LogFAQs > #930779604

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Rob Schneider Attacks LIBERALS for SILENCING the ANTI-VAXX MOVEMENT!!!
adjl 11/27/19 1:06:55 PM #47:	HornedLion posted... Nitpicking details such as this, when the message was clear that the digestive system is a natural process VS not a natural process, is something that makes one not take you seriously. Except I spent a solid paragraph prior to that explaining why the whole "natural process" thing was irrelevant. It doesn't matter how naturally you take botulinum into your body. The harm you suffer is going to be proportional to the dose, which is true for literally every toxin. Exposure route also plays a role, but that varies from toxin to toxin and "natural" routes (a meaningless distinction because virtually every exposure route occurs in nature) are not inherently any safer than "unnatural" ones. My point with that addendum was that that that comment from you was very transparently melodramatic fearmongering. You write a phrase like "taking an bunch of chemicals directly into the bloodstream," and people are going to imagine you clutching your pearls while you say it and dismiss your concerns accordingly. Pathos like that has no place in a discussion of public health, nor does the naturalistic fallacy (protip: botulinum toxin is among the most potently toxic substances known to mankind and is also completely natural). HornedLion posted... Ive seen no mention or response to my statement about The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Why would I need to respond directly to that? I've said on multiple occasions (including this topic) that you're grossly misrepresenting my position if you believe that I don't think vaccines have any side effects whatsoever. The mere existence of a vaccine injury compensation program does nothing to affect my position. HornedLion posted... Look, it seems like Robert De Niro is another one of those emotional parents. So it would seem, yes. Having a child diagnosed with a developmental disorder is distressing. When distressing things happen, people start to look for explanations because "it just happened for no reason" is a lot harder to accept than being able to pin the blame on something. So along comes this one study that suggests that maybe vaccines cause autism. He doesn't necessarily say "that's definitely true," but he starts thinking about how his kid was doing before and after being vaccinated. Memories being subjective and highly prone to external biases, that process is likely to result in overestimating the post-vaccination symptoms and ignoring pre-vaccination ones. Is he hysterical? No. Does that mean his recollection of his son's developmental progress is infallible? Also no. HornedLion posted... How can his knowledge of his son before and after the MMR vaccine be trusted when hes sooooo emotional? It can't, unless he's been empirically documenting all relevant details. Subjective, anecdotal assessments like that aren't credible, especially when emotional distress comes into play. It's just too easy for people to make errors in forming them. You need empirical, statistical data to identify a genuine correlation, and even then that's only a correlation and not a conclusive causal link. Anecdotes can inspire that investigation, but they should not be treated as being more credible than investigations that have already taken place and failed to support them. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:930779604] in Rob Schnei... [t:78199699]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Nitpicking details such as this, when the message was clear that the digestive system is a natural process VS not a natural process, is something that makes one not take you seriously. </quote> Except I spent a solid paragraph prior to that explaining why the whole "natural process" thing was irrelevant. It doesn't matter how naturally you take botulinum into your body. The harm you suffer is going to be proportional to the dose, which is true for literally every toxin. Exposure route also plays a role, but that varies from toxin to toxin and "natural" routes (a meaningless distinction because virtually every exposure route occurs in nature) are not inherently any safer than "unnatural" ones. My point with that addendum was that that that comment from you was very transparently melodramatic fearmongering. You write a phrase like "taking an bunch of chemicals directly into the bloodstream," and people are going to imagine you clutching your pearls while you say it and dismiss your concerns accordingly. Pathos like that has no place in a discussion of public health, nor does the naturalistic fallacy (protip: botulinum toxin is among the most potently toxic substances known to mankind and is also completely natural). HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Ive seen no mention or response to my statement about The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).</quote> Why would I need to respond directly to that? I've said on multiple occasions (including this topic) that you're grossly misrepresenting my position if you believe that I don't think vaccines have any side effects whatsoever. The mere existence of a vaccine injury compensation program does nothing to affect my position. HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>Look, it seems like Robert De Niro is another one of those emotional parents.</quote> So it would seem, yes. Having a child diagnosed with a developmental disorder is distressing. When distressing things happen, people start to look for explanations because "it just happened for no reason" is a lot harder to accept than being able to pin the blame on something. So along comes this one study that suggests that maybe vaccines cause autism. He doesn't necessarily say "that's definitely true," but he starts thinking about how his kid was doing before and after being vaccinated. Memories being subjective and highly prone to external biases, that process is likely to result in overestimating the post-vaccination symptoms and ignoring pre-vaccination ones. Is he hysterical? No. Does that mean his recollection of his son's developmental progress is infallible? Also no. HornedLion posted...</cite> <quote>How can his knowledge of his son before and after the MMR vaccine be trusted when hes sooooo emotional?</quote> It can't, unless he's been empirically documenting all relevant details. Subjective, anecdotal assessments like that aren't credible, especially when emotional distress comes into play. It's just too easy for people to make errors in forming them. You need empirical, statistical data to identify a genuine correlation, and even then that's only a correlation and not a conclusive causal link. Anecdotes can inspire that investigation, but they should not be treated as being more credible than investigations that have already taken place and failed to support them. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1