Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Investigating Self-Boosting Vaccines
An anonymous reader writes "Vaccines, contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, are some of the most effective tools in modern medicine. For some diseases, a single shot is all it takes for lifetime immunity. Others, though, require booster shots, to remind your immune system exactly what it should prepare to fight. Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health, and the herd immunity concept as well. Scientists are now looking into 'self-boosting' vaccines in order to fix that problem. Some viruses are capable of remaining in the body for a person's entire lifetime. If researchers can figure out a way to safely harness these, it may be possible to add genes that would create proteins to train the immune system against not just one, but multiple other viruses (abstract). This is a difficult problem to solve; changing the way we do vaccinations will itself have consequences for herd immunity. It also hinges on finding a virus that can survive the immune system without having uncomfortable flare-ups from time to time."
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
use it to fight disease and work for us, not against us... where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right, just before 90% of human race died, and 6% turned into zombies that ate the rest... except for Will Smith of course.
It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.
I think there was a holiday in the US a few days ago for some reason and I suspect they are still recovering from it so there just isn't much of interest happening over there.
Anti-vaxxers are anti-science and kill kids.
People like former Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy have blood on their hands.
--
BMO
I find it interesting that this was modded flamebait. It's a valid point. Whatever your opinion on the subject, rhetorical hyperbole serves only to inflame those who already disagree to disagree more. If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments. If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks, that will just entrench them in their position further. And who knows, do YOU have any research to support the idea that there is no benefit to, say, a more gradual vaccination schedule for infants? Has the issue been researched to a significant degree? I don't know of any studies on that specific subject (and note the difference between "I don't know" and "there are none"), so I couldn't counter the suggestion that it might be beneficial. If you disagree, back it up with the science, or you're no better than the "anti-science" crowd you claim to oppose. Blindly accepting "prevailing wisdom" without the knowledge to support it is every bit as "anti-science" as blindly accepting niche wisdom without the knowledge to support it. You look at the evidence available to you and form a conclusion, you don't just say "most scientists support idea A, so anyone who supports idea B is a fool." That helps no one and makes you look a fool.
And, for what it's worth, I was torn between posting a response to the fact this was modded flamebait, or modding it up. I chose the former.
>It's a valid point.
No it isn't. Anti-vaxxers do not have science on their side. All the science is against them.
To call them anything but anti-science is whitewashing the situation.
> If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments.
Ever since former Dr. Wakefield's fraudulent study, for which the Lancet retracted and he lost his license, any and all reasoned arguments hae fallen on deaf ears.
>If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,
But they are. It's like arguing with creationists.
--
BMO
"...contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, " Any article that begins with a put-down of a generalized segment of the population in my opinion is already tainted with bias. I'll look elsewhere for reliable information, thanks.
The article is "tained with bias", but only because just calling them anti-science is too damn generous. They're an anti-science child-killing cult. Just because someone has an extremely negative opinion of X doesn't automatically mean they're biased. You need to educate yourself on the matter before you can make the judgement. You might find the opinion is deserved.
You, and others, don't get it.
The doubt is unfounded. There is *no* science to back up the claim that thimerosol or vaccines cause autism.
When the Netherlands, and I believe Denmark banned Thimerosol, the supposed trigger of autism caused by vaccinations, did the incidence of autism fall?
No.
The claim that thimerosol and vaccines cause autism has been proven wrong empirically because of this, and the people who continue to push this dangerous meme kill kids.
--
BMO
They didn't just express doubt and they definitely didn't express *reasonable* doubt.
Campaigning against a major health advance on the basis of unreasonable doubts is anti-science. There is no reasonable doubt that vaccines are extremely effective, but many people in the "anti-vax" movement claim otherwise anyway on the basis of nothing substantive. It's hard to imagine something more anti-science than that.
And yes, this is one of the few cases where you are with us or against us. Because part of the point of vaccinations is herd immunity. If you campaign against it, you are quite literally against it.
You can certainly express some legitimate doubts about some actual vaccines.
That said, I think the line was unnecessary. It can provoke either unhelpful "fuck those guys" responses, or irrelevant tempest-in-a-teapot arguments like this one which are irrelevant to the article at hand (we can go ahead and assume that actual anti-vaxxers aren't going to be convinced by the glib dismissal).
I'm pro-vaccine, but engineering a virus to live in your system for an extended period of time (up to the life of the carrier) is scary in a number of ways.
Others have mentioned the possibility of a mutation taking the previously harmless virus into harmful territory, which is bad enough, but remember this virus has been engineered to survive in your hostile immune system, so if it does mutate, good luck in getting rid of it afterward.
Less obviously, if it survives in your body indefinitely and activates your immune system, it's not clear what the long-term effects of that would be. How much energy would your body expend pumping out antibodies? Would that distract it from fighting other diseases? Can your immune system become fatigued? Studies show people with poor dental hygine are more succeptible to heart disease, and the reason given for this is that the immune system is busy fighting the bacteria in your mouth which makes it less able to take care of the internal stuff.
Regular vaccines are in your body for a couple days, tops, and generally only given while you are already in good health. Even in the unlikely event that the vaccine temporarily weakened your immune system enough that you catch another disease, the trade-off is good because the vaccine is generally preventing something much worse.
One of these vaccines would put constant stress on your immune system. Is that ok? It's really hard to say.
I completely get it. There are people who simply do not believe a specific claim of science. They were convinced of the counter claims the same way 90% of the people are convinced of the scientific claims, someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter. Very few people have the resources or skills to replicate the vast majority of scientific discoveries so until they see it in use or have it explained to them by some authority in the matter, they have to trust someone. That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim. They could very well believe and understand all the other science claims out there.
Like I said, stop playing Bush, it's not a with us or against us situation.
>That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim.
When you take Jenny McCarthy's claim over a doctor's claim, you are anti-science.
There is being skeptical, and then there is just plain nuts.
Jenny McCarthy kills kids.
--
BMO
The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.
The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"
The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"
Put simply, you yourself know personally, or know of _billions_ _of_ _poeple_ who were vaccinated and sufferend no ill effects. If even a tiny fraction of what was said against vaccination were true, someone would have had to hide a chain of fifty million body bags and about 100 million "vaccine injuries" or whatever. It just _didn't_ happen.
The classic "I'll just go elsewhere for reliable informaton" is classic avoidance. You prove the "anti science" part true right there.
You don't have to be "unbiased" if the facts are already biased. You don't have to service the stupid, you just have to keep them and their kids away from yours so your's dont suffer from their stupidity. There is no honor or reason to treat one persons stupidity as "just as valid" as everbody elses' reasoned fact.
I've heard of all those "proud parents of unvaccinated children", well "pride goeth before distruction"... We are just trying to keep that distruciton at bey for as long as possible.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd. You're saying "this is what I believe", rather than "this is what I know". For the layperson (regarding any subject matter), there is much in common between faith in religion, and faith in science. Either way, you're generally accepting conclusions reached by others regarding a subject about which you have very little knowledge. You have to, as stated, examine the evidence available to you, and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. If you blindly accept what you saw on CNN, or read in a Slashdot summary, without further examination of the subject, you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.
And, seriously, the "falling on deaf ears" argument is a complete copout. I, for example, was raised catholic. Believed in creationism and the existence of god because that was how I was raised. Then I got a little older, started thinking for myself, examined the evidence, and concluded otherwise. If you write off an entire group of people because you disagree with them and think they're fools, hunkering down in your bunker with the others who agree with you, then nothing will ever change. I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.
This is not an anti-science situation. You cannot possibly claim that these people reject evolution, electrons, chemicals, or anything else that is covered by science. You can say they are anti vaccine, anti-something specific, but not anti-science with any confidence at all.
Re: virus living in your system for a long period of time: Chickenpox already does this. Chickenpox is caused by the Varicella zoster virus. After the initial infection, the virus lays dormant in the nervous system of the human infected, and then can flare up in the adult as Herpes zoster also known as Shingles because it can appear on the skin in a shingle like shape because of the spreading pattern of the nerve level which is infected by the virus (dermatome).
.
I didn't RTFA to see whether it's modified chickenpox that they are proposing to use for this.
well the 'pro-science' crowd misrepresents the issues as well. it's not that the 'anti-science' crowd distrusts science, they distrust the motivations of the people using the science. That I can understand. It seems like any good thing these days comes with a boatload of do-not-want 'features' designed to make it easier for the providers to use it as a vector for consumer hostile activities. This is especially true when it's difficult to understand technology where the details are naturally obfuscated from most people who lack understanding and equipment to analyze them.
While I'm not anti vaccine in principle, lets just say I'm not going to be the first one to rush out and get the latest version 1.0 vaccines pushed by medical corporations and politicians with clear track records of not giving a fuck about my well being. Just like with nutrition, I want to know for sure what the fuck I'm putting in my body before I do it.
"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.
Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".
As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to the child for having to go to the doctor and get injected.
Meanwhile in my lifetime alone, the number of elements in the vaccination schedule (counting by number of protiens and adjunctavants) has _fallen_ by two full orders of magnitued. So there are more shots that contain fewer protiens by hundreds of times.
Deciding to take your child and make it an experimental subset of _one_ in an uncontrolled setting with no oversight is (wait for it) _unscientific_, again by defintion. It just makes you feel special because you bought into the bullshit. It makes you feel like you found "a middle ground"... But settling for a middle ground is not good nor scientific. It's blatant feel-good bull crap.
Calling "beleiving a hundred years of research" "blindly following" isn't intellectually honest.
What we are saying is that NO _SCIENTISTS_ SUPPORT B, and every SCIENTIFIC STUDY says B IS WRONG, which makes supporters of B fools if they think "science" is a good thing.
The burden of proof is on the descenters, and most desenters I have heard don't know the difference between "an adverse reaction" and "an adverse report", and will say that these three cases of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ANECDOTES are "proof" that the fully natural process of vaccination (it was discovered not invented) that has been done _BILLIONS_ of times in the last fifty years, were all happy accidental success stories that these three actors can prove wrong because its what they truely feel AS ACTORS...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
so anyone who believe Jenny McCarthy automagically disbelieves everything else with science? They are actively working to thwart science, how does this work for you in this imaginary world?
We know that vaccines work.
They have worked ever since Jenner did his smallpox vaccine.
The science is indisputable.
I suggest you go to an anti-vaccine website and look around. Just pick one, and then go to a few more. It's not just anti-vaccine stuff.
Anti-vaxxers as a whole are anti-science.
And not only that, they are dangerous. They kill kids.
http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2012/07/anti-vaccination-propagandists-help.html
--
BMO
--
BMO
re:
>"If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,"
.
"But they are. It's like arguing with creationists."
.
Yep, it's as bad as trying to argue with the anti-fluoride idiot brigades which keep popping up over and over and over. Example, even the additional fluoride for La Jolla didn't start until 2011, and if you read the comment at the end of the article, you'll see someone calling it "poisoning":
http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/01/31/city-set-to-start-fluoridation-on-tuesday/
.
One place in florida voted fluoride out of its water in 2011, and the commissioners who voted to remove fluoride were all voted out and fluoridation is being considered again. There is no need to treat these anti-medicine and anti-science point of view people with kid gloves: they need to be respectfully told just how wrong they are.
http://www.infowars.com/the-coming-re-fluoridation-of-pinellas-county/
Pinellas commission sets vote on restoring fluoride to drinking water:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/pinellas-commission-sets-next-tuesday-for-fluoride-vote/1262454
Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.
So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.
And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.
So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.
We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
>It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd.
You missed the point in that the anti-vaccine crowd has *no* peer reviewed study that says vaccines cause autism, and the one that was, was retracted, and Andrew Wakefield lost his license due to fraud.
> I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.
No, they need to be riduculed and made embarrassed, because of the hundreds of thousands of studies on how and why vaccines work, they can't be arsed to read a single one of them. They are kooks, and the way you deal with kooks is to riducule and ostracize them until they come around.
> you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.
Might I direct you to the nearest university library and fuck off.
--
BMO
saying that 'jenny mccarthy kills kids' is about as fallacious as it gets. she has no control over anyones' kids. their parents do. the choice lies with them, not her, and choosing to give or not give their kids a particular vaccine does not automatically mean death. You're no more rational than many of the people you accuse..
I like.
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.
In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.
Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
People who deliberately spread misinformation so that kids die of whooping cough, measels, and other preventable diseases do kill kids as surely as holding a gun and pulling the trigger.
Because they do it not out of concern for children, but because of money, and backing away from fraud exposes the fraud. So they continue.
If you feel that this is out of line, feel free to foe me.
--
BMO
This will almost certainly fall on deaf ears, but here goes, anyway.
Just because people hold opposing opinions does not give them the right to respect for those opinions. Both sides of a debate don't deserve equal airtime, equal attention, or equal consideration. Sometimes people are just wrong. And it's OK to call them on it.
The anti-vax crowd are nuts. We know this. They are wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong and we can be as sure of that as we are that gravity works, that things are made of atoms, or anything else. Arguing that they might have a point, or that acknowledging the truth is somehow biased is idiotic.
It's not biased to teach evolution to the exclusion of creationism, it's not biased to say that homeopathy is a sham, it's not biased to say that global warming is real, and it's certainly not biased to call people on their anti-science bullshit when they say that vaccines cause autism.
>Anti-vaccine is not anti-science,
Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.
Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.
You seem especially butthurt about this.
--
BMO
That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.
That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.
It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".
It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
You don't have to hate all science to be anti-science anymore than you have to be against women's suffrage to be sexist. When you reject science when it disagrees with what you really wish to be true, you're anti-science. Either you accept the outcome of the scientific method or you don't.
the blame chain game always ends the same way: tyranny. maybe you're from a country that doesn't respect free speech because it doesn't understand the difference between speech and action?
What in the fuck does free speech have anything to do with this?
Jenny McCarthy is free to say whatever damn-fool thing she wants to say, but just because she's free to do so doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the bullshit that comes out of her mouth. There are people dying because of what these loons are saying, and they are responsible for that. You morons who dredge up free speech at the drop of a hat really generally mean "consequence-free speech." There's no right to that and there never will be. You get to live with the consequences of the things you say.
with your style of reasoning, EVERYONE kills kids.. you know what? YOU kill kids too, every time you buy food to eat, you condemn some starving kid in ethiopia to starvation.
someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter
Yeah, really authorative. A Model who's claim to fame is that she managed to make Jim Carrey say "I do".
it's not a with us or against us situation
That's not it. The problem is that this nude models statements have caused the lives of more than one thousand children is the problem. That many, many more now have disabilities and brain damage because of her. Her statements and those of the fraud she uses as justification have been proven wrong. Still she keeps pushing the issue, thereby killing more children. Not only is she killing children whose parents refuse the vaccine, but by punching holes in the herd protection, she is also killing children who for other reasons can not have these vaccines (allergies etc).
The Jesus anti-science crowd holds back the education of a portion of the population. That's bad. This anti-science crowd, lead by this particular nude model, is killing children. That's pretty serious as fringe nutters go.
no, you are taking a false dichotomy and labeling anyone who disagrees as 'butthurt.' It's you who's butthurt apparently about jenny mccarthy. I agree, she's worthless and stupid, but that doesn't explain your stupidity.
Of course you EVERY-vaxxers are just as bad. The chicken pox vaccine is a good example. The CDC gives enough data to show that not only is the disease not a serious health risk, but getting the vaccine can increase the risks from the disease 10 fold. Even so, the EVERY-vaxxers will cry 'murder' if someone chooses to get life long immunity.
Really? your argument is OMG YOU KILL KIDS by not swallowing everybit of information from the government as fact? and you get MOD POINTS?! this is slashdot, please stop that. Here we say 'there has been no known study proving a direct link between thimerosol and autism"
To invoke Godwin: And Hitler was a nice, children-loving vegetarian and a strong anti-smoker who never harmed a single person in his life. Even though he had a bit of a racist streak. I have heard he was a really, really nice guy. He can't be held responsible for what others did.
Does that apply to everyone? Like the CDC, that tries to create fear of death over the mild childhood illness of chicken pox to push a vaccine that their own data shows increases the risk from the disease? And that they list making money as a primary reason to get the vaccine?
well because people who think like you do are often the ones demanding that the law should force artificial 'responsibility' for speech instead of holding the people who took the action accountable instead. speech is just words. Action is different. jenny mccarthy doesn't kill kids with her words. guardians not giving some kids vaccines may cause some to die. Then again, giving them half baked vaccines shoved out the door by big pharma can also kill. If you want to blame mccarthy for it, then you also have to blame the relevant state agencies and big pharma.
it's not that people don't trust science, it's that they don't trust the motivations of the people practicing it. In this case I can't blame them because the relevant parties at the top have clear track records of not giving a fuck about the well being of us peons at the bottom.
How many of you had taken all vaccine shots "offered" and " ordered" by the state? Are you plethora of health? Do you belive so strongly in vaccine industry so that you would risk your child with it? Or will you demand independent (if that is still possible) evaluation of results of the new vaccines? Instead of flaming war between pro and anti vaccination ,there should be logical view of the stands.
I am pro science, also I do not beleive in truthfullnes of "scientific" results offered by the vaccine industry.
And since there are no independent studies ( untainted by donations or personal contact with the industry) I stay by "do not harm" doctrine.
Obviously you do not know all the efects of "modern" vaccine ofered on the market, so "do no harm" principle should point "take no vaccine if not urgently needed" direction.
I would like to see if the owners and board of directors of the vaccine industry take all the vaccines they sell , also does their children take all those offered vaccines.
I would also like to see do the doctors that preach vaccination take the doctrine and offer public data about vaccination of their children and family.
Without that , vaccines are just a product that sells good in time of public fear, but it won't give you a more healty life othervise.
Jenny McCarthy is only one of many. I'm using her as an example.
For instance, read this article in Forbes about a *nobel laureat* who has gone off the deep end.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/
It's not a false dichotomy. The anti-vaccine movement is unscientific and anti-science. It rejects biology.
--
BMO
So, the anti evolution guys are not anti-science if they believe in electrons and chemicals? Then there are not anti-science people left in the world. Moron.
The technique of introducing rogue DNA/RNA engineered to periodically re-activate has been shown to be safe or my name's not Dr. Henry Jeckyll.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
I suggest that the next time you get sick, that you definitely don't see a doctor, because big pharma is obviously out to get you.
--
BMO
lol.. the Jesus anti-science crowd. That's cute. are you bigoted all by yourself or is there some course we can attend to be just like you?
I don't personally care if people are killing children or not. Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant. Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is. The wording "anti-science" is nothing but a fallacy so people can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes..
Well, you tell me. Is science more then evolution? Or is it only evolution? Anti-science by definition would be against science and that is not that case at all with the vast majority of these people.
If you want to call someone a moron, perhaps you can explain why science is only evolution or vaccines?
Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".
She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible for lying to people and misleading them.
Again, what in the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the current vaccines. They work and complaining about "big pharma" is just so much bullshit. Or did you have some actual scientific data behind your paranoia?
Some types of viruses, like AIDS and flu, mutate more rapidly because of their mechanism of making DNA from RNA which is error-prone. http://www.virology.ws/2009/05/10/the-error-prone-ways-of-rna-synthesis/ Other viruses are more stable may benefit from the idea in TFA. However, to me it seems dangerous to engineer viruses just reduce the number of required booster shots.
Your argument has devolved into an argument about semantics.
You have lost.
If you are anti-evolution, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-cosomology, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-medicine, you are anti-science.
Because each of these positions means that you have to reject the fundamental basis of science - hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing the results experimentation with your hypothesis and reality.
Anti-vaxxer "logic" is much like the "logic" of a religionist. Circular, with no testing and no comparison with reality. Much like your arguments here.
--
BMO
lol.. No, science covers a lot of stuff and to be anti-science you have to be against all science.
Here, lets break it down for you.
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word.
Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
When you put them together, you get A person apposed to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word. Now is that true of the people you claim are anti-science? I think not.
> Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter
I said this before, and it has proven true again.
Your name fits you.
--
BMO
Your username is apt. You may attempt to redefine what antiscience means just by saying what the individual components mean and you can pretend that other people care about your definition, too. But that's not how English works and nobody gives a shit what your definition of the word is if it doesn't match with how it's used. I think this thread is basically over. I'll go argue with someone smarter.
lol.. why do you try to get into arguments you cannot win then cry and try to insult people for? Things in this world are not just because you say so. There are meanings to words and definitions that make communication productive. You should try following them.
Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".
Adults don't resort to calling people names because they can't make a case for their position.
She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible for lying to people and misleading them.
No, she isn't. I agree, she's stupid and useless, but she isn't responsible for the choices of others just as others aren't responsible for her stupid choices. We are our own volition and agency. Just because some asshole says something doesn't mean you rush to comply without thinking about it.
Again, what in the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the current vaccines. They work and complaining about "big pharma" is just so much bullshit. Or did you have some actual scientific data behind your paranoia?
I never said vaccines don't work. They do work, most of the time. Do you have any idea how much bullshit the FDA lets slide because of politics, ineptitude, or lack of resources? I never said I was anti vaccine, but these days, the technology exists to abuse them, which changes things drastically. There is also huge incentive to push stuff out the door before it's ready.
They aren't abused yet, but they will be soon. It's too easy a vector with today's advances in micro sized technology. The track records of those at the top speak volumes about their lack of interest in our interests. Because of this, you wouldn't let someone in the industry or government pull a driveby on your computer, would you? So why would you trust them with your body just because of some spooky language you heard from them on tv?
There are two camps I'm referring to here: the group that irrationally thinks they cause all sorts of maladies, and the group who knows they work but also understands there's good reason to distrust the motivations of those at the top.
Actually, you probably should have looked up what the definition of antiscience was before you tried to redefine it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
You see, there is already a defined term and it is the same as combining two words together as the term is.
>My argument was always semantics.
Then you're a moron.
>They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science.
Science is more than just a subject. It is an outlook. It is a way of life. A bush hunter, who reads tracks and spoor is more of a scientist than any of these anti-vaxxers, because he observes the environment and tests his hypothesese by being either successful or not successful.
To disbelieve the mountains of tested evidence in favor of some quack celebrity's opinion means that you do not believe in the scientific method. You do not believe in the fact that things can be tested and conclusions drawn. It is *anti-science.*
So anyway, I'm done. You go back on ignore.
--
BMO
Their position may be unscientific, but that's not the reason to distrust the status quo. It's not the vaccines themselves, it's the motivations of those distributing them. The FDA is far from a perfect entity, and they let all kinds of stupid shit slide for political, social, and economic reasons. There are plenty of recalls for deadly toxins that were sold as cures on record. I would not be first in line to take version 1.0 of any vaccine offered. There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as well even from well established vaccines, esp the 'live virus' ones.
I suggest you quit misrepresenting what people say to you. It makes you come across as arrogant and stupid as jenny mccarthy.
Which position do you claim is unjustified? And what names have I called you, exactly?
Let me ask you something. If you think what you say is so unimportant, why is free speech so important to protect? Either speech is important or it's not. You can't have it both ways. This is where the childishness comes in. You want to be able to say what you want and not have to worry about the consequences. Adults take responsibility for their actions, including their own words. People who don't take responsibility for their actions are children.
In fact, this is getting absurd. It is obvious to all but the most idiotic that speech has implications and you are responsible for it. The law recognizes this. There are libel laws precisely because speech can be damaging and because you are responsible for what you say. The people who spread misinformation about vaccines are responsible for the results of spreading that misinformation. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
You called them half-assed. What does that mean, exactly, if it you say they work? Make up your bloody mind.
More unjustified bullshit. If you pull any more of this shit out of your ass, you're going to be a qualified proctologist.
> There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as well even from well established vaccines, esp the 'live virus' ones.
There are two polio vaccines, a killed virus, and a live vaccine. If you got a shot, it was the killed virus. If you got an eyedropper in the mouth, it was the live weakened virus.
Show me a single peer reviewed paper showing how the live polio virus has risk factors besides allergy.
--
BMO
They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science
This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely. The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields, but they do in fact reject the methodology entirely. There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry". Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't. The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.
Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.
I left out a word.
I said: "how the live polio virus"
Should say "how the live polio virus vaccine"
--
BMO
It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.
Au
I don't care what you think. You are a conspiracy nutbar.
--
BMO
The article also goes on to list many examples of anti-science. While not calling out anti-vaxxers explicitly, it does list some very similar antiscience beliefs:
Again, it's how people use the term - i.e. to reject well established scientific knowledge. You are welcome to believe what you want about the term, but at this point, I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse now that you have been informed what people really mean by it when they use it.
No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.
Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant
Sorry, the only person showing any kind of ignorance here is you.
Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is
Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific. There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example, outside of a very specific part of science, scientists never prove anything. That is not part of scientific methodology (with the exception of Maths). This methodology is science. Rejecting it out of hand is anti-scientific. The Anti-vaxxers reject scientific methodology out of hand. The young earthers do to. As do the Intelligent Design people in all their variations. The summarily and utterly reject everything about scientific methodology. They have varying reasons for rejecting it, but they reject it fully.
That is anti-science.
Now go find a adult that can explain to you what scientific method is.
lol.. You wish it was close to a bush hunter reading tracks. You are over romanticizing the entire concept.
So here is some facts you are ignoring. I did a couple checks on the people you claim are antiscience. First, they do not claim vaccine do no good or dispute the evidence on them, they claim that they can cause harm to children and one person claims they harmed their kid. This is not even antiscience in the least because they aren't arguing against science, just that the damage potential or perceived is more important then the benefits.
So you have completely lost there without even getting into the definition of anti-science. Face it, they are not antiscience in the definition or the practice- they are antivaccine
So they reject evolution, chemistry, electronics and everything else in science? Or are you making shit up?
Actually, from what I have been able to gain from them, they only apply it to a portion of the field. They aren't claiming vaccinations to not work, they are claiming they do harm to children and are putting the well being of their children above the good vaccines could do.
Really? So someone who rejects quarks cannot accept evolution or molecular bonds? Interesting how you put it. Because that seems to be completely different then what I can find on these things. You are delusional and attempting to apply a term that doesn't fit because you think it is somehow derogatory to them. Instead, it makes you look like an idiot.
No it is not. There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science. The entire scientific principle is built around this ability.
No they do not. They reject certain products of scientific methodology- not the science or process itself.
Well, I could play you and just start making things up to fit my little world because I said so even though reality, definitions, and everything else contradicts it. I know what "scientific methodology" actually entails and it precisely because of this I can confidently say you are completely wrong.
Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science. It is Wikipedia after all. I wouldn't have listed it if it wasn't the only thing in the Google search that didn't require combining anti- and science in the literal sense that you already rejected. But as it turns out, it does the same and has done so since 2006 or so.
And to be clear, opinions are not to mean there is no scientific backing or the rejection of science pertaining to them, it's just that their opinions are swayed by what they see as more important. It's not a rejection of science but an acceptance or denial to do anything about it based on something they deem more important. Could you imagine the state of science if no one was ever skeptical of the science put in front of them and never redid the testing or validated the numbers or whatever to see if it was accurate.
for those who have bad reactions to a given vaccine it could mean death or a lifetime of ongoing issues.
only those in denial won't accept the fact there are exceptions and why most all medical treatments come with warnings.
These are opinions that are in direct conflict with well established scientific knowledge and they aren't antiscience? Um, right. The article makes clear that polemics such as the anti-vaxxer crap count as antiscience. As a description of what antiscience is, it's the closest I've seen to what they mean and what others mean by it, and what I mean when I use the term. I frankly don't care if you define the term some other way. It's what the article means, it's what I mean, people generally understand it, and that's all that matters.
Of course it's a rejection of science. A small piece of it, but it is a rejection nonetheless.
One might argue that if they deem this so important, they might bother to try to figure out what the facts are.
That's one of the stranger things you've said. In what world does science lack skepticism? Skepticism is built into science. The entire scientific method is about attempting to disprove things. You never prove anything in science - you just fail to disprove it. All knowledge is provisional. If you want to be educated, read some Carl Sagan. He goes on about the two-pronged approach of openness and skepticism needed to be a good scientist. You need openness to generate and consider novel hypotheses, but then you need skepticism to design good experiments to test them. Scientists generally aren't the kinds of people who need to be reminded to be skeptics.
>Anti-vaccine is not anti-science,
Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.
Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.
You seem especially butthurt about this.
-- BMO
Despite what you might believe (parts of) Economics are a science, too - and the equation is pretty easy:
...), a benefit to the individual being vaccinated and a benefit to everyone around the individual being vaccinated.
Vaccinations have a cost to the individual being vaccinated (such as health risks, effort,
The last part is important - in a world where everyone but one person is vaccinated the benefit of that person receiving a vaccination, too, would be absolutely negligible (as the disease would - in the absence of other carriers such as animals - be extinct) and for that individual the cost of getting a vaccination would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.
In a society where the vast majority of the population is vaccinated each individual would be better off getting no vaccination (as the risk of contracting the disease becomes much lower than the risk of side-effects from the vaccination). The anti-vaccine crowd is just doing what is individually rational for them.
The problem is of course that if more than a handful of people do what is rational for them, the majority of the population will soon no longer be vaccinated and the risk of disease will soon start to eclipse the risk of side-effects (making vaccination the individually rational choice).
Maybe you don't like this fluctuation, maybe you would like to extinguish the disease altogether (which would require you to maintain very high vaccination rates for a long time) - in that case the government has to step in and make vaccinations compulsory (with the knowledge that this solution may be for the greater good but is not pareto optimal as some will be affected by unnecessary side effects).
So are you now making the claim that medical science has never been wrong? How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse or how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide ? Just because a drug is effective doesn't make its application or use for a particular purpose correct. And yes, vaccines are drugs. And like all drugs big pharma has an interest in seeing as much use (=sales) of those drugs as it possibly can. In the case of Thalidomide it took years for the effects to be revealed then many more to be corrected. Meanwhile I don't see you calling the doctors who applied it as directed or the pharma company pushing it "killers with blood on their hands" like is being said here about those that choose to disbelieve a particular claim.
Skepticism of scientific claims is a good thing. It forces those making those claims to look deeper into them. Not too long ago it was scientifically accepted that the Earth was the center of the universe. It took skeptics and a large amount of time to disprove that claim.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The more the lie that vaccines cause autism is spread, the more children are not vaccinated. This means that more children will get potentially lethal diseases. How is it wrong to put that as "people spreading the lie are killing children"?
And just to pick one more nit, it is not just the case that we have not found a link between any vaccine ingredient and autism. We have examined the case extensively, and have determined that there is no link.
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm
As much as they want to figure out how it works to make their own 'products' they can sell and last forever in your body, maybe this research into making vaccines that last forever will give insight in how to get rid of viruses that last forever. Getting rid of HIV etc? that'd be sweet.
Even better: "Not getting your shorts [sic] threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??
No, you Anonymous Coward dumbass - That's not how herd immunity works.
Imagine everyone in a kindergarten is vaccinated against smallpox but Fred's vaccine didn't work and for whatever reason Fred isn't immune to smallpox (biology is never 100%). However, Fred remains protected against smallpox because the rest of his class ("his herd") is immune, so the virus doesn't get the chance to leap to him.
Now imagine 10 kids in Fred's class are NOT vaccinated against smallpox - Now the virus has a chance to take hold and infect Fred, even though he's vaccinated. Fred has lost the benefit of the immunity of the herd.
Vaccination works because a) the immunity takes hold on the majority and b) we live in herds.
"contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd..."
What is the point of this statement? I mean seriously, what's the point? I've been reading this site for years and it just seems to be getting more and more like this—which is not a good thing.
Who cares what the "anti-science" crowd thinks? Why even bother mentioning them? Why acknowledge their existence, particularly when NOT responding to one directly?
Just report the fucking story. What some other childishly labeled crowd thinks about it is irrelevant. I can't even get through a remotely interesting story about geology without some asshole making a "the earth is only 6000-years-old" joke. Who... fucking... cares? It's not. We know. We get it. The joke is old and tiresome. I really wish I was coming here to read interesting discussions about the science at hand. Instead, I'm constantly deluged with this kind of childish bullshit.
Building on that theme: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
====
Some quotes on social problems in science
Here are some related broad quotes on social problems in science, some of which relate to competition for funding.
From an article about a sociologist and anthropologist who studies science and technology, Bruno Latour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour
"In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. To an untrained outsider, Latour and Woolgar argued the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy."
A quote from another academic, Brian Martin, involved with Science and Technology Studies:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. (1)"
From David Goodstein, who was Vice Provost of Caltech:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
"Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face. "
About a book by Jeff Schmidt, a previous editor of Physics Today magazine:
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
"In this
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
I imagine that will be exceedingly hard to achieve. You need to make a virus which triggers an immune response but which does not get wiped out by it to the point where it is no longer transmissible. At the same time, since the virus will remain within you all your life, you have to ensure that any future event which might suppress your immune system will not cause the virus to flare up and cause an illness.
I could imagine medicine perhaps achieving the first two goals but how can you be sure that you have solved the last one without large scale trials which, by the very nature of the virus, would involve all humanity? In fact even if you had a non-infectious virus providing the immunity I imagine it will be a long time before we know whether it is safe for large scale use because you need to have your trial subjects live a good portion of their lives because the virus will be with them for their entire life and may mutate and/or flare up.
I can't argue too much, but 100 years ago was 1912. Not exactly the dark ages. People were doing science as we would recognize it today, and they knew about stuff like germs, hand washing, and much more.
But your experience 10 years later might be much better. WW I led to quite a lot of medical advances. It would still seem primitive, but you would recognize it as "modern medicine."
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science
You don't get it. There is no X and Y in scientific method. There is only scientific method. They reject that. Without scientific method there is no science.
Mod me troll if you like, but: 1) The original article would have read perfectly well without including the inflammatory and derogatory phrase "contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd." Go back and read it and see. So, the article itself begged to be called out as flamebait, which I did. I find it hypocritical of /. to allow inflammatory comments to be embedded directly within an article.
2) There are instances in which vaccines have had effects other than which they are purported to create. For example, in October this year, Italy banned all flu vaccines because of their documented side-effects. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/italy-bans-novartis-flu-vaccines-citing-side-effects.html . I'm not saying that all vaccines are bad, or -good-, but let's not put down people who question their veracity, because it is true that not all vaccines are good.
3) I am particularly sensitive to anything which purports to be "news" and contains spin. This article pushed my hot button because it contained a wealth of good information, and yet managed to wrap it with tainting bias. Enough already. Be news, or be irresponsible. There is no crossover in my mind. If the reporting is irresponsible, it should be recognized as such. There are too many people in the world who do not recognize it for me to let it go. We all need an education in what is really information, and what is unfounded speculation. /. needs to maintain a sterling reputation for knowing the difference, and labeling speculation for what it is.
The entire gamut of science is based on ensuring there is no bias in our assertions, so let's all keep an open mind.
Sent from my ENIAC
The argument is devolved to a binary straw-man: a "pro/con" proposition - to the end of stifling nuanced inquiry and actual understanding.
Mary Shelly wasn't anti-science when she wrote "Frankenstein".
Goethe wasn't "anti-science" when he wrote "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". If you aren't immediately familiar with the fable, it is worth revisiting. The story concerns the casual nature of hubris, particularly in the domain of technical insight.
There is a very real delusional aspect to a culture that uses scientific method in an atomised scope and then applies one technical outcome in a pervasive manner.
The operative phrase here is: "knows enough to be dangerous." Another such is "unintended consequences".
Let us quote from the article, and allow the unintended consequences aspect to unfold its manifest possibilities in our imaginations:
I don't want this in the hands of the same people who made Vioxx, Thalidomide or Lipitor.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Science is a set of *methods*, an aspect of which is that to qualify as science you have to apply the methodology in all cases, not just the ones that aren't connected to your chosen superstition.
Simple way to resolve the problem, you do what you want and I'll do what I want. Private schools so your kids don't get contaminated. Oh, I forgot this is a fascist country, "science" is the new religion, and "science" serves money not humanity. All this trumps freedom, easily and completely. Forced vaccinations justified by herd immunity, normal court access replaced by a special "vaccine court", a revolving door at the FDA, and Pharma money being spread everywhere to fund research and influence opinion. Nothing to see here. BTW, no vaccine will EVER eliminate the need for herd immunity, because your argument for forcing vaccinations on people would largely disappear. If people weren't forced to take them, they would actually have to work and be safe, or disappear.
The article is paywalled, but I expect they remove the genes that make the virus able to replicate, while leaving in the genes that make it able to reinitiate production of viral proteins after a long period of dormancy. This would normally make a load more virus, but if you've removed the viral polymerase gene (as one example) it won't be able to make new viral genomes to package into new virus particles and therefore won't be infective. There's a fair chance it might not even be able to assemble into a functioning virus properly. However, it will/can make a flood of viral proteins in the cell, and these get processed and presented to the immune system, leading to an immune response.
I am not an immunologist, but what I'd be worried about with these vaccines is that if viral protein is made, but not enough of it to lead to serious distress in the cell/ to inflammation in the host, the "immune response" that's provoked might be tolerance of viral protein because your immune system interprets it as being a protein from your own body (which are presented to the immune system in the same way). This would mean that if you get infected by the real virus, your adaptive immune response wouldn't work, and it could be very bad news for you indeed.
I personally wouldn't touch these vaccines with a ten-foot pole.
One of the big points about viruses that remain in the body long-term, is that they somehow manage to find shelter in which to evade the immune system -- at least for most of the time, and at least from those parts of the immune system that might otherwise eradicate them. (See for example 'virus latency' at http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(10)00217-9?script=true/).
Many of the mechanisms of that sheltering are still unknown, or incompletely known. That means, in turn, that it's at least not going to be a surefire winner to have an extra protein -- against which you want a really strong protective immune response -- tagging along with the sheltering virus.
Plus, it would seem that the main article is reporting a theoretical study (from the 'supporting information' for the PNAS paper referred to in the main story -- which is all that I could so far access -- here http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/14/1209683109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201209683SI.pdf -- other than the abstract).
The status of the matter appears to be that this is an 'if only . . . ' -- so far.
-wb-
Wow, that's some industrial grade ignorance. Let me try to correct some of it.
See cross thread where I point out that all knowledge is provisional. If you get your news from pop science writers, or you read every paper as if it's been handed down by god on stone tablets, then you're going to be wrong a lot of the time. Stick with the scientific consensus and you're in a much better position.
And who, exactly, was it that figured out that Thalidomide was unsafe, and that antibiotic overuse leads to resistant strains of bacteria? Not the scientists, right? That was divined by new-age thinkers? Or the anti-vaxxers?
You realize that Thalidomide was never allowed to be sold in the United States by the FDA specifically because it did not have enough scientific evidence behind it proving it was safe?
This style of argumentation is very common on Slashdot. Your position is weak, so you pretend I've taken positions I haven't. I've said nothing about thalidomide up to this point, so please don't make shit up.
But since we're on the topic. I'd call any doctor that pushed thalidomide after the science was known to be directly responsible for the effects of having recommended it, even more so than Jenny McCarthy, since doctors are in a much more trusted position than Jenny McCarthy. That's the position the anti-vaxxers find themselves in today. Their conclusions have been shown conclusively to be incorrect, dangerous, and based on fraud. And yet they continue to push their agenda. This would be like doctors trying to prescribe Thalidomide today.
Also, the Thalidomide topic is much more complex than this. At the time, the regulatory framework simply wasn't in place. Did doctors jump the gun prescribing Thalidomide? Perhaps. And perhaps they should have read more into the studies and questioned more things about it. Some did, in fact. That's exactly why the FDA didn't approve it. But can we expect all doctors to do that? These days, the FDA is meant to serve this role, so doctors can rely on the FDA to ensure drugs are safe, but at the time, Thalidomide was really the first high profile example that showed that government regulation was capable of preventing these sorts of problems.
Again, who was it who disproved that claim? Early scientists, obviously. And then the antiscience community railed against it for decades, if not centuries. Science makes progress with more science, not by saying, "Hey, I'm going to reject these conclusions because I don't like them." We have never made progress by choosing to believe what we prefer to believe over what the data tell us is true. Even Einstein in his famous "God does not play dice
And I'll preface my comment with, I find it extremely funny how unscientific your comment is and how you turn to name calling as if it allows you to make a point. I also find it extremely interesting in how everyone is essentially saying "blasphemy, if you don't believe exactly as I do, you are against all things I believe in". That's a religious argument and perhaps you should check if science hasn't become your religion. Either way, it doesn't matter, you are too ashamed of your beliefs to bother with a logged in account.
But from where I am sitting, all I'm seeing is a bunch of whiners complaining that someone follow their gospel so they are not christian- err I mean they are anti=science.
I'm not fighting any battles, unless you think getting people like the ones I was replying with to pick up a fucking dictionary and use words the way they were meant to be used as a battle. I got all my vaccines, my children have theirs, I personally don't care about the argument for or against them. It is this entire religion that revolves around if you do not believe every single shred of science claims put in front of you with the same intensity as some people want, somehow you now against science in general instead of for more safety and study, instead of giving way for other benefits like economical or social or philosophical and psychological.
This is meaningless. People die getting abortions, getting liposuction, getting their tonsils out. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. They are safe on the whole, but if someone weighs the risk and decides they will not participate in either procedure, it does not make them antiscience. Just do a google search for contaminated vaccines and you will find all sorts of alarming and true crap in addition to all the other crap about autism. And these idiots believing it are just that, not capable of doing the science themselves to confirm or reject so they need to believe someone else in the process of evaluating it. It is the rejection of the statements less believable, not science itself that causes this.
Wow, just like those who don't believe in the trinity or creationism are no true Christians. I think the technical term here might be no true scottsman but you are presenting a fallacy that doesn't exist.
Just like if you don't believe God made the world in 7 days you are anti-religioun even though you go to church and pray and do all the other things the religious do? Do you see how stupid that looks when the religious annotations gets pointed out? Please stop treating science as a religion.
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable and if someone does not completely believe everything as stated, they are against it all. It doesn't work in reality and make you look like a religious nutcase when you attempt to push it.
In case the "pro-science" crowd thinks otherwise, plenty of people do not develop immunity after receiving a vaccine. For example, Gardasil is only about 38% effective in preventing cervical cancer. In some cases, the vaccine can cause the disease itself. Or is that too heretical for the pro-science crowd?
Mercola is a quack. He doesn't even believe that HIV causes AIDS.
And to call Andrew Wakefield a doctor is false. He is not a doctor. His license was pulled because of his fraud.
You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
--
BMO
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method
If X and Y is the result of scientific method, yes, rejecting X means you reject scientific method, if you at the same time accept Y it means you suffer from schizophrenia in addition.
but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable
I don't have that idea. I see the schizophrenia though. Hallucinations are common.
I made that remark after going to the Wikipedia page on Mercola.
Mercola is a fucking quack, and he's interviewing a fucking quack and a scientific *criminal* who perpetrated fraud against children everywhere.
The fact that you support these two idiots make you just as idiotic as they are.
You are a moron. Full stop.
--
BMO
The anger is to be expected. I don't necessarily agree with the polemical approach, but it's totally understandable. Vaccines are not mysterious at all. We understand how they work, we know that they DO work, and self-important cranks are out there convincing people not to vaccinate their kids. They are within their rights, no doubt, but so are the people who call them any sort of mean names. They cause harm! Not only to themselves, but also to those who cannot receive vaccines and who rely on herd immunity to protect them from dangerous diseases. The proud ignorance combined with the public health issues is enough to cause rage.
>So, bottom line is this: you heard on the 10 o'clock news about some fellow named Wakefield
No, I have been following this since Andrew Wakefield published his bogus study in The Lancet.
There is nothing that I care hearing from him, or the people who support him.
Feel free to foe me.
Talk to the hand.
--
BMO
Do you have any REAL objections to the claims and theories of modern immunology? If you don't, then I have to wonder what the fuck your point ever was. If the argument is about whether or not you're "Anti-science" if you reject fields or conclusions of science... Then the answer depends on your ability to present evidence. The anti-vax crowd IS anti-science. Appeals to conspiracy theories and vague fear to refute the findings of the scientific community are pretty damn anti-science, regardless of what other scientific theories you accept.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think that if there really is an autoimmune disorder that maybe we might be able to treat it some day.
But there are no studies that compare unvaccinated children with vaccinated that show an increase in the rate of autism among vaccinated children. There are none. With such a volatile topic and the chance to make a name for yourself in immunology, by showing that there is a measurable risk and how it might be mitigated, that people would be trying to "beat Fred" and publish studies corroborating Wakefield.
But Wakefield's results were irreproducible, much like Pons and Fleichmann's paper on cold fusion. The difference between Wakefield and P&F is that P&F did not cause the deaths of thousands of kids through misinformation that continues to this day.
--
BMO
The point of my post was entirely to identify a negative and inflammatory statement embedded in the lead article. I don't like remarks like that; I find they stifle original thought and are generally counter-productive. However, by the negative and inflammatory remarks found in your reply, you appear to disagree. You are welcome to. You should know however, that the "put-other-people-down because their opinion differs from mine" kind of attitude will win you no followers except the blind. Personally, I want to converse with people who can think, and will expend the energy to fashion well-informed opinions for themselves. I really don't want to have to hold your hand, or lead you to water you don't want to drink. Who mentioned autism? Not me. So why are your ranting about it? Before you spend more energy trying to argue this or other points that I did not make, follow this bouncing ball: SOME vaccines CAN have dangerous side-effects, including death, by the CDC's OWN admission: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm That is my entire point. If you would like to argue that, please argue with the CDC. Thank-you. And if you want to argue that the side-effects are always minor compared to what they prevent, please note that Guillain-Barré Syndrome has been caused by the flu vaccine, and the Yellow Fever vaccine, and it's no joke. Personally, I'd rather risk the flu than a vaccination that could give me GBS. But hey, as long as you have -all- the facts, you personally are welcome to take that risk. And I personally should be free to inform others that the risk exists, and that people who rate vaccinations in the "less-than-perfect" category are not "anti-science," and are not evil. So thanks for ranting so as to to be an example to others of the dangers of spewing predefined opinions and giving me yet another chance to re-iterate how potentially destructive it is to have such a closed mind, especially about vaccinations, which as of October, 2012, can still be a dangerous thing: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/italy-bans-novartis-flu-vaccines-citing-side-effects
Sent from my ENIAC
That is just nonsense.
If I don't buy the foof, does thevstarving kid live then?
Are there any starving kids in ethiopia, at all?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Flu shots often result in delayed side effects and long-term injury, and according to the CDC, "The following substances are found in vaccines: aluminum,(brain toxin) antibiotics, formaldehyde (now listed as carcinogenic), MSG or monosodium glutamate (a known neurotoxin),and thimerosal(neurotoxic mercury)." http://www.naturalnews.com/033891_vaccines_delayed_injury.html The FDA admits in a court case that vaccines still contain mercury: http://www.naturalnews.com/035432_vaccines_mercury_court_case.html Thanks in advance for all reasoned responses. I believe there is still much to learn about vaccinations, their ingredients and the body's responses to them, provided we have an open mind. (jab, lol)
Sent from my ENIAC
>italy
Did you read your own link? They *suspended* *only* *novartis'* vaccine. They did not ban vaccines. They suspended over foreign matter.
In light of your other post, I have to conclude that you're nuts.
Lastly, learn how to make your wall of text readable.
--
BMO
Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.
If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body and its subsystems.
So lets say there is this disease and everone in a classroom is vaccinated against it, but a substitute teacher brings it into the classroom by teaching a single day durring the communicable phase. All the kids get "a little sick" after suffering one exposure. In effect none of the kids get meaningfully sick, their exposure results in a "sub clinical" illness.
Now lets say that the vaccine is 95% effective. So in a class of twenty kids, one has received no real benefit of from the vaccination. The susbstitute provides one exposure. The one child gets sick and, for ease of numbers, is contageous for three days before being weithdrawn from school. Now each of the ninteen other students was exposed to the disease four times.
Remember that each exposure is a strain on the immune system. There is a small chance that a second child will get sick.
Now lets add one completely unvaccinated child. There is now the substitute and two children who get sick. This is a total of seven exposures to the disease. There each of the vaccinated children is now seven times more likely for their exposure to become intense enough for the disease to become symptomatic and contageous.
Now assume that the unvaccinated child has unvaccinated siblings. That family becomes a hotspot. All the kids get sick. Each kid returns to school and mabye one adds an exposure or three to just one more of the kids in that class. That child is now ten times more likely to become symptomatically sick. Which, should it happen, would cause another three exposures to the entire class.
So put two unvaccinated children in the class,and have a 95% efficacy there is a good chance that one more child will be unprotected and the class will end up with a mortality rate more than the 15% represented by the unprotected kids. 30%, 80% or even 100% normal morbidity (clinical infections with a typical spread for results of disease X) becomes the expected result set.
This is the kind of thing where the anti-vaxxers then see statistics (that they don't understand) that demonstrates that "during such-and-such outbreak most of the overcome were vaccinated" and then conclude that vaccination is unsafe because "most of those overcome were vaccinated." Sure. That is mathematically certian in any community where most people are vaccinated. This is because the distribution is over "most of the people". Doh.
The magic number for herd immunity is about 90 percent. Above ninety percent the herd is effectively immune, below ninety, well "not so much". So a community wide vaccination is only as good as its weakest local links. Given that vaccination is never 100% effective, you need to get nearly 100% vaccinated to become protected above the 90% needed for the herd.
Small, concentrated communities of unvacinated persons act as echo chambers, or detonation zones, so lets say a small community has ten anti-vaxx famlies that all like to get together at the same "health center" or church... Whoops...
Having unvaccinated people in your midst is like inviting suicide bombers to your market place. They are primed, ready to explode with some disease if they get exposed themselves, and they will take out the vaccinated as well. Most of the people killed by terrorists are not terrorists so it is unsafe to not be a terrorist! That's anti-vaxx logic turned into highest hyperbole. But its not terribly wrong.
This video below is narrated by a jackass, but it will give you a nice visual verson of this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRclbfK5q08
Sorry for his tone, but the math is right, if super-simplified. The "non-classroom" version is kind of funny for its vitriol, but I didn't post that here.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Since I am _not_ in the studied and approved demographic, I would require you fund my injection as part of a rational and scientific study with control group(s) and proper blinds. But if you got the cash, I am down for participation.
Meanwhile I would not hesitate a heartbeat in recommending the vaccine for the young females, or even the young males, in my life.
I've had HPV and it sucks donkey balls. I've had family members die of cancer. I've read the risk papers enought to know which is the best risk.
Please tell me where to have Johns Hopkins or a similar medical institution capable of proper scientific research send the paperwork for the study grant you propose.
Oh, you were proposing it be done "off lable"... e.g. as an uncontrolled sample trial of one? What would that prove beyond your complete failure to understand the first principles of science?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
By the way, Jenny McCarthy's son is not and never was Autistic. He was misdiagnosed. The kid had a different childhood neurological disorder and is now, essentially, all better.
http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/autism-discussions/general-support/1286285-jenny-mccarthys-son-not-autistic
Citing "Natrual News", which also carries bigfoot sightings and the most cracked-of-pot theories as fact is the Goodwin of health arguments. Nothing on that site is true or accurate as near as I can figure. You might as well cite something you heard in the girl's locker room in junior high as "peer reviewed".
That you beleive or agree with anything on "natural news" is proof that you have disavowed all of science in favor of the four humors and blood-letting.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
In the century plus sinc vaccination was discoverd -- you do know vaccination is a natural process that was discoverd not invented right -- there have easily been FIBE BILLION vaccinations administered world wide.
I'd say that there are hundreds of times _less_ active component protiens in the modern vaccination schedule as compared to the bulk of those done when I was getting those scheduled vaccinations back in the sixties.
I'd say that there is a negative correlation between autism and the contents of vaccines since autism rates are on the rise while vaccinations are getting milder and weaker in content and are being spread out over a longer period of time.
I would strongly suggest that someone with an agenda and a book to seel you, or a set of homeopathic remedies to bring to market, tossed together the phrase "neuroimmune disfunction" to lend an air of credibility to their fear mongering and general scam.
I'd assay that you are more likely to actuall get cash from that Nigerian Prince In Exile than to suffer "neuroimmune disfunction".
I'd wager you, for presenting this idea, have no idea what the study if immunology is about, nor the first bit of what this medical discipline has taught us in the fist-full of decades it has been studied as a separate discipline.
I'd also bet that you are immune to any argument that doesn't support the piss-poor health care discisions you have made for yourself and family.
And I go so far as to posit that you don't know the difference between anecdote and evidence.
So take your pusdo-scientific meta-jargon and go away before you get someone killed.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I used 90% as a stable (oversimplified) value. The actual numbers depend on real math I didn't present (and I don't even know how to format in a slashdot posting) and in which I am not going to claim any expertese at all. The real numbers are like 1-(1/R0) where R0 is the number of people one person is likely to be able to infect. The real numbers for any disease get all differential and such once you bring in efficacy and real immunity. The real numbers are up there in the ninety-or-so for most every well understood disease to date for which we have a vaccine if I understand all that I have read.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Anonymous contributor with a gratuitous insult in very first sentence of summary.
Hard to take this article seriously.
Next.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Except that the vaccine company lied about their studies, and it's actually more like 50,000 that die from the vaccination's side effects. They also lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine, so you still have another 200,000 get the disease and die anyway. And then, most diseases were on their way down due to people starting to wash their hands and things like that at the time vaccination was invented, so the 300,000 would actually be more like 150,000. So, I don't buy your argument at all.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The anger is to be expected. I don't necessarily agree with the polemical approach, but it's totally understandable. Vaccines are not mysterious at all. We understand how they work, we know that they DO work, and self-important cranks are out there convincing people not to vaccinate their kids. They are within their rights, no doubt, but so are the people who call them any sort of mean names. They cause harm! Not only to themselves, but also to those who cannot receive vaccines and who rely on herd immunity to protect them from dangerous diseases. The proud ignorance combined with the public health issues is enough to cause rage.
I think you need to learn more about what we don't know. For example, we don't know why people who get a disease and get over it are immune for life. But the people who get the vaccine need regular boosters for the rest of their life. Even then, there are cases where a vaccine appears to have given the people who got it less resistance to other, related diseases. The one I read about last was a flu vaccine and the swine flu. Not sure the direction, but the vaccine of one made it much more likely you would get the other in the wild.
I think vaccines are very useful for certain diseases. I also think they are pushing way too many of them and for diseases that are not life threatening. I don't want my 2 year old getting a vaccine for sexually a transmitted disease. If that means I can't put them into the public school system without some sort of exemption, then so be it. If you want to be part of the herd, then go ahead. I don't think you have the right to tell me what I must put into my body. Especially since the companies that make the stuff are not honest and straight forward with their study results.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I couldn't agree more!
no, Sally and Henry will not die because they have greater chance of being struck by lightening than coming down with the diease. And your 95% is absurdly high number, more like one in ten likely will get no protection from the vaccine anyway. once you accept that over ten million will be unaffected by the vaccine and have no protection anyway, your argument comes crashing down.
Logic fails you, more than one in ten will get no protection from the vaccine anyway. they are the same as the un-inocculated in your arguments. it doesn't matter if a parent chooses to add one more to the ranks of tens of millions.
>Further, "they need to be riduculed and made embarrassed" used to be a popular method for teaching kids. I'd hazard a guess that I'm ringing a bell...
>How many children subjected to such an ethos grow up to respect those who would claim authority over them
You're not going to see this, but I'll answer anyway.
We're not talking about children here. We're talking about full grown adults who grew up given the reasonable argument about vaccines and science and rejected them.
They are willfully stupid and deserve to be ridiculed and embarrassed.
--
BMO
It seems that the idea is to use messenger RNA to get some cells to start producing signature protiens (e.g. the "N1" and "H1" parts of, say N1H1) so that the immune system will remain primed to combat whichever protiens those are.
The dangers I see are:
How will these protiens exit those cells?
How will the selection of cells be controlled and moderated?
Will this "burn up" white blood cells, causing them to wear out faster than normal. I know that one of the current anti-aging things being investigated is a way to purge the body of these used-up cells via complex filtration. So we "know", for small values of knowing, that the accumulation of these used-up cells is bad for us. I think increased arterial plaque is one of the direct results. (this is not my area).
We know that citokine (spelling?) storms can cause some diseases to harm the "healthy", which is part of why the spanish flu really tagged fit men in their twenties. So would such a self-continuing response to some protien make such storms more likely?
What if the cell that starts spewing this protien becomes cancerous?
In short, the doability isn't that remote, but the potential badness isn't that constrained. So the "should we" conversation is kind of more important than the "can we".
But in no case is the eternal vaccination "contageous" or "shedable"... /sigh.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
So better dumb than sorry? The phalacy behind virtually all "vaccine injuries" is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". E.g. "I decided to blame my broken hip on my flu shot because the flu shot happened monts before I fell down so I am sure it made me dizy.".
No really. The stories are less true, and less well connected, and less _credible_ that the average urban myth.
But, even if they were all true, which they are proveably not, the dozen or so scary stories you know have to be stacke up against FIVE BILLION safely administered vaccinations world-wide.
If the "vaccine injuries" were true, there would be a line of body bags fifty-million long behind the last sixty years of vaccinaiton. Do the math. Seriously.
As far as "medical warnings", have you looked at a carton of eggs lately? Did you know PEANUT BUTTER _MAY_ CONTAIN PEANUTS? Seriously, everything has a warning. Nothing is safe.
Only those afraid of their own breath would let this kind of fear endanger their children and so beleive that you can stop Measles from blinding your kid by getting them a back-rub. (no seriously folks, look up chiropractic clams for alternatives to vaccination. It's farking insane where these people go for solace after their unwarrented fears kick in.)
You are a public health threat if you don't vaccinate your kids, and I hope you live in a cabin far, far away from all human contact. It's the only way to be sure.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Is to point out that the crowd that ignores all the science behind the FIVE BILLION vaccinaiton performed world-wide wihtout harm, balances this overwhelming proof of safety agains a few fairy stories told around digital campfires; and that's just not science.
See this "calling people on their bullshit" is an immune response smart people have to stupidity. It serves to protect the credulous from the claims of the wildly misinformed.
Think of it as "herd immunity against the innane."
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
God forbid that you get some alluminium in your system. It's not like every fistfull of soil has aluminium. It's not like a single breath in a dusty room won't deliver as much or more aluminum into your system than any vaccine ever.
Thimerisol, which is only found in the flu shot, and only if it comes from the bottle (as opposed to premeasured single-shots). On and there's a trace amount in one other vaccine that I can't remember.
But you know, on average, you take in more thimerisol from changing your contact lenses ONCE than you get in a flu shot. OH THE HORROR!
Seriously, the "scheme" of "big pharma" that leads them to make vaccines is that if you vaccinate the public they live long enough to buy a lifetime supply of the cold remedies and NSAIDS and stuff that old people choke down. The average "big pharma" profit on a single vaccine is just about the same as on a single bag of cough-drops. And you only get a few of these shots as opposed to the number of over-the-counter crap you will consume all your life.
The very fact that you cite "big pharma" kind of proves you to be a "big tool".... how much have you spent on "big homopathy" so far? How many "organic" this, and how many books on "the dangers of" that?.
You have been had. Taken to the counter-culture cleaners. They waved a "big pharma" flag under your nose and then bilked you for cold hard cash. What an idiot.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yea, fuck those girls! They deserve cervical cancer! They must have been tramps for getting HPV in the first place!
(A) There are no documented cases of Gardasil causing cancer.
(B) If I offered you a homeopathic remedy that had proven track record of blocking just under 40% of any cancer would you take it? Sure you would.
Remember that "just 38% protection from cancer" is 38 girls saved from cancer out of every 100 girls that would have gotten cancer if you did the _nothing_ you seem to be advocating.
So _when_ is saving 38% of women from cervical cancer a bad thing?
The fact that it saves many more girls from HPV in the first place is something you also ignore; you know, HPV, the thing the vaccine is for? Yea, that sucks all by itself. The cancer thing is just gravy.
Do you even _listen_ to the twat-waddle that pours out of your mouth?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Says the bigot who labels they people he doesn't like.
Ok, and has anyone ever done this and made a mistake or been wrong? There are an awful lot of scientific articles that fail peer review, are the authors of those anti-science too? Are anyone who doesn't believe the articles or the results published that later turn out to be wrong anti-science? Have you always verified everything known in science and validated everything you know to be true with the scientific method? If not, doesn't that make you anti-science by the same standards?
Actually, they prove the results of their work. The results of their work are opinions on the facts and would be re-creatable or reproducible.
Nobody is rejecting it out of hand. That's the part that blows my mind. The people, even you, do not have access to the original works, most and probably you, do not have the ability or knowledge to reproduce or validate the work. We rely on people to tell us about it. Some people are more convincing then others. In the case of your bigotry, creation is in no way in conflict with science because if the world as we know it was created, it could have been created in the ways we seem to interpret things as part of the creation. In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science, they are saying there are risks that they think outweighs the vaccines benefits.
Here is a more practical example. And because it si slashdot, I get bonus points for inserting cars into the mix. A couple of years ago, on some cars, the acceleration electronics opened wide open causing the car to floor itself which the breaks couldn't override. All the sensors and all the science pointed to it wasn't happening but to the 4 or 5 people it happened to, it was very real. Toyota went ahead and replaced the units, adjusted the car computer software to kill the engine to an idle if the breaking was applied beyond a certain amount, and made corrections to floor mats and everything else possible to avoid the situation again. It doesn't make them anti science, it doesn't mean they were rejecting science out of hand because they took those extra steps that the science all pointed to as not being needed.
No they do not. They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important. The people you mention accept and use the products of science in so many other areas it isn't funny. It's like you're not able to look at this objectively or something. That's not very scientific of the bigot now is it?
Revisiting this thread.
>I don't want my 2 year old getting a vaccine for sexually a transmitted disease.
So you don't want your kid being vaccinated against HPV?
The one that causes cancer?
Why do you hate your child?
--
BMO
"it's not that people don't trust science, it's that they don't trust the motivations of the people practicing it."
Bingo, we have a winner.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
"Scientific method is rather simple"
It is in the field of math, some aspects of physics, and in theory, but in the real world filled with people (scientists) working in real world organizations, regarding the field of medicine, the public 'outcome' or 'status' of scientific method is strongly influenced by politics and economics.
In addition to that, human health status is such a complicated system to measure that pretty much every medical field study uses very sparse data points. It should be no surprise that in the field of medicine discoveries are made regularly that certain things have been previously misunderstood.
And as a result, not everybody follows the herd. And that is simply how the world, filled with human beings, works.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
All a-bluster with internet rage and your magical fairy belief that what you want' a forum to be is what it shall become.
You are so special for your insights that I cannot fathom how we could have all missed it so...
Quick, shake your little fist some more and prove yourself all "palidin" over all us content producing monsters.
How dare us!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yes, most of those terrible stories of vaccination injury are pure bullshit. The rest are a result of people not knowing how to figure out the real reason for their state.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Actually, they prove the results of their work
And that was all that was needed to show that you know nothing at all about science. No, outside of maths, scientists do not prove things. They can invalidate, but they do not prove. Heck, I expect you do not even know what a theory is.
creation is in no way in conflict with science
Creation isn't even wrong. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. It is "in conflict" with science in the same way that astrology and reading tea leaves is "in conflict" with science. Creation is just childish superstition, it doesn't overlap with science in any manner. For creation to be even remotely interesting someone has to come up with a theory, so far nobody has.
In the case of the anti-vaccines, they aren't rejecting the science
Actually they are. The prevalent scientific theory is that there is no co-variance (even) between vaccines and autism and currently there is no data to show that this theory is wrong. So, if you think there is a causation, you are arguing against the current scientific theory. You can prove current scientific theory wrong by showing that causation is plausible, heck even co-variance would be interesting. Such has yet to be done. Until it is done, saying there is causation is in direct opposition to science.
They reject the claim or insert an alternative claim they consider more important
Science doesn't deal with "claims" so there is nothing to reject. What they consider "important" is of utter irrelevance since importance has nothing to do with science. Science deals with theories and data, and I assume you know nothing about either.
Don't forget WI-FI allergy.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
If there was anything that defined psychosomatic illness, that's it.
--
BMO
Prove their work is not proving things
Wow, you really are that ignorant, aren't you. Well, it is in the very definition of science. Science (as mentioned outside of maths) is about creating theories, and about falsifying, not proving, those theories. That is what science is, by definition. Simplified, but I doubt you would understand the longer version. Scientists are not engaged in proving things. Read Popper before continuing to make a fool out of your self.
You have no idea if creation is real or superstition
Yes, I do. There has never even been set forward a theory that covers creation. If there isn't even a theory, it is highly unlikely there is a reality. That was what I alluded to when I said "Creation" isn't even wrong. As long as there is no falsifiable theory available to explain "Creation" we can not even discuss whether it is real or not. Before any validity of "Creation" can be determined, there must be a theory. Until there is a theory it is conjecture only (at best) and conjecture that people believe is real is superstition. By definition. So, yes, until there is a theory for Creation, Creation is, by the very definition, superstition.
then someone who checked to find there is no connection between the two
Nobody ever did. You are again showing that you do not understand what science is. People didn't check if there was no connection, they checked, again and again and again, if there is a connection. Even the fact that you thought it would be possible to check if there is no connection indicates a huge problem. It is impossible, scientifically, to prove a negative. In other words, we can not prove that there is no connection, but as long as nobody has found any indication of a connection, it is absurd to think there is one. Superstition again. Nobody has ever found one, so the theory that there is no connection has never been proven false, and it is reasonable to assume there is no connection. Until someone finds a connection, there is only one valid theory, and that is that there is none. You can sit down and create a theory that says there is, but that theory has to be falsifiable. Please explain how you would do that. Until you have a fully falsifiable theory that there is a connection between vaccinations and autism, there is not even a possibility of making a the case for a probable connection.
please point me to the work that says in the history of vaccines, no one has ever gotten ill because of the vaccine
How could I? There is ample data indicating that a number of vaccines have various side effects. What relevance does that have?
and all these people using their built in mental processes that have normal healthy children who all the sudden develop or start displaying signs of autism shortly after a round of vaccines
No such case has ever been documented. I think that bears repeating. Nobody has ever documented a case where autism unexpectedly appeared shortly after a vaccination. Nobody. There is a doctor who claims he has documented it, but his work has been shown to be a fraud. Yes, a fraud. He did it to make money! Now, before continuing, read up on what "documented" means, and also read about the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallasy.
how about where the research is that shows every single instance of claims of autism from vaccines had properly prepared vaccines that were not contaminated with anything at all, that were transported correctly and store correctly and administered correctly- each and every time
We don't need this. We need one out of two things, the former would prove inconclusively that vaccines cause autism, the other would only make a case for it being highly likely. The second has two different paths, but the result is the same.
1/ Show that a vaccine, possibly a component of the vaccine, causes autism. The problem with this is tha
Asking a question has nothing to do with logic.
Claiming that 1 out of ten vaccines will fail, deserve some quotation ;D
Sorry, you are full of nonsense.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany has only 80 Million inhabitants.
USA has about 350 Million.
If in any of those countries 50,000 would die on a vaccine, everybody would know some people who died to it.
You seem not to be good in numbers.
In germany no singel person died in the last 100 years on a vaccine ...
Claiming so is completely retarded.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Claiming nobody has died from a vaccine is retarded. So they call it death by infection instead, or whatever category they want to stick it under. There is a reason the vaccines have a huge list of side effects, including death, and it isn't for the fun of it. Vaccines are useful, but you must make a risk\benifit analysis or you are just another idiot who expects others to take care of you. Do you also think nobody dies due to being in a hospital. Plenty of people pick up infections in the hospital that kill them. That dosn't mean you don't go to the hospital if you have a serious problem, but it does mean you are stupid if you go there for little reason. Then when you pick up the infection and die, you can rest assured that the cold you went in for didn't kill you.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Your example about the hospital is right. However it makes your claims about vaccines not more true.
From most vaccines you can not get an infection.
Risk/benefit analysises on vaccines are done by the state/the government. As vaccines only work if they get mass deployed. Your own risk/benefit analysis only makes sense for yourself if you travel to an area which has infections that are dangerous for YOU ALONE (in other words it is not your business that the population there is suffering from it).
A risk/benefit analysis whether I should vaccine my child against measles or rubella will likely always show: no, not worth it. The likely hood it will get it is far below 1/1000.
However if all in your neighbourhood think so, one infected child coming from another country will infect a big deal of the population.
Hence the state requires that ALL in your neighbourhood take the vaccine.
Bottom line you are only exchanging the uncertain health problem (very unlikely death, even unlikely to occur at all) of the vaccine, with a very certain (they certainly will get ill and some may die) but very unlikely health problem (perhaps there never is an infection) of all around you.
Nevertheless your irrational angst of vaccines is in no way founded.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. These companies have also been found to falsify the results of the side effects to make that look better than it is.
In the past, people would get measles and most of them would get over it fine. Then they have lifetime immunity. With the vaccine they don't get lifetime immunity, so they need constant boosters, or we end up with outbreaks in populations where most people are immunized. It seems very unscientific to me to say it is the un-immunized people's fault that people who got the vaccine are still getting sick. If the vaccine doesn't work so well, then why risk the side effects of getting it. When you look at all the possible side effects of the vaccine and compare it to the chance of possible problems from getting the disease, sometime there is more risk in getting the vaccine.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers. But now that the mothers only have the vaccine immunity (which does not work as well), they don't get the immunity they would have gotten. So the medical profession says we must give more vaccines to the kids while they are even younger. Again, when something isn't working, you should not push for more of it.
There are also studies that have found getting a vaccine can increase you risk of getting sick later. Getting a flu shot will make you much more susceptible to getting swine flu. But getting the flu does not. The vaccine derived immunity is not the same as the real thing. It does not last as long, it is not as effective, and it can cause other unexpected results. There was an animal study I read about where different animals were given different types of the same vaccine. The interaction of the two vaccines used for the same thing created a new infectious disease. There is a lot more to vaccines than the "experts" will tell you about. Most doctors probably don't even know all the facts.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator.
It is these issues and more that make me think about each vaccine individually. I do think the herd immunity is valuable and I don't think it is worth skipping a vaccine just because everyone else has it already. But when the disease is only as bad as getting diarrhea or even just a cold, why get a vaccine for that (there are vaccines for very mild diseases). Each shot has it's risk of complications, so minimize to only the ones that provide valuable protection. I also will wait till my child is older to get many of the shots. Once their immune system has developed they work better and have less risks. Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does, so why add the extra risks associated with the shot when it adds no benefit.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine.
And? Evil corporation lied. So all other vaccines don't work either?
Sorry, you sound just like an anti vaccine nuts.
There are deseases that got wiped from the planet due to vaccination.
However here you write: Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does
Ofc she does not need the vaccine. However from the standpoint of the immune system it is irrelevant whether it worked against the real thing or against the vaccine.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator. This is common knowledge. And in fact you don't need research for that.
Influenza viruses, combine. That means during an infection of virus A and B the viruses can combine to several new viruses C1, C2, C3. That happens in chickens, pigs and humans, too!
It is pretty obvious that a vaccine against A and another one against B has a chance to combine to a *real* virus C. Albeit both vaccines only had parts in them which could not evolve to a "living" A or B.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers.
Well, scientists disagree. They claim vaccines work from the second month. OTOH the fact that babies don't get a working immune system comes from the fact that mothers to rarely give breast feeding.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.