Why are we so worried about vax vs non-vax? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 10:45 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

Yeah, you are right, you did mention the incubation period and I overlooked that.

 

Quoting your post:  "AND I really don't see how unvaxed ppl can be spreading the flu."

 

So how can you be unaware that unvaxed ppl (as well as vaxed ppl) not only can be, but are, spreading the flu this very day, and everyday during flu season during their incubation periods?

tadamsmar is online now  
#182 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 10:52 AM
 
3lilchunklins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: western NC
Posts: 1,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Well I personally think the flu shot gives you a false sense of protection. MOST ppl who don't get the flu shot take measures to boost their immune systems, and don't have the flu, so they're not spreading it.
IDK if you missed Taximom's last post, but the flu shot doesn't even provide much protection, therefore, whether your vaxed or not, its not like your invincible or exempt from spreading.

bfinfant.gif  Breastfeeding, non-vaxing, homeschooling, baby wearing, cosleeping, non-cic'ing mama to CJsuperhero.gifAGdust.gifJJnono02.gifSDbabyboy.gif  And married my highschool sweetheart lovestory.gif

And expecting #5 in Nov. 2014 heartbeat.gif
3lilchunklins is online now  
#183 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 11:29 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3LilChunklins View Post

Well I personally think the flu shot gives you a false sense of protection. MOST ppl who don't get the flu shot take measures to boost their immune systems, and don't have the flu, so they're not spreading it.
IDK if you missed Taximom's last post, but the flu shot doesn't even provide much protection, therefore, whether your vaxed or not, its not like your invincible or exempt from spreading.

 

Taximon's data shows that the infection rate is over 100% higher among nonvaxed.  Whatever the nonvaxed are doing to boost their immune systems is already baked into Taximon's numbers: the nonvaxed have a 100+% higher infection rate after all their efforts to boost their immune system.

 

Taximon's facts support my claim that the spread of the nonvax meme can make the next flu pandemic more severe.  The spread of the nonvax meme will make the next flu pandemic more severe if they are shunning a vaccine that is even partially effective as long as it's more effective than their other immune-system-boosting efforts.

Andrew Lazarus likes this.
tadamsmar is online now  
#184 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 11:51 AM
 
3lilchunklins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: western NC
Posts: 1,423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
It still boils down to the fact that SECONARY infections are the culprits behind deaths blamed on the flu. In which case the flu shot is useless.
And also I said most unvaxed, at least in my experience try to boost their immune systems. Of course you still have countless ppl who don't get the vax that dont bother trying anything extra to protect themselves.
And lastly, I fnd it so amusing that you are purposely ignoring that vaxed ppl, especially ones who recieved flumist are spreading WAY more flu! So I personally believe that the next pandemic is all the vaxed ppl's fault!
sassyfirechick likes this.

bfinfant.gif  Breastfeeding, non-vaxing, homeschooling, baby wearing, cosleeping, non-cic'ing mama to CJsuperhero.gifAGdust.gifJJnono02.gifSDbabyboy.gif  And married my highschool sweetheart lovestory.gif

And expecting #5 in Nov. 2014 heartbeat.gif
3lilchunklins is online now  
#185 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 12:04 PM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3LilChunklins View Post

It still boils down to the fact that SECONARY infections are the culprits behind deaths blamed on the flu. In which case the flu shot is useless.
And also I said most unvaxed, at least in my experience try to boost their immune systems. Of course you still have countless ppl who don't get the vax that dont bother trying anything extra to protect themselves.
And lastly, I fnd it so amusing that you are purposely ignoring that vaxed ppl, especially ones who recieved flumist are spreading WAY more flu! So I personally believe that the next pandemic is all the vaxed ppl's fault!

If you're dead you're dead, makes no difference if it's primary or secondary.

 

I am assuming you are absolutely correct about the unvaxed boosting their immune systems. Heck, they boost it just by getting the flu at twice the vaxed rate.  And it make perfect sense in terms of risk compensation that the unvaxed on average take mores steps to mitigate the risk.  But all this is already baked into Taximom's numbers and Taximon's number support my position.

 

Taximom provided no data on the rate at which flumist leads to the spread of the flu, other than the fact that the rate is not zero.  I don't know a basis for the claim that it's way more than other sources in a normal year, much less a pandemic year.

applejuice and Andrew Lazarus like this.
tadamsmar is online now  
#186 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

If you're dead you're dead, makes no difference if it's primary or secondary.

 

 

 

Right but the 'flu' is not necessarily 'influenza', so the vaccine would not have prevented these respiratory infections,

 

 

A quote from Peter Doshi's paper, Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease, highlights the flu vaccine scam:

 

 

Quote:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive. (fig 2).

All influenza is “flu,” but only one in six “flus” might be influenza. It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.

 

 

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#187 of 466 Old 04-02-2014, 01:06 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

.

 

Taximom provided no data on the rate at which flumist leads to the spread of the flu, other than the fact that the rate is not zero.  I don't know a basis for the claim that it's way more than other sources in a normal year, much less a pandemic year.

 

We don't know what the rate is.  As you say, the rate is not zero.

But we also know that the vast majority of people who are apparently exposed to true influenza (because "it's everywhere!"  Right?) don't come down with serious influenza symptoms.  Very, very few people actually come down with lab-confirmed influenza.


We also know that a certain percentage have adverse reactions to flu shots.   We don't know that rate, either, because reactions are poorly recognized, poorly reported, and apparently nobody is studying those who do have doctor-diagnosed adverse reactions.  We know some of the predispositions, but there is no screening process in place, even for the ones we know.

We also don't know to what extent flu shots (and other shots as well) cause or trigger autoimmune reaction.  Again, though, we know it's not zero.

 

What it comes down to is, there is an awful lot we just don't know.  

About all we DO know is that influenza--true, lab-confirmed influenza--does not impact many people.

You can make it sound ominous by saying, "Oh, unvaccinated people get the flu at twice the rate of vaccinated people!"  That sounds SO much more sinister and threatening than the equally valid "Neither vaccinated nor unvaccinated people get the flu at a significant rate."

 

 In addition, there is no observed benefit to elderly or pediatric populations (by the admission on the package insert, and also the conclusion of the Cochrane Review), except for a moderate benefit seen in FluMist--which can also cause mild cases of the flu, and as previously stated, can shed live virus cells.  The Cochrane Review also stated that vaccinating health care workers has not shown benefit to their patients.

Taximom5 is online now  
#188 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 05:41 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Right but the 'flu' is not necessarily 'influenza', so the vaccine would not have prevented these respiratory infections,

 

 

A quote from Peter Doshi's paper, Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease, highlights the flu vaccine scam:

 

 

 

 

Doshi accuses CDC of marketing vaccines.  He provides zero evidence that these government officials, who get a salary to promote public health, are marketing anything.  And, more importantly, it does not matter because plenty of marketed products are good products that live up the the claims made in their favor.  This just amounts to a ad hominem  argument, a form or argument that honest clear-thinking people avoid. However, it is not important that Dosihi's own writing proves that he not an honest clear thinker,  because it's still possible for dishonest or murky thinker to put forward a sound argument.  All that is important for the matter at hand is the substance of Doshi's position.

 

Since my standards are much higher than Dosihi's, I have to actually analyze the substance of his argument, There is a lot there and it takes time to analyze it.  So I will just grant that the substance of his argument is true, the CDC is overstating the risks and benefits. That is consistent with my main point that the spread of the nonvax meme is going to make future pandemics more severe if a vaccine is being shunned.  If he is right, all that means it that somewhat fewer deaths will end up being linked to the spread of the nonvax meme.   It's still important that public health officials work to avoid these deaths.

 

PS: But I currently don't believe his main argument.  He just sets up some earlier studies as straw men, but he points out that CDC does not use those studies anyway.  He does a kind of bait and switch.  The CDC projections for future pandemics that he quotes (<49,000 deaths) are pretty modest compared with early 20th century death rates.  So the CDC is already assuming a very much lower rate of secondary infections relative to the early 20th century.

Andrew Lazarus likes this.
tadamsmar is online now  
#189 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 06:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

Doshi accuses CDC of marketing vaccines.  He provides zero evidence that these government officials, who get a salary to promote public health, are marketing anything.  

 

:rotflmao

 

Well, one, define marketing.  Of course they are marketing!

 

Second, it is very reasonable to suspect the CDC of working too closely with industry.  Below is for your viewing pleasure.  I could also put up a graph showing the huge amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on lobbying, or disccus Mr. Offitt's involvment  in the regulatory process.  

 

As per whether those (good use of the word "these"  above) government official were involved in marketing, I do not know and frankly do not care.  The bottom line is it is a pervasive, serious problem.

applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#190 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 06:25 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

OK, I will grant your point, the CDC is marketing.

 

As I pointed out, there are millions or billions of marketed products that do exactly what the marketers claim they do.  So the claim that CDC is marketing is not a substantive argument.

tadamsmar is online now  
#191 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

 

Since my standards are much higher than Dosihi's, I have to actually analyze the substance of his argument, 

 

 

Sorry, I missed why your standards are much higher than Doshi's.  Can you explain?

Mirzam, BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#192 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 07:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

 

As I pointed out, there are millions or billions of marketed products that do exactly what the marketers claim they do.  

I am not sure that is relevant.

 

There are products that work exactly as stated, products that don't  live up to expectation to one degree or another, and products that do not do what they are intended to do.  Some things do as intended, but with other significant consequences. 

 

The issue is if vaccines (and which vaccine?  which brand, even?) do what they set out to do, and without significant negative consequences. 

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#193 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 07:33 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I am not sure that is relevant.

 

There are products that work exactly as stated, products that don't quite live up to hype and products that are do not do what they are intended to do.  Some things do as intended, but with other significant consequences. 

 

The issue is if vaccines (and which vaccine?  which brand, even?) do what they set out to do, and without significant negative consequences. 

The relevance seems so barking obvious, that I have no idea how to explain it.  It's relevant to whether the charge of marketing really matters. Sometime marketers are telling the truth.  Sometimes government officials or do-gooders who not marketing get it wrong.

 

When you don't have the time to look into the substance of a argument, then trying to judge deception, sincerity, credentials, and competence of the person making the argument can be a useful shortcut, so we are prone to this habitual response.  But don't let the Doshi's of the world play you by triggering this response.

tadamsmar is online now  
#194 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 07:39 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Sorry, I missed why your standards are much higher than Doshi's.  Can you explain?

I don't want to bother. It's just not important to the matter at hand.  I was just irritated by some of Doshi's argument tactics.

tadamsmar is online now  
#195 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 08:37 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

Maybe this wikipedia article will explain where I am coming from about some of the tactics Doshi is willing to use:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

But, as I said, he makes other arguments that need to be evaluated.

tadamsmar is online now  
#196 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 08:48 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

 

The CDC is a corporation registered with Dunn & Bradstreet, it is not a person. Most (all) of the pro-vaccination choice posters understand very well what an ad hominem attack is, it happens to us all the time.

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#197 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 09:26 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

OK, I will grant your point, the CDC is marketing.

 

As I pointed out, there are millions or billions of marketed products that do exactly what the marketers claim they do.  So the claim that CDC is marketing is not a substantive argument.

I haven't read the Doshi article.  

It is important that the CDC is marketing vaccines because the CDC has a mandate to protect the community.   The CDC has pledged to "place the benefits to society above the benefits to our institution".  They also pledge to "Base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively".  

 

Show us a marketer with those same or similar mandates and pledges.

BeckyBird likes this.
samaxtics is online now  
#198 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 09:40 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
 

  He provides zero evidence that these government officials, who get a salary to promote public health, are marketing anything.  And, more importantly, it does not matter because plenty of marketed products are good products that live up the the claims made in their favor.  This just amounts to a ad hominem  argument, a form or argument that honest clear-thinking people avoid. However, it is not important that Dosihi's own writing proves that he not an honest clear thinker,  because it's still possible for dishonest or murky thinker to put forward a sound argument.  All that is important for the matter at hand is the substance of Doshi's position.

 

Since my standards are much higher than Dosihi's, I have to actually analyze the substance of his argument, 

 

 

You have provided zero evidence for any of this.


You're doing quite a lot of personal attack on Doshi.  That's a bit of an ad hominem, isn't it? "Doshi's own writing proves that he is not an honest clear thinker," but you're talking in circles:  you say that Doshi is not a clear honest thinker based on the fact that he is (in your mind) guilty of ad hominem attacks.  You re-badge his calling out misperceptions and dishonesty regarding the flu vaccine  as "ad hominem."

There are certainly fallacies that are often used in debate, but it's awfully disturbing that so many people either misuse or twist the terms as an excuse to shut down criticism and discussion.


The CDC markets vaccines. Here, they market the flu vaccine by recommending that everyone over the age of 6 months get vaccinated for the flu, with NO mention whatsoever that flu shots have poor efficacy:  http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm  Here, they market vaccines by saying that everyone needs to be vaccinated: http://www.cdc.gov/features/adultvaccinations/, with no mention of efficacy, risk, or explanation why someone's health would be significantly improved by vaccination.  I've worked in marketing.  This is the some of the best and most effective marketing I've seen.

 

Mirzam, BeckyBird and samaxtics like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#199 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

 

:rotflmao

 

Well, one, define marketing.  Of course they are marketing!

The anti-smoking campaigns also marketed, extensive advertising. So do the seat belt campaigns. And—since those are free—so do the child car seat campaigns, and you have to buy the car seat from a for-profit company in Big Car Seata (or go through some hassle with the welfare people, who buy one for you). Do you have a problem with them?

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#200 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

The CDC is a corporation registered with Dunn & Bradstreet, it is not a person.

As I understand it, grant applicants register with D&B for a magic number. So the CDC may well have one. So would partnerships, academic institutions, and even individual investigators working on contract. This does not make the CDC a corporation. Would you please substantiate your claim that a division of the United States Government is a corporation?

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#201 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:12 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

The anti-smoking campaigns also marketed, extensive advertising. So do the seat belt campaigns. And—since those are free—so do the child car seat campaigns, and you have to buy the car seat from a for-profit company in Big Car Seat (or go through some hassle with the welfare people, who buy one for you). Do you have a problem with them?

relevance?

 

The discussion was not on whether or not they should market vaccines, but on whether they do.  I said yes, and tadamsmar conceded the point, so.......moving along.

BeckyBird likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#202 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:13 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 402
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post

Would you please substantiate your claim that a division of the United States Government is a corporation?

I'm confused. Why is this important in regards to Mirzam's statement that a corporation is not a person?
BeckyBird likes this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#203 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:23 AM
 
Andrew Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrmEmbar View Post


I'm confused. Why is this important in regards to Mirzam's statement that a corporation is not a person?

Because the (incorrect!) belief that certain units of the US Government are corporations is seen in alternative beliefs not related to vaccines. Example. I'm curious if this is an inadvertent tangent, or evidence that Mirzam subscribes to other beliefs that would make people skeptical of his analysis.

Andrew Lazarus is offline  
#204 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:30 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) - the CDC has one.

 

The Data Universal Numbering System, abbreviated as DUNS or D-U-N-S, is a proprietary system developed and regulated by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) that assigns a unique numeric identifier, referred to as a "DUNS number" to a single business entity. It was introduced in 1963 to support D&B's credit reporting practice. It is a common standard worldwide. DUNS users include the European Commission, the United Nations and the United States government. More than 50 global, industry, and trade associations recognize, recommend, or require DUNS. The DUNS database contains over 100 million entries for businesses throughout the world.[1]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Universal_Numbering_System

BeckyBird likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#205 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:46 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 402
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Lazarus View Post
 

Because the (incorrect!) belief that certain units of the US Government are corporations is seen in alternative beliefs not related to vaccines. Example. I'm curious if this is an inadvertent tangent, or evidence that Mirzam subscribes to other beliefs that would make people skeptical of his analysis.

Okay.  I would appreciate you being more clear about these sorts of things.  Otherwise it seems that you are here just to argue and get a response, not further the conversation.  It might be helpful to just ask the poster if that is where she or he is coming from.

 

I believe the thread was in a place of addressing the concept of marketing . . . 

 

(honestly, I wish we could move towards discussion and away from debate . . . these debates are good for entertainment (like watching ping pong) - if you like that sort of thing - but I have found our discussions and explorations much more useful in getting me to really think about my research and choices)

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#206 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:48 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

You have provided zero evidence for any of this.


You're doing quite a lot of personal attack on Doshi.  That's a bit of an ad hominem, isn't it? "Doshi's own writing proves that he is not an honest clear thinker," but you're talking in circles:  you say that Doshi is not a clear honest thinker based on the fact that he is (in your mind) guilty of ad hominem attacks.  You re-badge his calling out misperceptions and dishonesty regarding the flu vaccine  as "ad hominem."

There are certainly fallacies that are often used in debate, but it's awfully disturbing that so many people either misuse or twist the terms as an excuse to shut down criticism and discussion.



The CDC markets vaccines. Here, they market the flu vaccine by recommending that everyone over the age of 6 months get vaccinated for the flu, with NO mention whatsoever that flu shots have poor efficacy:  http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/whoshouldvax.htm  Here, they market vaccines by saying that everyone needs to be vaccinated: http://www.cdc.gov/features/adultvaccinations/, with no mention of efficacy, risk, or explanation why someone's health would be significantly improved by vaccination.  I've worked in marketing.  This is the some of the best and most effective marketing I've seen.
 

 

Let me clairfy.

 

The evidence that Doshi use an ad hominem argument is right there in his paper.  The truth of the proposition "An honest clear thinking person avoids ad hominem arguments" does not require evidence because it's just a matter of the definition of words and terms and a bit of logic.

 

It's true that I have made personal attacks on Doshi because he used an ad hominem argument and I hate those, particular in a published in a peer-reviewed paper in what I guess is a journal with some prestige,  Heck I might make a personal attack on  you if you did that, but probably not, I'd probably just point on your fallacy in the interest of mutual civility.

 

My personal attack on Doshi was not ad hominem, because it was not part of any ad hominem argument that I made.  I was very careful to point out that his despicable behavior had no bearing on his other substantive claims.  I invite you to be disgusted by his trickery while judging his substantive claims on their own merit.

 

BTW, you make a number of false claims in your last paragraph. (1) The CDC does not recommend that everyone over age 6 get vaccinated for the flu. (2) They provide info on efficacy, whether the efficacy they report is poor on not depend on what the meaning of the word  "poor" is in context. (3)  They don't market vaccines by saying everyone should get them.  Screening is required when a person tries to get vaccinated.  Looks like their actual position is that everyone should go and get screened and get the vax if they pass the screen - that's the practical effect of the web pages you cited.

 

Correction: My attack on Doshi was ad hominem (literally"to the man").  But it was not an ad hominem argument and it was the truth,

tadamsmar is online now  
#207 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:49 AM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 402
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)

Request - can we discuss specific vaccines instead of vaccines as a blanket term?  Or can we talk about the fact that some of us are thinking of vaccines in one big lump (all together) and some of us are talking about vaccines as individuals (even different products marketed for the same virus(es))?

 

I think a lot of this conversation is like ships passing in the night because there is a lack of agreement about the terms we are using.

 

just a thought for the day . . . 

Taximom5 likes this.
OrmEmbar is online now  
#208 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 10:55 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

Hey, If we want to give examples of marketing, how about the cool one million dollars (in today's dollars, approximately)  that Wakefield was paid by those personal injury lawyers to research autism and MMR?

 

I would not care if they had paid him 10 million if he had just told the truth!

Andrew Lazarus likes this.
tadamsmar is online now  
#209 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 11:08 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Pro-vax bingo alert: Wakefield has been mentioned!

(of course, I mentioned Offitt above, but it was in relation to the CDC or FDA, which is quite a bit more serious and with farther reaching consequences than private injury lawyersl)

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#210 of 466 Old 04-03-2014, 11:30 AM
 
tadamsmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 319
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)

But there is a reason to examine any claim anybody makes.

tadamsmar is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off