The Warfare Thesis in Action: Why Jimmy Kimmel is Important

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 4, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On July 30 of last year Meredith Prohaska had the misfortunate of having a sore throat. At what would have been a routine visit to the doctor the 12-year-old’s mother was told that Meredith should have an HPV vaccine. By dinnertime Meredith was dead. Read more

Comments

rvb8: Again you speak without knowledge. You don't know the first thing about small-town US students. Your portrait of US life is a caricature which you have picked up from growing up in a left-liberal country where you could fire a cannon down Main Street without there being any chance of hitting a conservative. I made no comments at all against Chinese *students*. I was speaking about the Chinese *authorities* -- at least, about their track record from 1949 up to the near present. If the attitudes of the authorities are thawing somewhat recently, that is a good thing. But up until very recently they put ideology above the open-ended search for truth -- which is exactly what you do by making up your mind whether or not a book is correct without reading it, blindly following the negative reviews of those whose ideology you share without actually examining the arguments of the authors. You have the doctrinaire kind of mind that would have caused you to do very well in Mao's China. I'm glad to hear the Chinese youth are interested in Christianity. Too bad their Politics teacher isn't the right one teach them anything about it. You should be teaching what you know, i.e., New Zealand studies: the theory and practice of proportional representation; the legal rights of rivers (and coming soon: of trees and rocks); the going price of kiwi fruit -- and leave the instruction in Christianity and Western Civ to those more competent to deliver it.Timaeus_{March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Actually my students are considerably more curious than 'small town' US students. They are interested in Christianity, their government is quite uninterested in their non-ideological interest, and I am happy to oblige. It is amazing that in the 'free' society that is the US, that you are so blind to truth. My Communist students are far more curious than you or your sidekicks. Your 'school boy' knowledge of China and history generally, suggests to me that I will give you some advice; travel! Most US citizens who don't travel have this childish 'Fox News'view of the world, you fit into this category. Get out a little, the world is bad, but not so bad as you imagine. My students are noble, brave, honest to a fault, loving, family orientated, evolved human beings. I'm not sure about the contributors here.rvb8_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

rvb8 (59): One of the criteria you use to decide on *the merits of a writer's argument* is *the size of the book's index*? And you like *large* indexes, because they are more "concise"? As Bugs Bunny would say, "Whatta maroon!" Somehow, though, it makes sense that you are teaching in China. A country with a long record of making sure that its citizens are inoculated against the truth, by causing them to believe falsehoods about the contents of Western books that they have not read (and up until recently weren't allowed to read), would just naturally hire a teacher who believes that it's right to reject the thesis of books he has not read. Who needs evidence for truth or falsehood, when one has atheistic/materialistic ideology? The ideology saves one a heck of a lot of reading time. You just toss all the books with the wrong ideology into the fire, since you know in advance of reading them that they can't be true. On that, you and the late Chairman Mao would surely be in agreement.Timaeus_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Of course I limit my reading, and am very careful about what I choose to read following a strict regime of checking the writer's legitimacy, past efforts, and index size; a large concise index is a good place to begin if you are checking non-fiction, history science etc. My students are largely interested in govt structure in the West, and how legislation is developed and passed. They are also interested in the role of Christianity in Western culture, and I do my best to explain its fundamental, and foundational importance. While at the same time pointing out the absurdity of the miraculous, it's the main reason I am permitted to discuss Christianity in China, the school is well aware of my atheism, and therefore complete objectivity.rvb8_{March 7, 2015
March
03
Mar
7
07
2015
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: So I can tell an intellectual fraud when I see one. And I do see one. ARRGGGHHHH! I was hoping to escape detection.Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

rvb8: Thanks for confirming that you condemn the contents of books that you have not read. And you are actually proud of doing so! What a pathetic excuse for a university teacher you are! I would fire you tomorrow if I had the power. You should not be allowed within 500 feet of a student. So I read the Bible only? Young man, I have read probably 4,000 books in my life other than the Bible, including a good number of the most difficult books produced by Western (and Eastern) civilization. I have also read hundreds upon hundreds of academic articles in many fields, including politics and including the natural sciences. I've also produced many academic books and articles myself. So I can tell an intellectual fraud when I see one. And I do see one.Timaeus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

Nick's probably bowed out after having taken his usual spanking. One has to wonder about the psychology of it all. Meanwhile, Nick's book on Macro-Evolution continues to languish in search of a publisher. Or an author.Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

rvb8: I confine my reading... No one here ever thought otherwise.Mung_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, such long posts betray something very common in the ID movement; try to get over yoursself, everyone else has. If not, keep writing endless spiels and kairosfocus and BA77 will answer endlessly. I confine my reading to biography, and history (big fan of Robert Gellately, Antony Beaver, Isaac Deutcher, Ian Morris, Robert Fisk etc etc) with the occasional foray into popular science (Dawkins, Hawking, Coyne etc); no time for fringe writers, with no new ideas, revamping Paley's discredited ideas. You do that. How boring it must be, for your reading life, that you read the Bible only, and ideas that are regurgitated on the conveyer belt of insignificance; that's so Islamic.rvb8_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Mark (36): "it is questionable whether anyone dies from vaccinations" While vaccines can do tremendous good, the problem is there is no middle ground in the discussion. What you say, above, for instance, while similar to what one hears from Sanjay Gupta, etc., is false. Of course people die from vaccines. No serious medical professional would ever say that. Yet this is what one hears. This is why there is such demagoguery. It is the mythology which causes the polarity in the debate. The topic is far more complex than such simple reductions imply.Cornelius Hunter_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

rvb8: I thought I made it clear that the little atheist girl would be brave, as would anyone who stood up against social pressure. For example, Gonzalez was brave to publish his book The Privileged Planet, knowing that the atheists in his field might strike back at him for it -- which they did. And Behe was brave to publish Darwin's Black Box, knowing that it would probably cause all kinds of abuse to be rained down on him -- as it did. I admire people who, where a principle is at a stake, go against the majority of the population, or the majority of their own peers or colleagues. What I don't admire is people who follow the accepted views merely because they *are* the accepted views. Those people don't think for themselves, and someone who doesn't think for himself, by virtue of that very fact, has no intellectual courage. So your little girl is brave. But of course, you have not shown that such little girls exist in present-day USA. And if they don't exist, all your indignation is baseless. I reject your assumption that if someone is a career scientist he must be a competent thinker. University hiring and tenure are based on many criteria, and intellectual merit is only one those criteria. You yourself are currently teaching Politics in a university, yet your knowledge of contemporary politics (at least, US politics) does not seem to be very great. Why, then, would you assume that all the biology professors who attack the ID people have a vast knowledge of the relevant biology and biochemistry and probability theory and information theory etc.? If you aren't even aware that school prayers were banned in the USA more than 50 years ago, and you hold a faculty position in Politics, how do you know that all the biologists you admire have kept up to date on the latest criticisms of neo-Darwinism within evolutionary theory? I am sorry to hear about your dyslexia. Perhaps the difficulty you experience in reading explains why you have not read any ID books, Mazur's book, etc., and prefer to form your opinions by reading short blog articles rather than 300-page books. But sadly, this cannot be accepted as an excuse for your behavior here. If you cannot read long books because of a disability, no one would blame you for that; but you *are* blameworthy for claiming to understand books you haven't read, and for claiming to be able to evaluate their contents. If your position were: "I read more slowly than most people, so I haven't got all the way through Behe's book yet, so I'll withhold my judgment until later," that would be reasonable. But your position is: "I don't need to read Behe to know that he's wrong, because other people have told me that he is." And that's more than intellectually lazy; it's intellectually dishonest. No one who practices such intellectual dishonesty deserves to hold a teaching position at a university. Someone who bases his judgments on hearsay, rather than personal understanding of the subject matter, is not a good model for students to emulate.Timaeus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

rvb8: Since you seem to be having trouble comprehending my post, let me help you. The "chutzpah" I was referring to was in this statement of yours: “From what I read at this site it is the regular contributors who use hear say [sic], innuendo, rationalizations, secondary sources (‘my friend’s cousin said’) etc.” Mr. Hearsay himself, complaining about others relying on hearsay? Mr. "I read only secondary sources on ID written by hostile witnesses" himself, complaining about people using secondary sources? And of course, you show the chutzpah again in this post: "I don't need to read Mazur ..." So you haven't read Mazur, but know she is "lying for Jesus"? Funny, in the book of hers I read, she doesn't mention her religious faith at all, and I have no idea what her faith is -- whether she is a Christian, a Jew, an agnostic, or something else. So how do you know that "lying for Jesus" is her motivation? Oh, I forgot -- secondary sources and hearsay!Timaeus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

RVB8: >> ID is vacuous and has never produced any science, or scientific ideas.>> 1 --> Speaking in disregard to truth, motivated by ideology and probably failing to recognise scientific ideas 2 --> the considerable ferment triggered by design oriented ideas such as cosmological fine tuning, specified and/or irreducible complexity etc stands as a matter of record that you refuse to acknowledge. >> Creationism remains strong as it is an honest, if completely barren field.>> 3 --> Creationism stands as a minor paradigm and linked research programme. >> I trust career scientists because they have a career, and the market tends to weed out crackpots and send them to you. >> 4 --> Career science is just as prone to fads and ideological domination as any other set of academic schools of thought. 5 --> Heavy state funding motivated by needs of war and economic domination, has by and large undermined market discipline in especially state subsidised university systems. (Current attempts at smear and dismiss in the climate and astrophysics domains targetting Dr Soon (who has spent half a career investigating solar influences on climate), deeply underscore this concern. [Note Soon's reply, here.]) 6 --> If you want market disciplined scientific work, go to engineering (including software engineering etc) and pharmaceuticals. These tend to be strongly regulated but are far more subject to market forces. 7 --> You will find that such disciplines as a matter of fact are far more friendly to design thought than ideologised faculties and institutions. KFkairosfocus_{March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT}

Actually Timaeus I don't use the term 'Chutzpa' and never have. Nor do I over use the simile 'like' overly much. If you mean chutzpa to be a synonym for 'nerve' or 'audacity' then I do have the nerve and audacity to comment on all spheres of US life as US citizens seem to deem it all right to comment, condemn and generally slate almost every one else; plus I've been to California, watch the Simpsons, and am a regular of Colbert and co. You still refuse to tell me if the atheist girl in a class full of believers is brave for proclaiming her atheism. I think she is beyond brave, and as I know such bullying of atheists by the believers occurs in the US (the Airforce), an answer would be appreciated. I write from Hainan University, China by the way, and teach Politics to Communists, and oddly enough some Protestant converts. Their communist classmates are bamboozled when I ask them if the Protestants are true citizens. Yes! They proclaim. Perhaps Schlaffly, Robertson, Falwell and co could come here and learn some civility, you could join them. I don't need to read Mazur as she is such a damp squib in the world of anything as to be truly insignificant, kind of like the mental giant that is Dembsky. You have noted my spelling is off occasionally well done you. However as a still learning dyslexic I hope you can still follow the gist, here it is. ID is vacuous and has never produced any science, or scientific ideas. Creationism remains strong as it is an honest, if completely barren field. I trust career scientists because they have a career, and the market tends to weed out crackpots and send them to you.rvb8_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

MF:
In principle I agree but it is not so easy to “just tell people what the reality is”.
I'm sure you are right. Still, it is a good standard to shoot for. The more important point I was trying to make is this:
Phin: If there is a strategy to not discuss risks (or the controversy) because the masses might get confused or might take the information the wrong way, then I think that’s a problem.
Phinehas_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

#46 Phinehas
Just tell people what the reality is and let them decide for themselves. That has to be the most responsible and respectful approach, in my opinion.
In principle I agree but it is not so easy to "just tell people what the reality is". you are bound to impose your view of what the reality is and you have to communicate that view effectively. Taking vaccinations as an example. It is not practical to just list all the research and tell the world to read it (and even then that is only the research papers). You have to summarise it. As soon as you do that you inevitably put your own angle on the raw data. To say a vaccine is "safe" can be considered as a concise way of saying something on the lines of "taking the vaccine is no more likely to cause you harm than other activities that you would consider very safe such as walking down stairs".Mark Frank_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

I see this issue as primarily about elitism, and not the specific vaccine. If there is a strategy to not discuss risks (or the controversy) because the masses might get confused or might take the information the wrong way, then I think that's a problem. Just tell people what the reality is and let them decide for themselves. That has to be the most responsible and respectful approach, in my opinion.Phinehas_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

KF,
DS, I am not laying out “my” options, but the reasonable options, which will vary person by person, family by family, cultural context by cultural context.
I was just curious why the vaccine itself didn't appear explicitly on the list of reasonable options; this post clarifies the issue, however.daveS_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

DS, I am not laying out "my" options, but the reasonable options, which will vary person by person, family by family, cultural context by cultural context. Some will find that on balance the risks of vaccination outweigh those of non-vaccination on something that is largely dependent on behavioural choices, others will find that given entrenched behavioural patterns the risk of the vaccine is outweighed by the risk of disease. Put it this way, I have not taken special malaria shots or medication, but you can bet that if I had to go to a malarial region, I would. Of course, that a region is malarial would make me think very hard about going there absent compelling reason. A friend of mine who recently served as a post conflict educator in such a country, faced very different issues than I do. And, when Chikungunya was raging here, my wife and I made very different choices about using DEET. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

KF,
DaveS: Again, risk management. If you look higher above you will see a range of outlined options which some may reasonably take, including regular pap smears and responsive actions.
Yes, I stand corrected. You did mention pap tests. Is the vaccine one of your outlined options? I actually didn't realize this was such a large problem until reading more about it. This is USA-centric, but the director of the CDC states:
"Our low vaccination rates represent 50,000 preventable tragedies: 50,000 girls alive today will develop cervical cancer over their lifetime that would have been prevented if we reach 80% vaccination rates," he said. "For every year we delay in doing so, another 4400 girls will develop cervical cancer in their lifetimes."
daveS_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

DaveS: Again, risk management. If you look higher above you will see a range of outlined options which some may reasonably take, including regular pap smears and responsive actions. I note also, HPV risk is not isolated, patterns of behaviour that expose to significant risk bring to bear some 3 dozen plus STDs. There is a much wider risk management challenge and there is no simplistic one size fits all solution. My point is, what looks reasonable to you may not be for another and there needs to be reasonable room for differences on RM strategies, without the sort of denigration and even media lynchings/blog etc piranha swarms I have noted. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

MF, notice why there are often grab rails and friction strips etc in modern bath tubs, as well as wheel-in sit-down showers? A bathtub poses a clear danger from falls and if the water is deep enough [and that does not have to be very deep if you are unconscious and alone], drowning -- witness the sad case of Ms Houston in recent years. This puts it in Amber Zone -- indeed the whole bathroom: benefits, but precautions to manage dangers. And BTW, I knew a man who died through a fall in his bathroom. Hey, getting out of bed is not perfectly safe either. I suggest you read above on the RAG scale for risk management. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

#38 KF So you don't think taking a bath is safe? Your life must be full of fear and worry.Mark Frank_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

KF,
Folks, the pattern continues. I have put on the table a risk management and response scale and linked strategies. That should be enough to guide decision-making. KF
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only guidance I see in your post is to avoid baited hooks. Does the vaccine fit into it anywhere? I really doubt that your proposal is adequate to suit everyone's needs. As I mentioned above, even if a young woman does everything in her power to remain in the green zone, the virus is still a potential threat. Besides the possibility of rape, what if her husband is not so successful at avoiding temptation and contracts the virus? Transfer of STDs from one spouse to another is not unheard of. And, not to be inflammatory, the issue of demonic possession came up recently here. I don't believe that it exists, but I have a pastor friend who thinks it's a common occurrence, and that it's responsible for many of the social ills that plague our area. You can fill in the rest. It's just remarkable to me that we have a vaccine that literally prevents cancer, yet it is being withheld from young women based on "moral" arguments.daveS_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

MF, are we to now debate the meaning of how safe "safe" is? In which case, AmHD:
safe (s?f) adj. saf·er, saf·est 1. a. Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt: He returned from the voyage safe and sound. b. Not exposed to the threat of danger or harm: The children were safe at home all through the storm. c. Usable in specified conditions without being damaged. Often used in combination: a microwave safe container. 2. Free from risk; not liable to be lost; sure: a safe bet. 3. Affording protection: a safe place. 4. Baseball Having reached a base without being put out, as a batter or base runner. n. 1. A metal container usually having a lock, used for storing valuables. 2. A repository for protecting stored items, especially a cooled compartment for perishable foods: a cheese safe.
KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

F/N: One of the delegitimisation tactics too often seen is to try to dismiss eyewitness accounts and people expressing concerns on the basis of their experiences as "anecdotes," stories of automatically suspect weight. This needs to be addressed. The truth is, statistical analyses and inductive reasoning are themselves based on observations and interpretations, so one should be very cautious indeed with such tactics. And particularly, figures don't lie but liars can figger too. Yes, a well done statistical analysis can be helpful, but in many cases we deal with uncertainties regarding processes to evaluate risk, and/or may have no time or resources to do such before deciding. In such cases, it is quite reasonable to evaluate impacts of alternative plausibly possible scenarios, come to some reasonable idea of exposure, also of what warning signs and rate of onset one is dealing with. Is the exposure to hazards necessary or unavoidable? That is material -- Polio was unavoidable, I see no reasonable basis for thinking that as a general rule exposure to HPV is unavoidable. (Emergencies such as rape should be treated as emergencies, not an unavoidable risk.) Then, a basic red-amber-green rating can be attached. Green, no material overall danger exists. Amber, in increasing degree: some benefit entails a risk at a managed and tolerable level, but the benefit is worth incurring the risk. Red, there is no credible benefit worth the risk being run, walk away from the situation, if at all possible. Premarital or extramarital sexual activity of the sorts associated with 3 dozen odd I think it is sexually transmissible diseases (several potentially fatal or at least seriously damaging) is an avoidable risk, with no credible benefit. Once there is reason to see that such is being appropriately managed, there is no good reason to denigrate those who on that premise take the view that HPV vaccinations pose more risks than any hoped for benefit would provide. For that matter, such concerns extend to a significant number of other vaccinations and medical treatments. As well as a much wider array of behaviours. People who judge the risks of HPV vaccinations too high, may be on balance mistaken [or one may think them so], but the sort of ferocious rhetorical and media attacks in question are highly questionable. And, I will note, from when those vaccines came out, that I saw where the strains involved were reported as responsible for 2/3 of cases. My thought was, solving 2/3 of a problem and promoting it as if it solved the whole could simply displace the problem to the other strains. There is no simplistic one size fits all answer here. KFkairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Mark (36): "it is questionable whether anyone dies from vaccinations" While vaccines can do tremendous good, the problem is there is no middle ground in the discussion. What you say, above, for instance, while similar to what one hears from Sanjay Gupta, etc., is simply false. Of course people die from vaccines. But this is the mythology which causes the polarity in the debate.Mark Frank_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Mark (33): "I am not sure what kind of actions count as scientism or the Warfare thesis – but pointing out these errors with some passion, given the costs of not vaccinating, seems to me an admirable activity." So let's spell it out a little more slowly. In general, vaccines have a risk, and they have a benefit. They can kill, maim, etc. And they can prevent you from being killed, maimed, etc. Those are facts. As for an actual calculation, the chances of injury are far, far less than the chances of some benefit. So your logic is eminently reasonable. But can you understand that someone might disagree with you? Is demagoguery appropriate? Is misrepresentation appropriate? Dr. Tim Johnson, at one point, recommended caution with HPV and that parents study the issue, talk to their doctor, etc, before making their decision. Does that make him a leper? I saw a story about a family that had their daughter vaccinated with HPV. They expressed concern about the STD threat and relief that she was now "protected." So there you have your modern family. The STD risk is significant for them. Premarital promiscuity is simply a given. I don't have a dog in this fight, but what I see looks unhealthy, and reminds me of the same sort of tactics used elsewhere (such as in the origins discussion). It would be one thing if people like Sanjay Gupta, Jimmy Kimmel, etc., addressed people's concerns, showed the tradeoff as they see it, and so forth. But when they misrepresent the science, engage in obvious dismissal and delegitimization tactics, and so forth, it looks unhealthy to me.Cornelius Hunter_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Of related trivia note: smallpox: Edward Jenner was an English physician and scientist who was the pioneer of smallpox vaccine,,,, His father was the Reverend Stephen Jenner,,, "The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman." http://www.rae.org/pdf/influsci.pdf polio and measles: John Enders, MD Death Bed: "On a September evening at their water front home in Connecticut, in 1985, Enders was reading T.S. Eliot aloud to his wife, Carolyn. He finished and went to bed, then quietly died. He was eighty-eight. At his memorial service his friend, the Bishop F.C. Laurence, said, "John Enders never lost his sense of wonder - wonder at the great mystery that exists and surrounds all of God's creation. This awareness is what gave him his wide vision and open mindedness, his continued interest in all things new, his ability to listen, his humility in the presence of this great mystery, and his never-ending search for the truth." His widow said that John briefly revealed his heart when he told her, concerning how creation ran, "There must be a mind behind it all." http://www.scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=117 of note: T.S. Eliot’s extraordinary journey of faith http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/10/12/2972229.htmbornagain77_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

To address the OP more directly. I don’t know what Jimmy Rimmel said or how he said it, but I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who points out poor or misleading arguments against being vaccinated. Two of those poor arguments are: * Use of individual tragic anecdotes to sway people without a numerical assessment of the risks – particularly when those anecdotes are clearly unrelated to vaccines as in the case of Meredith Prohaska. * Arguing that because vaccines, like every activity known to man, sometimes cause some harm to some people they are “unsafe” or “risky” without comparing the risk to other activities such as driving a car. I am not sure what kind of actions count as scientism or the Warfare thesis – but pointing out these errors with some passion, given the costs of not vaccinating, seems to me an admirable activity.Mark Frank_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply