Originally Posted by Deborah
Well, it will be easier to counter us if all the websites criticizing vaccines are sloppy, have no citations, etc., etc. Hence I'd like to encourage people to present information that meets certain basic standards to deflect some obvious criticism.
I'm not sure about that. I think that the best thing would be that these people not even know what we think, or how we analyse actually. That way they will have to assume what we think and that way, their counter-strategy would be useless.
Everything I do is very well references, and goes in front of several doctors for analysis before it sees the light of day. And I don't think I've misrepresented anything. But always, no matter the sources I quote, these are the things I, and people like me are accused of:
1) Having no medical degree
2) Having no mathematical training, therefore unable to understand the issue of "odds". (never mind that the P-value was a figure plucked out of the air for convenience....)
3) The the information is taken out of context, and misinterpretted.
4) That it ignores "their" side of the story.
5) That the argument is simplistic. (which is the most laughable since theirs is about illiterate congoese level)
6) Not being an infectious disease specialist.
7) Not being an epidemiologist.
8) That all anti-vaccination information is based on baseful fear mongering (one example = what mercury can do).
Again, never mind that theirs is too, but they can't see that. The rubella pamphlet in this country has three words on the cover. Death, blindness, brain damage.
That's all people say. But to them, that's not fear mongering, that's the truth. When we start saying things like "encephalitis, urticaria or bronchospasm" we are fear mongering.
There is always one standard for them and a different one for us.
And that's why, no matter how "well" referenced any site it, it will never be enough.
Because you can never rebut this issue on the basis of interpretation of medical literature. "They" will always have their own interpretation and "they" will never agree that there is any other interpretation or any other "choice".
|The basic critiques I'm offering are the standard stuff taught in every library school. No secrets. Nothing odd or weird. Nana
Again, that's fine for standard and non-controversial subjects. But when it comes to medical issues, the goal posts aren't in the same holes, and the medical profession shifts them around all that time.
Which is why its so important for people to learn first, not how to analyse information, but how to think
and more importantly, how to think outside the square.
Everyone is here becasue they have children. Right?
Everyone is looking at the issue, becuase they want to do the right thing, right?
Well, the first and best thing they can do is to read a book by Edward de Bono called "Teach your child how to think." many people might find it a revelation for themselves, not just their children. Follow that up with "I am right You are wrong", "Lateral thinking" "Teaching thinking" and some of his other books.
I did this many years ago. I didn't agree with everything in them, but when I came out the other side, it change show I analyse dinformation, because I was in a better position to see the flaws in reductionist thinking, and also ask the questions which I hadn't been able to think of before.