Re: _Public Health at the Crossroads_ Redux (was Re: Awful ??consequences of anti-vax activity)

On Apr 7, 12:57 am, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In article <477ca0ea-1763-43a8-8949-d95c400ab...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PeterB <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

: How does the word "propelled" in any way suggests that McKeown
: believed these things were *NOT* responsible for huge declines in
: disease-related mortality during the 20th century?  

We can stop right there.  According to _Public Health at the Crossroads_,
McKeown was talking about *total* mortality rates, not just disease-related
mortality rates.  

You are an even bigger liar and idiot than I originally thought. A
book written about _Public Health_ citing McKeown precisely because
his thesis pertains to disease-related mortality is now suspect
because you say its refers to deaths from people falling off ladders,
train wreck, and war? I can see why you spend most of your life
posting to a newsgroup, but the question is, are your sponsors getting
their money's worth?

Until you can find me a quote from McKeown's original
study that explicitly states that his thesis is restricted to disease-
related mortality, we'll just have to assume that you are either
lying about the content of the passage in _Public Health at the Crossroads_,
that you have failed to read the passage in question (the section starts
on the previous page), or that you failed to understand what you read.

I haven't failed to detect the bull*** in your logical fallacies.

:> Could you please give me the message-ID of the post in which your
:> "revised comment" appears?  It is possible that I never read the post,
:> since I frequently do not read posts that have large blocks of quoted
:> text prior to the first comment by the poster.

: Message-ID: <912e7cd6-2e8a-4770-b24b-
: da5fccbc4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:
:> That doesn't explain why you lied about where the sentence I quoted was
:> located, or why you continue to lie about the content of the sentence
:> that you quoted.
:
: Since the location of the sentence does not change its meaning, the
: original comment was not a lie but a simple error, as my revised post
: (which you ignored) makes clear.

That's not the message-ID of the "revised" post -- it's a message in which
you claim to have made a revised post.

Then use the link:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/bc328f95b7609e31?hl=en&;

 I would have thought that even
you could tell the difference.  What you say is untrue in any case --
since the sentence that I quoted follows the one that you did, the phrase
"major importance" can *only* be referring to the decline in mortality rates.

Bullsh*t. Since the preceding text makes it clear that medical
measures were too late to have more than a minor impact on death
rates, the "on the other hand" comment is an obvious reference to the
affect of these measures on overall disease incidence.

:> If the "medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases"
:> included *only* vaccination, as you are now claiming, why does the
:> VERY NEXT SENTENCE explicitly list vaccination as one of the important
:> causes in reducing the mortality rate?
:
: First, the quote refers to these various measures in aggregate and
: does not convey their impact to a decline in mortality, saying only
: that they were of major importance.  Since the preceding text makes it
: clear that medical measures had only a very minor impact on death
: rates, the "on the other hand" comment is an obvious reference to the
: affect of these measures on overall disease incidence.  The main
: reason I say that is because the authors are unable to quantify the
: impact of these measures on the aforementioned declines, so in no
: sense could they have been of "major importance" to historical rates
: of death.

"Major importance" TO WHAT?

So, you cannot respond intelligently. I had asked in what sense the
aggregate measures could have been of "major importance" since the
preceding text noted the very minor impact of medical measures on the
declining reates of death during the period Mckeown studied. The
answer is obvious: disease incidence. The fact you cannot grasp a
nuanced scientific discussion demonstrates why you are here promoting
vaccine, something you obviously know nothing about.

[more blather, including the parts where he failed to spell the
word "empirical" correctly followed by his accusing me of being
illiterate, deleted]

Since you like to delete portions of posts that you cannot respond to
intelligently, you should strive for consistency and just leave a
blank page.
.

Loading