Keith, you put forward an interesting if flawed conclusion. I do not think that Patrick would dismiss the new evidence from diverse fields but it is ENTIRELY valid to utterly dismiss erroneous and simply wrong information that has a life of its own such as the oft repeated mantra that vacinations are linked with autism. This has repeatedly been proven wrong -utterly falsified data has been proven to be used and the scientist admitted that there is NO link whatsoever. This belief is continuing to harm society and nonvacinated children and even other adults. Once out on the internet, thi bogus information continues as though it is credible and there appears to be no mechanism for truly and finally debunking it and removing it from circulation.

The point is, in my opinion, that we are all free to bring forth information but once it is proven to be invalid it is no longer an opinion but rather a misconception. Once your perspective is proven false it is time to stop saying it. When you are just plain right -as your fellow Aussie was about ulcers, the world should listen- If they can not definatively refute the conclusion. When in doubt we should still listen but there comes a time when in the public space, the noise should be dismissed and people should have the grace to admit when they are wrong. The consequences of continuing with such lies kill people and here in Canada we had an epidemic of chicken pox that started at an eastern university and spread across our countryduring spring break a few years ago because people relied on this sort of not only unvalidated but disproved garbage. Vacinations are important for everyone's health and people think that they are making a personal choice when they do not vacinate their child BUT it turns out that it puts us all at risk because even when people are properly vacinated it is not 100% effective for everyone and thus they should be protected overall by general compliance and reliance on truth.

"What you seem to be inferring is that only those who are 'scientifically qualified' are able to determine the truth of an argument and therefore, these same 'scientists' should be able to block what those less well-informed can and cannot know and say."

No. I am not "implying" that at all. This a strawman.

The rest is just post-modernism for the lay-man

Science is confirmed or falsified by more science - not public opinion.

If you have no wish to respect those who have spent many years honing their skills and regularly subjected to the harshest criticism by their peers, then their seems little reason of having a balanced discussion on the merits of science.

Science Works. The evidence is there for everyone to see. You are typing on it.

http://xkcd.com/836/

"Because every issue has two sides."

No. They don't.

Meryl dear, you DO realise that your argument (and I use the term both charitably and in its loosest possible sense) "And if what the AVN is saying is so invalid, it will be proven to be so by the court of public opinion since people have the right to weigh up these issues for themselves and are very capable of doing so without the intervention of the scientific 'elite'" could apply to all sorts of things.

For example, replace 'scientific' with 'political' and it could apply to the reintroduction of hanging.

Dangerous thing, the court of public opinion. Or do you suggest that it's wise that the opinion of people who don't know what they're talking about should be privileged over that of those who do?

When your toilet backs up, do you call a plumber, or consult the court of public opinion?

I think to take the article to its conclusion those in the media who are responsible for framing debates should have sufficient critical faculties to realise the relative expertise and worth of those on opposing ends of the debate. Media Watch's point is that it is irresponsible for the media to represent a fringe element has having an equally valid argument as the vast body of science. That filter should already be applied by a reporter versed in medical science (which is why some media have science reporters).
This is the responsibility of the media, I would think, as the vast proportion of the audience are not versed in discriminating between science, pseudo-science, flat-earthers and con-jobs. I include you, me and probably all contributors to this site; as cognitive biases are the norm not the exception and it's a rare person indeed who can think critically all of the time.

I would love to hear your alternative avenues to truth, Meryl. You are the first to point to (flawed, discredited or irrelevant) scientific papers when trying to make your own point; why bother, if you've got some killer truth-seeking method in your back pocket you haven't told us about, e.g. revelation, the Power of Anecdote, wishful thinking, The Secret etc? It seems you only wish to appropriate the cloak of science when you (wrongly) assume it supports your biases; in other cases, as here, you'd rather hit the big red Epistemic Relativism button, in the hope that even though it helps you not a whit, at least it may cause damage to others.

Now, here's my lengthy dissertation on the relative abilities of science and the priesthood in approaching truth, bear with me, it gets a little nuanced: Science works.

"Nothing in science is above question" is correct. However, you keep asking the same questions with mind-numbing frequency, and they've been shown umpteen times to have no value. You won't have any chance of getting a different answer unless you start asking some different questions, but that doesn't seem to be your thing.

The scientific experts aren't on your side. You have no proof to support your claims. Your claims are now rejected out of hand because they're the _same claims_ that were properly investigated and shown to have no substance. It thus saves everyone a lot of time to ignore them more quickly as they keep bobbing back up like objects whose description I will leave to Mungo MacCallum.

Anyone can be a scientist, in the sense of using the scientific method. It's not a cabal of sinister "elites" that are out to program us to watch X Factor via jabs full of mind-control toxins. You could even do science yourself, if you were so inclined.

I can't believe you are questioning the validity of the scientific method on one hand, while supporting the "court of public opinion" with the other. This stance pretty much says it all. What is your plan for making the rest of us take you seriously?

Actually, Ms Dorey, I think the onus is on the AVN to show which of its claims is irrefutably backed by evidence that has passed peer review in the respectable medical research journals.
And as for your "court of public opinion", it has voted and the AVN represents at best a tiny, tiny minority. So therefore, on your own criterion, you should shut up shop and go away.

Meryl - the AVN frequently maintains that autism is somehow caused by vaccines. There is not one shred of good scientific proof to back up this assertion, and literally hundreds of studies proving this is not the case.
Therefore this is one claim that you make which is not backed up by scientific eveidence.
There are many more.

There are not "thousands and thousands" of trained medical professionals that agree with you at all. If I am wrong, then please compile a list, include their profession and qualifications, and put it on your website. I think you'll find there are very few in comparison to the majority that definitely disagree with you. If there are thousands, then there are hundreds of thousands that disagree.

If you graduated with any medical qualification, and were honest about the evidence - you wouldn't be the frothing anti vaxer you are at the moment.

Why?

Evidence.

Ms Dorey says: "Can you please cite one claim that either our organisation or myself personally have made which you believe is not backed by scientific evidence?"

How about "court orders rape of a child...with full penetration". - Meryl Dorey January 2011.

I've got all day.

Ms Dorey says: "Can you please cite one claim that either our organisation or myself personally have made which you believe is not backed by scientific evidence?"

How about "you didn't die from it thirty years ago, and you're not going to die from it today"?

http://reasonablehank.com/2012/08/18/that-measles-lie-by-meryl-dorey/

Ms Dorey says: "Can you please cite one claim that either our organisation or myself personally have made which you believe is not backed by scientific evidence?"

How about "…the child that died a couple of years ago, in New South Wales, was the first death from Whooping Cough, in over a decade, um, in Australia…", made even after being corrected months before.

http://reasonablehank.com/2012/03/24/meryl-doreys-other-pertussis-lie/

Remarking on your lack of qualifications is hardly irrelevant (considering the topic of the article). No, I do not know you personally (I am thankful for that). However, we do know that you do not hold any qualifications in immunology, microbiology, virology or medicine.

When your dog got bitten by a snake, you gave him homeopathic treatments. If that doesn't say something about your overall knowledge of medicine and science, I do not know what does.

"You don't need a science degree to understand science any more than possession of a degree will guarantee your understanding."

No, but it most certainly helps. Without the relevant training and education you have no way of interpreting the data, no way of understanding the nuances that are involved in any given study. Without the relevant education, and clearly without understanding a single thing about how science actually works (remember, facts are not determined by debate, and ultimately - opinion).

Would you set about wiring an entire house without first gaining the correct education and experience? I don't think you would.

All you have is opinion, and a dangerous one at that.

Its not just the degrees Meryl, its about being involved as well.
You have NO clue how to interpret the data correctly because you are not part of the full conversation, just the bits you want.

An example for you. My area of work is hospital data. Morbidity and mortality from injury and external causes.
Now, you could read my report and make all kinds of statements based on it. But without being part of the conversation (ie in the field) you really cant make quality judgements on the data.

I know where the issues lie in the data we get, because states do things differently. I know to what degree I can make judgements about Victoria's mortality rate from say, falls and know whether that is something I'd be supremely confident in making life or death decisions about, compared to NSW.

Everyone else in this field knows the SAME THINGS about data issues. It's these nuances that you are ignorant of (reports generally have a data issues section) that mean the difference between a lay person's interpretation and a policy maker who would ASK for the expert to interpret their report.
YOU don't ask the experts opinion and even when you get it, you completely ignore it.

That is why you generally need the degrees to understand the science. So you understand how to look for the WHOLE picture, not just the bits you want to.

Maybe if you had the tools to properly evaluate reality you wouldn't be such a crackpot. Get an education, nobody really cares if it's official and you've got a silly piece of paper to prove it.

Your education is not that of the medical experts, so you're right, your education is irrelevant. "I have a brain" is not a qualification, because the qualified people have brains too, and they use theirs a lot better than you. The thing is, you want us to stop making personal comments about you and deal with the issue, but you are the issue, Meryl. You're the one spreading junk science and demonstrating why we require credentials of our medical professionals in the first place. Sure, you don't need a degree to understand science, but think of it as a driver's license - we don't let unlicensed drivers drive cars because they haven't demonstrated they have the ability to do so according to the law. The same applies to medical qualifications - and you don't have any, so regardless of your education, without those credentials, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously, and why should we? You're like an unlicensed driver possibly threatening the lives of motorists and pedestrians alike.

But you're worse than that - you're sitting there telling doctors they're all wrong. You can take that trash and shove it - it's like an unlicensed driver telling a licenced driver how to drive. Until you have some kind of medical credentials demonstrating that you've put in the work to establish yourself in the field, then you aren't even worth having a conversation with about medical matters. You want us to stop talking about you? Then stop giving us something to talk about.

Hi Meryl,

As I asked above, why have you decided against undertaking any formal studies in science over the past twenty years that you have spent researching vaccine safety and efficacy?

If I wanted to devote myself to campaigning for something I felt strongly about, I would do what I could to obtain the best education on the topic as possible. In your case, attending university could give you insights into how researchers operate, a solid background in biomedical science and an opportunity to be involved in discourse with professionals in the field.

"I asked you to show me something that I have said which you can prove is scientifically not correct."

People have already done so (Peter Tierney, Dennis Alexander, Katie Brockie) 5 days before you wrote this comment. They await your replies.

"But who is to determine the validity of the scientific methodology used?"

Well anyone can, provided they understand the principles of fair testing, the differences between correlation and causation, the factors that comprise a valid design of a scientific investigation, what sample size is reasonable to make more general conclusions from, statistical analysis and the significance of various parameters that accompany any trends in the data such as r values, how to account for variables that cannot be controlled e.g. in human studies where experimenters cannot manipulate every aspect of an individual's life to conform to methodological protocols, how to account for underlying genetic diversity in the population being studied, the limits of extrapolation of data from studies on various subpopulations of the world (e.g. do data from Japanese populations apply to sub-Saharan Africans?)...and so on.

I know enough to know that I don't know enough to be able to do a good job of this in most instances. I look particularly at graphs and regressions and squiggles and numbers and go blluuuuergh.

However, I can identify obvious flaws in methodology. For example:
a) A study of only 12 subjects is nowhere near enough to make any conclusions from. At most, it might only be enough to start to collect together a hazy concept of a potential future investigation.
b) Data obtained from a study of the effect of something on people who already have a specific medical condition cannot reasonably be applied to a population of people who don't have that specific medical condition.

For those reasons alone, I can determine that Andrew Wakefield's infamous MMR study has pretty much no value in terms of its applicability. If it showed anything, it was merely that something *might* be worth investigating further with some proper and rigorous science. Unfortunately, too many people took his conclusion, misstated it, then attempted to apply it universally, which (as is obvious) was totally misguided.

And yet, his hypothesis was indeed studied further, with much larger sample sizes (e.g. tens of thousands, as compared to his 12) and even though the link he proposed was specifically looked for in the data, it has not been found. Multiple studies on different populations with a much wider range of genetic diversity and uncontrollable other lifestyle factors have pretty much all confirmed there was nothing to this hypothesis.

That is an example of how anyone, even a comparatively uneducated B.Sc (Hons) like me, with 7 years of Science education, almost 9 years of teaching Science, and an additional 4 years of reading Science now behind me, can evaluate a scientific method.

Meryl

"But who is to determine the validity of the scientific methodology used? "

Thousands of years of international efforts by millions of philosophers, mathematicians, engineers, and general scientists who have debated, devised, challenged, overturned and where necessary, reinstated, a plethora of options to define, measure, assess and understand evidence.

The door will always be open to question the methods and develop more accurate kinds. The day that stops, science is dead.

May I also add concerning:

"That makes these self-appointed arbiters no better then the priests in the middle ages who preached in Latin so the common folk wouldn't understand what they were saying and would just have to take it as read that the clergy were telling the truth as though spoken by God. "

The over-reliance on jargon can give that impression, however, at the same time jargon has developed in response to requiring clear language for increasingly subtle and specific concepts.

Also, unlike the middle ages, we have attempts at universal education, with higher rates of literacy. We also have the internet, and when it's not being used to selectively quote or misquote particular ideas (by all concerned, I'm not just talking about vaccination issues here) it's also being used by these "arbiters" to "translate" the jargon into something a bit more tangible.

There are billions of websites on the internet. Once you get past social networking, porn and propaganda, you find librarians, philosophers, scientists. The Gutenberg Project, The Conversation, and entire "Evil" torrents dedicated to making the classical Greek works that underpin so many things in western culture available. There are free courses in maths, science, history; and people to learn and debate from.

This is by no stretch of the imagination the same as the middle ages. Particularly the bit where the infant mortality rate has dropped massively, as a result of two things: sanitation and vaccination.

Not at all, his argument is;
If you have an opinion that differs from the currently accepted reason, supply the relevant evidence and explain to me why the evidence you supply over-rides the evidence that exists to support the currently accepted reason.
And that's exactly what happened in the case of all you examples!

Meryl,

What I find most concerning is not that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but you're actually a detriment to humanity. To every parent who falls for your disinformation, you risk their child becoming seriously ill, or even dying.

I hope your misguided grief for your son is only amplified by knowing how many other parents will suffer similar fates, because of your lies.

the court of public opinion would seem to be a great forum for miscarriage of justice .. I would think

I assume journalists all have these smart phone things. These could be configured to afford the journalist with ready access to considered expert advice which they could present to interviewees?

I think the best course of action is to make clear that what is being aired is indeed a subjective opinion by a person or persons without expertise in the subject matter. This would be appropriate in the vaccination example (and in fact I suspect if that point is to be made clear, I expect the media outlet would seriously reconsider airing the view at all).

In the case of something a certain amount of scientists disagree with, this is a different matter. The view by group A and group B can both be aired as long as both are views by people qualified to take part. So for example in the climate science debate, that would mean climate scientists taking part in either side of the debate, not bloggers, social commentators or politicians (as mentioned in the article, the politicians can stick to arguing the policies not the science).

Good to see Ms Dorey reinforce the central tenets of the article by citing discredited anti-vaccination organisations such as AAPS and IMCV *sigh*.

I was also hoping Ms Dorey would pull out her list of *proofs*.

Luckily, these *proofs* have already been addressed here:

http://landlockedseaotter.com/2012/10/02/the-avns-response-to-media-watch-and-why-its-wrong/

Thank you for such a clear demonstration of the need for Patrick Stokes' article, and the accuracy of Jonathan Holmes' statements on Media Watch.

Also, Ms Dorey includes this comedic comment: "The AVN has never asked for a stifling or suppression of any information in this nearly 250-year old debate. In fact, we have openly asked for more public debate,"

Yes, that's why there are over 200 people banned from AVN fora, most of whom were only sharing accurate information, politely.

Oh Meryl, There’s evidence, and there’s bulldust.

Well, Ms Dorey, it’s all very well to debate the science, as long as the science is not misrepresented in that debate, which you often do. You may recall that when the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission asked you to explain why you had misquoted the conclusions in some science papers, you said:

“It is true that oftentimes, our information will contradict the conclusions or summaries of the studies. This is because, as opposed to most doctors and government officials, we actually read the studies and frequently, the summary and conclusion does not agree with the raw data itself. It is as if there were a disconnect between the findings of the study and the research itself.

“Many times, that disconnect can be explained by the financial links between the study's researchers and the companies whose products are being studied. So, whilst the AVN does frequently draw different conclusions to those printed at the end of these articles, it is because our analysis of the data shows that the printed conclusions do not correspond with the raw data. This is not selective reporting - it is accurate reporting.”

Of course, as anyone here would know, the "raw data" is not included in the publication, so how did you access it? The answer is that you did not.

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/47704677/Meryl-Doreys-Trouble-With-the-Truth-Part-1 for a more comprehensive analysis of Ms Dorey’s claims, including a paper from PhD student Tom Sidwell in which he deconstructs many of Ms Dorey’s references and citations.

"Pretty cowardly, don't you think? So put your philosophy where your passion is and instead of trying to shut me up"

You would know only too well what it takes to act in this manner, wouldn't you Meryl? The extremely tight control you exercise over who and what opinions or arguments are allowed on all of your web forums is so legendary, one could be forgiven for thinking you cut your teeth in journalism at Pravda during the Cold War.

And all the while, you complain about being silenced. Amazing.

inclusion in* a public

"Are you omnipotent or do you feel that your opinion is so much more valid then someone else's and that validity entitles you to censor a debate?"

- Yes, I feel that my opinion is significantly more valid than yours. In the same way that you feel that your opinions are more valid than mine. If you didn't feel this way you would not be spamming this discussion.

I am not censoring debate - I am declining to participate because I deem that particular debate to have no merit and, just like you, I am not a scientist. Unlike you, I don't pick and choose the science I am willing to accept.

"I cannot interpret what you've said in any other way but would love to hear your alternative explanation."

- I will assume this is mere rhetorical strategy rather than make any assumptions about your lack of imagination.

"I'm asking you to debate the evidence."

- The evidence is not up for debate. Only the inferences drawn from that evidence.

"Now surely, if you are so assured that your evidence is superior, you should be happy to debate someone who hasn't quite got your grasp on this issue."

- Why are you sure I would be interested in debating someone inferior to me?

"You can't be saying that your evidence is superior 'because you said so', are you Geoffrey?"

No. I am not becuase it is not "my" evidence in opposition to "your" evidence.

"If we are talking about science, then your evidence against mine - how about it?"

- No, Meryl. The evidence is the evidence. Again, you don't understand. Fact's do not negate other fact's. Logical inference is the issue. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways to a given conclusion P. P is either true or false. P is the item of debate, not the evidence.

omnipotent? Censor a debate? Lol, as soon as you don't get your way, you're always being "censored" or "bullied", aren't you, Meryl? When are you just going to face the fact that actual academics, and the people that are smarter than you, consider you and your "opinion" a waste of time that could be better spent making more scientific discoveries, such as the REAL cause of autism?

All you're doing is asking for a debate on an issue that, in regular circles, has already been debated, and decided upon. In other words, the conversation you want to have.... we had that one long ago. It's just like if you asked to debate someone on the merits of heliocentricity - you would be laughed out of academia.

Elizabeth, if it is your opinion that the NIP 'arbitrarily' has two doses of MMR in the schedule - do you honestly think the addition of a second dose to the schedule (at incredible cost and resource cost) *hasn't* been thoroughly debated by the subject matter experts?

On a slightly different note, you claim in your letter that the emphasis should be on getting everyone vaccinated with one dose.
Surely you understand the basic logistics of getting *every* child in Australia vaccinated with only one-dose on the schedule is pretty darn hard to do - combine that with the one-dose 5% failure to confer immunity and the vaccination coverage for one-dose on the schedule for MMR in Australia would be well below what is needed for herd immunity.

Adding a second dose to the schedule *is* maximising one-dose MMR coverage, it's ensuring the most opportunity for children to get at LEAST one-dose.

Patrick says: "My only qualification on that topic is that I have a brain, and that’s not qualification enough to tell scientists they’re wrong about science."

Peter says: "oh snap"

Further to my previous comment, I also forwarded my letter querying the arbitrary second dose of the MMR vaccine to Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination Network, Paul Arthur of the US National Vaccination Information Center, and John Stone of the Age of Autism. None of these people have responded to my letter either.
It appears the argument I have put forward in my letter doesn’t fit the mindset of the Minister’s office, nor that of those who are perceived as the ‘anti-vaccination’ brigade. As a result, I suspect parents are not being informed that there is an option of serological testing to verify a response to MMR vaccination for their child, i.e. evidence based medicine. I understand serological testing costs around $50, and suggest there may be some parents who might prefer to pay for this option rather than have an arbitrary revaccination for their child. But how many parents are informed about this?

"By not accepting this, you are saying that you can't possible oppose my evidence and that is an admission that you have none."

Good grief, Meryl. Do you seriously think for just one moment that an unwillingness to attend a "public debate" by default is an admission that someone has no references or cannot oppose your evidence? This is like saying that the refusal of most credible scientists to debate creationists is a tacit admission that the scientific evidence shows the Earth really is only 6000 years old and puffed into existence over 7 days.

No, it simply means that your views are so fringe-dwelling that they're not considered worthy of genuine debate.

Meryl, you lack the qualifications/education in any of the sciences to be able to accurately read and interpret the studies you claim back your ridiculous stance.

All of the studies you have provided in the past week have already been thoroughly debunked by others much more qualified than yourself.

You are a fringe dweller (even though you clearly don't see yourself as one). Your opinion on vaccination is as valid as a flat Earther.

Again - science is not decided by debate. It is decided by evidence. You have been shown to be wrong on nearly everything you have ever dribbled on the internet. One must wonder why you decide to continue in such a way, especially on an article that explains in detail why your opinion is wrong - only giving us yet more evidence that you clearly lack the expertise to evaluate the science in any meaningful way.

So no, my argument is not ridiculous. You are a fringe dweller, as are all anti vaxers. Your opinion (without the evidence, and without the relevant qualifications) means absolutely nothing in comparison to the people that actually know what they are talking about.

Thing is though Meryl. You don't have data. you have *other* people's research, it's not your own to interpret. This is the sticking point, without the expertise you can say whatever you like based on your 'opinion' which is not taken seriously if you think a debate is the way to 'solve' a question.

Research and adding that research to the pool of knowledge is where the arena is. Just because you don't like the way its done, doesn't mean everyone should dumb down for you.

Yes. By all means ask questions, hold an opinion, but don't think for a second any scientist would take them seriously if those questions are sufficiently answered.

I also wonder what you think a one-on-one public debate would achieve? One scientist vs one 'lady from NSW' isnt going to rock the foundations of vaccination knowledge in any sense.
You also continue to assume scientists dont have the information you have either? They have Google too.
Then when people do take the time to read the references and 'do the research' you don't like their answers - so continue on your merry way (ie Tom Sidwell (PhD candidate in immunology, did just that!)

A debate is merely a publicity stunt because YOU like the attention. Nothing more. It achieves nothing.

If you cant participate where the 'debate' really exists (in the peer reviewed journals) dont stamp your feet and demand that it be brought to your level. The bar is high. You just cant reach it.

"Who are you to determine what is valuable to debate and what is not? Are you omnipotent or do you feel that your opinion is so much more valid then someone else's and that validity entitles you to censor a debate? I cannot interpret what you've said in any other way but would love to hear your alternative explanation."

There you go again Meryl using that word "censorship" again. Censorship has nothing to do with this. The issue is fraud. You pretend to run a legitimate vaccination information service. You don't. You pretend to know what you are talking about with regard to; immunology, interpretation of scientific papers, correlation & causality, health statistics and logical reasoning. You don't. As an immunology expert / public commentator Meryl, you fail. You lack the knowledge, skills, qualifications, intelligence - and as much as anything else - the humility to be taken in any way seriously on the topic of vaccination health. Go and farm your nuts.

Now before you pair come to fisticuffs we are lucky. We can easily get first hand eyeball to eyeball experience of a non-vaccinated population. No shortage of them in fact. A sort of "Go back to where you came from" doco of a tour package to a few virally challenged communities. Heaps of unvaccinated populations in Africa, India, South America ... An live experiment, in fact.

Not often one can do such an experiment. Who's up for that?

"So because you and many within the mainstream medical professions don't agree with my data - most of which is sourced from within the mainstream medical profession...."

It's not "your" data Meryl. It's *their* data. You are not the one who conducts the trials, the investigations, the lab research. You are not the one who studies disease-causing pathogens using an electron microscope. You are not the one who takes the lab notes. You are not the one processing blood samples through a centrifuge, or performing the DNA analyses, or designing experiments. You don't writeup the research results, and you don't review them prior to publishing.

The reason for this is that you are unlikely to know a leukocyte from a platelet or a bacteria from a virus if they were presented on a slide in front of you. You demonstrated earlier on this thread that even your concept of a "placebo" is rather vague (see your "true placebo" comment). How then can you claim, as you seem to do, that all these vaccine and immunology research results really should've been interpreted differently?

It was not an "cold fusion awareness" facebook group which proved the cold fusion experiments flawed many years ago. It was other scientists. It was not a rag-tag bunch of bloggers who overturned conventional wisdom on peptic ulcers. It was two scientists who did the hard research and experiments themselves, and scored a Nobel Prize for it. It was not an "anti-faster-than-the-speed-of-light" lobby group which proved the Large Hadron Collider experiment showing neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light was flawed. It was the same scientists who conducted the original experiment! It wasn't an activist housewife from Bangalow who first suspected and later proved the link between Thalidomide and birth defects. It was two mainstream doctors and a pharmacologist, and they were widely recognised and awarded later for their work.

More than 20 years on and you have no such recognition. Why not? Scientific credibility, Meryl. You need to find some. Exhaustive research which withstands the intense scrutiny of your fellow scientists, Meryl. You need to do some.

Meryl, you are the one that consistently lies and tries to change tack every time you face John in comment. I hardly think that someone that has an *actual* grounding in science, more importantly medicine - has anything to fear from someone that lives on the fringes of pseudoscience and dangerous woo.

Dear Meryl,
Thanks so much for your mature and considerate reply. You set up the website, and you chose the moderator. What could be more public than a website, where people can read the debate, do their own research, and assess the claims of the debaters? What could lead to a better understanding of the issues than a place where your claims can be investigated, in each person's own time? I'm all for it Meryl, but you're the one that always finds an excuse not to take part. I can't blame you though. I would prefer a town hall argument too after your last efforts on the debate site. Town halls are good for politics, good for the "sound bite", but not good for education and science Meryl.
You know where you'll find me.
John

The ture issue of diagreement here arises NOT from these facts about vaccination but rather the psychological fact that people in general have a tendancy that sometimes works against logic. That is- when two thinks happen together in time, especially if they are somehow linked together in time for many people - everybody had the inclination to believe that those two things MUST be causally linked. They are not.

It is just like when a phobia arises when a child is stomping their foot and ligthning strikes. Those two things cannot be scientifically linked but try telling that kid that.

One of my own twin sons got a call to tell him he had won a bike just as he was carving an apple. To him now, apples are lucky. Right.

Thanks, Sue.

Meryl, I only know what I read in the popular press about scientific matters, but my reading of history and current affairs is pretty good. And what that would tell me is that people in our country used to die from diseases that we never see now.

And I also know that measles, simple measles, is one of the biggest killers of children world wide. That polio is still around. That TB is still an enormous problem.

I sometimes wonder how someone like you would be received if you stood up to defend these views in a country where children die of diseases that we never see now. If you, as a citizen of a rich country, who may well have survived childhood because of compulsary vaccination, I wonder what they would think. I wonder what they would say to you.

I grew up in a really hippie area. I am so glad my parents never came under the influence of your sort of thinking. I grew up healthy. My siblings grew up healthy. My friends grew up healthy. And because they vaccinated their children, your children and children of those who think like you, are protected. You really should be thanking us for that.

Debating nonsense gives it credibility. That's why no one wants to have the debate.

e.e.cummings rules ok ! (i get enough mixed case at work ) the ampersand is from william blake. -a.v.

Gotta love the "troofers". They're more nuts than antivaxers... but at least they're relatively harmless in comparison.

"It’s interesting to consider the way the media is used to polarise discussion on vaccination."

I think the main criticism of the media is that it doesn't polarise the discussion nearly enough.

"Whose interests does this polarisation serve?"

All of us. Well at least those of us who are happy that children don't die horribly from diseases which we have the means to prevent.*

* See how I didn't pretend to be the "voice of reason." I used an emotional appeal! For more emotional stuff check out the images of small-pox on wikipedia.

right/wrong. i do not think that there is more of a polar opposite than that, Elizabeth unless it is LIFE/Death and it is.

"Citizens are entitled to ask well-founded questions about vaccination."

They most certainly are. However, a problem arises due to our tendency to deny well founded science that disagrees with our particular predilictions.

I'm a determinist. Quantum Physics gives me the willies!

You raise a good point about the transparency of the approval process for vaccines. It is important that the bona fides of people with responsibility for approving therapeutic goods be publicly demonstrated, for example.

Is the evidence on which their decisions are made also publicly accessible? Surely is is even more important to be able to review the evidence rather than just knowing where the people live.

What is 'independent research?'

Can you name an organisation suitably qualified to do these studies you consistently whinge for?

Even if the 'funding' comes from the Government, the very same people you claim are corrupt are *still* the experts in this area.
If you believe you have the skills to conduct such studies as a lay person, why haven't you done it?

Scientific debate occurs in peer reviewed journals so that everyone around the world can see the evidence and with their own scientific research, conduct a study challenging those claims. That is how science works, with scientists.
If you think you should be included in this debate, go get the qualifications necessary to contribute and do some work.

Whinging and whining that you don't like the funding/scientist/qualifications/etc is not scientific debate. Contributing to the body of knowledge through well constructed, *ethical* research IS.

Hey Meryl, whatever happened to all that money that was donated for advanced vaccine safety testing that the AVN was going to do? And on that matter, whatever happened to those safety test?

Meryl,
until you learn what a placebo is, when it comes to drug trials, I don't think you can comment on vaccine safety trials. And I'm not censoring you. I just think it helps to have a scientific discussion if one understands what the terms involved mean.

FYI, pharmaceutical companies make a lot more money off cosmetics then they do vaccines. Vaccination is not as lucrative as you've been mislead to believe.

Hi Elizabeth,

No, I'm not - I'm not familiar with you at all and I made no assumptions as to your stance, nor was I implying that you fitted any of the characters I described above. I apologise if that was not clear.

My point was that I wholeheartedly support enquiry, but am frustrated when I see that enquiry clouded by bias, or encounter those promoting an anti-vaccination agenda masquerading as somebody merely questioning vaccine safety and efficacy. I did not mean to imply that you were either biased or anti-vaccination and I am sorry if it came across as such.

Dear Elizabeth, we have all been straight forward and clear about our beliefs and position. ONly those who are happy to play games are pretending or hiding where they stand and in such an important debate that seems reasonalbe. So no more game playing- scientists are rigorously schooled to avoid assumptions- not so the other side- please just declare yourself rather than playing peek a boo. These are all busy professional people and a tiny bit of respect for their time and effort is not unwarranted.

Meryl,

"there is very little evidence that those who call themselves scientists and wish to be considered the arbiters of this information care a whit for anything but defending their own biases at the expense of freedom of choice"

You appear to put very little stock in what scientists do and have to say on this issue, while basically implying that no scientists, researchers, doctors or nurses care about anything other than being right. That's a pretty bold claim, a fairly black view of the human condition, and, quite frankly, incredibly insulting, not to mention hypocritical.

By what method do you propose these double-blind, placebo controlled trials be carried out, if not a scientific one?

Great article.

I agree Joseph that we should not dictate debate but unfortunately I don't think the public and "current affair" shows such as Today Tonight would ever present both sides nor state that there is no scrap of peer reviewed data for one side of the debate because that wouldn't be sensational enough or draw a crowd. (Plus a lot of people wouldn't know what a peer review entails or how important real evidence is).

The problem with vaccination though is that there was once a debate but that was over many years ago.
It's quite disconcerting that anti-vaccination groups are still active in 2012. It's equivalent to someone believing the earth is flat.

I work as a doctor and it pains me to see that propagating unscientific "opinion" by anti-vax groups is acceptable under the guise of free speech - surely they would need to work in the field or have research in the area?
Doctors support vaccination because we have seen the difference in saving lives. My grandparents were doctors in the mid to late 1900s and saw many infectious diseases which are now preventable because of vaccines, whereas us docs of today work mainly in chronic diseases.

It's also jolly selfish for people to refuse vaccinations for themselves or their children because the premise of vaccination is "herd immunity" i.e. population health and I don't think it is the right of one person to put others at risk by refusing immunisation when it is safe to do so and the evidence is unequivocal, unless it is for some exceptional reason.

Thank you so much, Peter, I stand not only corrected but improved by your efforts.

Valli Jones - the fundamental issue here is not about vaccination at all. The AVN and Meryl Dorey only appeared in Patrick Stoke's article as an example. The issue here is about opinions. If Patrick had used the issue of what brand of football to use in the AFL as an example we would not be debating footballs. As usual however, whenever the issue of vaccination is mentioned the AVN President and her minions flock to the comments to beat the anti vax drum. It is all getting rather old and tired.

> the fundamental goal of the AVN is to ensure freedom of information and freedom of choice

Then the committee should consider whether Meryl Dorey, who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in 'expenses' whilst making the AVN look like a bunch of crazed anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists, is really effective in achieving that goal.

This is the thing Meryl. You do not argue with the use of science. You argue via use of pseudoscience and complete and utter misinterpretations of actual science.

You have no qualifications in any of the medical and science related fields, yet your hubris demands that you feel that you have a superior knowledge to those that actually have a clue as to what they are talking about.

Once you go out and get qualifications in immunology/virology/medicine etc, then maybe your opinion will hold some weight (and then, only if it is backed by rigorous and tested science).

You are supposedly an expert after 20 years, yet you are asking basic fundamentals which are answered in first year immunology papers?

Again, you are not qualified to speak on the science, simply because you do not have the relevant education to interpret it in any way.

If you have spent 23 years studying and researching the topic, then you have had more than enough time to get your credentials. You say the studies aren't open to interpretation, but you then proceed to claim how the conclusions of many studies are wrong, and you re-interpret them yourself. Make up your mind maybe?

Desperate parents are a gold mine. They will send themselves into debt and beg for donations from their community on the faint hope of curing their child. Who else can you convince to spend so much on useless junk?

"If antibodies don't equal immunity (and we know that they do not), then how are vaccines meant to prevent infection?"

Ummm, Meryl - nobody has ever claimed that vaccines prevent infection. They prevent the development of disease subsequent to an infection. The difference between infection and disease is significant (have you heard of lag time?). Similarly, it is not the presence of antibodies that is said to confer immunity, but the presence of memory B cells. The difference between proteins and cells is also significant.

It's surprising that in 20+ years of reading around the issue, you would make these elementary mistakes. Unless, of course, you have not understood what you have read.

"We're not all learned philosophers, or philosophy students, members of the public are entitled to their opinions because of the possibility that their opinions might indeed be correct."

If I'm reading Stokes's post correctly, he would agree that members of the public are all absolutely "allowed-to-say"-entitled to have their opinions, full stop. (And they're "entitled"-entitled to have opinions, but only some of the time, depending on how well they can vouch for them.)

I'm vaguely miffed that he's introduced two definitions for the same phrase. It makes it impossible to tell whether commenters on this article are talking at cross purposes :(

Meryl, if you haven't noticed, this article uses the first half to destroy what it is you spout on a daily basis. This article is not only regarding the right to an opinion, it is about how you *personally* try to make opinion as valid, if not *more* valid than objective fact.

Cry all you want about people taking you to task for your lack of qualifications/education on the topic, thing is - this is exactly what this article is all about.

"do people who are critical of a belief held by the mainstream establishment have a right to express their side of the vaccination issue. I believe that they do - if they can provide evidence to back up their assertions."

If they actually knew what they were talking about, then sure. Thing is - the vast majority of the anti vax movement don't have a clue about what they are rabbiting on about.

You made the claim on WIN news that vaccines (not just the usual tired argument re: MMR), *all* vaccines can cause autism. Strangely enough - there is absolutely NO evidence to back this assertion of yours.

"I can provide evidence - it's just that 'science' as it is practised today - does not like to examine evidence contrary to currently-held dogma."

Oh really? Of course it does. This is at the heart of science, testing, falsifiable evidence and testing. If one hypothesis has more evidence to back it than another, then that is where we look.

Thing is, I have not seen any evidence come from your circle that backs a single thing you say. You have not conducted any trials or studies yourself via use of the scientific method. You do not have any contrary evidence to supply in regards to currently accepted evidence.

Your whole argument rests on conspiracy theory - that the scientific "elite" are somehow covering up the "real" research and that people such as yourself are purposely being silenced by supposed vested interests.

This isn't the case at all. What is happening is that people are taking you to task for your ridiculous assertions, they are advising you that you are wrong, on so many levels.

On so, so many levels.

"I can provide evidence - it's just that 'science' as it is practised today - does not like to examine evidence contrary to currently-held dogma."

It is statements like these that make real researchers not take you seriously.
Just because you're not seeing such things played out on your turf (Google, blogs etc) doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Even in weekly staff meetings there are constant conversations about data quality, how we can challenge ideas, extend knowledge - we don't get funding unless we do this! We have to be shown to be a valuable contributor to the body of knowledge.

To have a person who doesn't have the qualifications or experience say that "you're not doing your jobs properly" - really, it is quite amusing. And when I say experience, I don't mean reading about the topic (I've been reading cookbooks for 11 years, doesn't make me a chef) I mean experience in the field, coming up against obstacles in research and debating solutions with your peers, taking what you've learned, publishing it, sharing it with other peers to be challenged. The process is continual.

You can be critical and hold a 'belief' contrary to anything you wish to. Doesn't make it valid.

The 'evidence' you claim to have is completely without context. Unless you can argue why it is valid in the context of the playing field you are trying to play on, then it will continue to be dismissed as invalid. Protip: the stuff you have, HAS been viewed in context of the playing field. That is why it was dismissed. Not because it 'goes against the grain'

"The fact is that this article wants us all to defer to the greater knowledge and expertise of doctors who - the author claims - are the REAL experts when it comes to vaccination. But I have spoken with literally hundreds of doctors who are totally clueless on this subject - and that includes immunologists, paediatricians, rheumatologists and other specialists.

As opposed to the opinion of many people here and in the greater community, a degree in medicine does not give one any 'magical' powers to determine the truth or otherwise of scientific issues. Doctors are not trained in research and in fact, that majority of their information about drugs and vaccines comes directly from the manufacturers of those same products."

You seem to get clinicians confused with real doctors who write the research, you know, PhDs.
Instead of whinging you have 'spoken to the delivery people', then claim they're clueless on the subject, why don't you go to the source?
Doctors (PhD) in virology (I happen to know one, but you refuse to listen to them), immunology, epidemiology etc
these are the real experts, surely you know that?

As far as having an opinion on bias, 'reading' journals over 20 years makes you know more of an expert on the research, writing, peer review, and publication than when you started. You're an observer.
You could read music and watch someone play piano for years, until you actually sit down and play, you really can't claim superior skills, no matter how sure you are that you could play better than everyone.

It is this divide that makes your opinion not worthy of being taken seriously. You can comment all you want on the process, nobody is bothering to listen because you don't even attempt to get involved and broaden your knowledge to, at the very least, be equal to the basic knowledge of the other players.
If you think you possess the exact same knowledge, then step up, start publishing, start attending conferences and become part of the conversation with your peers.

Whinging isn't a valid opinion.

Funny, calling out the "fraud and bias" in scientific journals... when you've happily defended frauds such as Andrew Wakefield.

And honestly.... I know high schoolers with a better grasp on vaccines and medical matters than you

Then please inform us of your professional qualifications, Meryl.

"Self-taught people can be quite knowledgable, if they put enough time and effort into learning."

Stephanie - of course it is possible to learn a great deal by reading - many interested amateurs know a lot more of the theory about their specific area of interest than professionals who are not specialists in that area.

There is a huge gap, however, between knowing theory on a topic and actually practising a profession or making policy decisions where you are responsible for health outcomes of real human beings.

A real understanding of clinical genetics means understanding all the clinical sciences - you can't understand the way the human organism functions by learning only the anatomy of the lower limb, or only the function of the renal tubules.

FOr example, you quote a case of a child where "the fever and lack of appetite after vaccination sent her into a metabolic crisis." But did you know that a much more frequent cause of fever and lack of appetite is An infective illness - something as simple as a minor viral infection? The vast majority of simple febrile convulsions in childhood are caused by relatively minor infective illnesses. So, if the child you know had not been vaccinated, could the same reaction not have occurred when they caught any infective illness?

When we don't have enough

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

we get

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/infectious/pages/measles.aspx

Just saying....

Well said, Sue.

I couldn't agree more Sue. My point was that all that rationality doesn't matter when you're trying to convince people who hold an irrational viewpoint. By any objective rational measure riding a bike is crazy, yet I still do it, irrationally. Sure, I take the usual self-protective measures, but I know from personal experience they don't work especially well.

I suspect the same applies to anti-vaxers. They place high weightings on aspects of their decision-making that by any object and rational assessment are simply not justified, while they weight the risk associated with failing to vaccinate quite lightly,

There is another parallel with motorcycles in the helmet laws. When helmets were made compulsory in the S (that happened before my time here), there were lots of people who refused to comply on the grounds that they were worried about the helmet causing neck injury and hence some form of disabling paralysis, which wasn't completely unfounded, but the odds were low and much lower than the risk of skull fracture and other injuries without a helmet. Since then it has become even lower with new designs of helmet, but some people still refuse to comply, even today. They really hate the idea of being confined to a wheelchair so much that they'd rather die.

The anti-vaxers hold purely a subjective perception of the nature (not the magnitude) of the risks and that's why you won't change their minds.

As I said earlier, it then becomes a discussion over their heads about whether it is justifiable to coerce them. I'm still not entirely convinced that it is, given that the diseases in question have been with us for many, many centuries and are readily managed if a child does contract them. As a child I had all the usual illnesses, including both measles and rubella and chickenpox, although I never had mumps, despite my parents best efforts to expose me.

I personally think vaccination is a public good that should be encouraged, but I'm not sure that it is such a great public good that it should be mandatory, or that it should be supported by coercion. It concerns me that our society is becoming ever more ready to use coercion as a first rather than last resort, but that's probably a discussion for elsewhere.

By all means do so, Debra. It's a worthwhile thing to do, although I'd suggest that for some people no amount of good argument will be convincing.

This is fascinating. Are you aware that the world is or might be observing? To diminish someone in this manner is way beyond the normal rules of discourse but some of you seem to feel that personal attacks are warranted and as long as you do not generally stand behind them or suggest that the other is a blood sucking entity who refuses to lie down when dead- it is all OK.

Man, this is normally exciting but I hope you wait while I put my boots on!

Keith Thomas - vaccine policy is a combination of immunology and public health practice. The reasons for the timing of the various vaccines include:
- Age at which the child is able to mount an effective immune response
- Age at which the condition being vaccinated for is most prevalent
- Age at which the child is most exposed to other children (eg pre-school)

Most anti-vaccinationists are less concerned about the antigens in the vaccines so much as the fluid they are carried in and the preservatives (although all these have been found to be safe). Combining vaccines reduces the number and volume if the injections and the load of diluent and preservative.

ALthough I can understand why people might ask these questions, I find it hard to understand when they don't accept the answers. IN the extreme case, Neonatal ICU nurses and doctors, who look aft er the most vulnerable micro-premmies, promote the vaccination schedule, why would the rest of us disagree? These people know a newborn's immune system intimately, and dedicate their lives to the welfare of babies. How would it make sense that they are part of some world-wide conspiracy, or just have a blind spot in this area.

Ms Hart and Mr Beattie like to use the term 'experts'. For NICU nurses and doctors, I prefer the term experts.

Mr Thomas - on what basis would you choose tests to be "healthy enough to withstand the special impact of each vaccine before it's administered."?

Do you mean whether they have a normal immune system and are therefore able to mount an immune response, or do you mean whether they might have an egg allergy and react to some components of some vaccines? If they are not "healthy", don't they need immunisation all the more, as they might not be able to withstand the actual infections?

I wonder why you imagine that there has not been supremely detailed consideration of all these factors when vaccine policy is made? I fyou have not been part of a process of developing, for example, a clinical guideline, you might not appreciate the degree of detail and expertise that goes into clinical policy. Not only does it have to be rationally argued, but it also has to be visibly backed up by evidence, and regularly reviewed. I don't know what work you did before retirement, but do you imagine that someone untrained in the area could have done it better than you?

You say "Both sides in these major controversies can be seen attempting to frame the questions to suit their own expertise and to focus the debate on areas where they have most likelihood of "winning" (in their eyes)."

In my personal case, I frame my comments from my personal area of training and expertise. You will not see me questioning the evidence in climate science, or economics, or political strategy - I am neither trained in those disciplines, nor experienced in practising those professions.

On the other hand, the anti-vaccine posters here wish to argue on the basis of their lay opinions, without having been health care providers, or even trained in the clinical sciences.

Of course one can ask questions, but when the answers repeatedly go against what your originally thought, it's time to ask different ones. The questions about vaccine efficacy and safety posed by Ms Dorey, Mr Beattie and colleagues have not been ignored. On the contrary - they have been refuted with evidence over and over.

Did you even read the article?

"I apologise if I am complicit in letting the topic stray into the MMR debate, but I have a question about MMR. Some of the criticism of MMR is because the triple vaccine is a "triple whammy" and so it may have a greater impact on infants than would three separated vaccinations. Is there a medical reason why separate vaccinations are not routinely available? I may be wrong, but I get the impression that many people who oppose MMR are not opposed to all or even most vaccinations, just this one particular "king hit"."

I am not an expert in immunology, but from what I understand, the reason why they give all three together is to have earlier immunity. If you gave them separately, the kid would spend several more months susceptible to one or two of the trio of illnesses that vaccine defends against.

Unless you're proposing just having separate injections for each, which would accomplish nothing apart from giving the kid a bit more pain.

Yes, you can't always generalize from animals to humans, just like you can't generalize between different species of animals. For example, rabbits are one of the few species that don't have birth defects from prenatal exposure to thalidomide. Rats, for example (http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v52/n4/abs/pr2002225a.html), have pretty much the same reaction to thalidomide as humans do.

We're not special. Every species has its unique quirks. Good use of animal models involves testing multiple species, and especially ones similar to us in the relevant mechanisms (for example, pigs are best for studying digestive issues, because their digestion is a lot like ours) in the hopes that if the medication has adverse effects on humans, we'll see similar effects in another species as well. It's not always perfect, but the alternatives are either to test it first on humans, risking ill effects for the human subjects, or else forego potentially beneficial treatments because we don't know if they're safe.

*exactly* Debra - one way conversation for Ms Hart. Something makes me believe she wouldn't pay attention if the answers are not what she wants to hear. She's already ignored my responses, twice.

Elizabeth, please do not think that people do not respect your experience. IT IS THE UNWARRANTED GENERALIZATION OF IT THAT WE FEAR AND FIGHT.

Your experience is compelling- for you-a one off that you seem to fear for the general population. Let me give you a hypothetical equivalent.

Last December I went in for a benign tumour in my spine. I had my friend drop me off at the front door in perfect health (besides that annoying tumour that threatened my lower half) and the surgeon told me the only risk was infection and as I was at a major hospital with a sterling reputation and as it was one of my own accounts -with one of the lowest infection rates anywhere- I felt good to go. So good in fact, that I walked in alone, and took only one change of clothing and 4 books as I expected to be out in 3 days- fixed. The surgoen was throughly vetted and i discovered has a good record.

Well almost 6 months later I left a rehab hospital after a coma and learning to walk and talk again. The surgery went wrong.

i DO NOT TELL OTHER PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE SURGERY FOR TUMOURS IN THEIR SPINE-for I would consider that irresponsible.

In science your situation is serious, and lamentable but it has no generalizable value other than a clue of what to watch out for. It would be called a case study and we are all taught to be VERY careful with what we think we learn from them>

I would suggest that all you might have learned just as I did -is that one practioner can be a bozo.

Elizabeth - I haven't found any answer to my previous question in any of your posts, so I'll post it for you again here:

""Elizabeth Hart, when you refer to "paternalistic 'experts' ", do you mean immunologists, padiatricians, infectious diseases experts, epidemiologists, early chidlhood nurses, or NICU nurses and doctors?

All these people research and promote vaccination. Which of them do you find "paternalistic" or not to hold expertise?"

Well there's peer-review and "peer-review", Ms Sue.

Sometimes one must examine the fine print.

Take for example the peer reviewed journal where one local climate expert claimed he'd had his research published. Well, according to the editor of Energy & Environment, it is a peer-reviewed journal - one of the biggest anti-warming journals in the world actually - but not all of it is peer reviewed. Folks of "like minds" can get a paper pubished in the short article section without even basic sub-editing let alone peer review apparently.

Or the weird but widely quoted journal on climate published by a retired agronomist and his sons in some rustic corner of middle America. Can't remember his name - it'll appear at 2.30am. When one submits an article for publication here one is prompted to provide the names and contact details of three of these very peers who you'd like to review your article. Now that must cut down the paperwork, not to mention the revisions.

Like everything Ms Sue ... it's buried in these damn satanic details.

"I did not say I knew what tests would ensure we will not get anaphylaxis from vaccination. All I said was I could suggest appropriate tests. And I meant - but did not say, sorry - that, surely, such tests would be prudent, understood in the context of patient history, as a means of identifying children who were at greater or lesser risk of suffering ill effects from vaccination at a particular time."

But Mr Thomas - it is the hypersensitivity reactions (such as to egg protein) that are easy to test for. What other tests for what other "ill effects" did you have in mind?

Ah - now we finally understand what Elizabeth Hart means by "research officer". Not that she actually conducts research, but that she reads stuff.

On the basis that your dog died, Ms Hart, you want to deny young children immunity to measles, mumps and rubella?

And those taste bud experiments are soooooooooo compelling!

Is this the crux of the argument from that side? PLEASE.

Scientist are not likely to want to and no ethics committee will approve an experiment that knowingly allows people to die (exept in rare drug trial where the people are already in end stage and know it and choose to make their end count for others).

Scientists appear to have a very high regard for LIFE and this is the crux of the provaccination side.

Yes, It was truly silly. The story I read said: "The bill from power firm Synergy also clearly stated that bills were going up by about 9.13 per cent because of the carbon tax." ..."Mrs Verolme believed the increase in her bill due to the carbon tax was more like 20 per cent ""I did the calculation this morning and it looks something like 19 point something, nearly or 20 per cent.""

So there you have it, she did her own maths (who knows how because she'd not have had access to all the necessary variables) and came up with a different figure than what is stated on the bill and believes her own calculation is more believable than the black-and-white figure on her bill. And, this gets reported as news! The headline was "Pensioner backs Abbott", it could easily have been "Pensioner disputes fact but fails to demonstrate how she's correct to do so".

The article I was thinking of is here: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/pensioner-backs-abbott-on-bill-20121011-27fau.html

"Remember, strong arguments don't need authority for their foundation".

That's right Greg. As Patrick explained eloquently they need evidence. And where does this evidence come from? From science. And who practices this science, and relays its discoveries to society? Scientists. That's right Greg, EXPERTS in immunology do that. Can non-experts present counter evidence? There is non censorship against them trying. Will they be taken seriously? Only if the evidence is good. There is no conspiracy against the provision of good evidence here.

You can pin your *argument from authority fallacy* tail on the evidence donkey all you like. It will fall off.

"Someone who is expert in the field of immunology will likely know precious little about the practical value in a community of a vaccine."

Lets test this claim by applying it in other domains:

"Someone who is expert in the field of air traffic control will likely know precious little about the practical value in a community of radar."

"Someone who is expert in the field of tourism / hospitality will likely know precious little about the practical value in a community of a hotel."

"Someone who is expert in the field of information technology will likely know precious little about the practical value in a community of an internet connection."

Epic fail, Greg.

Greg Beattie - you have just conclusively proven to me that you hold a strong bias against educated, knowledgeable and experienced people. Time and time again I have seen your attempts to take down people who are experts in their field, no matter what that field may be. I wonder what the psychology is of that behaviour? Is it education envy? Intellectual envy? Perhaps it is simply that you believe that you are more intelligent than these people be they nurses, doctors, immunologists or philosophers.

You showed your true colours when you finished your post with the misogynist, sexist comment "I think your slip is showing". Is that where you had to go? Implying that Patrick was behaving like a woman and therefore his beliefs and arguments were not worthy of a man.

You are all class Greg.

Greg Beattie says "Science is all about enabling valuable arguments to bubble to the top through robust discussion. "

Not so, Mr Beattie - science is about testing "valuable arguments" rigorously, looking at the evidence, and rejecting or revising the "argument" on the basis of the findings.

The arguments raised repeatedly by yourself, Ms Dorey and others have been examined and de-bunked, also repeatedly.

People who are inexpert in the area the argue about frequently use the (derogatory) allegation 'experts'', as if having knowledge, training and experience in an specific area of practice somehow disqualifies you from commenting in your own area.

What instead - prefer the views of the untrained and inexperienced because they are not 'experts'?

Dear Greg,
I think we all know people who have become so open minded that their brains have fallen out.
I repeat, it is entirely valid to dismiss arguments that have been proven wrong to our own safisfaction and when that happens- to feel that someone should have the good grace to stop repeating those things. It is not wrong- especially when the result of such inane stubborness is to harm unwitting people who think that they should be able to believe what is publically espouced.

You, of course are free to allow such harm to you and yours, and all we can do is grieve BUT do not expect us to rejoice in ignorance nor celebrate its application. Some of us feel duty bound to humanity to tell the TRUTH.

Annnnnnd your reply to Patrick, Greg?... [crickets]

A typical antivax drive-by... Arrive with bluster and bravado... Disappear faster than Speedy Gonzales when your arguments have been slayed as comprehensively as the "twenty seconds to comply" scene from RoboCop.

I don't like the term "expert". I have worked with experts. It is not easy.

By definition an expert has literally come to absorb a form of knowledge that only comes with deep familiarity. A "sense of smell" that is in essence innate. They can hear that something is wrong with the second injector in your old diesel, that that isn't running right, that there's a step missing, that the plan won't work.... but they can't actually tell you. Not without a major effort at unpacking assumptions, thoughts they are oblivious to, leaps over the obvious...

Give me someone with knowledge and ideas over an expert anytime.

Unless you want your diesel tuned.

One of the things that seems to emerge in these discussions is that for some folks they have no idea what investigation and research actually involves... that there are no rules or tests... one just gets a bee in one's bonnet and starts reading similars... and there it is ... lots of other folks saying the same thing and that's evidence innit?

For some folks schooling has failed them badly. They have not learned to learn. They do not learn - they prop up a starting position. They dismiss "learning" ... a conspiracy of vested interests...there is no real information ... no Truth... science doesn't know, so my guess is as good as theirs.

The information hyperplasma has given these folks a voice. Friends. Supporters. Believers. Dressing gowns and foil beanies.

What is to be done?

ABC news today has an item on experts who promoted a Johnson and Johnson product - which has had catastrophic results for some women who were advised to use it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/johnson-26-johnson-facing-massive-class-action/4314346

Note the line: "It has also cast fresh light on the system of approvals because the mesh was introduced without any pre-market testing, with surgeons leading the call for change."

Greg Beattie - your list of self-taught innovators shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way scientific knowledge is built.

There is no branch of science - be it astronomy, immunology, geophysics or botany - that is built on the theoriy of a single person.

Yes, thinkers can develop revolutionary ideas. To be useful however, they need to be both feasible and demonstrable, measurable, repeatable. We don't treat stomach ulcers with anitbiotics just because someone thought it might be a good idea - the evidence was produced, as was the test to detect helicobacter pylori in an individual.

Darwin conceived the theory for evolution of the species, but it was the huge amount of subsequent evidence found that solidified the scientific model.

Your choir analogy - though drawn from your area of expertise - doesn't work in science. The choir doesn't keep singing the same tune of lyrics - they are constantly questioned, reviewed, updated. The fact that you are not aware of those processes does not mean that they don't occur.

I don't know enough about the subject to comment on whether coercion is justified, so I'll take your word for it.

The anti-vaxers have some right on their side though, I think. They don't necessarily deserve ridicule.

Debra, what "way" do you think I'm trying to get?

"The only thing that would be effective is showing that either the childhood diseases are themselves likely to be catastrophic and that they have a high risk of being contracted"

Sometimes I wish anti-vaxxers would all collect together in one community and, in so doing, allow this evidence to be collected. It is already known that measles, for example, is extremely contagious, and infants (who can't develop immunity) can die from pertussis.

It is only because vaccines have brought disease rates down that anti-vaxxers have the luxury of choosing not to vaccinate without being particularly likely to suffer the ill effects of that choice.

You will never get a zero risk with vaccines, just as you will never get zero risk when choosing what type of vehicle to buy. Parents that do not want to place their children at any risk will never take them (or let them travel) anywhere on roads. Most parents, however, would buy the safest they can afford, and accept whatever risk comes along with it. They concede that the benefits of transport are worth the risk of being driven into by a useless driver.

Dear Baz,
Thank you so much for this meaty and valuable response. I loved it and apologize for delaying my response.

I cannot comment of your references until I have given the the respect of a thorough reading. Thank you, though for pushing my education forward in these matters.

Initially, though I would remind both of us that there can be no conferences of merit without opposing views no matter how narrowly that expert is focused. On many mainstream issues, we have to look at minutia to continue to move forward.

EVERYONE- most especially the scientists and experts grieve at any detrimental effect but I submit that NOT one of your experts would advocate the whole sale rejection of vaccinations. They just want to see them improved and spend their lives trying to make that happen on a practical level. Upsetting the public with the cutting edge efforts to do so which can be a great PhD thesis, is not what most try to do. They do seem to try to keep the good in place while working furiously to improve things. These are the last people in the world with their heads in the sand, wouldn't you agree? Now, I am not talking about a few wronglly invested academics but true scientists.

Baz Bardoe - you don't state your area of research, but it clearly isn't a clinical one.

The references you cite re-appear on so many of the anti-vax sites. Tomljanovic and Shaw have no clinical credibility - they have posed a theoretical question from their roles within non-clinical ophthalmology research. They are frequently quoted by anti-vaxers.

Blaylock is a retired neurosurgeon who is a "born again" anti-vaxer. He has no credibility in that specialist communities of immunology, infectious diseases or paediatrics.

The Italian court decision is likely to be overturned on appeal - it is an illogical legal opinion without the back-up of clinical science.

It's easy to manufacture a disagreement between specialists if you only quote the disagreers. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of paediatricians, early childhood nurses, GPs, immunologists, infectious diseases specialists and, in fact, parents, continue to agree about the benefits of vaccination and the vast dominance of benefit over risk.

Sue,

I'm pro vaccination but I got to point out that resorting to the same tactic as an anti-vaxxer (appealing to authority or popularity or single cases) is not helping the rest of us.

Why do those particular researchers lack credibility? Is it because they have consistently done shite research that has been disproven, is fraudulent or makes absolutely no sense? Or is it because they are being quoted by anti-vaxxers?

The other thing too is although it would be unwise to trust an author with a dodgy track record, every so often even "an idiot" can come up with a meritorious idea. If this is not an example of that, what about the idea is not meritorious. i.e. is it the methods, etc go back to the science, and use that.

Baz,

Sue is correct. You can't just quote a couple of authors trouted on an anti-vax site and appeal to their authority. Why is their research valuable? What other research supports and does not support their arguments? Go back to the science.

Just saying "Scientist said" doesn't mean crap. That's also the flaw of the main article, when comparing an expert with a non expert opinion. It doesn't point out clearly enough that who said it matters less than the merit of what is being said, although, backing up arguments with evidence is clearly the main point and that is not something I've seen anti-vaxxers clearly do as yet. Likewise the difference between an expert and non expert is we'd expect the expert to have evidence to back up the argument. This is not always true, but it is considerably more likely (hence we'd be more inclined to trust an expert but it is fallacious to appeal to their authority).

Does that apply to the research you've quoted?

Oh but I did mean it, Mr Peter - but perhaps not as you had envisioned.

No powerpoint or even over-heads required (do the GenY's even know what overheads are?) - just succinct statements showing that one has read and understood the full paper that one cites.

Let me illustrate:

Baz Bardoe posts this:
"The senior post doctoral researchers in vaccine safety at the Univeristy of British Columbia, Dr Lucija Tomijanovic and Professor Chris Shaw, contend that aluminium adjuvents are most probably linked to autism.. Their article here: http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf";

Sue Ieraci goes to the article, and finds that:
1. Those researchers (whose papers she has previously seen used in anti-vax arguments) are not "researchers in vaccine safety" at all.
2. Their paper is not a research report but a theoretical discourse, which calls for more research.
3. WHere Baz Bardoe says "contend that aluminium adjuvents are most probably linked to autism..", the actual paper says nothing of the sort.

A reasonable (brief) critical analysis of this paper would then be:
"These authors are researchers within the Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, at the University of British Columbia. They have several publications in low-impact journals in the area of vaccination, although this is not their specialty area. The specific paper cited is in a journal of inorganic chemistry. The paper is a theoretical discourse - not a research report. What they do is correlate a rising incidence of ASD diagnoses with an expanding vaccination schedule. This has occurred during a time that ASD has been more precisely defined and more commonly diagnosed. They have only shown correlation of two things - not causation."

See? No need for powerpoints, graphs or long dissertations. Just a bit of effort and some intellectual honesty

Craig and Steven

Beautifully expressed!

LOL It's also a bit like arguing that a mechanic doesn't know how your car works because you're the one driving it.

Chris Buchli
Music Tutor

It's also fair to say that music is not rational ... I would not assert that music is therefore irrational as you use that word (i.e. irrational = 'wrong'). As a music teacher I would hope you are showing students that the opposite of rational is intuitive and creative.

Evidence only works in the rational sphere of our world view and new ideas and breakthroughs in knowledge actually challenge the existing rational world view... creativity is all about choosing not to pursue that rational path followed by others.

Chris,
I agree that there is much that is rational about the theory and craft of music... and a teacher of music, as with all disciplines, can only teach the theory and craft. The creative/ artistic element of music is not rational, is far more than 'preference and value' and is the only part of music that we (non-musicians) value.

As a teacher of any discipline (but especially music) you can only offer the building blocks, you can only teach the rules that a creative person will break in order to make beautiful music or art.

This is all very relevant to the topic because those who suggest that more rational knowledge makes you superior are ignoring the evidence of countless great musicians in history who had no or limited knowledge of rational music theory.

Finally, your assertion that God 'might' exist (after claiming that his existence is 'correct') proves my point. Either he exists or he does not. If you can prove with a rational argument that he exists then he is not God because he is no longer beyond our understanding.

If he exists and you can't prove it rationally then that proves that rational processes can only take you part of the way. It also proves that those who insist that he exists are enforcing their opinion as if it was 'truth'.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion because everyone is different, has experienced a different life journey and so their music and art will be different ...Rather than insisting that everyone must align themselves with the established enforced truth... we should allow everyone to express themselves honestly and authentically... to express their opinion and to show their creativity, their music and their art.

I'm kind of torn between about whether or not the rational is independent from the emotional.

But I think it's fair to say that the most fun in art making seems to come from accepting a fusion of spontaneous ideas and not giving a toss if there's a basis for it until later. Sounds rather irrational to me.

Steve,

You're playing with a few words dishonestly, or you just don't know what they mean. I'm willing to grant the latter.

First, You can't "agree" that much about the theory AND craft of music is rational because I only asserted that the theory of music is rational, not the craft, so this is not agreeing with me. I do agree that the creative/artistic element of music is not rational, but only in the sense that it is not a question of rationality. You say that it's not a matter of preference and value and then proceed to point out that non-musicians 'value' music's creativity. This is part of the creative process though: What do I value and have preference for (this could relate to sounds, techniques, physical and technical capabilities etc.) and what do my (intended) audience value and have preference for?

As I said in my first post, I'm not going to suggest that this is a stupid argument to have because I have heck loads of musical knowledge to back me up and so therefore I'm right. But all you have to go on is the value you place in music and your preferences, which only serves to prove my point! What is it beyond preference and value that you think is involved?

2. Telling me what I can and can't teach is pretty dangerous territory. I actually do teach these things and I teach them well. Why can I only teach the rules which they will then break? I teach them the rational theory and I teach them what they can do to move beyond that and get creative, which is, by the way, completely a matter of preference and value. It's also my job to teach this. Beauty and art I'd like to point out, are matters of preference and value (personal or cultural), so again, you're proving my point.

I think we need a working definition of creativity to further this part of the conversation, I'm happy to receive amendments. Here's mine: creativity is taking existing ideas and applying them in new ways.

3. I don't think anybody is suggesting that having rational knowledge makes you superior. I'm not anyway. More rational, sure, but that's not superior, unless you measure superiority (which I have no interest in whatsoever) by that marker alone... You're misunderstanding something about music theory. Music theory, like scientific theories, is a model for how musical concepts interrelate. It is not a set of 'rules', it is a guide to help us understand and organise the things which we have discovered about music. Much as the laws of physics aren't rules about how physics is required to work, so much as a list of observations about how it does, in fact, work.

Anyway, great musicians without knowledge of music theory had only their preference and value for certain sounds, techniques and other musical ideas to go on.

4. I did not assert that God might exist after claiming that his existence is correct. I said that an assertion can be correct but irrational because you have no evidence for it. I then used God as an example for an irrational belief because of a lack of evidence.

Whether or not God is provable is based on how you define God. You have provided the definition that God is beyond understanding. I'd be interested in discussing this, and I'd ask what the point of something beyond our understanding is (and point out that that's a paradox because you understand that God is beyond understanding - how do you understand this?), but it's irrelevant to my main discussion, so I'll leave it to the side for now... Yes, I know I'm being cheeky getting my point in there.

Something being correct but not provable rationally only shows that it is not yet rationally understood, not that it is beyond understanding. If I don't know what a chair is made of, it's irrational to assert that it's made of wood, even if it is made of wood. I can later prove that it is made of wood, and only at that point is it rational to assert so. I do not assume that because I don't know something that it cannot be known (that would seem rather arrogant, or at least presumptuous).

I'm in total agreement that anyone insisting God exists is enforcing their opinion as if it was truth. There is absolutely no evidence for His existence. I think you may have thought that I was asserting this, but I think I've cleared that up.

5. You're missing the point about music and art. They are not questions of rationality, there is no 'established enforced truth' about music or art. You can't factually say "this is good art" or "this is bad art", even less "this is true art" or "this is false art". You could say these things based on your preferences and values; It's not a question of rationality. I agree everyone should be able to express themselves artistically however they like (that is according to their preferences and values!) because art has nothing to do with facts.

On matters of fact, however, you should not make assertions that contradict facts without proof and evidence to back up those assertions. Is that so hard to understand?

Emma Anderson - I agree that the most fun in art does come from improvisation and trying new things. It's not 'irrational' it just has nothing to do with rationality. Just as deciding to eat an orange instead of an apple has little to do with rationality.

Those inclined, like myself, could delve into the issue of free will here, but I think I'll leave that for another day.

music you're talking about (i'm presuming) is grounded on a well tempered scale with 12 equal intervals between octaves. it is undeniably not a natural scale; it is a product of rationality. so too there's nothing irrational about instrument making, physics & acoustics constrain in favour of reason & the scale chosen.

unless you're emulating anthony braxton or elliott carter you're beholden to a harmonic system which exerts influence on you whether you strain against it or align with it. it is a rational system evolved in conjunction with the well-tempered scale - even if the answer to "why (for what reason) did you score or play this chord at that time", is "because i wanted the effect that would ensue" it is rational.

western music is teleological - it is a narrative, normatively, not a process; arguably, the final V-I cadence is implied in the opening progressions & is the destination that every musical event works towards or postpones.

musical inspiration is not necessarily irrational - musical execution is almost always rational & grounded on good technique. ecstatic exuberance in musical execution is never wholly irrational. -a.v.

Alfred,

I can kind of run with that on the basis you give. The creation of a sound and its ensuing effect are perfectly rational. The part I think that is based on value and preference is what led to the choice to want to create a particular sound in the first place. This could be argued to have a rational basis, but I'm not sure if research substantiates this. Anxiety sufferers, for example, often become musicians; It may help to centre and channel emotions better. So an anxiety sufferer's choice to want to hear a certain sound may very well be backed by rational decisions; it would be just as rational as taking medicine for an ailment.

I'm reluctant to call any musical choice rational because it implies that there are particular solutions to musical 'problems', or situations. In my experience, there are often multiple ways to get where you want to go in music, especially with regard to improvisation; it's not necessarily a linear activity. So, the choice between these equally valid solutions comes down to preference.

Chris,
I apologise if you feel that by challenging you and debating with you that I was dishonest and arrogant... perhaps amongst other things. Clearly you feel that I do not have the right to challenge you on the subject of music so I will not pursue those arguments.

I would like to challenge your last paragraph, "On matters of fact, however, you should not make assertions that contradict facts without proof and evidence to back up those assertions. Is that so hard to understand?"
This gets back to the subject of the original article "No, you are not entitled to your opinion".

My issue is not whether my opinion has merit but whether I'm entitled to express an opinion.

You appear to agree (correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth) that in any human endeavour there is a rational component and a non-rational component. The non-rational component is the domain of intuition, of creativity and of objectivity as well as preference and personal value.

So when you refer to "matters of fact" and even if you then claim to know ALL the facts and to possess ALL the possible rational knowledge in your field of expertise you can't know everything about it because you can't 'know' the non-rational component ... most importantly you can't understand your discipline from an objective viewpoint.

If you are schooled in music theory or economic theory or medical theory or religious theory etc. and you build up a body of rational knowledge in your area of expertise and you have invested a huge amount of time in understanding the rational framework and you then teach from the standpoint and your income is derived from your expertise and so your livelihood depends on that income and you also define yourself as an music teacher or an economist or a doctor or a bishop... do you think you will ever accept someone from outside your field to challenge your opinion?

You, like Patrick, the author of the article and a large proportion of the population appear to believe that every discipline is entirely independent of every other discipline and the body of human knowledge is a number of independent strands and no-one outside your strand could possibly understand your discipline. You choose to believe this because it serves your self-interest, it makes you an expert and a teacher. That status gives you personal value and that status guarantees you income and so it sustains your very life.

You therefore insist that without rational proof and evidence no-one is entitled to an opinion. You believe it is unreasonable to allow anyone to challenge your expertise as you have invested so much in building it up. It is unreasonable to entitle anyone to offer an opinion.
...but then reasonableness is the domain of rationality and it seems you are afraid to step outside of it.

Steve,

Here's what it comes down to. You certainly have the 'right' (although I don't believe in rights, but that's another matter) to express your opinion on matters that are not questions of fact, such as the non-rational component of any human endeavour.

You're welcome to challenge me on anything relating to anything, I was merely suggesting that you're fighting as much of a losing battle doing so as I would be challenging a surgeon on matters of surgical procedure. This isn't to protect my apparently lucrative teaching business, and from whom would I be protecting myself by not having this conversation with you? What a confusing statement.

Anyway, here's what I think people who feel the need to express an opinion on a factual matter should do first: Do some research, find out what the facts are and go from there so that your opinions are not misguided. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. Furthermore, you are entitled to express those opinions, but it's a stupid idea to do so because you will be treated like an idiot for making baseless claims. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but this is what is going to happen. It's not worth your trouble to do so and it's not worth my trouble to hear people's false facts because they do not help.

A better thing to do is ask questions. Rather than making a statement of 'fact' regarding something about which you have no idea, why not ask a question of someone who does know and try to find what the correct answer is? If there is currently no correct answer (maybe more research or better technology is required), the honest thing to do is to say "I don't know", the dishonest answer is to make something up (that's the 'opinion' that this article is referring to).

In this case, rather than make assertions about musical facts which you admit you have no training in, it would be better to ask: "Is music a rational or irrational endeavour?", or "which components of music are rational and which are not?". How you ask that exactly is preferential and you would be welcome to express your opinions about how to ask that question and to do so in your own way. To express your own facts about music is asinine.

Lastly, I have no interest in upholding any kind of status quo. If somebody can point out, with evidence, that something I believe is wrong, guess what I'll do? I'll stop believing it. If they can make a positive claim for the existence of something that is factual, I'll believe that. What I won't believe is someone's opinion for which they have no evidence.

Chris,
Here is what it comes down to in my opinion.
There is no such thing as the very Western idea of right or wrong. Like yin and yang in Chinese philosophy, black and white are simply two sides of the same thing (like day and night, light and dark... light is not 'good' and darkness 'evil'... they are just two parts of the whole.

In the absence of right and wrong there is no rational truth as we interpret the idea of truth... ie. there is no collection of facts that will take you anywhere meaningful.
Your collection of 'facts' is only your perception of the world.
Current ideas of right and wrong are only common perceptions or more often ideas that are followed by people who have not thoughtfully inquired but find it easier to follow other people's established perceptions.

The only meaningful truth is that some things resonate with people and with the natural environment while many more things do not resonate. Like yin and yang again, resonance is an efficient harmony of equal opposites... a 'storage and release' of energy, store and release in equal measure (I am sure you will have a different definition). You will find that most scientific or natural 'truths' boil down to resonance... and that's why music is so important, why it touches us on a fundamental level.

The only 'truth' is something that resonates not something that is supported by a collection of facts, many of which are founded on perception or self-interest... and so, for example and getting back to the original article, if vaccinations are 'good' shouldn't medical experts insist that they should be freely distributed to all people everywhere? ... or is their 'goodness' derived in part from the profit that compulsory vaccinations will deliver to drug companies? We will only know the answer when the 'truth' does not benefit the 'truth-sayer'.

As for rights, no-one has the right either to grant or deny someone else's right to live. The right to live is fundamentally linked to the right to express yourself honestly and authentically... to express an opinion.

Steve,

You'd be surprised to know that I agree with a lot of what you've said there. I think some of what you said in the middle there is waffle and I think you have little or no idea how the scientific method works, but I agree with you overall. I agree there's no right and wrong or good and evil (except insofar as people have labelled those things), but I think you are expecting 'fact' to equate to 'absolute truth' and this is a problem for you.

To answer one thing directly: yes vaccinations, which would be considered 'good' insofar as we can use that word should be distributed to everybody. Unfortunately, we live in a world where economic good is the highest good in the highest echelons of society. This is no longer necessary in a globalised world with the technological capabilities we have, but there's another discussion for another day.

I've read your yin and yang spiel a few times now and I just struggle to see how that means anything at all (not without more definitions - what is energy, for example?), or what your basis for thinking this is. I struggle to see how this is at all demonstrable, could you give some examples? If it is not demonstrable you should explain why you believe it and why I should too.

Facts take me to many, many meaningful places. Facts also help me to get out of places, whether they be physical places or mental states, that have no meaning too. Sometimes no matter how much you want something to be true, it just isn't.

Of course I could take away someone's right to live. All I'd have to do is kill them (dead = no rights). Of course, I don't want to live in a world where people go around killing people, so I will refrain from this. That's why I don't believe in rights; no right is unalienable (in a practical sense, that is, paper proclamations do nothing), perhaps with the exception of one's right to think as they wish, but only because nobody can control thoughts. Hopefully that day never comes.

I've no idea how you got to 'right to express an opinion' from 'right to live'; if there's meant to be some logical connection there, you haven't made it.

Chris,
It has been interesting and challenging debating with you.
As for my 'yin yang spiel' ... there is no short and sweet way of explaining it but if interested google "The Ecstasy of Yang" which is a paper I presented last year at a conference.

I take your point about dead=no rights. Perhaps our idea of 'rights' is more about our hopes for the type of society we want to live in... so we label them as rights hoping that that will assist in achieving universal agreement... a rare and elusive commodity.

In my opinion, living is not simply 'not dead'. Living, as suggested by the ancient Greek saying is to "Know Thyself". The Greeks referred to the state of knowing yourself as "eu-daemonia" (ie. healthy spirit, later translated to beatitude, the state of blessedness, the pursuit of happiness). To know thyself requires interrogation, internal and external, it requires debate, to challenge and be challenged, to be open to criticism, to acknowledge your flaws and to freely offer your talents. To do these things requires a democratic forum, a forum for debate where everyone's opinion is heard and encouraged... to discourage opinion is to crush the spirit. Living with a crushed spirit is, in my opinion, not living.

The idea of resonance and how it relates to energy is something I'm finalising in another paper... it addresses the relationship between resonance and reason, particularly how human societies were once based on harmony and resonance until the elevation of the scientific method to its current status ... I have no problem with the scientific method or with reason, which is valid when applied to things that can be tested and when it is acknowledged as only one perspective or approach. Unfortunately it is too often used (together with rhetoric) to construct and establish 'truths' around matters of opinion...hence you get the idea of orthodoxy, which literally means 'correct opinion'.

It's all visible to me, too.

My perception of The Conversation is that, as a topical website it does not have a responsibility to leave its items open indefinitely for comment. After about 10 days, only a few diehards, locked into their own rigid stances are left and there is no "conversation" going on at all, no fresh ideas, just sniping from entrenched positions from long and tedious posts including URLs (perhaps because the poster does not have the courtesy or the ability to summarize them for other readers). After the first couple of days, most posts are not responses to the article; indeed many show no sign of the writer having read or understood the article, and they are responses to responses and drift way "off topic" into battles that can be found at many other sites and even including paragraph plagiarized from other sites. I admit to having played this game a bit myself, but always with a twinge of guilt and a realization that it's more for my ego than as a genuine contribution to a conversation in a civil society.

If readers/visitors to The Conversation have not made their point within 10 days or have not discovered the particular thread, that's their lookout. The Conversation provides a daily e-mail alert that enables readers to respond to articles promptly. I would prefer to see The Conversation close off all discussion after 10 days. People who feel badly done by can always search for a sympathetic academic to launch a new topic and a new debate that will take the conversation on beyond where the original topic left it.

The Conversation has involved subscribers in its design and protocols and will probably continue to do so.

On the subject of so-called ‘experts’, people who take it upon themselves to dictate poorly evidenced medical interventions can expect to be challenged. Experts/professionals in our society hold a privileged position as trusted advisors. They must be held to account if they abuse their position of trust, e.g. by failing to obtain ‘informed consent’ for medical interventions.
For example, along with my colleague Bea Mies, I have been campaigning against over-vaccination of companion animals for the past four years (i.e. “done the hard yards…”). Here’s a link to a brief summary which also includes a list of hyperlinks to some of the correspondence, submissions and articles we have produced on this topic: http://bit.ly/VcmCLG
See for example my essay circulated in June 2009 “Over-vaccination of pets – an unethical practice”: http://bit.ly/11sEt5h and my article “Vaccine failure!” which warns there is a potential for maternally derived antibodies (MDA) to interfere with a puppy’s response to core vaccination, and calls upon the World Small Animal Veterinary Association’s (WSAVA) Vaccination Guidelines Group to provide clear and objective advice on optimal puppy vaccination, and an optional titre test confirmation protocol: http://bit.ly/lB9YDH
As a result of our persistent efforts, change is slowly happening in companion animal vaccination practice. It is a disgrace that members of the public have to be the leaders for change due to the failure of self-interested experts/professionals in the veterinary vaccine industry.
CHOICE, the consumer watchdog, took up the matter of over-vaccination of pets in August 2010, i.e. “Pet vaccination: Over-vaccinating your pet could be harmful to their health as well as your own hip pocket”: http://bit.ly/VWuu2h
Over-vaccination of companion animals, and exploitation of pet owners, is big business, worth billions of dollars on an international basis. My experience in this area is informing my investigation into lucrative over-vaccination of humans, as there are parallels to be considered. I’m appalled that people such as Patrick Stokes and others are trying to impede progress on this matter.
It is also notable that the university and CSIRO funded The Conversation website is determined to ignore the queries I have raised on discussion threads about:
- the second arbitrary ‘booster’ dose of the live measles/mumps/rubella vaccine: https://theconversation.edu.au/measles-outbreak-calls-for-vaccination-vigilance-10042;
- questionable universal vaccination of adolescents with a 3 shot vaccine for the low risk HPV virus: https://theconversation.edu.au/catch-cancer-no-thanks-id-rather-have-a-shot-7568;
- questionable whooping cough ‘boosters’ for a new strain of whooping cough, i.e. how does increasing the numbers of ‘boosters’ of the existing vaccine protect against the new strain?: https://theconversation.edu.au/vaccine-resistant-whooping-cough-takes-epidemic-to-new-level-5959; and
- the ongoing controversy of ‘lethal flu virus’ development, i.e. the US National Institutes of Health is funding research into making H5N1 more transmissible – does this contravene the Biological Weapons Convention?: https://theconversation.edu.au/censoring-influenza-research-gagging-scientists-could-put-lives-at-risk-4978
There’s a ‘big picture’ on lucrative over-vaccination which it appears many are reluctant to consider.
The Australian Academy of Science has now taken it upon itself to enter the vaccination fray with its publication “The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers”: http://www.science.org.au/policy/immunisation.html
The members of the Australian Academy of Science’s Oversight Committee for this publication can look forward to some more questions from me in due course.

apologies for the bad prose, this doesn't let me edit.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Darin. Perhaps it may surprise you to hear this, but I don't actually attack science, I think you'll see from what I have written that I never do this, and that's simply because I believe science is an extremely useful method of making sense of our physical world. What I feel quite strongly about is the tendency for some scientists to use scientifically-derived knowledge for political ends, where they manipulate what is to be counted as legitimate knowledge. I have written elsewhere about scientism. I am not at all in favour of not vaccinating children. But I do have a healthy scepticism of Western medicine (pun intended), and I thread cautiously around medicos. This is derived from personal experience, meeting and working with so many incompetent nurses and doctors in the course of my life (though of course I have also met some incredibly talented ones). Prior to here, I don't recall hearing of Ms Dorey and the organisation she worked with. I simply noted the mobbing aimed at her comments on this thread as an example of the effects of the article on which she commented. I was quite keen to get the author here to address some of the effects of his article, which has spread beyond here. For instance, I mentioned how another author for this publication even referred to it so to justify his approach that implied we ought to cherish the future, when scientists who are over 50 now will all be dead (expressing it as "one funeral at a time"), this apparently to do away with sceptics of the big bang theory, among others. Science at its best?

Thank you so much. May I go now?

Ignorant buffoon. Well done you for making her point for her so clearly.

Dania, a conversation is, at it's best, a wide-ranging discussion of ideas. Similarly, a degree is meant to provide training in thinking usefully about ideas and situations one has not previously encountered. Sadly, in some cases this admirable intent produces instead narrow-minded, self-important fools, capable only of reiterating pre-digested ideas from "approved" sources.

Sadly, the vast growth in tertiary education has produced far more of that type than the genuinely capable thinkers that is its express purpose. Those buffoons will be our next generation of leaders, when all they have learnt is how to follow.

In my view, it is those people who Patrick Stokes should have directed his piece at, but by offering the dog-whistle of an "unapproved" viewpoint from Dorey, all he did was encourage a pack to form.

Who are these "usual suspects" Vanda? the most recent posters are Sue Ieraci, Dania Ng, Debra Joan Smith and myself. Which of us are you referring to?

I do take exception to your efforts to shut down a conversation you don't seem to have had any participation in for some months. If you don't want to read what's being said, then it's a simple matter for you to unsubscribe, which I recommend you do.

However, I also agree with you that the discussion has run its course. It could have been a decent discussion about how we evaluate information and the sources it flows from, but because of Patrick's use of the Dorey woman as an example, it was swamped by self-righteousness and became a venue for spleen-venting and abuse by people who should know better.

I'm taking my own advice and unsubscribing.

I haven't taken part in it Craig, because it was clear which way it was heading. The anti vacc people in here proved the point of this article months ago. It was fun for a while watching them descend even further into gibbering moronhood, but really.....yawn.

And I have now switched off the notifications. Gosh, thanks for the heads up Craig. Silly me would never have thought of that. Of course, initially I thought nothing of having them on because I didn't think things would go on this long. Guess it must be slow over in anti vacc land.

Liz, is your comment in response to the article or in response to someone else's comment? (And if it's to the article, which part of Stokes' argument are you addressing?)

On the contrary our knees are probably stronger but there hasn't been enough time for them to get strong enough to counter-act the effects of:

1. Advancing life expectancy associated with not eating raw meat made possible with fire
2. Changes in Vitamin D levels contributing to muscular and skeletal strength (reduction) associated with performing more activities at night and moving to colder climates made possible with fire.
3. Changes in weight distribution associated with changes in food consumption that coincide with changes in standing in a more erect position (more weight on the knees) that was furthered with the use of fire.

We're seeing more knee problems these days because

1. Life expectancy is at it's highest.
2. Vitamin D blood serum levels are at it's lowest
3. We're eating more food and exercising less (weakening muscles) but able to stand fully erect, and doing so without transferring that weight outward from the knee through movement, because lifestyles are more sedentary.

All of these are long term consequences of cultural shifts that began with fire. But in evolutionary terms, it's the short term. If we survive another million years or so, our knees will change, although our cultures change much faster than that.