At this point, there is no _credible_ evidence I'm aware of that suggests vaccines cause autism. Hence, a doctor dismissing those claims is reasonable and expected. There is no claim here that non-experts necessarily have the same credibility as experts.
My statement was more in reference to e.g. the use by some experts of esoteric and potentially inaccurate models to silence critique by overwhelming non-experts with jargon. "I spent years developing this model, what do you know?"
> At this point, there is no _credible_ evidence I'm aware of that suggests vaccines cause autism.
This is true, but is the data upon which the statistics "proving" no causative relationship at all between vaccines and autism completely comprehensive and absolutely correct? I wonder how many people who consider themselves educated on the matter of vaccines have bothered to actually do any significant reading on the subject.
> Hence, a doctor dismissing those claims is reasonable and expected.
Reasonable and expected sure, but objectively correct is another thing.
Similarly, asserting that vaccines do cause autism is a very different thing than simply asking for evidence that they do not, ever, and wanting to know specific details on the source/methodology behind the evidence.
I do not consider myself educated on the matter of vaccines and am ill-equipped to defend any position on either side :) To your point, proving a negative such as "vaccines definitively do NOT cause autism, ever" with 100% certainty is nontrivial. I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence that they are causally linked to autism, which is usually the claim.
> I simply haven't seen any compelling evidence that they are causally linked to autism, which is usually the claim.
Nor have I, I am referring more so to the general public census (and accompanying confidence level), and a very careful and critical reading of the "facts" as presented by the medical "community".
Just as a fun mental experiment, imagine a purely hypothetical scenario where vaccination reaction data is not comprehensively collected, where the methodology behind the statistical reporting involves an element of personal judgement (and therefore to some degree inconsistent and subject to personal error), and the reporting guidelines are written in a way that there is a relatively high bar before an adverse reaction incident should be reported. In this hypothetical scenario, might it be possible that the statistics necessary to suggest a possible causative relationship literally do not exist?
Now, go do some reading on the details of the actual reality of the data and the methodology behind its compilation. Then compare that to what is written about it in literature, or how it is discussed.
Mistermann: “...asserting that vaccines do cause autism is a very different thing than simply asking for evidence that they do not, ever...”
Logically, this doesn’t seem true—100% causality or 100% non-causality. The very premise doesn’t seem “scientific”. Are you serious about this claim or laying the groundwork for a different punchline?
I don’t know—maybe you should write an article outlining your response? I’ll read it ;)
> Logically, this doesn’t seem true—100% causality or 100% non-causality.
Even sometimes satisfies "do cause autism". "do not, ever" (the popular story), means zero.
We're told vaccines do not cause autism is a fact. Does comprehensive "scientific" data exist to back this up, as we're told?
The punchline I guess is that everyone has a smug, rolling of the eyes demeanor towards anyone who questions the narrative, but these people haven't actually checked "the facts".
"...but these people haven't actually checked "the facts"."
It sounds like a hard line, but science is not like that. I don't think science leads to smugness. Science helps us make decisions, now. Ideology, on the otherhand, is quick to judgment, undermines, subverts, misleads, and is a general problem across all of society.
I knew a biologist who, believed their scientific findings, loved animals and nature, but found humans lacking. That general disdain was eveident in scarcastic jokes, and subversive attitudes towards society. They had to delete their Facebook page for all the crap they would say, which people would jump on. That's ideology, a secret belief in the way the world works.
I certainly agree that experts of various calibers and professions are frequently wrong. However, if I have an agenda, I haven't figured out what it is yet ;)
If you re-read the quote you pasted, you'll see that I accommodate your point of view (I think) - they human in your scenario BELIEVES that they do no wrong. I am trying to at least ask the question, "are you sure about that?"
With almost anything else, what you really need isn't the idea, but the factory to make the idea. You could tell me everything there is to know about making a Ferrari, but the likelihood that I could build a factory that could replicate Ferrari's is relatively small.
Now look at software. The "factory" can be obtained for free by going to a public library. As such, I'd argue that 1) the broadness of many of the patents that already exist is ridiculous, and was earned by nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of programming and 2) the relative likelihood that you're going to have a TRULY novel idea is lower due to the size of the population and amount of collaboration inherent in programming.
On top of all that, you don't see "first, invent a programming language that allows me to do all this neat stuff." They're already building on so much groundwork that they don't understand, it's sort of belittling the achievements of the people who truly created NEW things in computer science, to say that rounded corners on a texting app or whatever deserve a monopoly that could crush other applications.
- Your patent application is much more readable than most. That's a good start.
- hosay123 has already said basically what I would've - you may have found something that no one else has done 100% before, but it is clearly very similar to HTML in email with a few minor differences. Here are a few examples that I think would bring both the idea's novelty and non-obviousness into question:
http://www.boutell.com/wusage/8.0/eml.html
My question to you is: what will happen if you are granted this patent? You've been working on this for 4 years at least, judging by the 2009 date on the application, so my main argument would simply be that you could've probably found a more interesting use for your time. It pains me to say this, since I can tell you've spent a lot of time on your application, but honestly I would feel worse if I didn't say anything.
Regardless of whether or not the patent is granted I would like to create a start-up to build a new transport medium. It would be nice to have an online software platform built for automation and data integration above all else that allows any data repository to become a possible publication point using just URI addressing. I can see many possibilities that could arise from such a thing, especially if the primary markup language is always immediately accessible.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Start-ups that value patent reform could band together and give a few hours a month to doing this, and I'll bet it would make a pretty significant dent.
My statement was more in reference to e.g. the use by some experts of esoteric and potentially inaccurate models to silence critique by overwhelming non-experts with jargon. "I spent years developing this model, what do you know?"