You are arguing from ignorance. As I said, Gregory Poland has attributed the increase in the rate of deaths per reported measles cases to "the increased incidence of measles infection in infants and adults relative to children older than 1 year of age." https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420160048006 …https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1167191077146677248 …
-
-
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
That's a paper arguing for two doses of the measles vaccine to prevent outbreaks. You're cherry picking some quotes from research that completely contradicts your position
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
The fact Poland advocated the two-dose regimen is completely irrelevant to the point for which I quoted him.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
No, in fact it's rather central. Cherry-picking a single sentence out of a 94 paper only makes sense if you are somehow uninterested in the literature as a whole, or trying to deceptively undermine any argument with non sequiturs
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jeremyrhammond
For example, I could pick out the phrase "measles vaccine is highly effective" from the same paper and it would completely ignore the main point, which is that a single dose was not entirely preventative and that the strategy needed to be changed in 94
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Yes, you are correct that if you were to do that, it would be cherry-picking, in contrast to my having pointed out the still relevant fact that Poland attributed the increased deaths-per-reported-cases ratio to the shifted risk burden caused by mass vaccination.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jeremyrhammond
Mate, we're all hypocrites, but that's more ridiculous than most. If you're going to use a paper as evidence, you have to at least use the PAPER, not just a single phrase. And I'd recommend keeping up to date with recent evidence if you want the slightest shred of legitimacy
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jeremyrhammond
To be fair, any deaths-to-cases ratio increase is tiny, and the vast reduction in cases speaks for itself anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point anyway
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Just to clarify: what I mean by this is that an increase from 0.1% death rate to 0.5% death rate per case is totally meaningless in the context of the number of cases decreasing from millions per year to <100 per year
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.