Vaccination without consent

Modern science is an institution.

Scientists are people who choose to study science... this means 10 or 12 years of study where they master mathematics, study many fields of science, do problem sets, perform experiments in the lab and get feedback from peers and professors. These scientist have worked diligently to become experts in their field, and we as a society have set up a scientific and academic community to support this practice and the field of knowledge behind it.

To clarify, when I say "reject science" I really mean reject the institution of science as practiced by our society. This includes global warming, and evolution, and public health.

Science has literally doubled the life expectancy of humans, built machines that allow us to fly, and built this network that allows us to broadcast our thoughts over thousands of miles. Yes, this is the same scientific institutions that are warning us about global climate change also supports evolution and vaccinations.

So by anti-science, I mean rejecting the institution of science as it is practiced by scientists and scientific oragnizations; whether that be the science of vaccinations or GMOs or climate change or evolution.

Among other things, improved socioeconomic conditions; better nutrition; less crowded living conditions reducing disease transmission; lower birth rates decreasing the number of susceptible household contacts. It’s not surprising that death rates were declining before introduction of the vaccines. Medicine was improving. More importantly, supportive care was improving. Your graph is from

https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com

An anti-vaccine blog, so maybe biased?

Sounds like you're saying that someone just made up that graph. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.

And do you also have a problem with the source for this graph?

Office of national statistics.

From the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Are you okay with this?

Centrox, you are being just as silly and unscientific as Glennn. The real scientific evidence isn't graphs cherry picked out of context on the internet.

Real science consists of well done studies in peer reviewed journals. That being said, there is no serious doubt on the effectiveness of vaccination in the scientific community.

But you don't fight silly nonscientific arguments with more nonscientific nonsense.

Real science works fine

Well now you've obligated yourself to back up your accusation that the graphs I've provided are out of context. Proceed.

I was actually talking to Contrex, not to you, Glennn. My point is that these graphs aren't even relevant to any scientific argument. Someone doing real science takes epidemiological data on an actual disease, and they publish it in a peer reviewed journal. These internet arguments are meaningless.

Glennn is making an anti-science argument, and anti-science arguments always rely on cherry picked data. I was just pointing out to Contrex that using cherry picked data to refute cherry picked data isn't worthwhile... particularly when in this case you can just use real science.

(Just out of curiousity I did a google image search on Glennn's graphs, and as I suspected they are from a conspiracy theory website and they have been debunked. But still people should avoid these silly arguments anyway when there is such a clear scientific consensus.)

Here is a question for you Glennn. Do you believe in the science of evolution?

If so, why? I doubt you have studied any more biology than I have or have any deep understanding of how RNA works. Most of us who believe in evolution are just trusting the scientific institutions rather than studying it for ourselves. Right?

If you trust the institutions of science, some of the things they say will inevitably go against your political or ideological beliefs. If you choose your ideology over science, then isn't science meaningless?

When people choose ideology over facts... when they only accept facts that support or confirm their ideology... the facts no longer matter.

You were supposed to produce something that would show that the graphs were out of context. You failed to do so. And now you claim that the graphs have been debunked. So will you share what you've found?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "context". By the way... your last post wasn't written in French either. Do I now have to prove that too ? And I wasn't tell you that the graphs were out of context. I was telling Contrex that he was being silly to even take them seriously.

The graphs are irrelevant. What is relevant is the science.

You said that the graphs have been debunked. I'm curious to see what you've found concerning that claim. Proceed.

You can google it yourself. It isn't relevant.

Then you fabricated that claim.

You made a claim, and when asked to substantiate it, you thought that you would contract me to substantiate it for you.

You are being silly Glennn. If I give you the link you are asking for, do you promise that you won't turn it into a big argument about the article? I don't want to argue the graphs because they are irrelevant.

What is important is the science. These graphs have absolutely nothing to do with science.

You're stalling.

Actually, what I am doing is more "dodging" than stalling. I don't want to get into a meaningless argument with you about something I don't think is relevant. I am avoiding the topic because it is silly.

What is important is the science. If you want to talk about the science, that might be interesting.

Just produce what you say will debunk the graphs I've provided. Then you can opt to not argue anymore.

Sure, no problem. But even if these graphs weren't intellectually dishonest, they would still be scientifically meaningless. Real science consists of carefully collected epidemiological data from trained researchers published in peer reviewed journals (not random data cherry picked to create propaganda).

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/29/the-intellectual-dishonesty-of-the-vacci/

Here is a graph provided by the author of the piece you provided. If you will note, there is a dramatic drop in the incidents of measles before the introduction of the vaccine. He is attempting to show that the second graph doesn't show a dramatic drop in the incidence of measles as the first one does. But it obviously does. Your thoughts?

Your "debunker" did not address the graph above. I don't know why you would doubt the source. Well, yeah, why don't you tell me why you doubt the source.


Nor did he address this graph. What is it about the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia that you find suspicious?