Rand Paul thinks vaccines cause mental illness

[BaalChatzaf]

Rand Paul thinks vaccines cause mental illness, and people should not have to have their kids vaccinated.

The man is a blooming idiot and I would not vote for him for the office of dog catcher.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/02/rand-paul-child-vaccinations_n_6599560.html

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

You need to watch the whole video. Rand Paul did not say that vaccines cause mental illness in all cases--or even in most cases. He repeatedly emphasized that vaccines should be voluntary. It is the same position Chris Christie has taken.

And, for the record, I am not a Rand Paul supporter.

[BaalChatzaf]

You need to watch the whole video. Rand Paul did not say that vaccines cause mental illness in all cases--or even in most cases. He repeatedly emphasized that vaccines should be voluntary. It is the same position Chris Christie has taken.

And, for the record, I am not a Rand Paul supporter.

An if a person is not immunized against a deadly contagious disease should he be allowed to walk free among people possible spreading the disease. Think of Typhoid Mary.

When it comes to deadly and contagious diseases I would insist on immunizations.

By the way, there is not a scrap of clinical evidence that any currently used vaccine that has passed all the tests "causes" any neurological diseases. Not an iota of evidence. Would a responsible parent risk his kid getting measles. It is not so bad when caught young, but in the adolescent years measles can leave a person deaf or blind. Similarly mumps can leave a person sterile. And measles in the later years can produce shingles which is a very painful and for an old person a life threatening disease.

Rand Paul is a fool.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

If there's no link, tell it to the federal officials who said there was a link in one case between receiving a vaccine and autism symptoms.

Do you own property? Then put up a barrier that forbids unvaccinated humans from entering. But neither you nor Obama has any business telling me what chemicals must be injected into my child's bloodstream.

[Brant Gaede]

It's chickenpox, not measles, that later in life can cause shingles.

--Brant

[jts]

Every vaccine is supposed to have an insert. Read all the inserts here:

http://www.immunize.org/packageinserts/

Maybe we can do some math if we can get some numbers.

What is the probability that you get the disease if you don't take the vaccine? Maybe one out of a million. If you do get the disease without the vaccine, what is the probability that it is serious? (The h1n1 virus was so mild that most people who got it didn't know they were sick.)

By their own statements, the vaccine is not 100% effective, so we should ask what is the probability that you get the disease if you do take the vaccine, and what is the probability that it is serious? (Maybe if you get the disease with the vaccine, you get it worse than if you get the disease without the vaccine. I would expect disease plus poison to be worse than disease without poison.)

Putting these numbers together, the benefit of the vaccine is what? Maybe there is one chance out of something like a million that the vaccine will benefit you, meaning that it will prevent a serious version of the disease.

Against that we should consider the negatives listed in the insert. Most inserts have a whole shitload of negatives. Don't blame me; I didn't write those inserts. Some of the negatives are major serious. What is the probability of at least one serious negative happening as a consequence of taking the vaccine? I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than one chance out of a million.

You might want to weigh the positives and the negatives.

But maybe there is a better idea. Maybe to hell with weighing the positives and the negatives. There is all this research in the news about vitamin D and other nutrients working wonders for the immune system and disease prevention.

[BaalChatzaf]

Every vaccine is supposed to have an insert. Read all the inserts here:

http://www.immunize.org/packageinserts/

Maybe we can do some math if we can get some numbers.

What is the probability that you get the disease if you don't take the vaccine? Maybe one out of a million. If you do get the disease without the vaccine, what is the probability that it is serious? (The h1n1 virus was so mild that most people who got it didn't know they were sick.)

By their own statements, the vaccine is not 100% effective, so we should ask what is the probability that you get the disease if you do take the vaccine, and what is the probability that it is serious? (Maybe if you get the disease with the vaccine, you get it worse than if you get the disease without the vaccine. I would expect disease plus poison to be worse than disease without poison.)

Putting these numbers together, the benefit of the vaccine is what? Maybe there is one chance out of something like a million that the vaccine will benefit you, meaning that it will prevent a serious version of the disease.

Against that we should consider the negatives listed in the insert. Most inserts have a whole shitload of negatives. Don't blame me; I didn't write those inserts. Some of the negatives are major serious. What is the probability of at least one serious negative happening as a consequence of taking the vaccine? I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than one chance out of a million.

You might want to weigh the positives and the negatives.

But maybe there is a better idea. Maybe to hell with weighing the positives and the negatives. There is all this research in the news about vitamin D and other nutrients working wonders for the immune system and disease prevention.

I do weight the positives and the negatives. That is why I and my children are vaccinated. Each and every. None of us have gone bonkers by the way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Vaccinated with what and when and how old?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Vaccinated with what and when and how old?

Brant,

That's the question.

Left unchecked, the pharmaceutical industry was pushing to have newborns inundated with vaccines--before their immunological system had a chance to develop properly. Now it's not so bad.

I think there is a lot of bigoted kind of thinking about this issue and not so much common sense.

In other words, if you want some caution in what and when to vaccinate your kids, you are a monster. If you support the system's way of vaccines, you are a monster to other folks.

And that makes me think there are a lot of hidden agendas in this thing.

Michael

[jts]

I do weight the positives and the negatives. That is why I and my children are vaccinated. Each and every. None of us have gone bonkers by the way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So far as I know there is no symptom or poisonous reaction in any of the inserts or any brain disorder called 'bonkers'.

And that would be merely anecdotal evidence anyway.

Why is it that anecdotal evidence from your own life counts as evidence but anecdotal evidence in general does not count? Double standard maybe?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a theory about why this is such a hot-button issue.

Every parent's nightmare is to harm their kids, either directly or through negligence.

When it comes to vaccines, it's a red button vs. blue button thing. Once a parent pushes one of the buttons, a deep-level sense of commitment kicks in. It would be too painful to admit the possibility of doing serious harm to the child with a bad choice.

Parents who do the establishment's accepted vaccine schedule and whose kids are all right are totally convinced they did the right thing. 100%. Anyone who says there was a risk is crazy. Bonkers. Cuckoo. Tin foil hat batshit conspiracy-theory nuts. And don't come with that crap about parents should have a choice. That's just a subterfuge to hide evil, so let's call it like it is. Evil ignorance.

One the other hand, parents who have autistic kids, once they authorized the vaccines and saw how their kids turned out, are totally suspicious. Resentful. Pissed and scared. After all, vaccines and symptoms of autism occur around the same time. And now they have to live with this defective kid day in and day out as a cruel and painful reminder they might have gotten it wrong.

It's not like the pharmaceutical industry has been forthcoming over the years. There's a credibility problem. While pharmaceuticals have greatly enhanced human life, this industry has handled its own mistakes and abuses in a sleazy manner time after time. That's one of the reason for all the lawsuits.

And vaccines bring in big bucks. Oodles. Don't forget, the pharmaceutical industry is in bed with the government in a practically enforced monopoly (or better, cartel). This isn't capitalism. It's crony capitalism.

What could possibly go wrong with that arrangement?

Here's a logical problem for those who claim science has proven beyond a shred of doubt that autism is not caused by vaccines.

Science says it doesn't have a clue about what causes autism.

Then claims it is 100% certain vaccines don't cause it.

Does anyone see a problem with that logic?

I do.

Does science have a clue about causes or not? You can't have it both ways.

Truth time. Vaccines are a boon to mankind. That's true. Autism has a series of causes. That's true, too, and it might or might not have input from specific factors associated with specific vaccines administered within specific time frames to babies who have specific metabolic and genetic characteristics.

But the kind of story big pharma is pushing--and so many quick-to-condemn "experts" who have not read a single study are following like cattle--is garbage. Ditto for the conspiracy theory fringe.

The people in the middle don't want to peddle garbage, though. I don't believe that for a minute. They are scared and acting stupidly. That's all. So they have to wake up and use their own brains. Fear is not a tool of conceptual cognition.

A child's health is very serious for a parent.

Think about it. There is no rational reason to turn off one's brain and let others do one's thinking, then crusade about it, especially when turning over one's brain to big pharma or conspiracy theorists.

I know how worried people are about protecting their kids. The truth is both sides are worried and neither side is interested in damaging or killing off the babies of others. It's stupid to even think that. Yet that is the subtext underlying most all of the screaming.

So my advice is to look at the information. First hand. As much as you can. All sides. Think it through. Yeah, it's a slog, it's boring, but your kids deserve that effort. At least you will give it your best informed shot. That's far better than risking a horrible mistake just to justify the storytelling of others.

When people are lined up in two mobs screaming at each other and you have to decide on the issue, common sense is far better than zealotry.

Your own eyes are far better than the eyes of any screaming mob.

I say use them.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Are parents given a list of vaccines and the dosage schedule for their soon to be born baby?

Just how many are there and which are bundled together?

Are babies and children being vaccinated for unlikely things that if manifested in a person are trivial?

Remember the incessant signs up last fall about get your flu shot? Remember the follow up in which it was revealed they were next to worthless?

Now we are getting all kinds of twirps, usually female, on TV and in print dumping on anyone not rushing out to get their babies and children stuck with as many vaccines as possible. The message is parents have no choice. If it's not child abuse it's a matter of public health.

Rand Paul gets castigated for bringing up "freedom" and arguing with an offensively loud-mouthed CNBC interviewer. It was a tactical mistake on his part, but he would have revealed himself sooner or later as not up to being a nominated presidential candidate, for one of those never argues with a loud-mouthed twirp of an interviewer, especially if female. He's finished for that. It was typical doctor condescension albeit with a view contrary to a typical doctor. His opponents will just replay that again and again offending female voters.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I have a theory about why this is such a hot-button issue.

Every parent's nightmare is to harm their kids, either directly or through negligence.

When it comes to vaccines, it's a red button vs. blue button thing. Once a parent pushes one of the buttons, a deep-level sense of commitment kicks in. It would be too painful to admit the possibility of doing serious harm to the child with a bad choice.

With vaccines there is always a risk. The question is which risk is greater? Using the vaccine or not using the vaccine?

[william.scherk]

I have a theory about why this is such a hot-button issue.

Every parent's nightmare is to harm their kids, either directly or through negligence.

I think this is a key issue about which the controversies circle.

I also think this nightmarish scenario of causing harm is also front and centre in the minds of the medical professionals who have newborns, infants and children in their practice. What kind of doctor would want to cause harm to a child in his care? What kind of medical practice does not have 'primum non nocere' uppermost as a standard?

(I can't speak as a parent or medical professional, but can empathize with both parties when the subject of vaccinations is introduced.)

Here's a logical problem for those who claim science has proven beyond a shred of doubt that autism is not caused by vaccines.

Science says it doesn't have a clue about what causes autism.

Then claims it is 100% certain vaccines don't cause it.

Does anyone see a problem with that logic?

I do.

Does science have a clue about causes or not? You can't have it both ways.

This is a tricky kind of epistemological problem or puzzle. We have to unpack each element and examine it separately -- then put it back together.

On the first, "Science says it doesn't have a clue about what causes autism," this is more or less correct. No simple genetic, environmental, epigenetic, or other factor has been scientifically shown to cause autism.

To say 'science' doesn't have any clue at all is wrong to my mind, though. I'd say that 'science' has a few clues, but none of the clues have yet led to nailing the culprit or culprits. (personally, I think the most important or likely to be fruitful clues concern heredity-genetics. In general terms, autism spectrum disorders can 'cluster' in families. In twins, in close relatives. The clue set for one kind of research into the genetics of autism is just this clustering. Another set of clues cluster around brain development. At a certain point in time, autistic brains diverge from neurotypical. Another clue to a brain-basis of autism is the utility of signs or markers that point to later autism in a very young infant. According to a fairly recent study in Nature, though autism is usually not diagnosed before age 2, particular eye-gaze behaviour is an accurate predictor of later-diagnosed autism. Another set of clues emerges from findings that 'early-detected autism' in infants can be successfuly countered with a kind of 'brain-therapy' called Infant Start)

This is not even a fair review, just an indication that research has borne some fruit, has at hand many 'clues' though no solid theory of etiology. So, though you are quite correct that 'science' qua Science has no strong work that says "Here are the causes of autism" -- there is good work pursuing solutions to that puzzle and at least some promising early interventions.

It's only in this sense, then, that I would give full faith and credit to the thousands of researchers past and present. I think they very much want to solve the puzzles, and through the messy, self-correcting process of our dream sciences, they give us credible results of useful inquiries.

But to the other puzzler you posed, Michael. You contrast the 'no clue to autism causation' science of the day -- a state of uncertainty -- to the science of the day that claims "it is 100% certain vaccines don't cause it."

First, in the context of autism-causation, I look at what was hypothesized back in the day (Thimerosal, MMR) to be the cause of autism. Not a generic vaccine, but particular agents. Is there a correlation between thimerosal in vaccines, and is there a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism?

Large-scale epidemiological study has not found the hypothesized correlation. Not only with MMR and Thimerosal, but also with generic vaccines.

What would we, common-sense realists, expect to find in the records of vaccinated (and unvaccinated) infants as they grew? Which and in what numbers did vaccinated and unvaccinated become autistic?

Then from the other angle. Of the autistic, what number were vaccinated (compared to rates in a control non-autistic cohort)?

One step above, what are the differences between the several contrasting groups?

-- my take on what the science qua 'science' says is that there is no consistent pattern in the data that links vaccination to increased incidence of autism. Each test as above has not returned results consistent with the hypothesis. No robust correlations found, no causation ensues.

So, you are right on the 'no clue' to cause, and you are right on the science claim of 'these (vaccines, MMR, Thimerosal) do not cause autism."

But are they, once we dig into the details, utterly contradictory? Can we not rule out a few things along the way to identifying causes of autism? Isn't that a normal, rational process?

By way of slightly creaky analogy, an accident, an incident, a poisoning. Detectives may for a time have 'no solid clue' about which poison was in play, but forensic science can determine that poisons X, Y and Z were not the culprit (all leave traces).

Truth time. Vaccines are a boon to mankind. That's true. Autism has a series of causes. That's true, too, and it might or might not have input from specific factors associated with specific vaccines administered within specific time frames to babies who have specific metabolic and genetic characteristics.

This is the very useful multi-factorial approach. We have to look for the patterns in the populations, to tease out a signal from the statistics -- looking for clear indications in the combined data that 'x + t between k and l' is a marker for autism. That's what is done in data analysis.

Less awkwardly, there is a research question embedded in your might-or-might-not phrase. One can actually interrogate the data. Something like: "We test several hypotheses. Is there a relationship of between standard/delayed vaccination schedules and autism? Is there a relation between metabolic disorder/vaccination schedule/autism? Is there a relation between genetic (family) autism risk/vaccination schedule/subsequent autism?" And so on.

I don't go too far into the woods of Autism research (meaning I have only read a couple dozen papers all told, and only skimmed hundreds over the years). But so far I think we can set some once-plausible but since-refuted hypotheses aside. Good people have tried to falsify the simplistic vaccination increases risk of autism hypothesis. Their results are in, and they are compelling.

Nobody should take my word for it. Dig into the literature at your own level, starting with the best, most recent review articles.

So my advice is to look at the information. First hand. As much as you can. All sides. Think it through. Yeah, it's a slog, it's boring, but your kids deserve that effort. At least you will give it your best informed shot. That's far better than risking a horrible mistake just to justify the storytelling of others.

Broadcast and internet news and commentary lurches from outrage to outrage, not laways spreading rationally-derived information.

Maybe there is a built-in Objectivish skepticism for Big, Organized, Publicly Funded, Quasi-governmental, Authoritative State Utterances. Allied to that, a sharp-eyed objective look at scientific evidence for and against a vaccine-autism link, we are likely to get at the truth.

My journey resulted in me dismissing the vaccine-causative theory. It also led me to exciting research in early detection and intervention. What a gift it would be to parents to be able to detect and derail autism in the first year of life.

If autism can be detected in the first months of life (before most scheduled vaccination), and it can in some cases be ameliorated, then everyone wins.

What makes this story war hot is as Michael posited; the risk and fear of harm to one's precious charges. I suggest that the continuing heat (besides the present flap over measles) is present because fear is easy to spread, but more difficult to calm. Some vaccine/anti-vaccine fanatics are fearmongers. They benefit from alarm, doubt, uncertainty, heightened perceptions of risk and danger. Some are also quacks with nostrums to sell in place of medicine. Some are themselves infected with a meta-fear of Big Brother or Big Something Awful. Some are infected with variants of Scientism.

There is no better place to start sorting out the emotion and bullshit and dispelling alarm than a hard-eyed Objectivish review of evidence, according to the most exactlng rational standards.

Edited February 4, 2015 by william.scherk

[Mikee]

Well, this should straighten all of this out for everyone:

What anti-vax parents get wrong about personal liberty

"Unfortunately, this trivialization of liberty is not just an isolated phenomenon but a mushrooming national problem."

Kind of like climate change.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Well, this should straighten all of this out for everyone:

What anti-vax parents get wrong about personal liberty

"Unfortunately, this trivialization of liberty is not just an isolated phenomenon but a mushrooming national problem."

Kind of like climate change.

From the link:

Unfortunately, this trivialization of liberty is not just an isolated phenomenon but a mushrooming national problem. In the most recently completed session of Congress, legislators introduced more than 20 bills invoking “liberty” and more than 150 in the cause of “freedom,” including such gems as the Internet Poker Freedom Act, the Letting Insurance Benefit Everyone Regardless of Their Youth (LIBERTY — get it?) Act, and the Television Consumer Freedom Act. Marketers tell us that smoking, drinking, eating potato chips and watching Netflix are vital expressions of our personal freedom. And of course we want government off our backs, except when it sends out Social Security checks, builds highways or kills terrorists.

In other words, if you claim the right to gamble (spending your own money in a game of chance), you are "trivializing" liberty.

Nope. If it's your money, then how you spend it is strictly your business. So are "smoking, drinking, eating potato chips."

The trivializing here is being done by Mr. Newman, who thinks that individual preferences are not terribly important and that certain decisions in life should be left to busybodies like him.

[BaalChatzaf]

When an autistic person doesn't get the vaccine and persons getting the vaccine do not become autistic we can conclude that the vaccine has nothing to do with the autism, whether we know what causes autism or not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When a person dies in a car accident and had the airbag deployed, but there are others who have airbags deployed who don't die, we have to conclude that airbags have nothing to do with staying alive in car accidents, whether we know what causes death or not.

(A lousy logic system is great fun. )

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

I must say that MSK has brought a great deal of clear thinking to this emotionally charged issue.

[dldelancey]

MSK, you included some generalizations that surprised me, coming from you. Not all parents "who do the establishment's accepted vaccine schedule... are totally convinced they did the right thing." I and many of my mom friends understand that there are things we may not know and that there's a possibility science may prove differently in the future. However, we also understand that we make the best choices we can make with the best information we have available at the time. On the other hand, I have two friends who also followed "the establishment's accepted vaccine schedule" and have autistic children. Neither of them believes that vaccines caused their children's autism.

Perhaps you were referring specifically to the parents who are activists on this topic, and not to parents in the general population.

Brant, yes, parents are given immunization schedules and education. None are given without the consent of at least one parent. You can google "[insert your state name here] immunization schedule" to find the relevant details. Immunizations cover things like polio, measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis A and B, and others.

Edited to add: I'm not sure Hep A is common outside of areas that have high immigrant populations.

[BaalChatzaf]

When a person dies in a car accident and had the airbag deployed, but there are others who have airbags deployed who don't die, we have to conclude that airbags have nothing to do with staying alive in car accidents, whether we know what causes death or not.

(A lousy logic system is great fun. )

Michael

A does not imply B nor does B imply A. It happens all the time. There are propositions which are logically independent of each other. There are events which in either order do not imply causality.

[jts]

Here is a whole shitload of info about antivax kids vs vax kids. It has many links about studies, pictures, diagrams. A whole shitload. It says kids who did not get poison injected into them are on average healthier than kids who got poison injected into them. Who woulda thunk that?

Here is an even bigger shitload of antivax propaganda. There are enough links here to keep you out of mischief for a long time. On my monitor about 48 pages of links.

Warning!

The whale.to website is anti-establishment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Deanna,

I was talking in general terms and about a general feeling that allows propaganda to proliferate in such a vicious dichotomized manner. Of course I don't mean everyone at all times under all contexts.

btw - My stepson is on the autistic spectrum. So I have lived with a lot of heated moralizing by people from both fringes (and from good people who believe in them). They think the experiences Kat and I have had (but mostly Kat) are not valid when compared to their opinions. When the screaming starts, I lower my head and try to ignore them. Kat, too.

I think a lot of suspicion against the vaccine industry would be abated if patients who are victims of vaccine damage someday become allowed to sue the manufacturers without such heavy-handed big-brother protection. But they are not.

The government, in its eternal wisdom, decided that vaccine manufacturers should bear no legal liability to vaccine takers. Technically, I suppose it's possible, but you should see the convoluted process a person has to go through according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). You have to first file a claim in a Claims Court and this goes to a special government board. That board will decide whether your claim is valid or not (the majority of cases are summarily thrown out). If they deem it does have validity, they offer some money (paid by the government, not the manufacturers) according to a preset table. If the claimant rejects the compensation, then and only then may such person file a civil suit. This process takes friggin' forever and the legal costs are very expensive. Prohibitive for most people.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other area where manufacturers are exempt from legal liability to the users of their products, or, to be more precise, where it is mandatory for a large government bureaucracy to try a case through a board of technocrats before the claimant can have the right to file a motion in a court proper.

Here's what the government owns up to: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Data & Statistics.

Just imagine, even though the government has rejected most claims and is a tough adversary to beat in its own rigged process, it has still paid out over $2.8 billion in compensation awards for vaccine injury. (And, of course, there will be no corruption involved anywhere in this process because the people in government would not dare engage in corruption, right? )

Yes, the government has paid out big bucks because vaccines have damaged folks.

So here's a question to ponder. Why so much money if the risks are negligible? After all, this large sum is supposed to compensate people who got seriously injured and messed up through vaccines. Imagine what that money would be if the government had not assumed liability in the place of the manufacturers and did not run interference by setting up its own sui generis substitute legal system.

All in all, I am for vaccines, but this is something to look at when looking at a vaccine schedule, not sweep under the rug. Once you push the red button or blue button, you can't unpush it. And getting a remedy if things go wrong is so difficult it is near impossible for average folks without a sponsor.

Like I said, caution based on common sense you process with your own brain is far better than turning off your brain, blindly following a storyline coming from big brother or the tin-foil hat people, and crusading about it.

If you don't believe people do this, I can point you to oodles of places on the Internet where that is all they do. Lots of them, too. Both sides.

Michael

[dldelancey]

I understand your situation, Michael. You've written about it before. Your experience is "a lot of heated moralizing." My experience is a lot of parents accepting the fact that we do the best we can and sympathizing with each other's struggles. I'm simply pointing out that the topic can be discussed without any screaming to hide from. Not everybody has a story war over it. If I could wish that experience for you and Kat, I would.

[william.scherk]

Michael and Bob each posted brief, seemingly parallel comments):

When an autistic person doesn't get the vaccine and persons getting the vaccine do not become autistic we can conclude that the vaccine has nothing to do with the autism, whether we know what causes autism or not.

Two statements:

- some people become autistic without having been vaccinated.
- some people do not become autistic even though they have been vaccinated.

I don't think there is anyone here (except JTS) who would not accept these statements as generally true. But what does it mean in terms of conclusions?

Some people become autistic, some do not. Can vaccination status then predict autism?

When a person dies in a car accident and had the airbag deployed, but there are others who have airbags deployed who don't die, we have to conclude that airbags have nothing to do with staying alive in car accidents, whether we know what causes death or not.

This is a bit tricky, for the parallels to Bob's statements are not consistent.


I'll try to compare the parallels in Bob and Michael's factors:

Vaccination == supposed preventive of disease == airbag protection
[Car Accident == acknowledged factor in injuries == mode of injury]
Autism == bivalent (one side of two sides) == Death
Non-Autism == covalent of Death == Life (survival of injury)
Non-vaccination == absence of protection == no airbag protection

Bob's revised statements, including Michael's mirror terms:

When a person dead in a car accident did not get airbag protection but persons getting the airbag protection in a car accident do not become dead, we can conclude that the airbag protection had nothing to do with the death by accident, whether we know what caused the death or not.

Seems crazily wrong, doesn't it? if ...


... Dead people did not get airbag protection ... and ...
... Non-dead people did get airbag protection ...

... then how can we conclude the airbag had nothing to do with the death?

The reason this doesn't make sense is because of an added entity or injury-producer smuggled in and grafted to the parallels -- the car accident -- an entity which we know can lead to death. To make a proper parallel with Bob's statements we would need for him to have added an equivalent term for the 'mode of injury' ... but he did not.

Another thing to bear in mind is that a causal claim is what is being made and tested logically. We could argue that The Airbag Did Not Cause the Accident. And we would be right.

Now try to rephrase Michael's statement, leaving out the smuggled in accident:

When an autistic person ( in a car accident) had his infant vaccinations, but there are other persons who have had infant vaccinations and don't become autistic, we have to conclude that vaccinations have nothing to do with being autistic in car accidents, whether we know what causes autism or not. We don't know what caused the accident.

To my eyes, that now makes sense. Adding a confounding variable is what has made Michael's parallelism seem nutty and wrong.

What makes it so tricky is that we already know or accept as true by and large that car accidents do cause deaths, we know airbags reduce deaths in car accidents, and we do also know that vaccines reduce disease prevalence.

If vaccinations are the corollary to airbag deployment, and airbag deployment reduces death by accident, what is the Car Accident? I'd say it is the disease impact. And since Bob did not introduce any notion of disease impact, the addition of the parallel is illicit logically as given by Michael.

One more try to make the distinctive illogic apparent. Paralleling the statements:

When an autistic person doesn't get the vaccine

When a person dies in a car accident and had the airbag deployed

and persons getting the vaccine do not become autistic

but there are others who have airbags deployed who don't die,

we can conclude that the vaccine has nothing to do with the autism

we have to conclude that airbags have nothing to do with staying alive in car accidents

whether we know what causes autism or not.

whether we know what causes death or not.

Looked at closely, we see these are not actually parallel. Michael's statements, if they closely mirrored Bob's, would look like this:

When a person dies in an auto accident and DID NOT have the airbag deployed,

AND persons who had the airbag deployed did not die in similar accidents,

we have to conclude that ... the airbag has nothing to do with/DID NOT CAUSE the death,

no matter whether we know the actual detailed causes of the death or not.

Thanks to Michael for setting such a puzzler. This is my third try at elucidating the tricky logical entailments...

Edited February 5, 2015 by william.scherk