3 ms·

>a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with t

by oblib 8y ago

>a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? > But ~40 mothers also isn't a large enough sample size. I've spoken with many more than that over the past three decades, but I've yet to see a significantly larger sample size in any of the studies on sugar or Red 40. >Being paid [..] is called corruption, not bias. Of course it is, except when it's not disclosed. That is part of what the article linked here addresses. Some of those studies have been taken as being uncorrupted for decades now and that has very much influenced the current beliefs on the subject. > I will -- there is absolutely no link Well, I've heard too many stories about mom's taking their children to get vaccinated and describing the effects as "It's like the very next day or two their lights just went out". I have no personal experience with this, but I won't dismiss that. There are so many variables that could affect this that it would be imprudent to do so, and those that sell vaccines are highly motivated to ignore those who've brought it up. It's so easy to assume we know everything. It's human nature in fact to delude ourselves this way. Considering how much we do not know about how gut bugs interact with almost everything we are exposed to, that alone provides more than enough reason to avoid concrete statements like "there is absolutely no link" and doing so is most certainly proof of bias. It's a huge leap to ignore those who witness these effects and again I can draw from my own personal experience when my first wife's doctors told me "there is absolutely no link between women having a child and psychosis". And that happened not just once, but twice. All of her doctors, everyone of them, were arrogantly and insistently dead assed wrong and now we know they were all wrong beyond any doubt. How many moms do you think they all ignored before they finally saw the light? It was 1 to 2 out of every 1,000 deliveries. An abortion can trigger it too. So, if you preconceive those same odds could never apply to vaccines and autism because only 1 or 2 out of every 1,000 mom's say that was the cause you may well be wrong for a very long time even while a preventative treatment is staring you in the face.

cyphar 8y ago
> Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. I didn't use bias as a slur, I was trying to help you argue better (and I explained why you or the mothers you talked to might have a bias -- and it wasn't because you "didn't agree with the status quo"). You appear to be using it as a slur towards me (in a way, saying "tu quoque"), for no real reason. > Well, I've heard too many stories about mom's taking their children to get vaccinated and describing the effects as "It's like the very next day or two their lights just went out". And this is exactly the reason why studies are better than anecdotal evidence. There are countless studies by many independent sources that show beyond any reasonable doubt that vaccines are an unmitigated good (one of the greatest medical marvels in history, alongside penicillin or the understanding of germ theory). But that's apparently not sufficient because some mothers of autistic children think that it was vaccines that caused their child's condition. You know what can really make your child's "lights go out"? Dying. That's what whooping cough, measles, rubella, retrovirus, polio, and any other number of diseases did to countless children before we started vaccinating them. I think that pretending that autism (which is incredibly likely to not be caused by vaccines) is much worse than death (which we _know_ can be a direct outcome of many serious childhood illnesses) is a quite unethical viewpoint. > that alone provides more than enough reason to avoid concrete statements like "there is absolutely no link" and doing so is most certainly proof of bias. Would you say that belief in evolution or climate change or gravity is a proof of bias? My view is based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, where studies were carried out in response to a bunch of baseless fearmongering that has without a doubt directly killed children. You're right that we can't know anything, but entertaining an incredibly improbable outcome (that all of those studies were wrong) and allowing it to affect your life (and the life of your children) is just playing to the fearmongers. It's like saying that you can technically win the lottery -- you can technically win, but the likelihood is so low that you shouldn't base any of your life decisions on that fact. If there was a study tomorrow that showed that there was a concrete link, and it was good science, then I would accept it and would happily eat crow. But the likelihood is so infinitesimally small that it's not worth entertaining the idea in a normal conversation.
- oblib 8y ago
  I didn't even imply that one shouldn't vaccinate their children. I really don't know how you took that from anything I've wrote, except that you read it with a very strong bias. I focused on not dismissing moms who say vaccinations did affect their children. >I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. Actually, I was addressing the overarching approach to being stuck in a state of understanding that results in refusing to look for more knowledge. You denying there is any potential for any link at all isn't really based on your personal experience with mother's who've claimed it was the cause. It's based on statistical data you are aware of, but that's all. You not atypical in believing that data is conclusive. That is the "status quo", is it not? But statistical data is really only a snapshot of a fixed set of data points in time. In terms of human biology there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. The truth is the data we have right now on how the human organism functions isn't even close to complete, nor fully understood, and still quite dispersed and not easily accessible. I'd like to think studies on the potential ill effects of vaccinating all children should be a priority and listening to mothers who've said their children experienced serious issues should be at the very top of that list of data collected and studied. And again, to be perfectly clear, I still have not said or implied that one shouldn't vaccinate their children.
- oblib 8y ago
  It's pretty cowardly to accuse someone of urging "mothers to not vaccinate" and then delete the accusation by editing your comments after they've pointed out they've not done that. You could've stood up and apologized, but you didn't. You slunk in and hid what you said and slunk away instead.

by oblib 8y ago

cyphar 8y ago

> Yes, but is it not also bias to leap to a conclusion someone is bias because they don't agree with the status quo? I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. I didn't use bias as a slur, I was trying to help you argue better (and I explained why you or the mothers you talked to might have a bias -- and it wasn't because you "didn't agree with the status quo"). You appear to be using it as a slur towards me (in a way, saying "tu quoque"), for no real reason. > Well, I've heard too many stories about mom's taking their children to get vaccinated and describing the effects as "It's like the very next day or two their lights just went out". And this is exactly the reason why studies are better than anecdotal evidence. There are countless studies by many independent sources that show beyond any reasonable doubt that vaccines are an unmitigated good (one of the greatest medical marvels in history, alongside penicillin or the understanding of germ theory). But that's apparently not sufficient because some mothers of autistic children think that it was vaccines that caused their child's condition. You know what can really make your child's "lights go out"? Dying. That's what whooping cough, measles, rubella, retrovirus, polio, and any other number of diseases did to countless children before we started vaccinating them. I think that pretending that autism (which is incredibly likely to not be caused by vaccines) is much worse than death (which we _know_ can be a direct outcome of many serious childhood illnesses) is a quite unethical viewpoint. > that alone provides more than enough reason to avoid concrete statements like "there is absolutely no link" and doing so is most certainly proof of bias. Would you say that belief in evolution or climate change or gravity is a proof of bias? My view is based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, where studies were carried out in response to a bunch of baseless fearmongering that has without a doubt directly killed children. You're right that we can't know anything, but entertaining an incredibly improbable outcome (that all of those studies were wrong) and allowing it to affect your life (and the life of your children) is just playing to the fearmongers. It's like saying that you can technically win the lottery -- you can technically win, but the likelihood is so low that you shouldn't base any of your life decisions on that fact. If there was a study tomorrow that showed that there was a concrete link, and it was good science, then I would accept it and would happily eat crow. But the likelihood is so infinitesimally small that it's not worth entertaining the idea in a normal conversation.

oblib 8y ago
I didn't even imply that one shouldn't vaccinate their children. I really don't know how you took that from anything I've wrote, except that you read it with a very strong bias. I focused on not dismissing moms who say vaccinations did affect their children. >I don't think "tu quoque" is a civil way of having a discussion. Actually, I was addressing the overarching approach to being stuck in a state of understanding that results in refusing to look for more knowledge. You denying there is any potential for any link at all isn't really based on your personal experience with mother's who've claimed it was the cause. It's based on statistical data you are aware of, but that's all. You not atypical in believing that data is conclusive. That is the "status quo", is it not? But statistical data is really only a snapshot of a fixed set of data points in time. In terms of human biology there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. The truth is the data we have right now on how the human organism functions isn't even close to complete, nor fully understood, and still quite dispersed and not easily accessible. I'd like to think studies on the potential ill effects of vaccinating all children should be a priority and listening to mothers who've said their children experienced serious issues should be at the very top of that list of data collected and studied. And again, to be perfectly clear, I still have not said or implied that one shouldn't vaccinate their children.
oblib 8y ago
It's pretty cowardly to accuse someone of urging "mothers to not vaccinate" and then delete the accusation by editing your comments after they've pointed out they've not done that. You could've stood up and apologized, but you didn't. You slunk in and hid what you said and slunk away instead.