If all your friends jumped off a cliff ...
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Saturday, November 25, 2006 16:24
VIEWED: 4627
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:Hep comes from a few predictable ways; possibly compromising an infant's immune system to safeguard against it when most likely safe is an unwarranted risk IMO.
Originally posted by seryn:
which is why i mentioned 'so say the mother contracts it through any one of the possible ways...'
And yes, I must get silly when I see uneducated (not a slam) reactions to imaginary threats posted.
We EVOLVED (if you buy that sort of thing) being able to deal with what we had to; the developement of vaccines surely helped, but relying on them to fix all ills is a fallacy. A strength can become a weakness all too easily. Just look at anti-biotics.
Chrisisall, PhDuh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
I agree with most of what canttakesky said, but there as some points that need a bit of fine tuning, I think. I was just telling a friend yesterday about how I'd make marijuana, gambling and prostitution legal just so that the government could rake in money on regulating it. Also, I think regulating them would lead to a greater ability to control them and the negative consequences that come with them. The money earned could also be put towards other programs I have in mind, including a total revamp of what they teach in schools.
I actually agree with some of that - i would whole heartedly support the legalisation and government regulation of prostitution and lower class drugs - mainly because it would give the workers on one hand and the addicts on the other a support network, rights and choices and also rip the legs out from under the pimps traffickers and dealers - who are the real villains of the peice.
I'm not sure i'd want it to be a profit making enterprise - but its naive to think that it wouldn't end up that way, and to openly channel the proceeds into education from the outset would benefit everyone (and, we can but hope, slow the government corruption).
And as for same sex marriages - i'm also absolutely for gay couples sharing the same legal status as married heterosexuals.
i have my own private quibbles about the terminology, but i already know that they're just a personal issue, so i won't bother airing them her, but yes - i don't think any reasonable person would stand in the way of one couple wanting the same rights as any other couple.
Isn't sanity really a one trick pony, anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo... the skys the limit!
http://www.myspace.com/seryndippyt
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Hep comes from a few predictable ways; possibly compromising an infant's immune system to safeguard against it when most likely safe is an unwarranted risk IMO.
Originally posted by seryn:
which is why i mentioned 'so say the mother contracts it through any one of the possible ways...'
And yes, I must get silly when I see uneducated (not a slam) reactions to imaginary threats posted.
We EVOLVED (if you buy that sort of thing) being able to deal with what we had to; the developement of vaccines surely helped, but relying on them to fix all ills is a fallacy. A strength can become a weakness all too easily. Just look at anti-biotics.
Chrisisall, PhDuh
yes - I know I said I wouldn't discuss it any more, but i had to answer that - i admitted from the very start that my sum total knowledge of Hepatitis is that it came i strains A to whatever and was contracted through bodily fluids - blood etc - and that that may be wrong, yup yup yup - i may be wrong - the example i gave was based on that scant knowledge, (i google since - yey, what an education google is! - some strains can be caught through food and water (which was the one that mentioned the vaccine), others through blood, (including touching wounds - the scenario i was imagining), sexual contact and in utero.
The point of the argument was that there were many ways for people and by extention their children to come into contact with nasty things. And to not immunist or insure against an entrirly preventable disease just because 'it might not happen' is plain ridiculous.
ok - i'll conceed - if there was a real risk to health at the point of immunisation (and not baseless sensationalisation whipped up by the media) then it would sometimes be a good idea not to immunise, but so far the deaths and ilnesses that can be attributed to the vaccines themselves are vastly outnumbered by the illnesses and deaths that result form the diseases - i'm sticking with my original view.
ok, thats it, i'm really not going to waffle on it more! promise!
Isn't sanity really a one trick pony, anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo... the skys the limit!
http://www.myspace.com/seryndippyt
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by seryn:
The point of the argument was that there were many ways for people and by extention their children to come into contact with nasty things. And to not immunist or insure against an entrirly preventable disease just because 'it might not happen' is plain ridiculous.
Quote:Again, agreed with, it's just that every immunization must be weighed.
ok - i'll conceed - if there was a real risk to health at the point of immunisation (and not baseless sensationalisation whipped up by the media) then it would sometimes be a good idea not to immunise, but so far the deaths and ilnesses that can be attributed to the vaccines themselves are vastly outnumbered by the illnesses and deaths that result form the diseases - i'm sticking with my original view.
As with most Browncoats, we agree more than we dis.
Cool
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Top down,
CTS,
My dear, I have to say if you are railing against scientifically established principles (vaccination, global warming) then you DO have issues. You might as well be arguing against gravity.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rue, vaccination and Global Warming are AU's apart in the scheme of things, don't you think? GW (not the idiot) is one coherent phenominon, whereas vaccination has so many variables including genetics, exposure, body chemistry, etc. More an educated guess and a roll of the dice, eh?
Originally posted by rue:
Top down,
CTS,
My dear, I have to say if you are railing against scientifically established principles (vaccination, global warming) then you DO have issues. You might as well be arguing against gravity.
Spin Doc for choice Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It looks like the whole vaccination topic really caught on.
"If your children are vaccinated, and vaccines work, your kids are protected, period. No amount of exposure can hurt them."
This is a misunderstanding. No vaccination is 100% effective. For example, in the elderly, the flu vaccine can be effective in as few as 66%. That makes mass vaccination the best method to prevent epidemics. And it is true that unvaccinated children CAN hurt vaccinated children.
Originally vaccination was done to prevent feared epidemics - like polio and measles, or feared diseases like rabies and tetanus. But as the science of epidemiology grew, scientists realized that there were silent epidemics, and society carried cost burdens of diseases ammenable to vaccination - like hepatitis and HPV. 1 in 4 people have herpes (HSV 2). It doesn't often cause serious problems, but when it does it results severely retarded newborns (1 in 1,000), or adults with encephalitis 'brain wipe'. Similarly nearly all people have at least one strain of HPV, certain strains of which cause cervical cancer.
Whether you agree with a policy that these 'silent epidemics' should be addressed, it is certain that vaccination can address them.
(I actually wrote a science fiction story about a dystopia where the ONLY medical benefit people had a 'right' to from the US government was vaccination. Contracted out to a private company of course that made billions.)
HI ChrisIsAll - I guess we were both typing away at them same time. I think people really need to push for better vaccines. For example, the acellular pertusis vaccine was on the market for YEARS but not widely available becasue it was more expensive. However, the acellular form has never been associated with neurological side effects. I could see THAT vaccine as mandatory.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where is the misunderstanding? Take the 66% effectiveness rate. That doesn't mean it is 66% effective in ONE person. It means out of 100 people vaccinated, the vaccine will work in 66 of those people, and not in the other 34 people. The 66 people ARE protected against exposure, and the other 34 got scammed (taking all the risk for no benefit at all).
Originally posted by rue:
"If your children are vaccinated, and vaccines work, your kids are protected, period. No amount of exposure can hurt them."
This is a misunderstanding. No vaccination is 100% effective. For example, in the elderly, the flu vaccine can be effective in as few as 66%.
So my statement again is: IF vaccines work, vaccinated kids are protected and no amount of exposure can hurt them. For the people who got vaccinated but scammed, well, that is the fault of the manufacturer, not the unvaccinated.
The debate comes in the belief that the 34 scammed folks can still benefit from herd immunity, or reduced risk of exposure. Now there is debate on how exactly herd immunity works and if it works at all. But even assuming it works, we have to weigh whether the small amount of reduction in risk to protect scammed consumers is worth curbing the individual right to informed consent in medical treatments.
And as for having issues, we've been through this before. You know we have different standards for evaluating what is "scientifically established." The literature on global warming and vaccination effectiveness and safety meet your standards (and those of most experts) and not mine (and those of a minority of experts). Should we anti-lemmings allowed to judge the evidence for ourselves and disagree? That is the question.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.
--George Eliot (1819 - 1880)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No government regulation doesn't mean no government all. Libertarianism wants to decrease the size of government to the original functions outlined in the constitution. Police, prison, courts, and the military remain core functions of the government. No income tax does not mean no tax at all--there will still be excise and sales taxes. The government would just go on a diet and lose some very unhealthy weight.
Originally posted by seryn:
My point - badly made i'll conceed, is that should there be no tax, no government control, no this no that and you're all happy with your supposed freedom, there's no healthcare, no police force no prison service, no welfare, no support of any kind for those people who for what ever reason - the disbled, the elderly.
And no government doesn't mean there will be no welfare. Private welfare will always be there. Sure, life is a lot tougher without that security net. But the security net costs us much more than money--it is costing us the dignity and self-reliance of entire generations. I would like to see the government reformed to allow more empowering solutions. It doesn't mean I want to see poor and disabled people strung out to dry. I've been disabled and unable to work for years, and I could return to that state again. I am keenly aware of how scary that is.
BTW, one of my majors was social work. I worked for years with the poorest of the poor. It is because of this experience that I arrived at my position today. I can see where you would automatically assume wanting a small government is self-interested. We just see different solutions to the same problems that concern us all.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
--John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"that is the fault of the manufacturer"
Vaccines often fail b/c of the biological state of the vaccinated, not b/c of mfg problems. Researchers do spend a lot of time trying to make vaccines more effective - trying to find the right mix of DNA/ RNA/ proteins to lure even old, tired and inexperienced immune systems to take them up and process them effectively.
Herd immunity does work. As a real-life example, I used to live in an area where wildlife rabies was epidemic. I remember massive yearly public education programs aimed at children - do not approach an animal you don't know, or a wild animal that seems friendly, or an animal that seems sick. It was a big deal. And they always ran ads saying it was important for ALL domesticated animals to be vaccinated, to prevent the spread from animal to animal to human. Plus there were monthly free vaccination clinics. The rabies vaccine (at the time) was only 90% effective. But by insuring near-universal coverage, there were no cases of domesticated animals spreading rabies.
As to global warming, you should see "An Inconvenient Truth". I forget the exact numbers but out of over 600 peer-reviewed studies, NOT ONE questioned the existence or cause of global warming. OTOH, in popular literature 50% did. I simply base my opinion on the REAL experts, not on pseudo-scientists.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME