Slashdot Mirror
Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Jenny McCarthy is claiming she has been misunderstood and is not anti-vaccine. In an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times, McCarthy tries to ignore everything she's been saying about vaccines for years and wipe the record clean. 'People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,' McCarthy told Time magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. 'Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.' But Kluger points out that McCarthy left the last line out of that quotation: 'If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f--king measles.' That missing line rather changes the tone of her position considerably, writes Phil Plait and is a difficult stance to square with someone who is not anti-vaccine. As Kluger points out, her entire premise is false; since vaccines don't cause autism, no one has to make the choice between measles (and other preventable, dangerous diseases) and autism. Something else McCarthy omitted from her interview with Kluger: 'I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe,' said McCarthy. 'If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f*cking fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's sh*t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.' Kluger finishes with this: 'Jenny, as outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough continue to appear in the U.S.—most the result of parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the scare stories passed around by anti-vaxxers like you—it's just too late to play cute with the things you've said.' For many years McCarthy has gone on and on and on and on and on and on about vaccines and autism. 'She can claim all she wants that she's not anti-vax,' concludes Plait, 'but her own words show her to be wrong.'"
Is it because of her advanced medical degree? Her first hand knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry?
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with people celebrating human sexuality or whatever, but isn't it a bit ... overindulgent to be treating a former Playboy Playmate as an authority on much of anything, or really caring at all what she says? I get that debunking anti-vaxxers is a good cause and all, but why are we bothering with this anti-vaxxer?
Anti-vax zealots are coming.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Speaking as someone who contracted measles before I was inoculated and suffered mild brain damage from the same I can only say this woman is a fucking idiot. Personally I was lucky just to survive! When measles go bad they KILL!!!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Mademoiselle McCarthy has as much right as the next parent to be wrong about something, but her point of view should have no more weight attached to it.
This occurs in politics too, as both sides of the US Congressional aisle have been guilty of courting Hollywood. Seemingly, the entertainment class is more likely to be unbalanced than well informed, and yet, here we are.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I assume her limited acting engagements got even smaller when film studios realized how badly most people didn't like her because of her anti-vaccine views, putting everyone at risk because she is a moron
Frankly most people aren't even aware of her views on vaccines and frankly the studios could not care less about such things for the most part. She gets hired for acting gigs largely on the strength of her physical appearance. Nobody is going to mistake her acting ability with that of Meryl Streep. As brutal as it is to say, an aging playmate/model has a short shelf life in Hollywood. It's hard for even very talented actresses to get work in their 40s. It's much harder when their ability to get acting gigs was based on their looks in the first place.
I don't remember exactly when the move started; but 'mainstream' anti-vaxers switched to the "green our vaccines"/"reduce the toxins"/"too many too soon" line some years ago to help distinguish themselves from the fringe 'Vaccines sully the bodily purity and weaken the vital essences with Aborted Fetus cells and zionist NWO population control schemes!!!' anti-vaxers.
Shockingly, this move has not led them to embrace any of the vaccines that have been reformulated by popular demand to reduce or eliminate whatever originally had them worried, nor has it led to any apparent interest in working with the toxicology people to determine what level of 'greenness'/'reduced toxins' is acceptable. Nor has there been a rush of interest to vaccinate according to some sort of reduced-pace schedule(though some individual doctors have various ones that they prefer).
Obviously, it would be hugely unethical and pointlessly cruel to advocate the use of vaccines whose risks outweigh their benefits (and, since vaccination for a selection of potentially-serious childhood diseases, as well as less common but more serious diseases, if we have the vaccine available and you are in a suitable risk group, is so enormously common, this is an area of medicine where studying safety both before and after approval is money well spent); but, despite their rhetorical shift, there appears to be no evidence that the 'We don't hate vaccines, we just want safe ones!' groups are actually at all interested in even setting goalposts that vaccines would have to meet to be accepted, much less reviewing evidence as to whether or not existing vaccines do meet those standards.
Honestly, I liked them better before their shift. There is a certain intellectual honesty to embracing a position that others see as lunacy and then fighting like a rabid weasel against all evidence. Not a...healthy...kind of intellectual honesty; but a kind of intellectual honesty. Mealy-mouthed disingenuous bullshit, though, lacks that virtue, and aggressively so. Even more cynically, it uses the cause of actual epidemiology, toxicology, and medical monitoring, safety standards, approval protocols, and other (vital) elements of keeping medicine honest and more useful than it is harmful as camouflage for a load of anti-scientific nonsense.
If they were willing to actually come out with some some sort of target (even if it seems pointlessly low according to current data), they'd just be the cautious wing of an actually scientific exercise in epidemiology and toxicology. As it is, no goals are defined, no data accepted, no improvement is ever good enough. It's pure smokescreen.
So you're suggesting that evolution relies upon dishonesty? You're not wrong... but at some point we hit a wall where continued dishonesty creates a threat that puts our species at risk (which is where we are today). To survive as a species we have to uphold honesty as a defacto requirement or we'll simply be culled from history like the dinosaurs.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
She gets booked for her tits, not her views.
For years they told us that it was safe to use mercury in vaccines. No problem, we were told. Then relatively recently they removed mercury in vaccines. Personally I think reducing toxins in things we ingest is a good idea, but I am 100% in favor of vaccinations.
Her (new?) position seems to be make vaccines more safe. I'm not sure that is possible to do, or even if current vaccines contain toxins, but it is a laudable goal.
Rewriting history is nothing new for people in the anti-vax movement. At first, it was just the MMR which caused autism. (Wakefield's original study - since discredited and proven wrong many, many times.) Then, it was the mercury in vaccines. Then, it was the sheer number of vaccines. Then, it was "toxins" in the vaccines. As each claim was proven wrong, the anti-vax folks moved on to a new claim and declared that scientists had to now prove this new one wrong or they would be "proven" correct. (Never mind that science doesn't work this way. You don't get to make a claim with no evidence and then declare that you are right until people prove you wrong.)
Moving the goalposts is business as usual for the anti-vax crowd so why shouldn't McCarthy try to rewrite history?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There was a recent survey among people who do not vacinate their kids and fear of autism was not high.
Top reasons given were:
Would prefer more organic items in the vaccine; or prefer a more natural method of having the kid catch the disease and natural immunization.
That they were in a good area so the kids would not catch anything.
Feat of what "big pharma" is doing, how they are misleading people, and cannot be trusted.
This is a common trope of the anti-vaxxers -- continuously claim they want safe vaccines, without ever defining in a quantitative way what "safe" is; just the implication that none of the current vaccines are it.
Shockingly, this move has not led them to embrace any of the vaccines that have been reformulated by popular demand to reduce or eliminate whatever originally had them worried, nor has it led to any apparent interest in working with the toxicology people to determine what level of 'greenness'/'reduced toxins' is acceptable
That's because their objections to vaccines were never based in logic or evidence. Mostly its a combination of conspiracy theory and scientific illiteracy with a bit of confirmation bias and save-the-children thrown in the mix. The same people that would think vaccines cause autism despite there being huge amounts of evidence showing no link whatsoever are the same sort of people who are gullible enough to think homeopathy and other so-called "alternative medicine" is something other than quackery.
Vaccines are not documented to cause autism. The viruses Jenny doesn't care to vaccinate for are documented to seriously fuck your shit up. We're not talking riding out Chickenpox and the yearly flu. It appears either she or a PR flack have done the math and elected to shoot for some damage control.
Luke, help me take this mask off
She is not against vaccines. She just wants safe vaccines. The fact that no vaccine will ever meet her definition of 'safe' is your problem, not hers.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
McCarthy is being highly deceitful when she says the only wants "safe" vaccines. What she means by safe is: 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions in anyone. No medicine ever attains that level of "safe." Not even the aspirin you take for a headache. No, vaccines aren't 100% safe, but they are about 99.999% safe. They are certainly much safer than getting the diseases they prevent. If she wants to wait until something is 100% safe before using it, she would have to avoid all modern medicine. That includes the botox that McCarthy loves getting injected with. (Vaccine toxins are bad but botulinum toxin fights wrinkles so it's good!)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I have kids, who are both fully vaccinated. However, you can't simply appeal to authority. The medical community is often wrong. Consensus has often been wrong. Historically and recently. The pharmaceutical industry has sold some utter crap to people. It routinely does bad things in the name profit.
You should not trust or distrust the medical or pharmaceutical industry blindly or frivolously. Of all Ms. McCarthy's flaws inherent distrust of the medical industry is not one of them in my opinion.
http://www.overcompensating.co...
There is a war going on for your mind.
that all the "on" and "on" and "on"s .. are blog posts with supposed quotes.
It seems to me from *THIS* article that people have been painting her as something she's not.
This article and everyone who has vilify a woman for years is a perfect example of what is dark and ill in people. You can't have a discussion without modding up "But she wouldn't shut her cock holster"
You people make me sick. It's a shame there's no vaccine to protect society against you.
And she's right about one thing. When corporations are the ones who create our medications and they are barely regulated, our medicine isn't safe. And we're giving this stuff to our children on the corporation's say so. The corps love the McCarthy story because it focuses everyone on one person and one false claim that was recanted and it keeps people from looking at the bigger picture. Instead of activism to make sure our vaccines are safe to use, you're all baaaaa-ing after a woman like the little sheep you are.
Here is another part of the label for Tripedia (specifically after the listing of autism): "Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."
If Mercury in vaccines is a large concern of yours, have a look at this list of common vaccines with and without mercury from our friends at the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbl...
You're falling prey to the foolish notion that someone couldn't devise a strategy around this deficiency. One exists to effectively remove dishonesty from the equation.
We're in the age of dating profiles. A successful nerdy high functioning autistic can mate and bear children easily enough. The fact the autistic doesn't have to contend with hundreds of women eagerly waiting for his sexual attention merely offers up more time to do whatever great things the universe has in store.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That is her whole point. She claimed that vaccines cause autism. If you don't want to risk giving your children autism then do not vaccinate them.
Pointing out that she has NO medical training is NOT "attacking her personally".
She is making specific medical claims. She is doing so without any evidence.
Bullshit!
If that is so then you should be able to show which vaccines she claims are "safe". AND what her MEDICAL evidence is for those being "safe" versus the "un-safe" vaccines.
That is MORE bullshit.
The issue is whether "existing vaccines" cause autism or not.
So far, there is NO medical evidence to support her claims.
To sum up, this is an attempt to remove all the nuance from someone's position and put them on either one side or the other of a false dichotomy.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Yes, and by "zealots" you mean people who understand basic science.
Because the anti-vaccination people have not been able to provide any evidence to support their claims.
But the medical scientists have been able to.
Over time, "negation tags" fall out of memory: "Saddam didn't plan 9/11" becomes "Saddam planned 9/11."
Her only option is to state unequivocally that she's pro-vaccine and say it a lot.
If taking faith out of the equation, namely the belief that "all deaths are bad", the picture becomes less clear.
Is culling of the herd necessarily a bad thing for humanity in the long perspective?
Faith is not necessary in order to hold all human life to be precious. As an agnositc-almost-atheist (in that you cannot prove a negative) I am actually rather offended at the suggestion.
Meningitis and encephalitis are known complications of measles, and either can lead to permanent brain damage. Depending on the location and severity of this damage, the symptoms can be indistinguishable from "true" autism (which is mostly genetic).
"Mercury is a known neurotoxin and is proven to kill brain neurons."
Mercury is a known element that naturally is part of the human body. Look at the FDA thimerosal content of vaccines currently mandated and add them all up (far over what a single person gets from vaccines) - it totals to 239.2 micrograms of mercury. How much mercury is in a newborn of average weight? 303 micrograms. How much mercury is in an average adult? 6 milligrams. Quit spreading this bullshit. Eat some tuna lately? you took in some mercury and you're doing just fine. Yes, there is an unsafe amount, but the fact that remains is the amount in vaccines is minuscule to what the human body manages.
When IMDB lists your "Known for" as a visit on The View in 1997, two Playboy videos, and Scary Movie 3, I wouldn't characterize it as "limited acting engagements". I'd say non-existent acting engagements.
Is culling of the herd necessarily a bad thing for humanity in the long perspective?
You first.
Or rather, to vaccinate or not is a decision lying at the intersection of parental rights vs. right of the general public to live in a world as disease-free as possible. It matters not why the parent doesn't feel vaccination is a proper course of action for the child. Ultimately, by force what matters is the right of the people to determine what sort of society we want to be living in.
Actually, Tylenol has it's own set of problems. It can be quite harmful to the liver. Within the recommended dosage, it's quite safe, but the difference between the recommended maximum dosage and dangerous of lethal dose is quite small.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I have a simple question to all the anti-tech, anti-medicine, natural-healing, doctors-are-evil, the pharma-companies-are-screwing-us-over, homeopathic, pro-farmers-market, anti-soy, i-hate-genetic-engineering, chemical-additives-are-evil green whackjobs.
If everything the medical industry has been doing has been wrong, why has human life expectancy consistently gone up? We live longer than we used to. If we are being poisoned, radiated, pumped full of toxins, eating cancer-creating genetic frankenfoods and generally being screwed over why the hell ARE WE LIVING LONGER? It is not that hard, really!
Don't get me wrong, I like my veggies fresh just like anyone else and run my own plot of lad and product much of what I eat. But my motive is not techno-phobia. The greens are full of bullshit.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
You will willingly buy into unsubstantiated claims about dental fillings and ingesting mercury even suffer pain and monetary cost because of it (and possibly even harming your health) - but you will not vaccinate your children on an off chance that "something" might be wrong with the vaccines.
You do realize, your actions there are guided by pure ignorance and fear, right? Much like Jenny's.
You might want to have a chat with her. I had her number somewhere... Found it on the wall once.
It goes something like 86753... Dammit I'll have to look it up.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Faith is not necessary in order to hold all human life to be precious. As an agnositc-almost-atheist (in that you cannot prove a negative) I am actually rather offended at the suggestion.
What's your logical foundation for your belief that all human life is precious?
It is pure faith, ingrained in you by societal pressure, and that's precisely why you're offended. If it was based on logic, why would you feel offended?
I don't feel offended if people tell me that Bernoulli forces is all that holds a plane up in the air - I think they're wrong, and can argue it. But offended? No, that requires trampling on a belief.
Atheists can have faith too. They just don't have faith in deities. But they are usually quite burdened with cultural beliefs that have little rational reasoning behind them, but are taken on faith. Like taboos, and indeed the belief that death is evil.
...but ALL PEOPLE love conspiracy theories.
It's probably the same mechanism that once had us concluding that "Gods be angry. Quick! Burn someone to appease them." whenever we heard thunder in the distance.
I.e. Coming up with giant important explanations to what we perceive as giant important events.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
and my boobs are totally real!"
You get that when they study new vaccines, it's not done in a vacuum, right? A kid enrolled in a vaccine study will have all his other vaccines already, so every new vaccine that gets tested IS being tested in conjunction with all the other scheduled vaccines.
Furthermore, if the rest of the developed world has a much less intensive vaccination schedule (citation requested), and if vaccinations cause harm, then you ought to see LESS harm in other parts of the world. Can you show me some evidence that the vaccine schedules used elsewhere in the world produce better outcomes? Because (spoiler alert) no such result has ever been detected.
When IMDB lists your "Known for" as a visit on The View in 1997, two Playboy videos, and Scary Movie 3, I wouldn't characterize it as "limited acting engagements". I'd say non-existent acting engagements.
Really? No Baseketball reference?
I thought that was her best role ever. By a longshot.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
McCarthy is being highly deceitful when she says the only wants "safe" vaccines. What she means by safe is: 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions in anyone. No medicine ever attains that level of "safe." Not even the aspirin you take for a headache. No, vaccines aren't 100% safe, but they are about 99.999% safe. They are certainly much safer than getting the diseases they prevent. If she wants to wait until something is 100% safe before using it, she would have to avoid all modern medicine. That includes the botox that McCarthy loves getting injected with. (Vaccine toxins are bad but botulinum toxin fights wrinkles so it's good!)
Except that's not what she means. From her op-ed:
For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants.
If, as you say, she refused vaccines until they were 100% effective with no side effects and no unexpected reactions, then she wouldn't be vaccinating her child at all. Instead, she is vaccinating him, just at a slower rate. She even quotes another blogger, saying:
You either fall in line with 40-plus vaccines your doctor recommends on his or her schedule or you’re a wack-job ‘anti-vaxxer.’ Heaven forbid you think the gray zone is an intelligent place to reside and you express doubt or fear or maybe want to spread the vaccines out a bit on this tiny person you’ve brought into the world.
Now, that may not comport with the science, nor is it what the AMA or APA advise, but it's a far cry from being "anti-vax" or lumping her in with people who are opposed to all forms of medicine and use "prayer" instead. Consider this parallel - there are plenty of people who are anti-GMO food, even though there are no scientifically proven adverse effects from it. But we don't brand them "anti-food".
No, this whole thing is a hit piece, trying to lump her in with the real anti-vax loonies, and in doing so, it does a disservice to people like her who don't understand the science behind vaccinations, and nonetheless want what's best for her kids. This is not a religious fight with people who will never change their minds, but rather an argument with a bunch of well-meaning idiots who can still be educated... unless we treat it as a religious fight and refuse to try to enlighten them.
Culling != suicide.
I've survived the cullings so far. I survived measles, influenza, climbing trees and navigating traffic. In a while, I'll be old and more of an encumberance than asset to the herd, and I'll be picked off. That's fine with me.
Intelligently designed vaccines.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
to learn the difference between bioavailable mercury and non-bioavailable mercury.
Jenny needs a college biology degree.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
that's*
I'm not anti-you. I just think that you should learn fourth grade English.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
She is a liar. Should be on death row for all the children she had killed.
"Hello. I'm a famous person...and I'm for sale. Do have a product or a business that needs promotion? Do you sell something worthless? Something no one will buy because it's poorly built and doesn't work properly? Likely to come apart at high speeds? Perhaps with toxic side effects? Well, I'm here to help you. I'll take your product and I'll sell it to them because they trust me. That's right; they trust me because...I'm a famous person."
Now will somebody please explain to me why people shouldn't listen to this particular celebrity but we should all listen to and shout hosannas to the rogue's gallery of celebrities James Cameron got to spout off in his global warming movie.
I hope you get all of those things at one time.
It still won't make up for all the other people who will die because of your bullshit, but it would certainly be a small bit of justice.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.
Er... a vaccine is generally a weakened form of the actual disease you're trying to protect against. It's a little concept called "immunotherapy." One doesn't create a vaccine by running away from toxins, one embraces the toxins in a manner that stimulates the body to protect itself.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Suppose we decide that all human life isn't precious. (Not based on religious beliefs, but based on simple human decency.) Are some human lives more valuable than others? According to your logic, we should just let people get measles and if they die they die. What if they have a certain knowledge or talent that many people find useful? Perhaps they are a beloved author or a celebrated scientist who keeps making great discoveries. Maybe the person is a master at getting warring regions to sign even-handed peace treaties or helps the needy. Whatever they do, let's suppose their contributions to society are very important. Do we save them?
If not, we've lost some huge contributions to society. If so, we're headed down a path where people dictate which people are more important (and thus will be saved) and which people aren't (and thus will die). That's a scary path to go down.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This is a word, when spoken by anyone other than a respected and trustworthy medical professional or scientist, should put your bullshit meter on high alert.
They throw this word around like a catch-all, as if it trumps any argument. Hell, it even *sounds* ominous. It evokes mental imagery of a skull and crossbones and attempts to sway you into someone's camp by suppressing the logical and critical thinking portions of your mind.
What are these supposed toxins? They're toxins, duh! Toxins are dangerous! Are you stupid? You don't want people to think your stupid do you?
we are the company from turkey we have our gulet we do gulet charter www.holidaygulet.com
She's anti-evidence and anti-thought. The anti-vaccine stuff is merely a symptom; you can't have a religion without there being a FUCKTON of extra baggage underneath the relatively trivial symptoms of your specific beliefs. It's the larger and more general belief (that it is impossible for people to learn things by observing evidence and make inferences) by which one of these people should be labeled.
Don't worry, you are vaccinated against them, right? I love how ridiculous the zealots on both sides can be.
Couldn't there be some kind of Common Core -- for Public Health reasons, we want your kid to have the vaccines for Polio, Diptheria-Pertusis, Measles, Rubella, and Chicken Pox, or is the list much, much longer?
Jenny McCarthy is obviously not a mental giant but...give her credit for changing her mind. Before she had kids, she might have thought vaccines were the spawn of satan but after becoming a Mom, maybe they didn't look so bad. From TFA, sounds like she's wanting 'one poke per visit' to the Doctor which is a whole lot better than those parents who refuse to give their kids any vaccines whatsoever. This Slashdot article seems pointless other than to try and make the case that Jenny McCarthy is a hypocrite and bring out some discussion about vaccines. However, we have to cut McCarthy some slack on the hypocrite charge as people are allowed to change their mind with the passage of time.
It’s not mytical that some vaccines used to contain thiomersal, a mercury-based preservative. This was replaced with an aluminum compound, and aluminum is correlated with diseases like Alzheimer’s. Of course, we have no evidence that aluminum accumlation causes Alzheimer’s; it could just as well accumulate as a side-effect. Still, it’s cause for investigation. Some flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, which may be of concern to someone who has an allergy to eggs. In general, most preservatives aren’t a good thing to be putting into your body, although I’m at a loss how else you’d give vaccines a reasonable shelf life.
As for autism, there is a growing but confusing and often conflicting body of evidence that it is associated with a variety of different things: Inability of the liver to keep up with metabolizing toxins, over-activation of the immune system, food sensitivities, and a number of things I can’t remember right off. Actually, the three I listed aren’t entirely unrelated. Food sensitivities can cause heightened immune response (depending on the nature of the sensitivity), some of which are auto-immune like celiac disease. As for the liver, I don’t fully understand its role, but there seems to be some issue with competition for a limited resource (which is why taking too much tylenol and/or alcohol can cause liver damage), and it’s involved in doing some cleanup during immune response, I think, and if your body is busy dealing with a pathogen (perceived or real) then it won’t deal with other brain-affecting toxins well enough. (If you want to spend the time to check this, please do.)
One hypothesis regarding autism is that there is an accumulation of toxins in the system that the liver can’t keep up with, and those toxins impair brain function. If you eliminate foods you’re sensitive to, the liver has less work to do and can better keep up with the remaining toxin workload.
So the reasoning seems to be that vaccines cause an overactivation of the immune system and that that response is somehow different from the normal one if you contract the real disease, that over-activation lasts a long time, and during that period, the liver is too busy to metabolize toxins that cause autism.
Ok, fine. Let’s go with that. So vaccines may add ONE contributing factor that may, in some circumstances, overload liver function. Also, so do allergenic foods, polluted air, polluted ground water, BPA, pesticides, etc., etc. But the one thing they pick on is vaccines? Of course, because we HAVE to eat our shitty American diet and drive our gas-guzzling cars and blast our farms with neurotoxins. Oh, NO. We couldn’t possibly boycott those other things with the same vehemence (and possibly ignorance) that we do with vaccines!
So my opinion is this. If you think that vaccines cause autism and you’re being a responsible parent by keeping your kids off vaccines, then you’re a moron unless you also:
- Drive only solar electric vehicles or use horses
- Use reverse osmosis and only glass containers for ALL of your water consumption
- Eat a 100% organic paleo diet
Just to name few. Because only then will you at least have any semblance of consistency in your reasoning. I can’t say for sure whether or not you’d be RIGHT, but at least you’d be CONSISTENT.
As for me, I get my kids vaccinated but we also eat a mostly organic diet, high in nutrients, low in junk food, and we filter our water. Also, we live out in the country and get fresh air. So IF there is some kind of convoluted link between vaccines and autism, I think we’ve more than offset that risk by removing some of the OTHER potential environmental factors sometimes vaguely linked with autism. Also, we feel better because we eat healthier food, and I’ve lost 30 lbs (down from almost 190) since December 2013 by putting myself on the paleo diet (actually, it’s SCD, but you never heard of it). BTW, although I and my wife both have family histories of ASD, neither of our kids show any sign of it, despite the fact that they get vaccinated.
Which in my mind is even scarier. If you look at her statement comparing standing in line for measles as opposed to autism, it could be interpreted as "I'd rather my children catch the measles because at least it isn't permanent, whereas autism is". Autism is an economic death sentence to most families in America, whereas measles is survivable with a decent chance of no lasting effects. What Jenny and her cohorts (IMHO) seem to believe is that autism can be induced or transmitted, and that it is far worse than any illness a child could be vaccinated against. To me, that's an insult to all the functional autistics and Aspies out there.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I'm not totally against X in a way that would make me seem like a total loon to any sane person, I just have certain important qualms with X which may seem reasonable on the surface but, if you pick at it, amount to something indistinguishable from total denial of the issue.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Suppose we decide that all human life isn't precious. (Not based on religious beliefs, but based on simple human decency.) Are some human lives more valuable than others? According to your logic, we should just let people get measles and if they die they die. What if they have a certain knowledge or talent that many people find useful? Perhaps they are a beloved author or a celebrated scientist who keeps making great discoveries. Maybe the person is a master at getting warring regions to sign even-handed peace treaties or helps the needy. Whatever they do, let's suppose their contributions to society are very important. Do we save them?
If not, we've lost some huge contributions to society. If so, we're headed down a path where people dictate which people are more important (and thus will be saved) and which people aren't (and thus will die). That's a scary path to go down.
But that's exactly the path we're on now, where we dictate that those with money or socialized medicine are more important and thus will be saved. If we ban vaccinations, we don't dictate who are more important. It's not our decision anymore then.
Yes, I say, let people die. We lose some geniuses, but we also lose some bible thumpers. On average, we lose more of those who are less able. That's how culling works.
Is it because of her advanced medical degree? Her first hand knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry?
Because if you say ANYTHING, no matter how absurd, on television or any other public forum, someone is going to believe it. Doesn't matter if it is true or not. Doesn't matter if it is clearly a joke. Doesn't matter if you explicitly say that it isn't true. Doesn't matter if it is not supported by the evidence, or just clearly logically wrong to anyone with a functioning brain. Some non-zero percentage of the population will absolutely believe it if it is said out loud.
Many people who have to deal with autism are looking for a scapegoat. They want to believe there is a cause other than random chance roll of the genetic dice and that we know what that cause is even when we do not. They are unwilling to accept that the current answer is "we don't know". They want to believe that someone is to blame for their situation. Combine that with the fact that humans are REALLY good at pattern matching, to the point where we often find patterns where there aren't any. As a result they will grasp onto anything that resembles an explanation. They might blame chemicals or vaccines or "immoral" behavior, or comets, or government conspiracies or lack of prayer or violent video games or a minority group conspiracy or any number of other explanations that clearly don't work when examined against the available facts.
There are several logical fallacies at work here. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, confirmation bias, magical thinking, fallacy of the single cause, and probably some others I'm not thinking of.
I note that you have pointedly NOT replied to the post going step-by-step from "[t]he flu can kill" to " therefore, we should vaccinate".
It was answered to a post by a non-AC.
In short, it's not an acceptable chain because it relies on the unsubstantiated belief that death is inherently bad. I cannot accept that on face value. Back it up with something that doesn't beg the question.
Where are my mod points when I need them. Thank you - I couldn't have said it better myself.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is totally mind-blowing to consider. Perhaps that's exactly the kind of species we could encounter that was space-faring, and from another planet, solar system or galaxy. When you consider the Borg in Star Trek terms fits this concept perfectly, it's a little chilling. I wonder if it's simply free will and a short lifespan that causes a species to be so completely dishonest as human beings.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
However, you can't simply appeal to authority. The medical community is often wrong.
Yes they are wrong with surprising frequency. That does not however mean that you cannot appeal to authority unless you have evidence that they authority is reasonably likely to be wrong. My wife is a doctor and has quite literally forgotten more about medicine than I will ever know. I would be an absolute fool to not take her opinions on any medical matter very seriously. Doesn't mean I have to turn my brain off or that she cannot be wrong but the vast majority of the time she understands the issues involved FAR better than I will. We trust doctors because by and large they have a very credible track record of actually getting it right more than anyone else. In the absence of other available data a trusted expert with a credible track record is a good source of information to listen to.
The pharmaceutical industry has sold some utter crap to people. It routinely does bad things in the name profit.
They also have produced miracle treatments that save lives and alleviate suffering. LOTS of them. Odds are very good that the big percentage of the people reading this are alive today because of the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. They also are closely regulated to ensure that opportunities for quackery are minimized. Just because there have been some criminals in the industry doesn't make the entire industry guilty by association. Microsoft has sold a lot of crap software in the name of profit but we don't blame the entire software industry for their actions. Doing so for the pharma industry is an equally illogical application of guilt by association.
Of all Ms. McCarthy's flaws inherent distrust of the medical industry is not one of them in my opinion.
It is when there is a HUGE amount of evidence that vaccines are largely safe, effective, have few side effects and save lives. You don't have to trust the medical industry but if you don't trust the mountains of credible data available supporting the use of vaccines and other demonstrably effective drugs then you are an idiot. The data is available if you care to look into it. Miss McCarthy plainly has never bothered and her actions almost certainly have lead to preventable deaths and illnesses from confused parents who avoided vaccines for no good reason. What she has done is functionally equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. I think her actions are borderline criminal.
I have no problem with a healthy skepticism of any claim no matter how well accepted. Test any and all hypothesis you can. That's how science is supposed to work. But (falsely) claiming authoritatively that there is a link between vaccines and autism when literally none of the evidence supports that claim is irresponsible in the extreme.
McCarthy has a good point. We can't keep pumping our kids full of these old vaccines without doing regular studies, and using some of the profits to ensure safer versions.
No she does NOT have a good point. There already have been copious studies of these drugs safety and efficacy. There also have been numerous (and ongoing) studies of the many theories of dangers presented by these vaccines, all of which have shown that her theories have no evidence backing them up whatsoever. Every time someone has to go and stomp out another anti-vax lunatic theory creates an opportunity cost. Those people could have spent their time and money and energy working on newer or safer vaccines instead of proving yet-another unsupported safety claim wrong.
Personally I will selectively vaccinate my kids up to a certain age, depending on risk factor, then they can choose themselves. I had both mumps and measles, it was hardly a big deal. If the kids are old enough it's probably even better they get it naturally and get over it than take the vaccine.
You are an idiot and a dangerous idiot at that. Mumps and measles can and do kill people and cause significant and lasting damage in many they do not kill. Furthermore you aren't just endangering your own children. You are allowing them to be potential carriers of the disease to other people who cannot be vaccinated against it whether due to age or medical conditions. Actions like what you propose demonstrably results in people dying when it could have been prevented. What you propose is incredibly irresponsible since every bit of scientific data we have says that the safest and most effective solution for both your children and society at large is to get vaccinated.
Doctors have been taking kick-backs for prescribing drugs for years.
SOME doctors do that. Most do not. Most doctors are decent, honest and hard working people who dedicate their lives to keeping you and me healthy. Just because a few turn out to be criminals doesn't mean it is accurate or fair to assume all are.
They have a long historical record of gettings things wrong.
Show me ANY branch of science where we do not have a long history of getting things wrong. The only way to find out what works is to try things and find out what works and what doesn't. There is a lot we don't know about they human body and medicine is very complicated. Furthermore doctors have a very clear track record of saving far more lives than their actions cost. The average lifespan of humans has DOUBLED largely thanks to doctors and modern medicines. Just because we don't know everything and make mistakes doesn't invalidate the enormous benefit doctors provide to society.
However something you are giving to an entire generation of healthy children you had better be pretty damn sure there aren't going to be side-effects down the line.
There ALWAYS are going to be side effects with any drug. You literally cannot have a 100% safe drug. It is impossible. You will do far more harm by insisting that drugs be 100% safe (they will never come to market) than by understanding the risks profile of the drugs available.
Yes, but that does not lead to "... therefore, we should vaccinate".
Actually it does lead to that. That is EXACTLY why we vaccinate. We vaccinate because it saves lives, reduces medical costs (more expensive to treat than prevent), reduces suffering and enables a greater realization of human potential.
Is culling of the herd necessarily a bad thing for humanity in the long perspective?
You're not "culling the herd". You're not weeding out the weak in most cases. You simply are allowing suffering to continue needlessly. Measles doesn't kill most people it infects before they reproduce so you aren't "culling the herd" in any meaningful way by withholding vaccines.
Is there a plus for humanity to increasing lifespans, or will that slow down evolution?
There are many pluses to increasing lifespans. The most obvious is that people are able to contribute productively to society for longer. More useful work can be done with a longer lifespan. Enabling longer lifespans does not eliminate evolutionary pressure - it merely changes the source of it.
Would humanity be better off if we put half of the money that goes to medical science and practice into other sciences?
You really are cold blooded aren't you? Do you realize the lack of empathy it takes to seriously ask that question? I hope no one ever has to depend on you for their well being.
>'If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f--king measles.' That missing line rather changes the tone of her position considerably, writes Phil Plait and is a difficult stance to square with someone who is not anti-vaccine.
There is nothing necessarily anti-vaccine about her words here. The devil is in the details -- the relative risks of each choice for the individual child, and the risks to the population from the reduction of herd immunity resulting from an individual child's being opted out.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
You're not anti-vaccine... you're just pro-infectious-disease.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
They knocked over a single pin and said that that was representative of any potential link with autism. They then went on to throw balls to represent all the different diseases that vaccines protect against. But the "cost" of all vaccines was only counted once. The "benefit" of vaccine protection was counted dozens of times.
It's an imperfect analogy but they are generally right. They are talking about two things. One is herd immunity. When you are vaccinated you not only cannot get the disease but you cannot transmit it to others either. This means you aren't just protecting yourself once, you are protecting others repeatedly. The other thing they are talking about is the fact that you probably aren't exposed to each virus just once. Odds are good you'll come in contact with a widely spread virus from multiple sources. So by immunizing once you are protected repeatedly. The cost of each vaccine (collectively) is a one time expense but the benefit of it is incurred repeatedly down the line.
It is FAR more economically efficient to vaccinate and prevent infection altogether than to treat infection after they occur. Not only do you save on medical expenses and reduce suffering but you also recoup a lot of opportunity cost from productivity that otherwise would have been lost.
...science and Real Science:
http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...
...the Western Hemisphere, the US Congress, is forever having all these Hollywood airheads make fraudulent movies for them (Tom Hanks' Joe Wilson's War) and testifying before them. Of course, since GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, and a bunch of other biopharmaceuticals have falsely marketing their drugs, resulting in the deaths of many, and TV specials, quite some time back now, captured dirty bathtubs in China by sub-sub-subcontractors used in drug/vaccine preparation, the criticisms should be obvious to all by this late date!
...I posted a link to a most respected French medical institute study on the correlation between the number of vaccines administered to children under 2 years of age, and the correlation to autism, and not a soul responded to the study or link. Look it up, doucheys.
http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...
Actually she has mentioned some vaccine method that were safe.
There is NO vaccine that is 100% safe. There is no drug that is 100% safe. Does not exist and probably never will.
Poeple against her have come out and said those vaccine distribution methods were safer however they cost most and would make distribution harder.
When you make distribution harder (whether due to cost or technical complications) you make it less likely to be administered and thus you get worse results overall. The best vaccine is the one that prevents the greatest number of infections, not the one that has the fewest side effects.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://thebulletin.org/threate...
http://armscontrolcenter.org/E...
http://thebulletin.org/unaccep...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.pathobiologics.org/...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1...
http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...
http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...
. . .when you throw actual facts at them, nawcom, aliterates and illiterates cannot stand nor fathom the facts.
Instead, they believe everything the Easter Bunny, Santa, and whomever is president says is correct, and all those revised flight paths CNN keeps showing us on MH370, really did happen, it's just that they have difficulties reading Phil Falcone's Inmarsat data, so they simply have to keep revising everything, don't ya know!
She's done a ton of harm and you have every right to be mad over that. But... she's influential. Yes, that's pathetic... but it also means we can use this. In true PR fashion, simply publicize the "NOT ANTI-VAX" bit and leave out the rest. If she's not anti-vax now, why should you be? Etc.
No, it's not a logical way to convince anyone. But as should be evident, the people not getting vaccinated (and causing harm to everyone else's kids by weakening herd immunity) have not been convinced via logic.
So it's better to take this for the PR value. We have her history recorded well enough. Use this as PR to get others on board--if she can be "convinced" anyone can.
But, as you note, who is to say whether that's a good thing or not?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
When I was about 2, I got a vaccine and had a horrible reaction to it. I'm not allergic to eggs or anything normal, I just plan had a horrible reaction to it. I had a fever that almost killed me. I also have an autism spectrum disorder but it's mild and barely affects my social skills and made me exceptional at IT.
AND YET
I'm 100% for vaccinations. If it's down to dying from a fever or measles, I'd take my change with the fever. But, it was obviously a dangerous vaccine that obviously should be monitored a little closely or followed up on and generally "fixed" so it doesn't give people fevers. So she does sort of have a point but she's also sort of a classless psycho-bitch lunatic.
Plait wondered:
Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?
Partial facial paralysis. Duh.
I think all the download links for this are still active:
darwin_award, a 48 Hour Compo Entry for Ludum Dare 24.
Save humanity from Darwin Award winners.
http://www.ludumdare.com/compo/ludum-dare-24/?action=preview&uid=1864
I'm a vax zealot.
I'm absolutely convinced that any moron threatening herd immunity because of an unlicensed porn star should be put to the sword. Idiocy is no excuse for wanting to bring back polio.
Who licenses porn stars? :-)
I like your post, very reasoned thoughts and I would say I agree with you in general. I would only lean towards the altered vaccine schedule as that might also help with the overloading of the immune system or whatever might be the cause.
The real reason I am posting is just a little fact as I understand it about the aluminum in the vaccines. It may serve as a preservative, but I believe the main function is to activate the person's immune system. Without the aluminum, the immune system does not always detect that there is something to react to for making the antibodies and thus, the vaccine is much less effective. I found that to be an interesting idea, that the dead or deactivated virus may not cause your immune system to react, so they add something else that helps to get the immune system all fired up where it will then discover the deactivated virus particles and make the antibodies desired from getting the vaccine.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
There are several problems with the "too many vaccines, too soon" idea.
First, a study in the UK found that using modern criteria, the incidence of autism does not differ by much with age--up to age 70. This agrees with the scientific consensus that the apparent increase in autism is largely, probably entirely, due to increased diagnosis
Second, our immune system has evolved to deal with huge numbers of natural "vaccines" from bacteria and viruses constantly introduced through every scratch, scrape, and inflammation. And the number of antigens introduced from natural bacteria and viruses are far in excess of the simplified antigens that are introduced in vaccines. If you study that antibodies produced from even one infection, you find that the number of antibodies produced are easily in the excess of dozens.
So it simply does not make sense.
Can't we just agree that the preservative and delivery method needs to be improved? Vaccines are one thing but the way they are packaged is another. If the vaccine is delivered to the body without the need for heavy metals then this sorry argument could be put to bed.
It's not about the vaccine, it's the packaging that's an issue here.
A blog I run for the wealth
"Herd immunity" isn't an argument for you getting the vaccine for your children (those arguments are already plain) -- it's an argument against you being able to opt out of the vaccine for your children (barring medical reasons such as allergy to the vaccine).
HAND.
"Can't we just agree that the preservative and delivery method needs to be improved? "
based on..what? other then the generic anything can be improved.
" If the vaccine is delivered to the body without the need for heavy metals then this sorry argument could be put to bed."
You really ave no clue what you are talking about. You might want to read some actual facts on the issue and point as specific instances. Until then STFU you are only adding to the stupidity.
Oh, and if you just want to slap your meaty fingers on the keyboard in hopes of typing out 'Mercury', then you had better talk about what kind of mercury, and have done some reading (wikipedia) on that type of mercury.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If the ability you refer to is the ability to survive exposure to certain illnesses without vaccination, why is it worth developing? We've got that covered with the vaccines.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And, on top of that, lots of products contain Tylenol without prominently listing it. It wouldn't be difficult at all to exceed the recommended dosage without noticing it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Few deaths that happen right after vaccinations are listed as caused by vaccinations. This is why the "anti-vax" crowd does have a point about vaccinations still needing to be improved. My son had a reaction immediately after his MMR vaccination that involved severe head swelling and we discontinued vaccinations for him. My daughter still gets them as she has had no reactions and I understand the issue. To many on this site I should have continued the vaccinations right up until my son's death. However we were privately advised by the doctors that although they can't say anything bad about vaccinations, we should stop them. I was willing to listen to their private opinion. The fact that they have to say it privately and confidentially tells a lot about how politicized the debate is. Essentially because vaccinations do so much good on a macro level there is incredible pressure (easily seen here) against any complaints on the individual level. Not much different than feeding a maiden a year to keep the dragon away works out well for most people but not all people.
No, what I refer to is that predators and illnesses tend to reap the weakest, increasing the average health of the herd. Inoculation protects the weak as much as the strong, leading to a herd that's on average less healthy than herds subject to predation.
It seems there's a portion of the population that will compulsively latch onto hear-say and pseudoscience nonsense and conspiracy theories, no matter what we do. Maybe we should just accept that. Just deal with it and make the best of things.
I've got this totally scientific evidence that autism is caused by the ink in lottery tickets. The ink doesn't affect adults, but the chemicals stick to your fingers. Then when you touch your kids the chemicals get absorbed through their skin and disrupt their developing brains. My kid was perfectly healthy one morning, and at a routine checkup that afternoon my child was diagnosed with autism! And the only thing that happened in between was that I bought lottery tickets and hugged by child! You can't imagine how devastating that is to a parent, unless of course you're a parent who bought a lottery ticket and immediately had their child diagnosed with autism.
Have the so-called "scientists" tested the lottery ticket ink? HELL NO! The government rakes in millions of dollars on lottery tickets! Scientists all want grant money (our money taken in taxes!) to do their research. And is the government going to give them money if the government doesn't like the results of that research! OF COURSE the scientists are going to be biased and tow the government line.
I am not anti-lottery-tickets.
I just want to reduce the ink and reduce the toxins. Lottery tickets are fine when the government proves that that new ink ensures no children will get autism.
If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want their kid to have autism, or whether they'd choose to pass up on a lousy lottery ticket, well duh they'll pass up on the lousy lottery ticket.
What parent would ever knowingly risk giving their child autism? It's unthinkable! It's just not worth the risk.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/1...
"The mitochondrial dysfunction identified in the JAMA study I've been talking about is ultimately only one downstream symptom of many upstream causes. Other researchers have found systemic inflammation,(ix) brain inflammation,(x) gut inflammation,(xi) elevated levels of toxins and metals, gluten and casein antibodies,(xii) nutrient deficiencies including omega-3 fats,(xiii) vitamin D,(xiv) zinc, and magnesium, and collections of metabolic dysfunction related to quirky genes that make it difficult to perform chemical reactions essential for health in the body such as methylation and sulfation.(xv)
The take home message here is that the answer to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders will not be found in one of these factors, but in all of them taken together in varying degrees in each individual. There is no such thing as "autism." Rather there are "autisms"--different patterns of biological dysfunction unique to each child that result in multiple insults to the brain that all manifest with symptoms we call autism."
Also:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org...
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/0...
"To further validate their theories, the researchers cited a study involving Somali mothers, who naturally absorb less sunlight due to their dark skin pigmentation. When they moved north to Stockholm, a less-sunny region, they were found to be 4.5 times more likely to have autistic children, compared to the the country's lighter-skinned natives."
Also may help:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/chil...
Good luck!
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
AC wrote: "Jenny Mcarthy is a free thinker ... and embodies the best tennants of 19th century science, when people made decisions based on their observations and in light of the best known understanding at the time. Today we have something akin to a blind belief in whatever the church, ughh i mean experts happen to be handing out at the time. Today an expert more often than nought is somebody who is paid to lobby for a paticular world view. Think about it in 2000 all the experts were saying the stock market is going to be going up and up and up. In 2008 all the experts were saying that real estate is a can't loose proposition, and I just happen to have a house you can buy. Stop believing in experts. Believe in yourself. If it is cloudy, and your skin is getting wet when you stand outside, it is probably raining outside despite the fact that the weather experts are on the radio right now saying you will have a clear and sunny day outside. Stand up and have the courage to say it's raining, fuck the experts. Jenny Mcarthy is a hero. So in spite of the fact that I have no advanced degree in meterology, I feel that I can accurately tell if it is raining or not. This used to be common sense, but today there is a global witch hunt on for whomever decides to believe in their own observations vs what the experts in the media are saying."
Conflict-of-interest definitely makes this all harder to sort through. Compare with the book "Disclipined Minds"
http://disciplinedminds.tripod...
"Who are you going to be? That is the question.
In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy.
Schmidt details the battle one must fight to be an independent thinker and to pursue one's own social vision in today's corporate society. He shows how an honest reassessment of what it really means to be a professional employee can be remarkably liberating. After reading this brutally frank book, no one who works for a living will ever think the same way about his or her job."
Other social problems with mainstream science:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-j...
All that said, a lot of time the experts are right -- for example, expert Civil Engineers designing and building bridges. Thinking is hard work, and a lot of "free thinking" may be re-inventing plausible but otherwise bad ideas. Perhaps the more variables involved, and the less we know about them, the more problematical the notion of "Expertise" becomes, other than to admit ignorance (which does not sound that impressive)? However, 2000 years ago, perhaps bridge building was more by trial and error, same as much medicine today? Certainly Cathedral building shows a process of trial and error before civil engineering became better understood in terms of materials and structures.
Here is a related diagram about different types of problem domains, where perhaps bridge building today is in one area but medicine in another:
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
The question is what you call "ample". Your largest sample size is 91; the link is at best tenuous given the rather small size. Also the samples are not sufficiently randomized but have a selection bias. The Dutch study looked at millions of Dutch children and found no link. That was only one study. The Japanese study also looked at millions and found no link.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm not against vaccines, but I am against endlessly vaccinating against threats that no longer exist.
This is terrible logic. First of all these threats still exist as evidenced by the numerous outbreaks in the last decade. Second, the threats were lessoned because of vaccinations. The increase in outbreaks coincide with the drop in vaccination rates.
In other words, they should only be used in the event that there's an outbreak.
Again, this is terrible logic. If there is an outbreak, those who have the disease will not be helped by a vaccine. An during an outbreak, many will be exposed. That's why it's called an "outbreak." With world travel, an outbreak may not be easily contained. See H1N1.
We are after-all living in an era where sanitation has way over stepped its boundaries and now threatens all of us with super germs...
This is also terrible logic. Sanitation has not overstepped its boundaries; it has saved millions of lives including many in developing worlds of dying of water borne illnesses like Giarda, etc. Super germs have been created by the over-use of antibiotics not sanitation.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Vaccine failures among apparently adequately vaccinated individuals were sources of infection for at least 48 per cent of the cases in the outbreak. " (Am J Public Health. 1987 April; 77(4): 434–438. PMCID: PMC1646939) I think it is interesting that you chose to vilify those who would chose a course of medical action, considering the vaccine itself appears to be failing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
My "Occam's razor" says given a choice between blaming vaccines developed by reputable medical companies vs. the boat loads of illegal drugs consumed by most Hollywood starlets I think the conclusion is obvious.
So the average lion prefers to eat people with weak immune systems? I'm not getting this.
Now, suppose we stopped inoculations, and people started dying of these preventable diseases in large numbers. Would this make the species healthier, or just resistant against threats we've already got handled? Would this select for strong immune systems, and possibly kill people after reproduction age with autoimmune disorders?
If you want me to go along with killing large numbers of children that we could save, you're going to have to have something more specific than "increasing the average health of the herd".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So the average lion prefers to eat people with weak immune systems? I'm not getting this.
You cannot see how a virus or bacteria can be considered a predator? Or if you really meant to ask about lions, of course they pick off the weak. It's less work. This leaves the herd's average health better after the predation.
Now, suppose we stopped inoculations, and people started dying of these preventable diseases in large numbers. Would this make the species healthier, or just resistant against threats we've already got handled?
Both. Healthier individuals would have a greater chance of survival, and thus a greater chance of passing on their genes. People born with congenital heart failure, asthma or a variety of other conditions would have a higher risk of dying, and less chance of passing on their genes.
There's a by-country correlation between longevity before and after the Spanish Flu. In countries that got hit, longevity increased. Weaker individuals got culled more than healthier ones, and the net result after a generation is a healthier population.
Now, we're seeing the opposite. The number of people with defects (like, but in no way limited to, asthma) is going up. We put great effort into keeping the weak alive and able to reproduce. With a very predictable result: the defects flourish when there's no evolutionary disadvantage to having them.
If you want me to go along with killing large numbers of children that we could save, you're going to have to have something more specific than "increasing the average health of the herd".
How about the overall human health being at a higher level, so when a new marburg/ebola type virus catch us out of the blue, we have a higher chance of survival?
How about when the temperature and humidity raises across the globe, and many of us are too weak to survive it?
Or any number of unforeseen things that may happen, in which a healthier population has less risk of extinction?
Compassion for the weak and exceptionally strong parental instincts might have been a good survival trait in the past, given our long reproductive cycle. But that's no longer a concern. We're not just a few packs on the African plains struggling to survive despite 9 month pregnancies and 12+ years before becoming reproductive. Every life counted back then.
We're now billions of people, and propping up the weak is now detrimental to us as a species. A few tens of thousand deaths a year is now a negligible price to pay for humanity as a whole, to reduce the creep towards the average human being less healthy.
As a species, we're going to survive any new series of pandemics, or other global disaster that doesn't just wipe out the planet. We've got genetic diversity and a lot of neat tools, including rational thought. We're not at risk of extinction given a standard extinction event. In such an event, what's going to determine survival is not basic health, but wealth. What we would be selecting for in event of plague is availability of good medical care in a major crisis. What we would be selecting for in a climatic disaster is structurally sound houses, the ability to move somewhere else, resources to counter the effects (like air conditioning), stuff like that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This was replaced with an aluminum compound, and aluminum is correlated with diseases like Alzheimer’s. Of course, we have no evidence that aluminum accumlation causes Alzheimer’s; it could just as well accumulate as a side-effect. Still, it’s cause for investigation. .
No it isn't. And the best current theory on what causes autism is that is developmental disruption of the cortex during pregnancy, not "toxins".
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates