Lol cut the bullshit man. If you worked in medicine you know that science absolutely eradicated the disease smallpox and rinderpest. Virtually eradicated malaria, polio, and a few others. *And* is currently working on globally eradicating like 7 other diseases.
You can aim low all you want, but you're talking in circles and quite frankly completely misinformed.
I don’t really know where to go with the smallpox thing and I’m getting a bit tired of this, to be honest. You’re clutching at straws - very short and very loose ones.
So, in theory, smallpox was eradicated by vaccination - you know, vaccination which so many here are opposed to? I would be foolish to question that. However, it is not an absolute, absolute, that it will never be a problem again. Somewhere, in one or two locations in the world, there remains samples of the smallpox virus. Now, that itself is an unknown. Would it still be active if released? Would the vaccine developed all those years ago still be effective against it? No one knows for sure. Now in medical terms, while those samples exist, there is always the potential for another outbreak. So therefore, in theory, although the probability of a further outbreak may be very unlikely, it still exists - even if the risk is negligible. That makes it not absolute.
I can’t help it if you don’t understand that. I’m sorry that you don’t seem to be able to get your head around it.
If you go to the WHO, for example, and look up their policies, you will find a policy there about how they deal with the potential for a smallpox outbreak. That isn’t my rule. Hospitals literally have emergency policy files. Small pox will be part of their emergency planning procedures - no matter how unlikely the risk may seem. It is actually considered to be a real and actual bio-terror risk. It may be a negligible risk, but they still see it as significant enough to draw up a policy on it. It is still significant enough, that medics are still taught about the symptoms and how to treat someone who presents with those symptoms. It is still a significant worry because since around the early 70s, no one has been vaccinated against it, meaning if there was even a small outbreak few people would be immune.
Listen, I’m not at all misinformed. I resent your continued implication that I am. You clearly do not understand what absolutes in medicine, mean. Every example, you come up with, I can give you a counter argument to. That doesn’t give me great pleasure. It doesn’t make me look foolish. It simply proves which one of us knows more about what she is talking about.
I am a medical professional. Are you? If you are, you will know that your whole clinical practice will centre around the idea that nothing is ever certain. I’ve never known any medic who speaks in terms of absolute medical certainty. It would be madness.
If a patient asked me if they could still be infected by small pox, I would answer that it would be very, very, very unlikely. because there hasn’t been a naturally occurring outbreak of the infection since whatever date the last one was. I am not likely to go into the detail about samples being held in certain labs etc, because the risk of a patient becoming infected is negligible. However, I cannot absolutely and completely rule it out while a strain of small pox is being held somewhere. Bizarre as it may seem, it is not impossible that small pox couldn’t occur again in some form in the future. I don’t know how likely or unlikely that is. However, there is an outside chance.
I know only too well that there are conditions which the world would hope to eradicate. Without adequate uptake of vaccination, that won’t happen.
I apologise if you think I’m going round in circles, however I rather think it’s you who is doing that. We are not going to agree here. Everything you’ve thrown at me so far, has had a counter argument. Frankly, you’ve done a poor job of countering the counter arguments. You just keep coming up with more abstract arguments which aren’t watertight.
Do yourself a favour and let it go. You clearly don’t have the insight to think beyond a certain point. It is okay to not be right all of the time. None of us are - that is an absolute, btw.
Get over yourself. You are the one who is grossly misinformed. You seem to think you have some superior understanding of the issues in question here. That’s embarrassing, mainly because you don’t even seem to have a basic grasp of the concepts you are discussing. You tell me I’m misinformed and yet you have yet to even demonstrate any detailed knowledge whatsoever, of the things you discuss. You jump all over the place with your arguments and they are basic, at best.
Pick an argument and follow through with it. You haven’t shown any ability to do that. You might be more convincing if you did.
I’m not the one who is unable to accept that while a science, medicine or whatever can do their best to reproduce the same results, time after time, after time, there is always be the potential of something not going to plan - always. Why do you think there is so much emphasis on controls in science? Why is it so important to be able to replicate experiments and their results? Why is risk assessment and management so important? It’s all so essential and important because not everything behaves in the same way.
