RE: Leading neuroscientist: Fundamentalism may be a ‘mental illness’ that can be ‘cured’
June 1, 2013 at 2:22 am
(June 1, 2013 at 12:22 am)phil77 Wrote: What!! Love the way you shout EXPLAIN! like some 1940's grammar school teacher. Why for instance not judge the Roman invation of Britain with our current ethics ? I can't be bothered to go on but I will. You are the type of person that I assume atheisists to be. A total pedant picking over every one of my words to try to catch me out. I am sorry that you find my dislike of Monty Python offensive to you. Ironical that you think that world history should be measured in Judeao-Christian ethical terms. Go and watch 'Life of Brian' again for the 846th time (what did the Romans blah, blah, blah, peoples judea blah, blah the knights that go fucking nee!, this parrot! ) What a pedantic
Why not just clarify what you meant, so we don't all go off on an accidental tangent where you're forced to correct us and waste another hour of the conversation?
Quote:10 years ago in Britain many scientists said that the combined MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) innoculation was a cause of autism in babies. This scared parents who put their trust in doctors.and refused the vaccination. Subsequently in Britain today 2013 we have many children and teenagers with measles. Measles is potentially fatal. Why do you have so much faith in self serving scientists who can't always agree with each other? I know I gave just one example but I could go on.
What you actually gave was a great example of why science works, without the need for faith. I went back and did a little research; when you say "many scientists" you're not being entirely accurate. Actually, this entire controversy can be traced back to a single paper released in a journal called the Lancet, and hyped up by the media to project the image of substantial scientific backing for the idea that these vaccines cause autism, without there actually
being that evidence.
Meanwhile, the peer review process of the scientific apparatus was working, examining the actual evidence, and coming to the opposite conclusion; that the paper was fraudulent. Over time, it became clear that the results of the paper's initial experiment had been manipulated, that the paper's chief architect Andrew Wakefield had clear conflicts of interest, and that there was actually
no evidence to suggest the claims the paper made. How did we find that out? Well, through the self correcting mechanism of science; multiple independent studies were done following the initial claim with the intent to confirm or disprove the findings therein, and surprise surprise, when real science was done without bias or intentional dishonesty, it came to the real truth of the matter.
No faith required.
When you say that parents put their trust in doctors, that's not true either; scared parents put their trust in overblown sensationalist media reports and the growing anti-vaccine movement, neither of which had any basis in science. And in fact, the actual evidence shows that real doctors, actually working from the facts, would recommend the MMR vaccine; there was no sudden uptick in doctors disavowing vaccination, no matter how you try to characterize it.
You can read all about it
here. One wonders why you didn't before posting factually incorrect statements.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
