I see the points made. I have no answers. I do have some questions, and in my opinion, that is what these articles and blogs are good for, and not much more, they hopefully get people to think, and more importantly to think outside of their normal box of reality. 1 thing I found interesting that he referenced on multiple occasions was how the flu often is misdiagnosed, or not diagnosed via testing. Curious how he doesn't address the flip side of his point. If the tests are not diagnosing the flu, isn't it possible that the test could also give false positives? If testing is such an issue, this seems legitimate to me. Another area I found funny was his jab about how can this Dr have statistics from a flu in the 30's? Did this guy forget about how statistics are thrown around by the vaccination people about 1918 flu and the late 1950's flu? I think my biggest issue is how people do not research things on their own. They rely only on what media they believe to stating their beliefs. And, I believe this to be true for both vac/antivac and dem/repub debates.
Until I see a citation for the paper, I have a very difficult time trusting anything from a random blog that interprets a study on their own and spells pharmacy with an "F". But what do I know?
Pin it! 
4 comments
Login to comment →
jordan 10 years, 1 month ago
For the sake of discussion- http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/non-epidemiologist-tries-to-do-epidemiology-feeds-anti-vaccine-activists/">http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/non-epidemiologist-tries-to-do-epidemiology-feeds-anti-vaccine-activists/
Reply
Robochess 10 years, 1 month ago
I see the points made. I have no answers. I do have some questions, and in my opinion, that is what these articles and blogs are good for, and not much more, they hopefully get people to think, and more importantly to think outside of their normal box of reality.
1 thing I found interesting that he referenced on multiple occasions was how the flu often is misdiagnosed, or not diagnosed via testing. Curious how he doesn't address the flip side of his point. If the tests are not diagnosing the flu, isn't it possible that the test could also give false positives? If testing is such an issue, this seems legitimate to me. Another area I found funny was his jab about how can this Dr have statistics from a flu in the 30's? Did this guy forget about how statistics are thrown around by the vaccination people about 1918 flu and the late 1950's flu?
I think my biggest issue is how people do not research things on their own. They rely only on what media they believe to stating their beliefs. And, I believe this to be true for both vac/antivac and dem/repub debates.
Reply
Bradleyd16 10 years, 1 month ago
Until I see a citation for the paper, I have a very difficult time trusting anything from a random blog that interprets a study on their own and spells pharmacy with an "F". But what do I know?
Reply
Sewell28 10 years ago
not a single "study" was cited in this article. More crazy people telling people not to get vaccinated.
Reply