by the sun when the weather is clear or by a built in “magnetic compass” when clouds obscure the sun? There are so many marvels and what evolutionists expect people to believe would be like taking an alarm clock apart, placing it in a bag, shaking rigorously and expect to take the complete alarm clock out as a fully assembled piece in working order.
Lastly, why do you selectively name people like Newton, Galileo Galilea, and many other scientists and yet ignore that they were Christians? Does their science suddenly lose flavor or relevance when you know that their findings support a God?
I said I would accept Tristan’s “vaccination challenge” quite a while back, provided they organised it to be administered by a mutually acceptable medical professional, and that the “weight adjusted” vaccine dose (never mind that antigens and immune response don’t work the same as a conventional drug administered by body weight) was procured, produced, packaged and accredited under the proper hygienic and quality-controlled conditions that one expects of any medicinal drug, not an anonymous AVN member’s backyard lab.
Perfectly reasonable and understandable conditions.
So far all I have heard in response is crickets chirping. But apparently, that is “backing out”.
For Tristan’s return challenge to be undertaken at the same time, but in a location remote from where I am, I would like him to be exposed to Ebola virus. No injection. Just a mist of micrometre-sized water droplets (water of his choice – he can even BYO to the infectious disease lab) with lab-confirmed Ebola virus mixed in, and breathe normally for a while. If modern medical dogma is totally wrong, Tristan should be fighting-fit after 21 days.
Hi Mike – I was unaware of your offer. I have two other people who also wanted to do a demonstration of their faith in vaccination and I wrote to both of them and to date, I have not had a response from either though I spoke with one today and that person has said they will be in touch with me before the end of the weekend.
The more the merrier though as far as I’m concerned so I will be sending you a copy of the letter I sent to them and if you are still interested, please do write back – preferably by next week as it would be easiest to do this demonstration together rather than separating them out.
Thanks,
Meryl
Excellent Mike, now all you have to do is organise the ebola for me and I will be there (it has to be Australia because I don’t want issues with customs, quarantining or any sort of forced medication). Now the important bit. What will you and your colleagues do if I turn out OK? Will there be millions of resignations and an enormous apology from the physician community, pharma companies and governments or will you all simply make up excuses?
@ punter:
You continue to misrepresent what I write. Either you can’t read very well (which I doubt), or you are doing this on purpose. I find this a rather distasteful method of argument – disingenuous at best, and I simply won’t let you waste my time any further, apart from to say that your grounding in study design, statistical analysis and a general understanding of the scientific method is pretty poor. If and when you decide to play fair in an argument, let me know and I’ll be happy to be back for such a discussion.
The deal is still on re: vaccination, as long as you are happy with the reverse part of the deal. my email address in below.
@Christine:
If no offense was meant, then none is taken
I wasn’t here to discuss evolution…. funny as that might seem! If you want, contact me at dantendo@gmail.com to discuss it further. I don’t want to fill up this page with off-topic information.
As to quoting scientists’ names – that was something started by this blog, not myself. If I quote a name it is to highlight a piece of work done by that person and acknowledge their effort, not to appeal to authority.
Meryl, I have also accepted the vaccine challenge, and notified you that I had. You did not write to me. I have heard nothing.
If you organize the vaccines I will take them. This is your challenge you need to organize it. It needs to be done properly.
You also need to describe exactly what we are testing. Is it necessary for instance to adjust the saline dose, or are you happy say 12ml of saline is safe, though would hurt? Are we to give them in one session, or spaced over a few days (so if there is a reaction we will know which one may be the culprit). Will there be a placebo control? please describe the challenge and the protocols fully.
However if the experiment shows vaccines are safe you need to publically declare the result then disband the AVN and sign over to me all rights to the name, the logos and any other AVN trademarks. You personally are to also cease your “lobbying” on vaccination issues in any public, social media, or easily accesible arena.
One final item is one of insurance. You seem to think my life would be in danger from this. For a few hundred dollars you could insure my life for one year for a million dollars.
Meryl please post your reply here. I want this completely out in the open.
As for Tristan’s part in this. I don’t want him to die, so certainly don’t want him to be infected with Ebola. I am sure Tristan could find some other way to prove that germs don’t cause disease.
Hi Martin – my apologies – I will send you the detail today. I thought I had already written to you because I remember saying that if the insurance policy didn’t cost thousands, we would be happy to pay for it so…no idea what happened. I will use the email address you have used to write your blog post. If this is not the correct email, please contact me at info@avn.org.au and let me know which address you would prefer, OK? Thanks.
I enjoyed this very much and it reminded me of a couple of things that I read yesterday.
“If people could read it (the Bible) for themselves, they would realize how much the church had departed from Scripture. The Vulgate, a Latin translation that the church leader Jerome finished in 405, became almost the only version of the Bible available in the Middle Ages. As we have seen, not many ordinary people could read Latin. Furthermore, in 1229 the Council of Toulouse forbade anyone except a church leader to possess a copy of the Bible (although not everyone heeded this dictate). The only exceptions were the Psalms and the passages of Scripture in the breviary, a book with the official order of worship in church services. Even those who did not have access to the Bible had the accept the church’s “official” interpretation of it.”
Much as some things change some stay the same.
The other was about Wycliffe who had the entire Bible translated into English for the first time.
“But although Wycliffe attracted many followers, called Lollards, the Roman church was too strong in England at that time to be successfully resisted. Wycliffe died in peace in 1384, but in 1409 a meeting of church leaders in London condemned Wycliffe’s beliefs and his translation of the Bible. In 1415, the Council of Constance
condemned Wycliffe of over 200 “crimes” and ordered his writings burned. In 1428, at the pope’s command, Wycliffe’s remains were dug up and burned as well” How about that? Talk about going to extremes to keep a dogma in tact.
Fascinating information Christine! It sounds as though the church’s protectors would have been right at home with today’s medical regulatory bodies. In fact, they might as well have been trained by them!