Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

[Hugo]

I am not missing the point at all, rather you pick things that are in fact quite controversial with no clear elucidation and that is precisely why there is an entire air of suspicion surrounding them and label them under 'conspiracy theory'. If that is your take, you should in fact apply that around the entire of christianity for it's filled to the brim on hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place only because a group of believe want to believe it!

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information .......

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.
2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.
2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.

bottom line is your subscription to something as sound and scientific or else a 'conspiracy theory' with your brand of absolution doesn't in fact speak for science, scientists or researchers, it speaks for what is popular and that is the is the very definition of stultification of progress and improper investigation!

I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information .......

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.
2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.
2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.



I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

Conclusion - media is full of lies and we should avoid it.

 

[Hugo]

Originally Posted by Hugo - Interesting, since here you have invented a conspiracy theory all by yourself - "Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular".

Please explain.

You are the one who has to explain, to provide data and the method you used to make the above statement about who creates conspiracy theories

 

[Hugo]

Conclusion - media is full of lies and we should avoid it.

No this cannot be a sensible way to think and in any case we cannot avoid it. This kind of statement lumps everything into one so this site for example could be full of lies, the press in Saudi Arabia is tarred with the same brush and so on. Also it is obviously NOT true that the media is 'full of lies'. What is needed is awareness and an ability to look a little deeper and ask thoughtful questions. listen to various opinions etc

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

No this cannot be a sensible way to think and in any case we cannot avoid it. This kind of statement lumps everything into one so this site for example could be full of lies, the press in Saudi Arabia is tarred with the same brush and so on. Also it is obviously NOT true that the media is 'full of lies'. What is needed is awareness and an ability to look a little deeper and ask thoughtful questions. listen to various opinions etc

Well. I do not agree.

People seem to see the media is entertainment . Most people enjoy it directly - you enjoy it by going a step
further and disproving things that you think are wrong - still it is entertainment.

In my view - using the world as a source of entertainment is problematic and should be avoided.

Of course - the world can be entertaining but as long as we derive it be being maturely involved with it to improve the state of our community.

 

[Hugo]

Seems like a round-about shot at the concept of faith, which is the cornerstone of most religions. That is the only connection I see. Take something on authority, believe it because you want it to be true or its what your culture has always believed, etc.

In a way you are right because matters of faith don't usually come with let call it material evidence and scientific research but often demand as you say obedience top certain dogmas. Again. my view would be to think everything through and reach your own conclusion always remembering its about faith. Sadly, there are plenty of examples in all faiths where things have gone completely off the rails when thing or people assume they are oracles of absolute truth.

 

[Hugo]

I think the word "conspiracy" may lead folks away from your inteded meaning. Conspiracies are not necesarily delusions. Real conspiracies DO exist and happen with alarming frequency. People do have an alarming tendency to believe things against all the evidence tho (or in extreme lack thereof), which I think is what you are getting at. Like that Barack Obama is a secret muslim plotting to destory the USA (I kid you not, I hear that one a lot and have given up trying to defend it) or that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (despite the rather lengthy list of atheist soldiers, even from the wars in which there were actual fox holes), etc. Sometimes people need to beleive something so bad that they will not look for contradictory evidence and suffer confirmation bias. Other times people just need to beleive something so bad that they shut their eyes tight and conjure up delusion. And of course there are the various reasoning traps people may fall into (ad populum, confusing causation with correlation, argument from authority, etc). But then again, some really crazy sounding theories MAY be true. We shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, but instead apply proper scientific thought to them where possible. Don't believe for no good rational reason, but don't believe it can't be so either. Aliens could be out there, for example, and not just reached us yet.

Yes I think you are right here and what you say is pertinent to the thread. Perhaps two examples will illustrate what you say. If anyone wants to follow this up look at Jon Lewis' book "Cover-Up", Lewis is a historian and lists 100 disturbing conspiracies giving each one a score as to the likelihood that they are true or not (its his own scale so it not absolute).

1. Dead Sea Scrolls - discovered in 1947 and most of the scrolls were published promptly, with the notable exception of scrolls and fragments found in Cave 4 which amounted to about 40% of the total Qumran material. The team dealing with this material was headed by Father Roland de Vaux and it was not long before stories about the Vatican suppressing important evidence were circulating, the teams had found something they wanted to hide etc etc. A stream of best sellers emerged and lots of people made lots of money out of this supposed conspiracy. The scrolls have now been published in full and there is nothing there that anyone wants to hide and only the die hards (usually with a publishing interest) continue to seriously suggest a cover-up. Lewis rates the conspiracy theory as a 1 = totally without foundation.

2. The Iran-contra scandal - in short the theory said that Regan had approved illegal arms deals to Iran which enabled illegal funding of Contras in Nicaragua. Lewis regards this as a 10 = absolutely true

Thus the dilemma we all face when searching for truth so we must as much as we are able not lean towards the ones we want to believe because it perhaps suits out purpose but as much as we are able seek for the facts and the truth

 

[جوري]

I have not as such 'picked' anything, just made some points about how conspiracy theories evolve. Here in fact you created one - "Christianity is filled to the brim with hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place...". You want to believe that so you exaggerate and misrepresent. The Biblical record has largely been verified historically and it is made up of eye witness accounts so no one who is rational would take the view you state. Yet at the same time you accept that Mohammed had a revelation that was entirely private, no one else heard it, so can never be more than hearsay.

Sure you have! in fact you are guilty of what you write about here, it is as if you want to invent a new way to take the spotlight off yourself. I have in fact had posts upon posts particularly by christian scholars who sum up your religion to exactly that misquotes, hearsay and hordes of improbable events and textual errors .. once you are able to distinguish 'facts' from ' dreams' like those of a doubting thomas or a joan of arc or a repentant saul can you actually go ahead and write posts of this nature.. It is almost absurd, that you accuse others of exactly what ails you-- is this a new form of catharsis?

Let us take the swine flue example for it shows how uniformed you are and what you base your own shabby research on are news items from sources such as CNN and you clearly see it as a conspiracy theory.

lol a source as CNN is a conspiracy theory because it doesn't fit all of a sudden fit in your status quo-- I'll keep that in mind the next time you quote me an article about something vile 'Muslims did'

1. If you go to the WHO site you will see many reports, one for example cites 18,036 Swine Flu deaths - the point here is that these are laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases so the actual number of deaths is much higher.

well then pls bring the WHO report for the number of death from the regular flu compared to H1N1--I'll be waiting!

2. Seasonal flu figures in contrast are calculated using a statistical model using what is called 'excess mortality' and are not laboratory confirmed.

well that in fact blows up your theories in your face:

One basis for the extrapolation is surveys asking people who claim to have flu-like symptoms whether they sought medical care, and if so, if their case was tested. It’s possible that many of those who didn’t get tested were suffering from a different ailment. For surveys where people reported having the flu, “we made the assumption that all of those had H1N1 flu, which we know isn’t true,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. He added, “Each one of these approaches has its strengths and limitations. The only way is to try them all, and see how they compare.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217724145913411.html

you find yourself in another tizzy when you don't actually understand the basics of hospital admissions the basics of diagnosis and management and those of reportable diseases vs. statistical guesstimates!

2. Flu like any virus can mutate and H1N1 could well have become much more virulent as the disease progressed. No health organisation or Government could ignore a new virus and its potential to change so a pandemic was declared, vaccines and drugs stockpiled etc. The fact that it did not become as bad as it might have is something we should all be thankful for but it could easily have been otherwise. Even so H1N1 was bad enough and one indication of that was the number of people who ended up on ECMO machines and that really is indicative of a violent and virulent strain.

Except people weren't ignoring the fact that it might be a pandemic, people were apprehensive of putting something in their body that was manufactured over-night of shady ingredients and those at the forefront of refusing to put this vaccine in their body were in fact health care professionals as I have linked on one of my previous posts .. The theory that it will claim more lives than the regular seasonal flu was as sound as the fact that the vaccine was safe.. we are actually yet to see whether it is or not safe.. it is premature to conclude either way!..

Now again given your all too frequent hysteria you probably don't know that many medications/radiation therapy/ vaccines exhibit potentially deadly sequella a good 17-20 years down the line.. so hyper-vigilant folks such as yourself who jumped on the hysterical band-wagon might actually suffer some serious consequences years from now!

I am unsure what it is you are trying to say or what 'absolution' I am using. All any one is saying is that we all need to be vigilant and not accept as fact and truth every theory that comes along. Even when there is data we still need to look at it with care and the methods used to get it. We have already seen that even the most brilliant of scientist have falsified data, government agency have hidden the truth, big companies have paid scientists to cast doubts on such things as climate change or cancer and smoking. The trouble with all this is that on the one hand there are plenty ready to believe anything and at the other end we all become sceptical and believe nothing, especially if it from official channels. So this is a serious modern phenomena.

And such a matter at least as far as health-care is concerned should be between the individual and their health-care provider not some random joe.. as for other alleged 'conspiracy theories' well, there are plenty of internet and govt. bullies who are just as hyper-vigilant as you to keep the masses in a herd mentality .. popular opinion is no substitute for proper investigation and that should be the moral of the story .. it doesn't matter if you label it a 'conspiracy theory' this is just an invention to coerce others into believing that if they do some investigation that challenges the norm that they will have some label waiting for them, unintelligent, conspiracy theorist etc. etc.

I have demonstrated in my previous posts that some of the most brilliant minds which have changed the shape of modern medicine at least were mocked and taunted by their peers and others less involved with science all together. Unless you are willing to go out and do some investigative research on your own that is free of all bias and present it to your peers at a somewhat of a personal risk, you are certainly not free to come out with two choices for a title neither which is correct to coerce others into your all too frequent argumentum ad populum thinking yourself clever in the process!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

well then pls bring the WHO report for the number of death from the regular flu compared to H1N1--I'll be waiting!

I am happy to supply the references from reliable sources but first can you tell us what your position on the H1N1 flu is - do your regard it as a conspiracy cooked up by 140 world governments, the WHO, CDC, Vaccines suppliers, little green men or who - we are all waiting?

 

[جوري]

I am happy to supply the references from reliable sources but first can you tell us what your position on the H1N1 flu is - do your regard it as a conspiracy cooked up by 140 world governments, the WHO, CDC, Vaccines suppliers, little green men or who - we are all waiting?

Go ahead and show me the figures for H1N1 compared to the flu!
I have answered all questions in full in my previous post.. I suggest you read before you pose the same query more than once and probe for sophomoric responses as can only cater to your level of expertise and intellect!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Go ahead and show me the figures for H1N1 compared to the flu!I have answered all questions in full in my previous post.. I suggest you read before you pose the same query more than once and probe for sophomoric responses as can only cater to your level of expertise and intellect!

To answer your question though I do not regard myself as an expert and what I say here any concerned person could search out easily for themselves. This post is my final one on the matter and clearly shows that your statement in post 16 “.. which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death, but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu ...” is unfounded if not an outright lie.

Firstly, with regard to H1N1 (swine flu), a new virus also called ‘novel H1N1’ to perhaps draw attention to the uncertainties surrounding it. This virus caused the first influenza pandemic (global outbreak of disease) in more than 40 years. If one views the WHO web site http://www.who.int/csr/don/2010_05_21/en/index.html and reads update 101 you will see at that at that point in time laboratory confirmed deaths for H1N1 were 18,097.

If we contrast this with a CDC mid range and end of season estimate (as opposed to laboratory confirmed) from April 2009 – April 10, 2010 then 61 million people were infected with 2009 H1N1, there were about 274,000 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations and finally 12,470 2009 H1N1-related deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm so you claim in post 16 is totally untrue.

Secondly, if we consider seasonal flu then worldwide, these annual epidemics result in three to five million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500,000 deaths. On a simplistic viewing of these figures one might conclude that H1N1 was totally insignificant, panic over nothing but that would be a serious error in judgement. Seasonal flu figures are not derived from laboratory testing but are constructed from a statistical model developed many years ago based on a detailed study and monitoring programme of actual cases for several flu seasons.

Finally, H1N1 was eventually classified as category 1 pandemic meaning it is similar in its effects to season flu although this was not clear until well into the epidemic. The Pandemic Severity Index set by the U.S. government has five categories; category 1 being comparable to seasonal flu epidemic. Seasonal flu has a death rate of less than 0.1 percent. What has to be understood here is that if H1N1 had been more severe or mutated in severity during the season and ended up say as a category 5 pandemic we would not be speaking of 18,097 deaths but instead somewhere in the reason of 300,000 to 400,000 plus of course a correspondingly huge number of cases and this would be in addition to seasonal flu.

The reason these estimates where made is not to help as such you and me but to allow governments and health organisation to prepare. It does not take much imagination to see that if indeed H1N1 had become category 5 (and no one could have known for sure) and knowing no vaccines was available then health services everywhere would have been totally overwhelmed. It follows that those who called it a fraud do not understand the dilemma faced by those who have to plan and the deniers simply make it more difficulty next time a new virus appears to make effective decisions.

One final point and although I don’t want to insult anyone in this board the fact is that most of us are innumerate, we simply do not know how to handle percentages, probabilities and statistics which is not all that surprising since even competent mathematicians have difficulty with probability as often the questions are very hard and the results can seem counter-intuitive. Just as an example, consider going to the doctor and he tells you that if you take tablet X for the rest of your life it will reduce your risk of getting a stroke by 15% but your risk of side effects from tablet X is 1%. What additional information on risk do you need and how would you arrive at a decision? To make it even simpler, if the tablets reduces your risk by 15% and your own personal risk of stroke is 15% what would be you new risk after taking the tablet – I almost guarantee that the vast majority of any population cannot work it out and more than likely could be scared into taking the tablet or in other circumstances such as vaccines, scarred out of taking them. This is why deniers play on the numbers because they know they can be made to sound scary at one extreme or innocuous at the other as best suits their purpose relying on the fact that most people do not really understand them

 

[جوري]

I asked you to give me accurate figures of death from H1N1 compared to the regular seasonal flu from CDC or WHO.. Do you think you can do that please? I am asking you to show the disparity in two lines as you had suggested in the previous page.. so far your above post is not helping you.. surely you've come across these lines from what you had posted?

Secondly, if we consider seasonal flu then worldwide, these annual epidemics result in three to five million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500,000 deaths. On a simplistic viewing of these figures one might conclude that H1N1 was totally insignificant, panic over nothing but that would be a serious error in judgement. Seasonal flu figures are not derived from laboratory testing but are constructed from a statistical model developed many years ago based on a detailed study and monitoring programme of actual cases for several flu seasons.

since H1N1 also follows a similar diagnostic module as I have pointed out through a direct quote from the Harvard epidemiologist on the previous page, if simple common sense is elusive!

I'll be waiting!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Except people weren't ignoring the fact that it might be a pandemic, people were apprehensive of putting something in their body that was manufactured over-night of shady ingredients and those at the forefront of refusing to put this vaccine in their body were in fact health care professionals as I have linked on one of my previous posts .. The theory that it will claim more lives than the regular seasonal flu was as sound as the fact that the vaccine was safe.. we are actually yet to see whether it is or not safe.. it is premature to conclude either way!..

Now again given your all too frequent hysteria you probably don't know that many medications/radiation therapy/ vaccines exhibit potentially deadly sequella a good 17-20 years down the line.. so hyper-vigilant folks such as yourself who jumped on the hysterical band-wagon might actually suffer some serious consequences years from now!

Does this mean you are a vaccine denier?

1. There is not even a shadow of doubt that vaccines have save billions of lives from its beginning with Edward Jenner's 1796 use of the cow pox vaccine when administered to humans provided them protection against smallpox.

2. As is usual you cannot state the case properly or scientifically. Every medical intervention has a risk which may be immediate or somewhere down the line so if one accepts an intervention one accepts the risk. The risk of a side effect must be balanced against other risks and that is what government agencies do when they licence a drug or vaccine. Usually we trust the agencies but of course things can go wrong but that does not mean that everything goes wrong every time.

Greg Poland, head of vaccines at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, often speaks out against vaccine denial such as yours. He calls his opponents "the innumerate" because they are unable to grasp concepts like probability. Instead, they reason based on anecdote and emotion such as 'My kid got autism after he got his shots, so the vaccine must have caused it,'" he says. One emotive story about a vaccine's alleged harm trumps endless safety statistics. Every one fits the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.

Of course we must be vigilant but endless scare stories about this or that drug causes more harm than good.

 

[Hugo]

I thought I might just shift the focus to what happens in the real world and how conspiracies are constructed and used by anyone. One way is MANUFACTURING DOUBT - If flat-out denial isn't an option, spread doubt instead. It works wonders for big business or anyone with a 'message'. Here is an excerpt from Richard Littlemore

YOU can't beat doubt as a corporate strategy - especially if your product is life-threatening when used as directed. These days we don't have to speculate as to whether industries have manufactured doubt. They have admitted it too many times. In 1973, Tobacco Institute vice-president Fred Panzer outlined his industry's "brilliantly executed" defence strategy. A key tactic was "creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it" while "encouraging objective scientific research." "Objective scientific research": those words would almost make you believe that Panzer was talking about objective science. But when doubt is your goal, the misuse of language is just another way to confuse the public. Where tobacco led the way, coal and chemicals followed. And, of course, the fossil fuel industry has been working overtime - and with shockingsuccess - creating doubt about climate change.

Techniques appear to be limited only by the imagination and integrity of the campaigners - which is to say, there don't appear to be any limits. One of the best is to just flat-out lie. A coalition of US coal and electricity companies set the tone in the 1990s with the creation of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). It's purpose: to "reposition climate change as a theory not a fact".
ICE hired a PR firm to create advertising messages. These ranged from the ridiculous - "Who told you the Earth was getting warmer... Chicken Little?" - to the blatantly false - "If the Earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?" But the focus groups found them effective, and that is all that mattered. ICE also hired scientists to sign querulous opinion-page articles and PR agencies to
harass journalists. Today, journalists - embattled, overwhelmed and committed to "balance", no matter how spurious - are useful conduits for spreading doubt.

Other corporate tactics include the creation of phoney grass-roots organisations. The pioneer was The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), setup in 1993 by group of tobacco, nuclear energy, agribusiness, chemicals and oil companies. TASSC's stated goal was to "encourage the public to question - from the grass roots up - the validity of scientific studies." ICE and TASSC are no more, but their tactics live on. The doubt industry has ballooned in the past two decades. There are now scores of think tanks pushing dubious and confusing policy positions, and dozens of phoney grass-roots organisations created to make those positions appear to have legitimate following.

 

[جوري]

Does this mean you are a vaccine denier?

Go back and read what I have written in full!

1. There is not even a shadow of doubt that vaccines have save billions of lives from its beginning with Edward Jenner's 1796 use of the cow pox vaccine when administered to humans provided them protection against smallpox.

Indeed, what does this have to do with the swine vaccine? or the topic at hand? or the misinformation you have peddled to make a non-point? Is this yet again the best you can do, when all out of ammo and out of something intelligent or scientifically relevant, you go on looking for some pithy quote on an unrelated topic?

2. As is usual you cannot state the case properly or scientifically..

Yet again you describe yourself so adequately!
1- start a topic you can't finish
2- when stuck for scientifically relevant facts and data based evidence you can't produce it o you shift the topic to where there has been some progress and then turn it against the other party as if asking for more transparency automatically denotes complete aversion to the entire subject of immunology!
3- at the end go on to a completely unrelated topic or generalize so that every topic has to fall under that one umbrella
4- put out a massive bulky post to exonerate yourself from earlier stupidities!

I truly pity you and anyone who thinks you have half a mind to discuss anything in the scientific field. As the saying goes little knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance, as certainly you are a poster boy for that!

 

[Hugo]

Indeed, what does this have to do with the swine vaccine? or the topic at hand? or the misinformation you have peddled to make a non-point? Is this yet again the best you can do, when all out of ammo and out of something intelligent or scientifically relevant, you go on looking for some pithy quote on an unrelated topic? Yet again you describe yourself so adequately!

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. You have provided no information only anecdote and your sad and lonely tactic, used everywhere in this board, of insult and the insane belief that you are always right and your answer perfectly explain everything. So let us see what you can say about the following and if you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 1 - It was just Swine flu, the death rates are even lower than normal flu.
Nearly 5,000 people world wide are KNOWN to have died of Swine flu. On average 36,000 deaths are attributed to flu in the US alone but these numbers cannot be compared directly because they come from epidemiological studies not confirmed lab tests. Many are clearly due to flu but more than half are not obviously connected. By contrast Swine flu deaths are those directly caused by respiratory infection with the pandemic virus. One can also compare deaths with age where 90% of normal flu deaths are in the +65 age range whereas 2009 H1N1 flu where 80% of deaths were in people aged 5-64 with 40% of these in the 25-49 range.

 

[Hugo]

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. If you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 2 - The vaccine isn't safe, it has been rushed through tests and the last time there was a swine flu scare the vaccine hurt people.
Swine flu is NOT always mild. The nervousness about the swine flue vaccine is understandable because in 1976 the death of a US army recruit triggered fears of a pandemic. Americans were given a Swine flu vaccine and of those 532 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, a paralytic condition caused by rogue antibodies attacking nerve cells. Of the 532 most recovered but there were 25 deaths and others suffered lasting damage. The 1976 vaccine is thought to have caused 10 cases per million vaccinated and ordinary flu causes about 1 per million. One must not forget that there are 10-20 per million who get Guillian-Barre some other way.

Does this mean it is safer not to be vaccinated - Absolutely not. First, there is the risk of swine flu killing you. Second, and what few people realise is that flu itself is far more likely to cause Guillian-Barre than any flu vaccine, indeed between 40 and 70 develop Guillian-Barre after flu. To put it another way the risk of getting Guillian-Barre from a vaccine is less than 1 in a million; the risk of getting it from flu itself is 40 in a million. The point is that very rare side effects can ONLY be detected when millions take them.

So there are risks but as always one has to weigh them up in your own mind. If you are interested or want to become more informed then research how vaccines are formed, proteins added and lately something called adjuvents have been added.

 

[جوري]

Just to recall that this thread is about conspiracies and myths and how easy it is for anyone to be taken in by them so one final series of posts on the Swine flu. You have provided no information only anecdote and your sad and lonely tactic, used everywhere in this board, of insult and the insane belief that you are always right and your answer perfectly explain everything. So let us see what you can say about the following and if you wish to read the full article to go with it see New Scientist No 2732 Page 40. The figures given are for October 2009.

Myth 1 - It was just Swine flu, the death rates are even lower than normal flu.
Nearly 5,000 people world wide are KNOWN to have died of Swine flu. On average 36,000 deaths are attributed to flu in the US alone but these numbers cannot be compared directly because they come from epidemiological studies not confirmed lab tests. Many are clearly due to flu but more than half are not obviously connected. By contrast Swine flu deaths are those directly caused by respiratory infection with the pandemic virus. One can also compare deaths with age where 90% of normal flu deaths are in the +65 age range whereas 2009 H1N1 flu where 80% of deaths were in people aged 5-64 with 40% of these in the 25-49 range.

And I have explained to you that your title isn't a one size fits all, and concentrated on a particular area where there is no transparency and long term results aren't recorded so that you know that generalizing under one heading is sure to make a fool out of you and those you rally up to your cause, since frankly you are very under-educated on the matter!
did you miss that? along with all the previous comments from the CDC, health care workers and epidemiologists?
Again with nonsensical logorrhea, as if the more you hammer in bulky posts the better your point of view will be elucidated?

 

[globalmessage]

this is excellent

 

[Hugo]

And I have explained to you that your title isn't a one size fits all, and concentrated on a particular area where there is no transparency and long term results aren't recorded so that you know that generalizing under one heading is sure to make a fool out of you and those you rally up to your cause, since frankly you are very under-educated on the matter! did you miss that? along with all the previous comments from the CDC, health care workers and epidemiologists? Again with nonsensical logorrhea, as if the more you hammer in bulky posts the better your point of view will be elucidated?

But you have added nothing, in post 16 you claimed there were "not thousands of deaths" because of swine flu but I have shown from sound sources that there were that there were. You then bang on about vaccine dangers but all you can offer is anecdote with no supporting evidence. It seems you can add nothing of value about epidemiology and do not understand risk and how risk factors are combined and you have added nothing of value to the theme of this thread which is about how easy all of us can be duped by conspiracy theorists be they tobacco companies, governments, hoaxers or holocaust deniers. This thread is about teasing out the truth not getting caught by rhetoric or alarmists.

Let me challenge you if your are so competent in this area - tell us how to assess the risk when your doctor suggests a drug. Make it easy for you suppose the claimed benefit of the drug is to reduce your chance of heart attack by 20% - explain what other risk factors are involved and how I can personally calculate my new risk level if I take the drug?