Do We Ever Really Care Who Lived In Our...
Home & Garden3 mins ago
Can We Trust Expert Scientists?
Most notably on climate change, but on many other subjects as well such as vaccinations, diet, and a myriad of other things, can we trust scientists?
How do we mame decisions?
My personal interests are origin of the universe, origin of life, and evolution.
What do you think?
How do we mame decisions?
My personal interests are origin of the universe, origin of life, and evolution.
What do you think?
Answers
//So Editor, do you discriminate between Intelligent Design and Evolution?// You read my thoughts, Theland. “
15:23 Mon 27th Jan 2020
If the object of a triple vaccine is cost-cutting, and a triple vaccine causes more lifetime conditions like autism ... how is that cost-cutting?
Clearly it isn't.
As the Government document I linked to above concludes ...
There’s no reason to make single vaccines available and every reason not to. Exhaustive research has provided very strong evidence that MMR is not linked to conditions like autism.
There is much evidence of:
* the benefit of MMR in preventing disease
* the drawbacks of single vaccines
* the very serious consequences of the diseases themselves
Introducing single vaccines would go against all the evidence. It would probably further undermine public confidence in vaccines.
It’s important that we remind people about the dangers of the diseases we are trying to prevent, about the strong evidence for the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine, and about the importance of having their child vaccinated with MMR.
Offering single vaccines to parents when all the evidence indicates that this is likely to put children in the UK at risk runs counter to all recent initiatives to make NHS practice evidence-based.
Clearly it isn't.
As the Government document I linked to above concludes ...
There’s no reason to make single vaccines available and every reason not to. Exhaustive research has provided very strong evidence that MMR is not linked to conditions like autism.
There is much evidence of:
* the benefit of MMR in preventing disease
* the drawbacks of single vaccines
* the very serious consequences of the diseases themselves
Introducing single vaccines would go against all the evidence. It would probably further undermine public confidence in vaccines.
It’s important that we remind people about the dangers of the diseases we are trying to prevent, about the strong evidence for the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine, and about the importance of having their child vaccinated with MMR.
Offering single vaccines to parents when all the evidence indicates that this is likely to put children in the UK at risk runs counter to all recent initiatives to make NHS practice evidence-based.
The first point is crucial but easily overlooked: Natural scientists study the natural world. Social scientists study the social world.But it is in the nature of expertise that we trust experts to do jobs for which they are trained and we are not. Without this trust in experts, society would come to a standstill.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
See also https:/
Jourdain, see here:
https:/
17:38 Sat 25th Jan
23:14 Sat 25th Jan
23:24 Sat 25th Jan
23:31 Sat 25th Jan
https:/
17:38 Sat 25th Jan
23:14 Sat 25th Jan
23:24 Sat 25th Jan
23:31 Sat 25th Jan
Jourdain, regarding your removed post the SpareEditor has assured me that - and I quote - “Any questions or answers that do not break Site Rules will be reinstated“, and says “Please bring removed questions and answers to our attention by reporting the previous question or answer.”
Since I don’t know where your removed post was located, perhaps you will do as requested.
From that I think we can safely assume that the Science category is open to any post that does not break Site Rules - which is as it should be.
In order to avoid further confusion I have posted this on the other thread too.
Since I don’t know where your removed post was located, perhaps you will do as requested.
From that I think we can safely assume that the Science category is open to any post that does not break Site Rules - which is as it should be.
In order to avoid further confusion I have posted this on the other thread too.
naomi; The 'Site Rules' appear to be open to interpretation; at the bottom of the list is, "other", which might be anything.
Khandro, the problem we encountered was nothing to do with 'Site Rules' and has been solved.
All these Site Rules are as confusing as the offside rule in football.
What naomi24 says is correct: questions or answers that do not break Site Rules can be reinstated if they are brought to our attention.
However, whilst the editors will remain impartial in debates, we do not support unfounded information leading scientific debate on The AnswerBank, much like we would be concerned in a medical or legal category. Therefore we will be amending the introduction of the "Science" category to make this clearer, for example supporting the scientific method over conspiracy theories. We are working on the best wording for this.
However, whilst the editors will remain impartial in debates, we do not support unfounded information leading scientific debate on The AnswerBank, much like we would be concerned in a medical or legal category. Therefore we will be amending the introduction of the "Science" category to make this clearer, for example supporting the scientific method over conspiracy theories. We are working on the best wording for this.
//If the object of a triple vaccine is cost-cutting,//
oh god did an expert just say that?
or just someone on AB - ter daah !
and I trust on equalitys sake that equal nimbers of pro vacc opinions are removed along with the utter twaddle that anti vaxxers come out with
er triple vaccine - DPT - there is a better response to all three if given together - the (P) acts an adjuvant. v complex for AB I wont go into that.
MMR - you can show greater coverage if given together compared to single vaccines - but that may because parents who demand single vaccine are much more likely to default after one or two
and it is unethical to do a trial where MMR is compared to nine doses of the single vacc.
oh god did an expert just say that?
or just someone on AB - ter daah !
and I trust on equalitys sake that equal nimbers of pro vacc opinions are removed along with the utter twaddle that anti vaxxers come out with
er triple vaccine - DPT - there is a better response to all three if given together - the (P) acts an adjuvant. v complex for AB I wont go into that.
MMR - you can show greater coverage if given together compared to single vaccines - but that may because parents who demand single vaccine are much more likely to default after one or two
and it is unethical to do a trial where MMR is compared to nine doses of the single vacc.
Ab Editor. I understand that you wish to keep science "scientific" but will you go through questions and edit them when theories are disproved and new ones are advanced? Will you also keep track of the theories that are permitted and those that are not?
// //"A huge body of evidence indicates". //
Who said that, Jim?
well it came up in GMC v Dr Pugh a licensing case I admit
Dr Pugh had been doing all sorts of naughty stuff against recommendations and was not able to show that his side was supported by anything
( lost his licence I think)
wakeford was more damaged by the Lancet withdrawing his paper (MMR and virus inclusions in gut biopsies) and admitting it was so bad it would never have go tthro the selection process. This was where the co-authors were shot in groups after confessing their crimes ( not reading what they signed - bnaughty naughty maughty)
he also lost his licence
Who said that, Jim?
well it came up in GMC v Dr Pugh a licensing case I admit
Dr Pugh had been doing all sorts of naughty stuff against recommendations and was not able to show that his side was supported by anything
( lost his licence I think)
wakeford was more damaged by the Lancet withdrawing his paper (MMR and virus inclusions in gut biopsies) and admitting it was so bad it would never have go tthro the selection process. This was where the co-authors were shot in groups after confessing their crimes ( not reading what they signed - bnaughty naughty maughty)
he also lost his licence
Ab Editor are you a scientist / philosopher with the grades to discriminate?
Wouldn't it depend on the method? Science is constantly undergoing revision, albeit usually at small rather than huge scales, so it would be futile to keep track of and insist on the latest position. But there's still the question of methodology: hence, I assume, the reference to the "scientific method".
Latest Posts
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Body & Soul13 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.