REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Oh, this is rich...

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2010 07:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4269
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:45 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


Fuck you Jenny McCarthy.

Fuck you Mexicans.

Fuck you hippie lib bastards.



Yeah, Wulfie - you NEVER get personal. At least as long as no one here is Jenny McCarthy, Mexican, or a hippie, a liberal, or a "bastard", huh?

All you've ever had is personal insults. It's what you do.


I was wondering mike, do you remember the thread where our caring wulf, the one who hates to see innocents hurt, said he was laughing about the massacre in Cumbria? 12 innocent people murdered, and Wulf finds it funny. Perhaps he thought they were Mexican?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:52 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:



I knew Gardasil was exceptionally dangerous, I said as much, pointed out the bad science and the danger signs, from the very fucking beginning, and pointed out suspicious conduct on behalf of those marketing, only to be mocked and shouted down by pissants like you.

And then kids started dropping DEAD



Frem, that is just awful about what happened to Shannon.

Not that it matters in the wake of personal loss (because even an article that validates your concerns doesn't bring Shannon back), but I think this editorial is a worthwhile read that supports your experience, in that it details the medical thought process and the risks of that particular vaccine. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795?home

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:53 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Frem.

First off, I am sorry for your family.

Next, are they wealthy because of it?

Not that it makes things better, but Im just asking.

Look, Im not for getting things like "flu-shots" (swine or otherwise..)

But a vaccine against polio? Or something even worse? Yes I am.

No, I don't trust the government to administer these things correctly (see my numerous rants against ObamaCare)...

Now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine


You are really going to say that vaccinations to prevent childhood diseases are wrong?

AND yes, I get that the pharma uses people as guinea pigs. Duh. That needs to be stopped.

But, because of that, you refuse to vaccinate children against anything?

So we should all get used to kids have polio again?

Im really serious. What is your stand on vaccinations? Should they happen or not? Do you think they cause autism? Is it some giant conspiracy? What?

I get that you are angry, btw. I really do. But whats the solution?

have government take over? Never get a vaccination? What?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:57 AM

MALACHITE


Yes, I am well aware that sometimes vaccination can lead to catastrophically bad results. It is always a matter of weighing risks and benefits. See my link that I posted in response to Frem re: the Gardasil vaccine for some of those thought processes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Okay, Wulf - NOW you're getting at the nub of the problem. NOW you've gotten away from the petty hate to the REAL questions.

If nobody vaccinated, people would die. If EVERYBODY vaccinated, people would die. What we need to look at is HOW MANY people would die in each instance. And we're simply not being given anything approaching adequate information on how many people will die, or suffer extreme side effects, if we DO vaccinate. We can't honestly know for sure - because Pharma keeps this stuff very close to the vest - how many will die from these side effects.

So it's up to EVERYBODY to get informed, as much as they can, and to make an INFORMED choice. That's the best you can do. If I had a daughter, and ovarian cancer tended to run in my family, I'd have to have a very frank and serious conversation with my daughter and my family, weigh the risks and rewards, and roll the dice one way or the other.

Chances are, Frem's sister's family is now NOT very very rich. Most pharma companies negotiate some pretty heavy caps and immunities (no pun intended) from prosecution for those side effects, because after all, they DID list them in the microscopic print, right?

I want people to make their choices, but I want them to have full access to the information beforehand, so that they CAN make an informed choice.

Autism exists. Retardation exists. But there are some odd correlations, it seems, between vaccinations and rises in autism rates. I don't say there's a connection; I say we need to have a good, hard, objective look at it, and weigh it on the facts of the matter.

Quote:


I get that you are angry, btw. I really do. But whats the solution?

have government take over? Never get a vaccination? What?



I'm not sure there IS *A* solution. Maybe everyone needs to make their own decision and their own solution, based on their own beliefs, culture, upbringing, information level, etc.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:05 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I was wondering mike, do you remember the thread where our caring wulf, the one who hates to see innocents hurt, said he was laughing about the massacre in Cumbria? 12 innocent people murdered, and Wulf finds it funny. Perhaps he thought they were Mexican?"

I found it funny, asshole, only because the newsources were lamenting the loss of life... while also demanding that even more people be defenseless.


Its gallows humor, true. But I guess my voice was hoarse that day from screaming about the need for self-defense.... so what can you do in the face of PREVENTABLE tragedy, when those in "authoritah" are preaching victimization BUT laugh?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Lets be clear tho.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation.

Can we all agree on that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:12 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wow. Lots of hate here, Wulf.



The Wulf is nothing but. Pity it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I found it funny, asshole, only because the newsources were lamenting the loss of life... while also demanding that even more people be defenseless.



You found it funny, arsehole, because you enjoy violence and pain and the only reason you're pretending to hate seeing people hurt now, is because it suits your sick agenda to do so. You're not a libertarian, you're one of the biggest authoritarians on this site. Sure, you don't want the government telling you what to do, because you want the government to tell other people what YOU want them to do.

You're just pissed you don't have the power to force people to live the way you think they should.
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Its gallows humor, true. But I guess my voice was hoarse that day from screaming about the need for self-defense.... so what can you do in the face of PREVENTABLE tragedy, when those in "authoritah" are preaching victimization BUT laugh?


Strange that you use that incident to push your agenda, while completely ignoring that the US, with less gun control, has more of these incidents a year than we do a decade. All it is is confirmation bias, it happens once here, and it's proof of everything, it happens a dozen times in places without any gun control, and "lalala, doesn't prove anything".

I'm not even a proponent of a ban on guns, but people like you almost make me wish I was. Sick fucks like you should never be given access to weapons, because you'll use them to get your sick kicks.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Damn, Cit... I'm impressed.

Or, to put it another way,

"The floor yields to the gentleman from the UK."

:)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Citizen: Your United Kingdom is failing.

Its failing because you have placed all of your lives and your faith in "government".

Ours is faltering because too many here have done the same.

We (meaning our countries) have already HAD this argument. We won.

Being mad at me doesnt change that.

So, by all means. Go be defenseless. Suckle at the teat of "authoritah" and "gubmint".

Let us over here solve our own problems.

Or... continue to rage against me. Its cool.

(I think I've already said this before on many, many occasions. YOU, over there. US, here.)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:36 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen: Your United Kingdom is failing.

Its failing because you have placed all of your lives and your faith in "government".

Ours is faltering because too many here have done the same.

We (meaning our countries) have already HAD this argument. We won.

Being mad at me doesnt change that.

So, by all means. Go be defenseless. Suckle at the teat of "authoritah" and "gubmint".

Let us over here solve our own problems.

Or... continue to rage against me. Its cool.

(I think I've already said this before on many, many occasions. YOU, over there. US, here.)



Blah blah blah. The French did most of the fighting, btw, just pointing it out because I know it'll upset you.

and frankly I do more to curb abuses in government over here, than you ever have over there. I just don't scream about it to big myself up, while doing nothing, which is, lets face it, what you're doing.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Uh huh.

No, Im sure waving a sign really, REALLY affects change in your government. I know they must be sitting there scared of you. It matters, really. What you do, with a bullhorn (you do have at least a bullhorn right?) matters!

Do you have pamphlets?

Wait wait... heheh...

Do you FEEL the "energy" of the crowd? Thats how you know you are making a difference, right? The "energy"?

No, no. I know!

You blog here, just like I do, and hope that someone will DO something?

lol



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:57 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Uh huh.

No, Im sure waving a sign really, REALLY affects change in your government. I know they must be sitting there scared of you. It matters, really. What you do, with a bullhorn (you do have at least a bullhorn right?) matters!

Do you have pamphlets?

Wait wait... heheh...

Do you FEEL the "energy" of the crowd? Thats how you know you are making a difference, right? The "energy"?

No, no. I know!

You blog here, just like I do, and hope that someone will DO something?

lol




Heh. You really have no clue.

Keep affecting change by whining how you don't get your own way all the time on the Internet, kay

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:13 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Lets be clear tho.

Correlation DOES NOT EQUAL Causation.

Can we all agree on that?



I see this statement thrown around on this site a lot, so I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page with this. This is a principle used to evaluate a study to question whether the results you see are truly due to the factors you have been evaluating, but it is not an absolute truth. In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now in the case of vaccinations causing autism, that has not been established. A correlation between vaccination and autism hasn't even been established, let alone whether vaccinations actually cause autism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:

I see this statement thrown around on this site a lot, so I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page with this. This is a principle used to evaluate a study to question whether the results you see are truly due to the factors you have been evaluating, but it is not an absolute truth. In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now in the case of vaccinations causing autism, that has not been established. A correlation between vaccination and autism hasn't even been established, let alone whether vaccinations actually cause autism.


He said it wrong. Correlation doesn't PROVE causation. correlation never proves causation, you need more than correlation to prove a causal link.


ETA:
With Vaccines. This came up awhile back, that the MMR had mercury in it, so there maybe some evidence that it can cause problems, but I'm not up with the latest research.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:21 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Anything to try and disprove me, eh Cit?

lol

Too funny.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Anything to try and disprove me, eh Cit?

lol

Too funny.



You disprove yourself. Only you don't see it.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:33 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer.


Oh, some around here might even question that, not because they think cigarettes are good for you, but rather because they think the cigarette cancer link has more to do with toxicity of the chemicals in cigarette smoke weakening the immunological response to cancer causing virus.

It's a good example of the causation vs. correlation thing, though.

Frem's story about Shannon when I first heard it kinda put me off any vaccines forever. I'd always had concerns, but now whenever I hear about a new vaccine, or the media starts reporting a flu scare, I go digging. Whose saying what, why might they be saying it, how long have they been testing the vaccine, and what's in it.

I also caution my family members to do research into the contents of vaccines and check trial periods before they make any decision about getting a vaccine. I was very concerned about the recent flu vaccine, for example, because it was similar to Gardasil in that they were pushing out vaccinations to the broader public before they'd even finished analyzing the results of the initial tests. Luckily, not much went wrong here, possibly because someone decided to put out an adjuvant and thimerosol free version of the vaccine. The most I saw was my mom had a bit of a fever and was nauseated for a couple days.

I'll never understand why something that's supposed to prevent you getting sick sometimes has getting sick as a side effect. But anyway.

Wulf will be glad to know I don't plan on having kids, and so my no vaccine belief won't ever hurt any innocent children.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:45 AM

MALACHITE


Well, in regards to vaccines, or any new medication or treatment, I tend to be wary and let other people try them first. After a few years, if nothing too common and disastrous pops up as a side effect, then I'd be more willing to try it. Of course in some cases, like someone who is desperately seeking any new treatment because they are imminently dying, there isn't the luxury of waiting...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:54 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer.


Oh, some around here might even question that, not because they think cigarettes are good for you, but rather because they think the cigarette cancer link has more to do with toxicity of the chemicals in cigarette smoke weakening the immunological response to cancer causing virus.

It's a good example of the causation vs. correlation thing, though.

Frem's story about Shannon when I first heard it kinda put me off any vaccines forever. I'd always had concerns, but now whenever I hear about a new vaccine, or the media starts reporting a flu scare, I go digging. Whose saying what, why might they be saying it, how long have they been testing the vaccine, and what's in it.

I also caution my family members to do research into the contents of vaccines and check trial periods before they make any decision about getting a vaccine. I was very concerned about the recent flu vaccine, for example, because it was similar to Gardasil in that they were pushing out vaccinations to the broader public before they'd even finished analyzing the results of the initial tests. Luckily, not much went wrong here, possibly because someone decided to put out an adjuvant and thimerosol free version of the vaccine. The most I saw was my mom had a bit of a fever and was nauseated for a couple days.

I'll never understand why something that's supposed to prevent you getting sick sometimes has getting sick as a side effect. But anyway.

Wulf will be glad to know I don't plan on having kids, and so my no vaccine belief won't ever hurt any innocent children.




And beyond that, Byte, you have to also look into how quickly they managed to get immunity from lawsuits pushed through the legislature, and how much money they paid into what politicians' war chests, so you can start to get a picture of how deadly THEY think their product is before they start foisting it on you!


"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."


On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:29 PM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:

I see this statement thrown around on this site a lot, so I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page with this. This is a principle used to evaluate a study to question whether the results you see are truly due to the factors you have been evaluating, but it is not an absolute truth. In some cases, correlation does actually equal causation -- such as cigarette smoking causing cancer. Now in the case of vaccinations causing autism, that has not been established. A correlation between vaccination and autism hasn't even been established, let alone whether vaccinations actually cause autism.


He said it wrong. Correlation doesn't PROVE causation. correlation never proves causation, you need more than correlation to prove a causal link.


I agree that it is better to say, "Correlation does not prove causation". We may just be discussing semantics here and are on the same page overall. (For example, in England the principle may generally be stated as correlation does not prove casuation, but in the US the principle may generally be stated correlation does not equal causation -- I can't remember the exact phrasing I was taught). My main objection to people using it is when they dismiss out of hand any linkage between a factor and an outcome with that phrase without realizing that sometimes correlation is associated with or the primary contributing factor to a specific outcome.

I'm hopefully not getting too semantical about this, but I was wondering when you say that you need "more" than correlation to prove a causal link, what exactly is that "more"? Are you meaning double blind, placebo controlled trials in a randomized population that are independently verified and replicated? In my mind, those are the means used to "prove" (I put the word "prove" in quotes because it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty) that the x factor which correlates with y result is, in fact, the causative factor.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:18 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
I'm hopefully not getting too semantical about this, but I was wondering when you say that you need "more" than correlation to prove a causal link, what exactly is that "more"? Are you meaning double blind, placebo controlled trials in a randomized population that are independently verified and replicated? In my mind, those are the means used to "prove" (I put the word "prove" in quotes because it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty) that the x factor which correlates with y result is, in fact, the causative factor.


I mean proof, correlation isn't proof. What constitutes proof would depend on the specific case at hand. For "smoking causes cancer", that smokers have a higher incidence of cancer doesn't prove anything. It could be that smokers are also people who don't generally take care of their health, and it's poor health that causes cancer, so smoking is incidental. You need to show how smoking causes cancer, and eliminate other factors, the correlation doesn't prove anything.

The other way it gets noted is "correlation doesn't imply causation", which is much the same as prove I think. Never heard of "correlation doesn't equal causation", correlation can equal causation, in fact any causal factor would HAVE to correlate, so the statement has to be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

For instance, you could say "Violent people play violent video games, so violent video games cause people to be violent".

But that is nonsense. Maybe people who are already violent are attracted to violent video games? You have to show HOW the games cause violence before you can claim they do so, not merely show violence and video games are in the same room a lot of the time.
http://xkcd.com/552/
--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 2:48 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Past experience tells me that by this point everyone is far too embroiled to even notice I've posted, but I feel the need to put it out there once again:
It is entirely possible to not be vaccinated, not be inoculated, steer clear of hospitals and their disease breeding grounds, and be perfectly healthy.
I'm living proof.
Just, y'know, for the record.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:13 PM

BYTEMITE


Same, and no, you won't be ignored. This thread is relatively mild on the whole "embroiling" thing, you'll notice.

I'd argue avoiding exposure is probably the best way to avoid infection. During flu season, I just don't go where there are lots of people much. It helps that it's cold, and I can curl up in my house except for work. And a cubicle dweller can avoid seeing people for days if they know how.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:05 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I flat will not discuss the matter in this thread, I done said my piece, and if folks wanna *discuss* it, we can start a new thread without the shit-throwin making the signal to noise ratio unbearable - I do in fact have a lot of data, in both directions to share, but fucked if I wanna stare at Wulfies hatred and pretend sympathy while he does his best imitiation of an angry chimpanzee.

For the record, I am not anti-vacc so much as I demand a certain minimum standard of safety, and an honest assessment of the risks, neither of which has been offered to us for a long time, and for a fact "acceptable losses" ain't so goddamn acceptable when they're one of yours.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 12:23 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Citizen: Your United Kingdom is failing.

Its failing because you have placed all of your lives and your faith in "government".

Ours is faltering because too many here have done the same.

We (meaning our countries) have already HAD this argument. We won.

Being mad at me doesnt change that.

So, by all means. Go be defenseless. Suckle at the teat of "authoritah" and "gubmint".

Let us over here solve our own problems.

Or... continue to rage against me. Its cool.

(I think I've already said this before on many, many occasions. YOU, over there. US, here.)



Blah blah blah. The French did most of the fighting, btw, just pointing it out because I know it'll upset you.

and frankly I do more to curb abuses in government over here, than you ever have over there. I just don't scream about it to big myself up, while doing nothing, which is, lets face it, what you're doing.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.



Hey wulf, This irrelevant British cock sucker is only mad that the US beat em again. This time instead of mopping the battlefield with their blood we won our group at the world cup...Vaulted right over these tea drinking wusses...I wouldn't waste my time debating a Brit....Just tell him he is irrelevant...Treat him as our Government treats his government...like a dumb little brother....

Niki2 you fat , old, bipolar douchebag....Good Morning...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 2:10 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

The other way it gets noted is "correlation doesn't imply causation", which is much the same as prove I think. Never heard of "correlation doesn't equal causation", correlation can equal causation, in fact any causal factor would HAVE to correlate, so the statement has to be wrong.


Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. Just to expand a bit on one other point I made: There are lots of different types of studies (eg case-control studies, cohort studies, etc) out there to try to establish whether a causal factor correlates with a result. I mentioned the gold standard (double blind placebo controlled trial in a randomized population), but that one can't always be applied to assess whether a correlation is a causal factor. Sometimes, the best that can be said is that a certain factor is strongly associated with a particular result.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 2:23 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Past experience tells me that by this point everyone is far too embroiled to even notice I've posted, but I feel the need to put it out there once again:
It is entirely possible to not be vaccinated, not be inoculated, steer clear of hospitals and their disease breeding grounds, and be perfectly healthy.
I'm living proof.
Just, y'know, for the record.




Yes, as always there are going to be exceptions. Even with my example of smoking causing cancer, there are many people who smoked all their lives and never got cancer.

It isn't, "If you don't get vaccinated, you will, 100% of the time get a disease". It is that your risk of getting measles, diptheria, etc. is higher compared to someone who has gotten vaccinated, and this was probably highest while you were in elementary school (where there is a lot of disease sharing and not a lot of awareness of exposure/disease prevention). Now that you are an adult, you have more control over what you are exposed to and more awareness of disease prevention (washing hands, being aware of touching your eyes, face, mouth etc, not hanging out with the person who has been diagnosed with measles, getting enough sleep, eating well, etc). As a child, you were probably protected by a concept which, I think, is called "herd immunity". That is, if most people are vaccinated, that means the incidence of a disease is going to be so low that individuals who haven't been vaccinated will probably not get exposed to the disease in the first place. If, however, a large percentage of the population decided not to get vaccinated, the incidence of the disease (and resulting morbidity and mortality) would go up.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 4:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, I always read your posts, Rose, rare tho' they are "down here". You're right, and I'm kinda proof of that too. I've not been vaccinated for anything in years, and never got more than say two colds in the past ten years.

I used to think it was 'cuz I sleep outdoors, which has, admittedly, lowered my tolerance for warm temperatures, but I know it's more that I'm so isolated...the only colds I got were brought home from Jim, from people at his job.

And I don't even "live right"--I eat crap, and with the tendon, haven't gotten proper exercise for the past year or so! It's humans we need to avoid, with which I have NO problem!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 6:54 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:


Hey wulf, This irrelevant British cock sucker is only mad that the US beat em again. This time instead of mopping the battlefield with their blood we won our group at the world cup...Vaulted right over these tea drinking wusses...I wouldn't waste my time debating a Brit....Just tell him he is irrelevant...Treat him as our Government treats his government...like a dumb little brother....

Niki2 you fat , old, bipolar douchebag....Good Morning...


Proof that you can't count and that you're a repressed self-hating homosexual in the same post. Good job.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 25, 2010 7:04 AM

MALACHITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
I'm hopefully not getting too semantical about this, but I was wondering when you say that you need "more" than correlation to prove a causal link, what exactly is that "more"? Are you meaning double blind, placebo controlled trials in a randomized population that are independently verified and replicated? In my mind, those are the means used to "prove" (I put the word "prove" in quotes because it is hard to prove anything with 100% certainty) that the x factor which correlates with y result is, in fact, the causative factor.


I mean proof, correlation isn't proof. What constitutes proof would depend on the specific case at hand. For "smoking causes cancer", that smokers have a higher incidence of cancer doesn't prove anything. It could be that smokers are also people who don't generally take care of their health, and it's poor health that causes cancer, so smoking is incidental. You need to show how smoking causes cancer, and eliminate other factors, the correlation doesn't prove anything.

The other way it gets noted is "correlation doesn't imply causation", which is much the same as prove I think. Never heard of "correlation doesn't equal causation", correlation can equal causation, in fact any causal factor would HAVE to correlate, so the statement has to be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation




Just looking at your wikipedia reference, there are two quotes from it that may best convey what I'm trying to say (if I haven't conveyed it well enough already)

1. "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though it does not remove the fact that correlation can still be a hint, whether powerful or otherwise).[1][2]


2. "In the mathematical sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation". However, the word "imply" in casual use loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; correlation is required for causation. At least in the way we interpret it, "correlation" is a measurement (created reference) to understand the principle of causation."

Are we on the same page now?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL