[Pants-of-dog]

The risk is negligible, people have also died from adverse reactions to vaccines, but that risk is likewise negligible, neither of which are arguments for either mandating or banning vaccines.

So we agree then that there is no statistical basis for the belief that vaccines prevent mass mortality in the U.S.?

I am not interested in your opinion as to what is and is not negligible.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I am not interested in your opinion as to what is and is not negligible.

The feeling is mutual.

[Pants-of-dog]

The feeling is mutual.

Then it is a good thing I did not put forth my opinion.

Instead, I put forth evidence showing that lack of vaccinations has led to deaths in the USA.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Instead, I put forth evidence showing that lack of vaccinations has led to deaths in the USA.

And I have put forth statistical evidence that mass mortality was not solved by vaccination and thus that deaths caused by a lack of vaccination are statistically negligible. Thus, the risk is lower of death than a whole host of activities that parents are permitted to decide for their children, like riding bikes etc.

You have no addressed the evidence I provided and thus have failed to give good reason to eliminate parental rights which are established legal precedent in the United States. Hence, my argument stands.

If you deny that there should be parental rights at all, perhaps we can debate your system v.s. my Ancapism. Eh?

[Pants-of-dog]

And I have put forth statistical evidence that mass mortality was not solved by vaccination and thus that deaths caused by a lack of vaccination are statistically negligible. Thus, the risk is lower of death than a whole host of activities that parents are permitted to decide for their children, like riding bikes etc.

You have no addressed the evidence I provided and thus have failed to give good reason to eliminate parental rights which are established legal precedent in the United States. Hence, my argument stands.

If you deny that there should be parental rights at all, perhaps we can debate your system v.s. my Ancapism. Eh?

You copied and pasted some charts from who knows where.

I posted evidence and alink to an actual study that shows how they got their numbers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You copied and pasted some charts from who knows where.

My wife originally posted the charts with links If I remember correctly.

So this is false.

[Pants-of-dog]

My wife originally posted the charts with links If I remember correctly.

So this is false.

Well you said you did it, so I took you at your word.

It does not matter who posted the random charts with no links or explanation of methodology.

The lack of methodology and link is still the issue.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Here we go.

You are the only one saying you won't consider the charts at all. My other opponents were not so asinine and childish.

If you want to end the debate there that is fine by me, i'm not playing sea-lion games with you again because you want to make everything discussed thus far for 18 pages into fake news.

[Pants-of-dog]

Here we go.

You are the only one saying you won't consider the charts at all. My other opponents were not so asinine and childish.

If you want to end the debate there that is fine by me, i'm not playing sea-lion games with you again because you want to make everything discussed thus far for 18 pages into fake news.

As long as we agree that there is no way to verify those charts and they could be made up by anti-vaxxers.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As long as we agree that there is no way to verify those charts and they could be made up by anti-vaxxers.

WE do not agree as my wife did provide some links and the data in the charts can be searched in public record.

We can agree that you are the only one screaming fake news consistent with your sea-lioning. Am I right?

[Pants-of-dog]

WE do not agree as my wife did provide some links and the data in the charts can be searched in public record.

We can agree that you are the only one screaming fake news consistent with your sea-lioning. Am I right?

Where are the links?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Where are the links?

I misstated, the charts themselves reference their data-points sources. Which is sufficient.

Also, if they originated from an anti-vaxx website is techincally irrelevant, claiming otherwise is a fallacy; Poisoning the Well. Same accusation could be levied the other way, note how I have refused to do this with any data presented by my opponents because I actually know how to debate.

[Pants-of-dog]

I misstated, the charts themselves reference their data-points sources. Which is sufficient.

There is no mention of sources here.

Also, if they originated from an anti-vaxx website is techincally irrelevant, claiming otherwise is a fallacy; Poisoning the Well. Same accusation could be levied the other way, note how I have refused to do this with any data presented by my opponents because I actually know how to debate.

...and because I presented evidence where you could actually look at the sources and theoretically verify the results by redoing the exact same studies etc.

Please note that I never said the charts were wrong because they were made up by anti-vaxxers. I pointed out that there is no way of verifying if they are wrong.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There is no mention of sources here.

That chart is merely a combination of two others charts that are sourced with a projection line added based on the data already presented.

Obviously.

Please note that I never said the charts were wrong because they were made up by anti-vaxxers. I pointed out that there is no way of verifying if they are wrong.

Then why bring up that they could have come from anti-vaxxers?

[Pants-of-dog]

That chart is merely a combination of two others charts that are sourced with a projection line added based on the data already presented.

Obviously.

Please present those sources. Thank you.

Then why bring up that they could have come from anti-vaxxers?

Because they are the ones with the appropriate motive and bias to do so. This is kind of beside the point, though.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please present those sources. Thank you.

Because they are the ones with the appropriate motive and bias to do so.

That would be poisoning the well, yes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Calling someone a sea-lion and refusing to provide evidence becuase of that would also be a type of poisoning the well.

If you have no sources, let us look at the chart.

I imagine that the dramatic drop in cases and deaths was when the vaccine was introduced.

Also, please note that after this dramatic drop, the two lines follow each other, which implies that a the number of deaths is related to the number of cases, and so a reduction in cases (due to vaccinations) would resylt in a similar reduction of deaths.

[Victoribus Spolia]

let us look at the chart.

I imagine that the dramatic drop in cases and deaths was when the vaccine was introduced.

Also, please note that after this dramatic drop, the two lines follow each other, which implies that a the number of deaths is related to the number of cases, and so a reduction in cases (due to vaccinations) would resylt in a similar reduction of deaths.

Actually, the chart shows a dramatic drop over the course of a century without vaccine introduction. Note where the chart shows the vaccine's introduction at the very end where the projection line already touches on the terminus of zero mortality. Hence, the end of mortality by these diseases was not correlated to the vaccine's introduction and would have reached the point of near zero mortality had the vaccine never been introduced. This is true for almost ALL of the diseases under discussion.

Nothing you just said made any sense and you are the only one denying this part, even BJ and PC did not question that mortality rates for these diseases dropped to almost nothing independent of the vaccines.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, the chart shows a dramatic drop over the course of a century without vaccine introduction.

No, it shows a steadily decreasing rate of deaths and a steady number of cases, and then it shows a dramatic drop at whatever date is under the title of the chart.

Without being able to read the dates or look at methodology, we can only assume something happened to dramatically change the number of cases. The most rational explanation is the introduction of the vaccine.

Note where the chart shows the vaccine's introduction at the very end where the projection line already touches on the terminus of zero mortality. Hence, the end of mortality by these diseases was not correlated to the vaccine's introduction and would have reached the point of near zero mortality had the vaccine never been introduced. This is true for almost ALL of the diseases under discussion.

The chart does not show when the measles vaccine was introduced. By the way, that was 1963, which is also the point on the chart where the number of cases drips dramatically.

The point where the projection line already touches on the terminus of zero mortality is 2010, not when the vaccine was introduced.

Here is a clearer version of the same graph:
https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpre ... 1-75_1.jpg

Hence, the end of mortality by these diseases was caused by the vaccine's introduction (as well as other causes) and would never have reached the point of near zero mortality had the vaccine never been introduced.

Nothing you just said made any sense and you are the only one denying this part, even BJ and PC did not question that mortality rates for these diseases dropped to almost nothing independent of the vaccines.

I am not denying that things like cleanliness, frequent doctor visits, etc, dramatically reduced deaths from measles. I am pointing out that the charts are unsourced and cannot be verified.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Without being able to read the dates or look at methodology, we can only assume something happened to dramatically change the number of cases. The most rational explanation is the introduction of the vaccine.

The dates are on the other charts and I conceded to PC and BJ earlier that the vaccines helped to drop the cases (I never denied this, I only ever made claims about the mortality rate). However, in regards to mortality, all the charts agree.

I am pointing out that the charts are unsourced and cannot be verified.

This is false, the sources are mentioned on most the charts and they all agree anyway.

Here is the combined chart, with all the dates, most of the diseases in question, and the source data given on the chart. Results are the same.




They follow the same projection towards zero deaths irrespective of the vaccine's introduction. Had the vaccine never been introduced, there is no reason to believe that our rates of mortality for the diseases would be much different than they are RIGHT NOW.

Also note that several of these diseases, which follow the same projection trend in decline, never had a vaccine introduced for them.