Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:23 am

Garm wrote:FWIW, following the terminology orders of the lefties is bad freethink. Puritans aren't conservative at all, regardless of what they and the pinkos say. Wishing and taking action to reduce our civil rights is as radical a position as possible. One can be a radical rightist or a radical religious zealot, but neither of those is even close to conservative, which means resistant to change. A conservative would be in favor of public health as a general concept, because of the economic drain from mass illness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#T ... ted_States

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:24 am

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Phaedrus wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?
Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?
You must know that's not even close to accurate, right?

As it relates to vaccination fears, I don't think Jenny McCarthy and other of the more popular vaccination fear mongers are right-wing.

Some countries in Africa and the Middle East have people with similar political and ideological views.

I'm fairly sure that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't the reason that the US has the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the world but if I'm wrong, enlighten me. Either way, for people to be outraged at the personal views of a former model but not their policy makers is lol-worthy.

Garm · Post by **Garm** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:06 pm

Turdacious wrote:
Garm wrote:FWIW, following the terminology orders of the lefties is bad freethink. Puritans aren't conservative at all, regardless of what they and the pinkos say. Wishing and taking action to reduce our civil rights is as radical a position as possible. One can be a radical rightist or a radical religious zealot, but neither of those is even close to conservative, which means resistant to change. A conservative would be in favor of public health as a general concept, because of the economic drain from mass illness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#T ... ted_States

You took the word out of context. 'Puritan' can also mean any religious zealot, I was mocking the modern ones.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:24 pm

Phaedrus wrote:
DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Phaedrus wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:BTW- what does the USA have that "those other" countries don't have? Kaz, can you help us out?
Hardcore right-wing conservatives opposed to birth control, pre-school and most public health initiatives?
You must know that's not even close to accurate, right?

As it relates to vaccination fears, I don't think Jenny McCarthy and other of the more popular vaccination fear mongers are right-wing.
Some countries in Africa and the Middle East have people with similar political and ideological views.

I'm fairly sure that the anti-vaccine crowd isn't the reason that the US has the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the world but if I'm wrong, enlighten me. Either way, for people to be outraged at the personal views of a former model but not their policy makers is lol-worthy.

This is America, models/actors have far more influence than policy makers (Remember the great scientist Meryl Streep testifying about the evils of Alar to congress?).

Also, she is more than a former model. She has a platform on a very successful talk show and is a best selling author of multiple books. According to Google, this is from her organization. Huffpost article here by what looks to be a real doctor (until you read her creds).

When it comes to vaccinations and the societal impact of opting in or out, she's a devil or a saint - I don't know which. Regardless, in terms of name recognition she's the #1 voice in questioning how we handle vaccines in the US.

j-cubed · Post by **j-cubed** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:33 pm

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:54 am

Garm wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Garm wrote:FWIW, following the terminology orders of the lefties is bad freethink. Puritans aren't conservative at all, regardless of what they and the pinkos say. Wishing and taking action to reduce our civil rights is as radical a position as possible. One can be a radical rightist or a radical religious zealot, but neither of those is even close to conservative, which means resistant to change. A conservative would be in favor of public health as a general concept, because of the economic drain from mass illness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#T ... ted_States
You took the word out of context. 'Puritan' can also mean any religious zealot, I was mocking the modern ones.

o bee kay bee

davidc · Post by **davidc** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:19 am

I'll be really plain:
There is no debate about vaccination in the scientific community.
It's a religious and ideological debate.
Nothing to do with science.
The scientists vaccinate their kids.
Go with the science guys.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:42 am

davidc wrote:I'll be really plain:
There is no debate about vaccination in the scientific community.
It's a religious and ideological debate.
Nothing to do with science.
The scientists vaccinate their kids.
Go with the science guys.

The article the frequently maligned Jenny McCarthy mentioned was published in The Lancelet, AFAIK a top end medical research journal. The concern was over thimerosal.

And this is important:

Concern has been expressed over the possibility that the mercury-containing compound thimerosal in vaccines may cause autism.1–4 Thimerosal is sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, an organic compound of ethyl mercury, included in certain vaccines to protect multiple dose ampules from bacterial and fungal contamination. Mercury in sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and specifically of autism. The available data with which to address the question are very limited and largely inferential.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/674.full (emphasis mine)

Blindly accepting current vaccine protocols as the best way to go; a way that cannot be improved-- is pure foolishness.

Garm · Post by **Garm** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:59 am

davidc wrote: Go with the science guys.

That's a version of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy, which you should avoid. By definition, the scientific method is continuously disproving every theory in every field, though scientists conveniently forget this fact regularly. A person who is an expert can be wrong as easily as a retard can, and scientific concensus is often an abdication of responsibility.

The best recent example is the decades and trillions wasted on string, superstring, and M, all of which were 'certain' to yield value. Biologists are much stupider than physicists, and doctors cant even be considered scientists at all by strict definition.

Think for yourself.

Dietrich Buchenholz · Post by **Dietrich Buchenholz** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:04 am

Turdacious wrote:
davidc wrote:I'll be really plain:
There is no debate about vaccination in the scientific community.
It's a religious and ideological debate.
Nothing to do with science.
The scientists vaccinate their kids.
Go with the science guys.
The article the frequently maligned Jenny McCarthy mentioned was published in The Lancelet, AFAIK a top end medical research journal. The concern was over thimerosal.

And this is important:
Concern has been expressed over the possibility that the mercury-containing compound thimerosal in vaccines may cause autism.1–4 Thimerosal is sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, an organic compound of ethyl mercury, included in certain vaccines to protect multiple dose ampules from bacterial and fungal contamination. Mercury in sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and specifically of autism. The available data with which to address the question are very limited and largely inferential.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/674.full (emphasis mine)

Blindly accepting current vaccine protocols as the best way to go; a way that cannot be improved-- is pure foolishness.

Hmmm. It seems like you left out an important part of the "Lancelet" story.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:16 am

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
davidc wrote:I'll be really plain:
There is no debate about vaccination in the scientific community.
It's a religious and ideological debate.
Nothing to do with science.
The scientists vaccinate their kids.
Go with the science guys.
The article the frequently maligned Jenny McCarthy mentioned was published in The Lancelet, AFAIK a top end medical research journal. The concern was over thimerosal.

And this is important:
Concern has been expressed over the possibility that the mercury-containing compound thimerosal in vaccines may cause autism.1–4 Thimerosal is sodium ethylmercury thiosalicylate, an organic compound of ethyl mercury, included in certain vaccines to protect multiple dose ampules from bacterial and fungal contamination. Mercury in sufficient dose is neurotoxic, and probably more toxic in the immature brain. It is reasonable to ask whether thimerosal in childhood vaccine increases risk of chronic childhood neurologic disability and specifically of autism. The available data with which to address the question are very limited and largely inferential.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/674.full (emphasis mine)

Blindly accepting current vaccine protocols as the best way to go; a way that cannot be improved-- is pure foolishness.
Hmmm. It seems like you left out an important part of the "Lancelet" story.

I left out nothing.

The Lancet is the world's leading independent general medical journal.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-lancet/

Either the modern scientific process is flawed and can be improved(and publication in leading journals is a big part of it, with all the vetting et al.), or the normal vetting process is inviolate. It's one or the other

You really ought to pay more attention to the intersection between modern pharmacology and court decisions. If I'm wrong in assuming that decent medical professionals (which I assume is the majority of them) want to do the right thing for people, let me know. Not all vaccines are created equal; and some vaccines/vaccine delivery mechanisms can be improved.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:27 am

Wasn't the cited anti vaccine study redacted?

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:34 am

Ed Zachary wrote:Wasn't the cited anti vaccine study redacted?

Yep.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:37 pm

and the doc who led the study had his license revoked. the study included falsification of data.

in other words a charlatan perpetuated a hoax. nonetheless the influence of the hoax remains

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:08 pm

dead man walking wrote:and the doc who led the study had his license revoked. the study included falsification of data.

in other words a charlatan perpetuated a hoax. nonetheless the influence of the hoax remains

Fake but Accurate is a well-accepted method of argument.

Garm · Post by **Garm** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:28 pm

nafod wrote:
dead man walking wrote:and the doc who led the study had his license revoked. the study included falsification of data.

in other words a charlatan perpetuated a hoax. nonetheless the influence of the hoax remains
Fake but Accurate is a well-accepted method of argument.

That's actually the same fallacy - authority never has bearing on the validity of an argument, whether the authority is viewed with regard or disdain. Whether he is right is what matters, not his credentials or lack.

Dietrich Buchenholz · Post by **Dietrich Buchenholz** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:53 pm

Turdacious wrote:
Ed Zachary wrote:Wasn't the cited anti vaccine study redacted?
Yep.

Oh yeah. There was that.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:31 pm

dead man walking wrote:and the doc who led the study had his license revoked. the study included falsification of data.

in other words a charlatan perpetuated a hoax. nonetheless the influence of the hoax remains

By influence, if you mean vaccines now use a safer preserving agent, then yes.

And:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... physicians

For DMW:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/

Dietrich Buchenholz · Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:39 pm

Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:and the doc who led the study had his license revoked. the study included falsification of data.

in other words a charlatan perpetuated a hoax. nonetheless the influence of the hoax remains
By influence, if you mean vaccines now use a safer preserving agent, then yes.

And:
http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... physicians

For DMW:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/

Cool, but I think he meant the reemergence of measles as a thing.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:08 am

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:
Cool, but I think he meant the reemergence of measles as a thing.

Measles has always been a thing.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:12 am

The Food and Drug Administration routinely lets regulatory inefficiencies and outdated practices stand in the way of medical progress. Unfortunately, as recent events show, people often pay for this failure with their lives.

Drexel University sophomore and mechanical engineering major Stephanie Ross died last week after contracting type B meningitis while visiting friends from Princeton University. Type B is a deadly strain of meningitis, but the FDA has not approved the vaccine—even though it has been safely used in the United States and around the world.

The FDA gave Princeton University and University of California, Santa Barbara students special exemptions to use the vaccine after the universities’ recent type B meningitis outbreaks, but only after much delay. The FDA should know that vaccines are most valuable before outbreaks occur, not months after people have started falling ill. If Ms. Ross had been able to get the vaccine, she might well be alive today.

http://www.economics21.org/commentary/f ... urn-deadly

davidc · Post by **davidc** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:01 am

Just throwing this out there:

Because of my job I regularly come into contact with a lot of pediatricians, and generally speaking they are each kind of a big deal. Duke, Harvard, Emory, etc. Bigshots at teaching hospitals.

All of them vaccinate their own kids.

For whatever that's worth....

Dietrich Buchenholz · Post by **Dietrich Buchenholz** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:53 pm

Turdacious wrote:
Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:
Cool, but I think he meant the reemergence of measles as a thing.
Measles has always been a thing.

Got it. You're one of those.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:52 am

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:
Turdacious wrote:
Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:
Cool, but I think he meant the reemergence of measles as a thing.
Measles has always been a thing.
Got it. You're one of those.

Hardly. I'm aware how statistics can be manipulated and misinterpreted through insufficient information though.

IGX

Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay

Re: Vaccinations: Yay or Nay