Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
If you don't want to think about it, research it, pros versus cons, etc., then it's an easy choice. Do what you are told and don't think at all.
Click to expand...

Let's demonstrate Robert's "research" by demonstrating his ignorance concerning the graph he posted from an anti-vax site. Here is the graph that allegedely shows polio was already disappearing prior to the introduction of the vaccine:

picture.php


I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.

Now if you think about that for a moment, it only makes sense that any disease is going to show a decrease in mortality simply because of the improvement in medical treatment. But that has nothing to do with prevention of the disease. Which is why I posted this graph:

picture.php


You can see that the y-axis on this graph is labelled "cases". So it shows exactly what we are interested in seeing, the disappearance of poilio cases after the introduction of the vaccine. The only problem I have with that graph is that it doesn't go back far enough. But it proves my point and is what we call "good research".
 
zooterkin said:
You're unable to deal with multiple questions in one post? Really?
Click to expand...


That is quite literally a spam response that Robert gives whenever a post is above a certain length, and has a question mark in it at all. In fact, in another thread, a lengthy post with a single question in the middle received the same response. Also, even when he is asked only one question, he usually ignores it, or answers a different, unasked, question.

Further, expect a whole bunch of single word (such a baloney or moonshine) to substantive (and usually lengthy) posts. RP is nothing more than a troll, and I would advise you to not engage.
 
Clayton Moore said:
If a mistake has been detected and corrected only idiots dwell on it.
Click to expand...


Not if the mistake could have reasonably been prevented from happening at all. Hell, you didn't even correct it; someone else did. You barely even acknowledged it.

Take some responsibility for yourself, man. Geez.
 
Tomblvd said:
I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.
Click to expand...
And it's not simply death rates; since it starts at 100% and, for Great Britain, goes up, it would appear to be death rate expressed as a percentage of the death rate in the opening year (and, from the way the labels are applied, I'd be reluctant to say exactly what year that is). You might think that this highly derivative scale was chosen, and then not explained, in order to obfuscate rather than illuminate the data...
 
Tomblvd said:
Let's demonstrate Robert's "research" by demonstrating his ignorance concerning the graph he posted from an anti-vax site. Here is the graph that allegedely shows polio was already disappearing prior to the introduction of the vaccine:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=694&pictureid=6658[/qimg]

I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.

Now if you think about that for a moment, it only makes sense that any disease is going to show a decrease in mortality simply because of the improvement in medical treatment. But that has nothing to do with prevention of the disease. Which is why I posted this graph:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=694&pictureid=6639[/qimg]

You can see that the y-axis on this graph is labelled "cases". So it shows exactly what we are interested in seeing, the disappearance of poilio cases after the introduction of the vaccine. The only problem I have with that graph is that it doesn't go back far enough. But it proves my point and is what we call "good research".
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, Tomblyd.
 
pakeha said:
Thanks for the explanation, Tomblyd.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

Btw my 10 yo daughter is getting over whooping cough. Next year when I turn 40, I'm making a point of getting the pertusis (and tetanus) booster - not to protect myself, but to protect others (the tetanus is for me though...).
 
TheRedWorm said:
That is quite literally a spam response that Robert gives whenever a post is above a certain length, and has a question mark in it at all. In fact, in another thread, a lengthy post with a single question in the middle received the same response. Also, even when he is asked only one question, he usually ignores it, or answers a different, unasked, question.

Further, expect a whole bunch of single word (such a baloney or moonshine) to substantive (and usually lengthy) posts. RP is nothing more than a troll, and I would advise you to not engage.
Click to expand...

Trolling is not against the MA, and members can indulge as long as they don't break any rules. Luckily for me. ;)
 
zooterkin said:
Trolling is not against the MA, and members can indulge as long as they don't break any rules. Luckily for me. ;)
Click to expand...


Very true. Although, when someone quotes in full a 9 million word (rough estimate) post, just to respond with 'baloney'...
 
Tomblvd said:
Let's demonstrate Robert's "research" by demonstrating his ignorance concerning the graph he posted from an anti-vax site. Here is the graph that allegedely shows polio was already disappearing prior to the introduction of the vaccine:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=694&pictureid=6658[/qimg]

I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.
Click to expand...

I swear that must be the third version of that graph I have seen from the anti-vax nutters, and each time they re-make it they make it more obscure. At first the y-axis was labelled 'mortality rates', then it was switch to something more obscure, now its not even labeled as mortality rates, just 'declining percentages', which isn't even a quantity but a change in quantity .

Says volumes.

Thanks for the outbreaks, Robert Prey.
 
Tomblvd said:
I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.

/QUOTE]

Silly me. And here I assumed the Deep Thinkers on this board would actually go the the cited URL and read it. Of course it deals with death rates. That is the heading placed before the graph How astute of you to figure this out.

"Figure 4. The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced."

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/


As far as Polio incidence is concerned, your graph indeed does not go back far enough. But here is a graph that goes back to 1941. You can see that incidence began dropping dramatically before the Salk Vaccine was introduced.

picture.php
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Tomblvd said:
I kept asking about the "y-axis", the one that says "decreasing percentages", because it doesn't really say what the numbers are. But if you've spent any time at an anti-vax site you are all too familiar with these kind of graphs. The graph isn't showing decreasing rates of polio cases, which is, after all, the whole point of the discussion, rather, it shows polio death rates.
Click to expand...

Silly me. And here I assumed the Deep Thinkers on this board would actually go the the cited URL and read it. Of course it deals with death rates. That is the heading placed before the graph How astute of you to figure this out.

"Figure 4. The polio death rate was decreasing on its own before the vaccine was introduced."

http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/
Click to expand...

The Polio death rate was decreasing all on its own?

Incorrect. The reason that the numbers of polio deaths was decreasing was due to advances in medical science. The Iron Lung was used to save thousands of lives that would otherwise become death statistics.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom