Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.
|
I made a distinction. Nothing challenged his decision. Asked was whether the decision was based in facts or numbers. Or based in subjective speculation. He has said (by omission and profanity) that the decision was based in subjective speculation.
Also provided were facts that show that others made the same mistake. Why (for example the 1981 England study). And that researchers do these numbers frequently. His was a very common mistake. To think a decision was based in numbers when, in reality, it was only based in subjective speculation.
A common joke that discusses this thought process is , "It must be true. It's on the internet."
Another and similar example. Is your computer plugged into a power strip protector? Why spend so much money for something that does not protect from typically destructive surges, and has a history of sometimes causing house fires? In this other example, did you read the numbers? Or use hearsay and subjective speculation to assume 'protector' and 'protection' sound same; so it must do protection? Similar question was asked about vaccines and now about safety.
Again his
Quote:
|
answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.
|
and
Quote:
|
Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning.
|
That does not challenge anyone. It demonstrates how easily people make decision without facts. A benchmark for identifying subjective and uninformed decisions is forming a conclusion without perspective (ie the numbers).