SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I am starting a new thread as suggested by others to continue rational discussion of this subject in the title.
Hoyt and anyone who supports him seems emotionally and intellectually programmed not to perceive any discussion with equanimity - and to continue to remain negatively prejudicial against scientific evidence which imputes and impeaches entrenched and collective points of view.
If you prove to him: "You are absolutely WRONG in your beliefs; you are WRONG in promoting a particular POV. If you show them there is ubiquitous, unrebuttable and objective scientific evidence (such as the 1947 NYC smallpox outbreak scenario) demonstrating what they say is invalid, how do they respond?
There is extreme denial, immediate hostility and a tendency to ridicule the opposite view coupled with deliberate misrepresentation of known facts, failure to address or omit examples and facts stated and, of course, plenty of ad hominems. There is also a perceived physical response by way of heightened anxiety coupled with intense rationalization of the held beliefs arguing and over-rationalizing their own beliefs. And, of course they then start mining the literature for extremist examples which Hoyt immediately did elsewhere regarding vaccine opponents.
They don't understand that each disease, each scenario, each vaccine program needs to stand or fall on a study of its own pecuilar features ... but now they are dangerously and disingenuously lumping the small pox scenario in with others.
Corey knows this process...it is called rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance. This means there will be a lot of justification for the held beliefs against the inconsistent information - even if said 'inconsistent' information is scientific as in the case of the small pox vaccination program and why it is a waste of time, money and not even worth the risks it would entail due to the existence of alternative pathways for dealing with an outbreak.
Moreover , neurolinguistic programing reveals that whenever a person such as Hoyt is confronted with information which is in opposition to his own beliefs, critical 'deletions' occur - minds start to filter out information - omitting information which could be biologically and emotionally destabilizing. We have seen this not only with Hoyt, in Corey's one liners, in Larsen's twisting of his second language but most recently in DeeTop's ability to take a sentinel incident and completely misrepresent it in 24 words or less. BoTox did so while quoting CDC factoids ....omitting a critical statistic, in conscious or unconscious support of Hoyt's rebuttal of that number which I freely admitted I did not preface correctly.
Hoyt argues that the fact that a vast majority of U.S (and Canadian and worldwide) health care workers and professionals declined the administration's pleas to line up for a smallpox immunization on the grounds it was a fallacy of arguing to popularity. Lets just see how "popular" that decision was. We know from the CDC that a grand total of 37,800 such healthcare workers took the small pox innoculation. What % is that of the total, just in the U.S.A.? There are, according to the AMA, 708,000 practicing physicians in the U.S. According to the American Nurses Association there are 2.6 million nurses. The U.S Department of Labor in its most recent calculation, admittedly now several years old, states there are 13.5 million health care and social services workers in the United States. Yet out of all these, only 37,800 lined up.
Certainly this huge negative popularity must have some rationale attached since 37.8K is much less than 1% of that grand total.
But ignoring the rationales offered, Hoyt then argues that all these recalcitrant health workers are idiots and fools for not listening to the (government's) epidemiologists. Whose popularity and authortity is he arguing? The popularity of government and military epidemiologists? Is Hoyt so naive as to not think that there are thousands of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists who don't work for the government? All these recalcitrant health care workers listened to experts alright but not just the military and the government's experts. BoTox then cites an unidentified reference and study that the military says without mass innoculations for smallpox there would be a catastrophic result. She omits the fact that IF there was a large scale, credible threat that this would occur. An interesting exercise at best, no basis in reality. A projection based on no evidence it would ever occur. Nobody argues with the result of such a study so long as it is qualified with the "would occur if there was a credible threat." When and if I see the reference it would be interesting to see if this is mentioned. However, there is no such realistic threat anybody can point to. And BoTox also omits the well known scientifically established alternatives to pre-emptive smallpox innoculation should such a threat actuallymaterialize.
Yet Hoyt has single handedly,and with the intentional support of his cronies, undermined the confidence of the entire American public in their doctors, nurses and dedicated health care workers. In fact when he re-titled a new thread to deal with this discussion, he incorporated the derogatory term "quack" into its title, suggesting that 99% of all the health care workers in America, some 700,000 physicians and 2.6 million nurses are quacks. I hope Hoyt's doctor is reading, as he is pedictably one of those who didn't take the shot. I wonder if Hoyt took it, if he was so worried about this. It would be his choice after weighing the pros and cons.
I have briefly explained the statistical situation to Hal but he did not respond. In a response to a request from the author (Hoyt) of the smallpox quack thread he said he has decided not to rename it. Hal is an active member of the United States military so I understand his position on this matter. The military, as an organization, is rightfully on record for the need to protect its personnel against all threats, conventional and non-conventional ... whether nuclear, chemical or biological . It should be no other way as these men and women are on the front lines of the battles being waged against terrorists willing to use NCBWs. They are standing between us and them and they need to be protected and that includes being vaccinated against a host of natural and potentially weaponized pathogens. However, it is thanks to these brave folks that the civilian population in this counry and much of the world, whether they realize it or not, is safer today than its ever been and we have the advantage of relying on alternative scenarios rather than pre-emptive mass innoculations in the case of smallpox.
The military should not have to stop and vaccinate post-exposure all its personnel while in the midst of operations so pre-emptive vaccination is justifiable for them.
Not only would post exposure vaccination divert resources needed for other critical missions , it would cause a significant% of the vaccinated personnel to require down time if they had even minor reactions to the vaccine. Yet, in 1947 we proved in NYC that within days and weeks it was possible to sucessfully vaccinate (post theoretical and at the inner ring, actual exposure) six and a half million people for smallpox and end up with just three deaths: patient zero and two close contacts of patient zero. The 1947 incident was remarkable for another reason as well. The index case, a man whose name I think was LeBar, traveled for five days on a bus from Mexico to NYC. This meant not only were all the passengers and drivers in contact with him, but that the index patient and the passengers/drivers exposed to him probably got on and off the bus numerous times between Mexico and NYC and had contact with others along the way. It was a logistical nightmare for public health professionals tasked with protecting all known contacts of patient zero. But there were no other cases outside of the 12 in NYC and the three deaths mentioned above.
Hoyt and anyone who supports him seems emotionally and intellectually programmed not to perceive any discussion with equanimity - and to continue to remain negatively prejudicial against scientific evidence which imputes and impeaches entrenched and collective points of view.
If you prove to him: "You are absolutely WRONG in your beliefs; you are WRONG in promoting a particular POV. If you show them there is ubiquitous, unrebuttable and objective scientific evidence (such as the 1947 NYC smallpox outbreak scenario) demonstrating what they say is invalid, how do they respond?
There is extreme denial, immediate hostility and a tendency to ridicule the opposite view coupled with deliberate misrepresentation of known facts, failure to address or omit examples and facts stated and, of course, plenty of ad hominems. There is also a perceived physical response by way of heightened anxiety coupled with intense rationalization of the held beliefs arguing and over-rationalizing their own beliefs. And, of course they then start mining the literature for extremist examples which Hoyt immediately did elsewhere regarding vaccine opponents.
They don't understand that each disease, each scenario, each vaccine program needs to stand or fall on a study of its own pecuilar features ... but now they are dangerously and disingenuously lumping the small pox scenario in with others.
Corey knows this process...it is called rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance. This means there will be a lot of justification for the held beliefs against the inconsistent information - even if said 'inconsistent' information is scientific as in the case of the small pox vaccination program and why it is a waste of time, money and not even worth the risks it would entail due to the existence of alternative pathways for dealing with an outbreak.
Moreover , neurolinguistic programing reveals that whenever a person such as Hoyt is confronted with information which is in opposition to his own beliefs, critical 'deletions' occur - minds start to filter out information - omitting information which could be biologically and emotionally destabilizing. We have seen this not only with Hoyt, in Corey's one liners, in Larsen's twisting of his second language but most recently in DeeTop's ability to take a sentinel incident and completely misrepresent it in 24 words or less. BoTox did so while quoting CDC factoids ....omitting a critical statistic, in conscious or unconscious support of Hoyt's rebuttal of that number which I freely admitted I did not preface correctly.
Hoyt argues that the fact that a vast majority of U.S (and Canadian and worldwide) health care workers and professionals declined the administration's pleas to line up for a smallpox immunization on the grounds it was a fallacy of arguing to popularity. Lets just see how "popular" that decision was. We know from the CDC that a grand total of 37,800 such healthcare workers took the small pox innoculation. What % is that of the total, just in the U.S.A.? There are, according to the AMA, 708,000 practicing physicians in the U.S. According to the American Nurses Association there are 2.6 million nurses. The U.S Department of Labor in its most recent calculation, admittedly now several years old, states there are 13.5 million health care and social services workers in the United States. Yet out of all these, only 37,800 lined up.
Certainly this huge negative popularity must have some rationale attached since 37.8K is much less than 1% of that grand total.
But ignoring the rationales offered, Hoyt then argues that all these recalcitrant health workers are idiots and fools for not listening to the (government's) epidemiologists. Whose popularity and authortity is he arguing? The popularity of government and military epidemiologists? Is Hoyt so naive as to not think that there are thousands of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists who don't work for the government? All these recalcitrant health care workers listened to experts alright but not just the military and the government's experts. BoTox then cites an unidentified reference and study that the military says without mass innoculations for smallpox there would be a catastrophic result. She omits the fact that IF there was a large scale, credible threat that this would occur. An interesting exercise at best, no basis in reality. A projection based on no evidence it would ever occur. Nobody argues with the result of such a study so long as it is qualified with the "would occur if there was a credible threat." When and if I see the reference it would be interesting to see if this is mentioned. However, there is no such realistic threat anybody can point to. And BoTox also omits the well known scientifically established alternatives to pre-emptive smallpox innoculation should such a threat actuallymaterialize.
Yet Hoyt has single handedly,and with the intentional support of his cronies, undermined the confidence of the entire American public in their doctors, nurses and dedicated health care workers. In fact when he re-titled a new thread to deal with this discussion, he incorporated the derogatory term "quack" into its title, suggesting that 99% of all the health care workers in America, some 700,000 physicians and 2.6 million nurses are quacks. I hope Hoyt's doctor is reading, as he is pedictably one of those who didn't take the shot. I wonder if Hoyt took it, if he was so worried about this. It would be his choice after weighing the pros and cons.
I have briefly explained the statistical situation to Hal but he did not respond. In a response to a request from the author (Hoyt) of the smallpox quack thread he said he has decided not to rename it. Hal is an active member of the United States military so I understand his position on this matter. The military, as an organization, is rightfully on record for the need to protect its personnel against all threats, conventional and non-conventional ... whether nuclear, chemical or biological . It should be no other way as these men and women are on the front lines of the battles being waged against terrorists willing to use NCBWs. They are standing between us and them and they need to be protected and that includes being vaccinated against a host of natural and potentially weaponized pathogens. However, it is thanks to these brave folks that the civilian population in this counry and much of the world, whether they realize it or not, is safer today than its ever been and we have the advantage of relying on alternative scenarios rather than pre-emptive mass innoculations in the case of smallpox.
The military should not have to stop and vaccinate post-exposure all its personnel while in the midst of operations so pre-emptive vaccination is justifiable for them.
Not only would post exposure vaccination divert resources needed for other critical missions , it would cause a significant% of the vaccinated personnel to require down time if they had even minor reactions to the vaccine. Yet, in 1947 we proved in NYC that within days and weeks it was possible to sucessfully vaccinate (post theoretical and at the inner ring, actual exposure) six and a half million people for smallpox and end up with just three deaths: patient zero and two close contacts of patient zero. The 1947 incident was remarkable for another reason as well. The index case, a man whose name I think was LeBar, traveled for five days on a bus from Mexico to NYC. This meant not only were all the passengers and drivers in contact with him, but that the index patient and the passengers/drivers exposed to him probably got on and off the bus numerous times between Mexico and NYC and had contact with others along the way. It was a logistical nightmare for public health professionals tasked with protecting all known contacts of patient zero. But there were no other cases outside of the 12 in NYC and the three deaths mentioned above.
)
