Redskins cheerleader disabled by flu shot

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by JD10367

And there is "zero" evidence they don't. I don't trust the medical profession or FDA to tell me the sky is blue. How many mistakes have there been? Thalidimyde (sp.), toxic shock syndrome, too many drugs to count that have been recalled, etc.,. They told us saccharin was evil so they invented aspartame, which has a lot of bad press and side effects but saccharin was recently exonerated. I barely trust a drug that's been in release for 10 years, never mind a newly-designed flu shot.

You mean science isn't all just sunshine and rainbows?

Sure, mistakes have been made but risking herd immunity - like not just your own child but other people's children - is more dangerous than the mistakes made by the industry.

You can't get through polio with orange juice and a box of Kleenex for the most part.

True, but it also provides a solid example of how vaccinations WORK. Small pox is another.

Originally Posted by Bwana

Link to someone saying that?? I must have missed that post.

Bill Maher, for one, continues to say it. Many DC contributors discard or dislike all vaccines, period. It's shared by many, many people. And the leader, at the moment, is Jenny McCarthy.

Originally Posted by jidar

The best thing about the vaccine paranoid crowd is natural selection.

I would agree, except that parents not vaccinating their kids affects herd immunity and can kill otherwise intelligent parent's kids as well as their own. That's why their paranoia is more dangerous than it is irrelevant. Birthers aren't dangerous because their nonsense is irrelevant. Anti-Vaccination people are dangerous because their nonsense has real world implications; specifically the death of their own and, more importantly, OTHERS.




Here's a great open letter written by Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine to Bill Maher (and all other anti-vac people):

An Open Letter to Bill Maher on Vaccinations

From a Fellow Skeptic

By Michael Shermer
Editor of Skeptic magazine and “Skeptic” columnist for Scientific American

Dear Bill,

Years ago you invited me to appear as a fellow skeptic several times on your ABC show Politically Incorrect, and I have ever since shared your skepticism on so many matters important to both of us: creationism and intelligent design, religious supernaturalism and New Age paranormal piffle, 9/11 “truthers”, Obama “birthers”, and all manner of conspiratorial codswallop. On these matters, and many others, you rightly deserved the Richard Dawkins Award from Atheist Alliance International.

However, I believe that when it comes to alternative medicine in general and vaccinations in particular you have fallen prey to the same cognitive biases and conspiratorial thinking that you have so astutely identified in others. In fact, the very principle of how vaccinations work is additional proof (as if we needed more) against the creationists that evolution happened and that natural selection is real: vaccinations work by tricking the body’s immune system into thinking that it has already had the disease for which the vaccination was given. Our immune system “adapts” to the invading pathogens and “evolves” to fight them, such that when it encounters a biologically similar pathogen (which itself may have evolved) it has in its armory the weapons needed to fight it. This is why many of us born in the 1950s and before may already have some immunity against the H1N1 flu because of its genetic similarity to earlier influenza viruses, and why many of those born after really should get vaccinated.

Vaccinations are not 100% effective, nor are they risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks, and when communities in the U.S. and the U.K. in recent years have foregone vaccinations in large numbers, herd immunity is lost and communicable diseases have come roaring back. This is yet another example of evolution at work, but in this case it is working against us. (See www.sciencebasedmedicine.org for numerous articles answering every one of the objections to vaccinations.)

Vaccination is one of science’s greatest discoveries. It is with considerable irony, then, that as a full-throated opponent of the nonsense that calls itself Intelligent Design, your anti-vaccination stance makes you something of an anti-evolutionist. Since you have been so vocal in your defense of the theory of evolution, I implore you to be consistent in your support of the theory across all domains and to please reconsider your position on vaccinations. It was not unreasonable to be a vaccination skeptic in the 1880s, which the co-discovered of natural selection—Alfred Russel Wallace—was, but we’ve learned a lot over the past century. Evolution explains why vaccinations work. Please stop denying evolution in this special case.

As well, Bill, your comments about not wanting to “trust the government” to inject us with a potentially deadly virus, along with many comments you have made about “big pharma” being in cahoots with the AMA and the CDC to keep us sick in the name of corporate profits is, in every way that matters, indistinguishable from 9/11 conspiracy mongering. Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”), applies here: the idea that dozens or hundreds pharmaceutical executives, AMA directors, CDC doctors, and corporate CEOs could pull off a conspiracy to keep us all sick in the name of money and power makes about as much sense as believing that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their bureaucratic apparatchiks planted explosive devices in the World Trade Center and flew remote controlled planes into the buildings.

Finally, Bill, please consider the odd juxtaposition of your enthusiastic support for health care reform and government intervention into this aspect of our medical lives, with your skepticism that these same people—when it comes to vaccinations and disease prevention—suddenly lose their sense of morality along with their medical training. You excoriate the political right for not trusting the government with our health, and then in the next breath you inadvertently join their chorus when you denounce vaccinations, thereby adding fodder for their ideological cannons. Please remember that it’s the same people administrating both health care and vaccination programs.

One of the most remarkable features of science is that it often leads its practitioners to change their minds and to say “I was wrong.” Perhaps we don’t do it enough, as our own blinders and egos can get in the way, but it does happen, and it certainly happens a lot more in science than it does in religion or politics. I’ve done it. I used to be a global warming skeptic, but I reconsidered the evidence and announced in Scientific American that I was wrong. Please reconsider both the evidence for vaccinations, as well as the inconsistencies in your position, and think about doing one of the bravest and most honorable things any critical thinker can do, and that is to publicly state, “I changed my mind. I was wrong.”

With respect,

Michael Shermer

[kcfanXIII]

do you shotters think there is nothing harmful about the adjuvant squalene?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

do you shotters think there is nothing harmful about the adjuvant squalene?

It's almost like snopes-ing things. You know, it's called google.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/to...nd_answers/en/

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

It's almost like snopes-ing things. You know, it's called google.

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/to...nd_answers/en/

ya, but i can google it and find one that says its bad:

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/10/6/565

Arthritis development was provoked in Oia3-congenic rats by intradermal injection of different adjuvant oils. One successful arthritis trigger was squalene, which is approved for vaccinations in humans and has been implicated in Gulf War syndrome

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

ya, but i can google it and find one that says its bad:

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/10/6/565

or is oxford not a good source?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

ya, but i can google it and find one that says its bad:

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...tract/10/6/565

Indeed, it is a good source. Unfortunately, you have done what most deniers of things do: they quote mine.

For one, it produced an experimental arthritis. For two, it produced this experimental arthritis in congenic mice. For three, it's specifically for the congenic strain called Oia3 which is identified as a genetic factor for oil-induced arthritis. For four, it doesn't say how much squalene is necessary to produce arthritis. Could be that it needs well more than the 10mg found in some vaccines. Moreover, it says it's only a trigger. It might induce it or it might not.

In all, it's extremely flimsy.