I don’t usually do this, but TechyDad left such a great comment on my post about the antics of antivax founder Andrew Wakefield, I have to reproduce it here for all to see.
Talking about the inherent contradictions and cherry-picking that go on in the alt-med purveyors’ heads, TechyDad says:
Gotta love the disconnect. If pharmaceutical companies make any money off of vaccines, it’s "Big Pharma’s injecting us with chemicals to make money!!!"
Now if a homeopath or an "alternative therapy" company makes money off of their "treatment" it’s “They’re such wonderful people helping to treat these awful conditions!”
If a single batch of a single vaccine is recalled for a tiny problem they shout "See!!??? Big Pharma’s trying to pump us full of unsafe toxins!!!!"
If a company comes out with an outrageous sounding "alternative therapy" for some disease, they say "They say it works right here. It’s alternative and alternative is always good."
If a homeopath says Treatment X doesn’t work they say "It must not work because he’s a homeopath and thus is fighting against the Medical Establishment."
If a physician says Treatment Y doesn’t work they say "It must work and the Medical Establishment is suppressing it."
In other words, they’re right, science is wrong and all evidence will be cherry picked and skewed until their view is supported.
Nailed it in one.
Reproduced here with permission from TechyDad.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Kudos to the Bad Astronomer and TechyDad!
February 6th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Here’s The Onion’s take:
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/lancet_retracts_autism_paper
February 6th, 2010 at 8:53 am
“In other words, they’re right, science is wrong and all evidence will be cherry picked and skewed until their view is supported.”
This is the same tactic employed by creationists and global-warming contrarians.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Tsk, tsk.
Lumping all antivax people into one group is a mistake.
Homeopathy is a scam along with big pharmas need to create new problems and provide an already patented vax as a cure for profit.
The flu shots have always been a long running joke. They never seem to get the right strain. Go fig.
But hey, if you want to undermine your body’s ability to fight off infections on it’s own go for it my friend.
I’ll just keep on taking care of myself instead of trusting some corp to do it for me.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Win.
I always find it funny when I hear someone talking about how “big pharma” is only in it for the money. And “big homeo” isn’t? At least “big pharma’s” treatments actually work.
Homeopaths can be so hypocritical … and they don’t even realise.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Yay! <3
February 6th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Yesterday I saw a PSA commercial here in Boston in which Celtics guard Rajon Rondo urged people to get vaccinated against H1N1. I’m sure antivaxxers will turn that into “see? Big Pharma is using celebrity endorsements to shill their toxins!”
…which will be proclaimed by Jenny McCarthy. On HuffPo.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:56 am
On a related note, here’s a nice article commenting on the absurd criticism of corporate funded research here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26tier.html
February 6th, 2010 at 10:00 am
#4. Omphaloskepsis – do you actually have one fact to back up your lunatic spewings? I thought not. Such nonsense from you.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Nonsense?
Pfft.
Do a little research on the effectiveness of yearly flu shots and get back to me.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:12 am
It’s interesting talking to some people; no matter how you approach something, no matter how you present it, no matter how strong the evidence, they WILL NOT see it and WILL NOT accept it.
It baffles me when an otherwise apparently intelligent person willfully refuses to see–or even consider–something because it just doesn’t match up with their world view. And they can skew their entire perception of the world to make the world fit into what they want it to be. Baffles me, I tell ya.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Bravo to techydad!
Without Big Pharma (and medical device companies), my son would be dead. Period.
And thanks to Medtronic, he got a new pulmonary valve (#5 for him) in October without open heart surgery. 3 days instead of 3 weeks in the ICU. And essentially recovered fully on the way out the door.
Yea for modern, science based, medicine and the companies that enable it.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:16 am
#4 “But hey, if you want to undermine your body’s ability to fight off infections on it’s own go for it my friend.”
You’re suggesting that vaccines.. weaken the immune system, is that it?
February 6th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Omphaloskepsis:
“But hey, if you want to undermine your body’s ability to fight off infections on it’s (sic) own go for it my friend.”
Oh, where to start, where to start. Let’s limit it to the flu shot since that seems to be what you’re going on about and I’d hate to be accused of creating a strawman. First, this assumes that no one actually dies from influenza, or at least not many people, when in fact about 36,000 people die in the US from the flu each year. But since in researching that number I found numerous antivax blogs arguing that the CDC “lies” and “pulled that number out of thin air” I’m sure you don’t believe it, either.
Next is the concept that your body fighting off infections on its own is always a good thing. Ever heard of “cytokine storm?” It’s when an immune response so severe is recruited to a tissue that it fills with PMNs and macrophages until the organ – in this case, the lungs – shuts down and results in death. The immune response is what kills before the infection does:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7125/full/nature05495.html
Sorry it took me a while to comment with this. It’s tough being delayed by being concerned with facts.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:29 am
G @10: “It baffles me when an otherwise apparently intelligent person willfully refuses to see–or even consider–something because it just doesn’t match up with their world view.”
Cognitive dissonance. Ride the wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
February 6th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Muzz
You don’t use it you lose it.
Flu vaccines are a joke because of the mutation rate.
You want people injecting you with a variety of mutagens every year go for it.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Omphaloskepsis:
“You don’t use it you lose it.”
Oh wow, it totally makes sense now! Silly me, when I spent a year in grad school studying immunology and banging my head against the numerous complexities involving memory-cell formation, cell-surface markers and chemokine/cytokine interactions in the case of viral infection, I should have instead just thought that if you don’t use it you lose it! Gosh, I don’t know what all this stuff about “antibody titer levels” my professor was going on all about was, because clearly it makes way more sense to boil things down into a single slogan!
Also, “mutagens.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:50 am
A cytokine storm can also be triggered by adjuvants such as squalene which is used to stretch supplies.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:56 am
@Omphaloskepsis:
Is it safe to assume that we won’t be receiving any sources/evidence from you today?
February 6th, 2010 at 10:56 am
@ Omphaloskepsis (16)
‘You don’t use it, you lose it.’
Do you mean being the vaccinated means you don’t use your immune system?
So, you have no idea how the vaccine works, then?
It’s funny, I often read that vaccine in babies is dangerous because it overworks their immune system…
February 6th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Omphaloskepsis:
“A cytokine storm can also be triggered by adjuvants such as squalene which is used to stretch supplies.”
Ah, thank you for taking the bait on that one. I was worried there for a second. So it “can” be by squalene which is used to “stretch supplies.” I like it there how you make it seem like multi-billion dollar corporations are some sort of shadow-government or military junta. Nice touch.
Cytokine storm did – as in, “is historical fact” – cause the majority of the 50-100 million deaths in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which, last time I checked, was before people got flu shots. And since by your own admission influenza virus mutates quickly, I think the general idea is that that was a bad thing when 50 million people died and maybe we’d like to prevent against it if it ever mutates into such a highly immunogenic and virulent form again.
But, no, you’re right. It’s because Big Pharma’s evil. Because that’s always the answer, isn’t it?
February 6th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Hey guys, do your thing and I’ll do mine.
I think many vaccines are a risk and you don’t.
Let’s agree to disagree.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
It’s not just the antivax mindset. That’s pretty much the mindset of anyone who believes in kooky things. I know, I’ve been there. When I was a 9/11 Truther, the mindset was exactly the same. Dogmatism and a lack of willingness to seriously explore contradictory evidence is really the only way you can keep yourself in an obviously false belief for an extended period of time.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@22
ah the whole all my arguments have been destroyed but I will never change my mind and don’t wish to admit it so I will stop the discussion tactic, it has a long name but is a popular one
February 6th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Vaccines are a risk…no one argues that vaccines are not a risk, But, um, so is flu. And the risks from vaccines are much smaller.
There are also plenty of other bugs for your body to fight off…so it’s not true that vaccinating yourself against the flu means that your immune system spends the winter drinking Coronas on the beach. Hello, common cold!
Anyway…what I was going to say is: this Wakefield guy? If a pro-vaccination researcher had used the methods he did, he would be held up by the alternative medicine folks as the epitome of the Evil Western Doctor. And rightly so. Unnecessarily sticking needles into children’s spines??? Cake, ice cream, and blood draws?? Plus, he was trying to discredit the MMR vaccine so that he could push his OWN vaccine. And yet, because he’s the anti-vax guy, he’s a hero.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Off-topic – but not really, since the original quoted piece is not solely about antivaxxers, but more a “Big Pharma vs. alternative therapies” piece …
This is probably old news for most – actually, it is definitely old news, and most people have just agreed to keep quiet about it – but last week’s issue of Newsweek has a lengthy piece on antidepressants:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232781
Some of the arguments coming from Big Pharma in this case sound a lot like those used by proponents of alternative medicine. (I am reminded at times of the arguments used in defense of the potion known as “Essiac.”)
And is there anyone out there arguing that the pharmaceutical industry isn’t a multi-billion dollar industry comprised of for-profit businesses?
February 6th, 2010 at 11:27 am
@Elin: You left out “Hiding the fact that he was being paid by the lawyers for would-be vaccine plaintiffs.” (Follow THAT money, antivaxxers!) If he’d been honest about that from the beginning, his report might have been a little less interesting to both “sides”. Of course, if he had been completely honest about everything from the beginning, he wouldn’t have had much of a report left.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Harold (#26): No one would argue that, but it doesn’t mean they are pure evil, twirling their mustaches while planning ways of killing people for profit.
I argue things based on evidence. Alt-med proponents have very little, and for the vast majority of their claims the evidence is solidly against them.
As we say, what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. It’s a joke, but not really.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:44 am
This blog post and some of the comments make me wonder: How common is it to hold concurrent multiple beliefs that are not based on evidence? In other words, if someone is disposed to accept a fantasy position, is it typical that they also hold other views without evidence? (eg, antivax+creationism, homeopathy+ufos+global warming denial, etc).
February 6th, 2010 at 11:53 am
29. holastefan
“if someone is receptive to non-fact-based positions, do they typically believe other things that lack evidence?”
Yes!!!
GAry 7
February 6th, 2010 at 11:56 am
@Gary Ansorge #30:
Hi Gary, thanks for the agreement. However, even though my comment implies an obvious Yes, I was wondering more if there is any kind of study/documentation that illustrates a connection between belief systems without evidence. It probably falls more into the category of psychology than anything else, hence may be slight off-topic, but fantastical beliefs truly baffle me. It’s hard for me to understand how otherwise intelligent adults can hold such positions.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
You know all those people you think are sane? You only think that because you don’t know them yet.
I’ve never gotten to know anyone who wasn’t irrational in some way. For the most part it was harmless, e.g. believing the full moon makes people crazy or the the gov’t has little green people they aren’t telling us about.
But there have been some great people who did great things who also believed some total nonsense.
So I wouldn’t go so far as to say people who believe a stupid thing or seven can’t be reality-based in other ways.
That said, the more craziness they believe the less credibility I give them overall and at some point I pretty much decide that anything they say probably is wrong and if I really care I need to check on it myself.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“Hey guys, do your thing and I’ll do mine.
I think many vaccines are a risk and you don’t.
Let’s agree to disagree.”
You see that would be fine if you had a mountain of evidence equal to that which supports the effectiveness and usefulness of vaccines but you don’t do you? What you have is intuition, hunches, and ‘common sense’, in short you have nothing. So instead let’s agree that you’re wrong until you provide some actual evidence to support your case.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Great post and I agree!
/rant on
/derail
I wish when a post is made about a certain subject that people could limit their comments to just that subject. Creationism, global warming and such always creep in.
Save those comments for posts on those subjects. Otherwise you end up with comments that spout all over the place and the original point gets missed. Sheesh!
/rant off
/rerail
February 6th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
@Lewis #34: “Creationism, global warming and such always creep in … comments that spout all over the place and the original point gets missed. Sheesh!”
If you are referring to my comment #29 right above yours, I was talking about comment #3 from Jim Galasyn, who mentioned the “tactics” employed by creationists and global-warming contrarians are similar. No new discussions about creationism or other topics have been started, nor derailed by me or anyone else (except by your comment, complete with derail tags). My comment was about the mindset of these beliefs and their proponents (please re-read this page’s title). I specifically questioned the basis for non-evidence belief systems. Sorry if a comment did not meet your personal criteria. Like you, I also think this was great post, and agree with it.
Today’s post, and indeed the whole blog, deals with skepticism and scientific evidence. It’s not off-topic to ask about why people believe things like antivax when the topic is “antivax.”
February 6th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Omphaloskepsis, I am familiar with the flu vaccine research to which you refer. The lesser and less certain benefit is the reason why the flu vaccine is not provided as part of a universal vaccination program, and is, instead, voluntary for the general population.
There is a much distorted kernel of accuracy in what you say on this specific point only, but it is obvious you do not understand the research you are talking about, nor do you realize that the point, such as it is, is irrelevant in respect to any and all other vaccines, each of which must be considered independently.
Everything else you mentioned in your posts, though, is total bunk.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
What get’s me is when a proper doctor says something like “no, there isn’t much we can do” he is an uncaring ghoul for admitting his limitations. But when a quacks says something like “yes, sure we have a cure just hand over your credit card” he is a brave maverick.
Vulnerable patients with difficult conditions are easy prey to the yesmen.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Indeed; that’s the saddest part, for it pretty much guarantees that quacks will always be among us.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Whatever resources we’re pouring into killing people, we should be doubling (or more) in educating people.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Here’s an example of their thinking regarding the Wakefield paper, outlined beautifully in a classic Peanuts cartoon from 1964:
Lucy and Linus are walking down the sidewalk when Lucy exclaims, “Well, look here! A big yellow butterfly! It’s unusual to see one this time of year unless, of course, he flew up from Brazil…I’ll bet that’s it!”
Linus bends down to examine the object on the sidewalk. He says, “This is no butterfly…this is a potato chip!”
Whereupon Lucy replies, “Well I’ll be! So it is! I wonder how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil?”
They deal in contradictions…their arguments fail because if alternative medicines DID work, they would be under the control of the FDA and making billions for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s like how no woo supporters can’t explain why John Edward and his ilk won’t accept the million dollar challenge, donate the money to charity, and put the skeptics in their place once and for all. When I bring this up, they abandon their argument and resort to ad hominem attacks. It’s faith that drives their belief but simple paranoia that drives their arguments.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I’m not giving credit where’s it’s due, but I’ve seen the phrase ‘crank magnetism’ used to describe the condition in which people who fall for one kind of pseudoscience tend to believe lots of other kinds of woo and nonsense.
Hopefully, someone will jump in to say who coined this phrase.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
@Kathy #41:
Thanks for your comment — it’s exactly what I was suspecting regarding some people’s susceptibility to antivax claims, as well as all the other fantasy belief systems.
How intelligent people buy into the antivaxxers’ position as mentioned in this post has always been confusing & frustrating for me. Maybe I am hoping that by understanding how people fall for these things, it might be possible to more effectively encourage them to base their beliefs on real science.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Phil (responding to comment @28), you might want to give the linked Newsweek article a critical read. I’d be especially interested in hearing your judgement on whether the statements being presented are credible, or just woo.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
@ Kathy (#41),
It was Mark Hoofnagle who coined the phrase “crank magnetism” on denialism blog.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Sorry, been running around with my kids.
Here’s the deal, the next time you or one of your’s goes in for a vax ask to read the insert from the manufacturer.
Every vax will have a long list of possible side effects.
I’m not saying that they may hurt you, the manufacturer says they might.
There are risks.
Saying that vaccinations are harmless with only a plus side is burying your head in the sand.
Now, back to sledding!
February 6th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I believe the phrase “crank magnetism” comes from here:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/crank_magnetism_1.php
February 6th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Omphaloskepsis: “Saying that vaccinations are harmless with only a plus side is burying your head in the sand.”
Oddly, the only people I’ve ever seen make such statements are mendacious antivaxxers such as yourself.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Mendacious antivaxxers such as myself?
Woo-hoo!
Gosh, I’ll make sure not to say anything negative about profit driven big pharma in the future.
Maybe they’ll come up with a vax for pompous idiots soon.
You should be first in line.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
@ IVAN3MAN AT LARGE #44
Thanks! I knew someone would come through.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Omphaloskepsis: after you chief, unless you can pony up a pro-vaxxer who says vaccines are 100% safe to take your place.
And hey, I just like saying “mendacious” – like “lying”, but with a sweeter sound to it. “Gish Gallop” I quite like too.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I say that there might be risks to your health from vaxs and you tag me as a loon.
I point out that the manufacturers admit risks and you tag me as a liar.
It’s either line up behind you and agree or get hosed.
Like I said, if they come up with a vax for pompous idiots get yourself some.
Gotta go drop my kids off now, you guys have fun!
February 6th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
“Straw man” and “ad hominem” might work also.
Y’know, it’s easy choosing to non-vax when you know there’s maybe only a 1-in-10,000 chance of something bad happening to your own kids as a result. But does it really not bother you to think that if 10,000 people make the same decision as you, the odds mean you’re effectively condemning some other poor sod to it?
February 6th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Omphaloskepsis,
You are falling victim to a classic cognitive mistake. Just because they list all the POSSIBLE effects, is just a legal CYA maneuver from the lawyers. The risk of those and WORSE effects from the disease they are meant to prevent is much, much greater. The only people that insist that vaccines should be 100% safe are people who have no understanding of how medicine and things like that work. For crying out loud, even breathing isn’t 100% safe!
There are always risks with ANYTHING. It’s just that the risks of vaccines themselves are LESS THAN the risks of the disease and the harm to the community not vaccinating can cause. Did you see Dr Plait’s post about Dana McCaffery? THAT IS WHY NOT VACCINATING IS THE HEIGHT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY. Unless you have a valid medical reason for not vaccinating, you are being a bad human being by not taking advantage of this.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Omphaloskepsis: “I point out that the manufacturers admit risks and you tag me as a liar.”
I manifestly did not call you a liar for pointing out that manufacturers admit risks. I called you a liar for propagating the stenching old strawman that pro-vaxxers claim that vaccines are harmless. I then offered you the opportunity to prove me wrong by showing me a pro-vaxxer that really does make that claim. Not only did you fail to produce that evidence, now you’ve gone and lied again. Really, would you like a shovel?
“It’s either line up behind you and agree or get hosed.”
Not at all. You could also produce significant hard evidence to back up your opinions. Oh hey, you might get dirty looks from teh Pharma and the rest of the Evil Establishment, but if your findings are solid and reproducible they’ll be forced to accept them sooner or later.
That’s how science works. You’re allowed to be wrong and you’re allowed to correct those errors when they’re found. It’s refusing to accept that you’re wrong when it’s blatantly obvious that you are, or just lying straight up from the start, that gets you booted out of the club. And then enemies and [ex-]friends alike will line up to tear you a new one.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
@ Omphaloskepsis #45. Read Elin at #25. I don’t think anyone was talking about whether vaccinations are harmless.
February 6th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
@Mike, #33
Well said.
February 6th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
It’s great how Omphaloskepsis effectively repeated TechyDad’s last line in his initial comment when he said “I’ll just keep on taking care of myself instead of trusting some corp to do it for me.”
February 6th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
holastefan @ 29:
How common is it to hold concurrent multiple beliefs that are not based on evidence? In other words, if someone is disposed to accept a fantasy position, is it typical that they also hold other views without evidence? (eg, antivax+creationism, homeopathy+ufos+global warming denial, etc).
In my own experience, quite common. I think it was Orac at Respectful Insolence who coined the term “crank magnetism” to describe exactly what you’re suggesting: belief in one loony thing predisposes one to believe in other loony things.
I know religious people who swear by naturopathy, chiropractic, fuel additives to increase mileage and something called “Kamen Water” (essentially a fake machine for “electrolysing” ordinary tap water to make it “healthier”, boost your immune system, improve your vitality — like any magic elixir, really.
I know non-religious New Age (but “spiritual”) folks who believe in Global Consciousness, cosmic energy, crop circles (are messages from aliens/natural manifestations of cosmic energy), distant healing, Masuro Emoto’s Secret Messages in Water, Deepak Chopra’s eructations on quantum mechanics, electrons that think, the power of intention — but don’t believe in God, or faith healing, or the propaganda that comes out of rightwing think tanks, are canny financial investors and most of the time listen carefully to their doctors’ advice. It’s a really odd mix of gullibility and critical thinking.
I don’t understand how, for example, a fellow could spot a piece of rightwing think tank propaganda in a heartbeat, but fail to apply the same skills to, say, Edgar Mitchell’s incoherent essay on his pet Quantum Hologram theory. Bunkum is bunkum, you would think, but apparently for some people there are blind spots. BIG blind spots.
As for correlations, the main ones I’ve noticed are these: New Agers overlap with alt-med believers, while believers in neoconservative economics overlap with religious fundamentalists. It’s as if lunacy comes in different flavours depending on one’s tribal affiliation.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
These tools like sled dad who say things like “do your own thing and I’ll do mine”, are putting their children at risk of Frickin POLIO for Crikes sake, and countless others to flu. symantics, strawmen, ad hominem blah blah blah, the point is, not vaccinating is selfish and puts us all at risk.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I don’t get the flu vaccine every year because my body has a very, very hard time handling them. I have some funky health problems and huge issues with allergies. I support the vacs and think as many people as possible should get them – and in the meantime I’ll continue to be hyper-careful about being around people with the flu. As for the H1N1 vac, well, far before it was available here my entire work group passed it around to each other.
Re the OT: I have met far too many people who assume that anything Big Pharma is “not natural” and everything homeopathic is “all natural” and that we should only put “all natural” things into our bodies. I’m all for natural things but at what point did people decide that natural = safe?
February 6th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
reference #32
“For the most part it was harmless, e.g. believing the full moon makes people crazy or the the gov’t”
Does anyone else but me see astrology in the term “full moon” when it is used to describe human behavior? The moon did not do anything, it’s a shadow.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
@#51 “Gotta go drop my kids off now, you guys have fun!”
Did you buckle up your kids in seat belts when you did this?
Why?
February 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I dunno. The full moon is insanely bright, and can keep people awake at night if it’s shining in their bedroom window. And I know from personal experience that if you’re plagued with insomnia you start getting all sorts of kooky thoughts running through your head; so yeah, I do think the full moon can influence human behaviour, but there’s nothing mystical or astrologiffic about it.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Yes, because the people who are harping the “anti-vaccine” substitutes, books, etc. aren’t making a dime, right?
I’m sick and tired of people complaining about “Big Pharma” & profits – yet they ignore the fact that people like Jenny McCarthy & Andrew Wakefield are getting rich(er) selling their own brand of WOO!
So, it is okay for those people to make a profit, yet the actual scientists and companies that produce the backbone of modern medicine (drugs, devices, etc) shouldn’t be allowed to make money? That just doesn’t make sense.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
If like cures like, will a bullet cure lead poisoning?
February 6th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Omphaloskepsis @45
How about you go and get a copy of the long list of the side effects from diseases that are preventable by vaccine, the same doc who is administering the vaccines should be able to rustle that up for you. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that these things have zero risk… but consider the risk of the alternative and weigh one against the other critically – that is based on actual evidence.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
#4. Omphaloskepsis”But hey, if you want to undermine your body’s ability to fight off infections on it’s own go for it my friend.”
Are you aware of how vaccines work?
February 6th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
[...] He tells it like it is. [...]
February 6th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
67. Lone Wolf Says:
February 6th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Are you aware of how vaccines work?
Yep.
Go get a flu shot, then get infected a couple days later with a different strain from the real time virus.
Your body is cranking out antibodies against the shot, you get sick from the real thing.
What fun.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Antigenic Original Sin. Hmmm tricky one. The stats I can find at a cursory glance from CDC do say that the flu shot mixure of strains is historically very good. In fact it’s only the last couple of years that it’s been poor. I don’t know if CDC are out of bounds in the ‘Big Pharma machine’ and not to be trusted (probably are. They are, you know, big and governmental and things. Can’t trust a word they say)
February 7th, 2010 at 12:14 am
probably are. They are, you know, big and governmental and things. Can’t trust a word they say
Ex-Zackly!
Finally!
Someone who understands!!!
February 7th, 2010 at 1:27 am
To sum up – Omphaloskepsis is the shining example of the truth of TechyDad’s missive on which we are commenting. Q.E.D.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:08 am
What are these canonical examples of the US government actively supporting big business’s goals to make money off killing it’s own citizens?
There must be simply loads the way people talk on the internet sometimes.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:59 am
blackwater. healthcare insurance.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:09 am
It never seems to occur to woomongers that Big Pharma would make more money selling leg braces, wheelchairs and iron lungs than vaccines.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:10 am
@Jon F # 17:
“Also, “mutagens.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
WIN!
February 7th, 2010 at 8:56 am
69. Omphaloskepsis Says:
“Your body is cranking out antibodies against the shot, you get sick from the real thing.”
This strikes me as a classic example of shifting the goal posts. Like saying “I got a vaccine against typhoid, then two days later contracted typhus. See! The vaccine made me weaker.”
HAve you ever tried lifting weights? You don’t start off bench pressing 300 lbs. You start by lifting 100 lbs, then the next time you’re “exposed” to a weight, your body is better prepared for the effort. Granted, it’s a loose metaphor. Granted, having the vaccine to typhoid won’t help you against typhus, but just because you’re cranking out anti-bodies against typhoid doesn’t mean you’re unable to produce anti-bodies against typhus. The vaccine doesn’t weaken your immune system. It prepares it for a strong immune response against typhoid, leaving it free to concentrate on the typhus when THAT shows up. A typical human immune system is quite capable of retaining immune markers to millions of bacilli, viral infections and fungi while still being able to “learn” to produce new anti-bodies. Vaccines prep you for known bugs, leaving you free to address unknown ones.
GAry 7
February 7th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Addendum:
As has been reported here before, children raised on farms have far fewer auto-immune diseases(like asthma) than those raised in more sanitary conditions, BECAUSE their immune systems are constantly being “trained” to recognize foreign invaders. Rather similar to what we do when we purposely expose them to weak invaders,ie, via vaccines.
A prepared immune system is a strong, accurate system. It “learns” the difference between friend and foe.
Gary 7
PS: and yes, I have been known to bench press 300 lbs. I are prepared,,,
February 7th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Omphaloskepsis,
You’re a dishonest debater made very clear by your assertion that people here are claiming vaccines are harmless.
Muzz:
“What are these canonical examples of the US government actively supporting big business’s goals to make money off killing it’s own citizens?”
Well the US government does this through the weapons industry, but it’s thousands of people in other countries that get killed.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Omphaloskepsis, the next time you think about taking a deep breath, please be aware of the serious, well documented and quantified, health risks associated with breathing air containing 20% oxygen. It sets off a chain of oxidative stress that is equivalent (exactly equivalent, the underlying chemical reactions are in fact the same!) to getting hit with ionizing radiation. Indeed, most experts agree that breathing oxygen over a several-decade lifespan is one the primary causes of death in humans.
Does that mean we should all stop breathing?
It is completely pointless and irrelevant to talk about “risks” in isolation, and stupendously ignorant (or dishonest) to use such an argument in a debate. There are health risks associated with EVERYTHING (you know those all-natural leafy green vegetables everyone agrees we should be eating? They’re loaded with TOXINS that plants produce to deter herbivores and omnivores, like us humans!) but there are also benefits associated with everything. The magnitude of the risk and the magnitude of the benefit, each by itself, is completely irrelevant. What matters is the risk-benefit BALANCE between the two.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:28 am
I’m halfways tempted to take a line from Sweeny Todd, concoct an elixir made of piss and ink, and sell it as an “alternative” to rogaine, and see how many people actually buy into it because it’s “alternative.”
February 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am
81. AbuMaia
,,,and that is one of the problems with being a sane, rational being. We don’t do things that take advantage of the majority, preying on their obvious irrationalities. Which is one reason I find it difficult to get rich. I’d actually have to work at THAT. As in, invent a better mouse trap, get it patented, find venture capital, work 18 hours/day to get it to market, overcome trade barriers and licensing laws and advertise,,,sounds too much like a headache to me.
GAry 7
February 7th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Sorry for drifting off-topic a bit… but isn’t the “logic” used by the anti-science people similar to the thinking process by folks who tend to be drawn towards the new “Tea Party” movement? This may be “apples and oranges,” but then again, I see legitimate comparisons.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
I guess I was casting the net a little wide with that remark about examples of the US government mendacity. It depends how you look at a lot of things like the arms industry, the CIA in South America et al where you’re going to come down on that kind of thing. But all these things are different and usually seperate. It’s where it becomes The Great American Suspicion that intrigues this foreigner. But it’s a bit much for this conversation.
What I was really was driving at with Omphaloskepsis there was to find out the source of this stuff. The logic goes “Everyone knows flu shots are a joke”, “Do they? Its a seasonal disease with a number of strains and the vaccine isn’t hugely well administered. CDC reckons what gets out there generally works”, “Well you can’t trust them.”
Er, why? Any specific cases? And, moreover, why trust whoever told you not to trust CDC? I’m sorry, the mere association with “big government” isn’t enough.
Yeah I’m barking up a dead tree with this kind of thing and people lump all and sundry in together in ways that make no sense and justify it any old how, as per the original post. But it’s worth a try.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I am a little late to this party but my meager 2¢ on this are just a bit of thoughts. I know how vaccines work, I know how they’re made and quality tested. On a general note, most vaccines work to protect the most people from a virus or bacteria. Most of those diseases, while some people may get mild versions, can kill some of the people. Or leave them horribly, permanently damaged–polio is a BIG, visible disease when it causes bad stuff, but measles can cause deafness, blindness and permanent damage to reproductive tracts and other organ systems.
As a one-off, I have not gotten any strain of flu since I started getting vaccinated for it. I have also never had any kind of reaction to almost all of the vaccinations I have had in my life. Tetanus and typhoid were the exception-the tetanus usually feels like a bruise for a couple of days. The first time I had the vaccination series for typhoid (before going overseas with my parents), I felt ill after both shots (I was about 8 years old). On the other hand I apparently will only ever have to have to be given a booster if I’m exposed or going to a country where it is an issue.
I do not understand the anti-vaxxers.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@Curt
It’s certainly applicable to certain segments, but not all. The problem trying to define the Tea Party like that is that the Tea Party is so disjointed that it doesn’t even resemble itself.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Fight!
February 10th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I am a little late to this party. Fascinating stuff. As a parent with an immune-compromised child, I take the anti-vacc position as an insult not only to intelligence, but to my child’s welfare and the welfare of society as whole.
I recently tried to engage a fellow social work student on this topic and failed. I felt bad that my rhetorical skills and “talking points” weren’t in line (as hers were). Not that it would have made much difference. Her insulting way of bringing the discussion to a close— ‘If you were as well-read on this topic as I am, we might be able to continue”— left me flummoxed. Frankly, I lack a medical or scientific background, and am a lousy debater.
So, here is an email she sent to a class of social work students a few weeks later. As you can see, she is advancing the notion that “making an informed choice is not neglect.” as far as social work clients are concerned.
Here is her email. What do you say to this person? By the way, she is responding to the CNN report on the Lancet story:
How many of you are aware that there is a National Childhood Vaccine Compensation Injury Act? This law, enacted in 1986, was put in place to compensate those parents whose children were damaged or killed as a result of vaccinations, because, by law, the pharmcuetical companies are immune from being sued as a result of any injuries or deaths their products may cause.
This story forwarded by the professor underlines the importance of understanding who funds research, and why. This seems like slander to protect the corporate interests, in this case, the vaccine manufacturers.
By law, vaccinations can only be administered by informed consent, yet compliance is mandatory. However, there are legal exemptions in every state. No doctor will guarantee vaccinations safety or efficacy, just ask them!
What is the purpose of research? To support the status quo and what we think we know, or to investigate the unknown, and debunk assumptions and myths?
FYI, all of the so-called vaccine preventable diseases had declined by 90% prior to the introduction of vaccines as a result of improved hygiene. But don’t take my word for it, if you feel yourself interested in this issue, research it yourself.
Thanks for reading. I think it’s important to be aware of alternate sources of information, alternate viewpoints, and in the event that you encounter a client who has chosen not to vaccinate their child, you will understand that making an informed choice is not neglect.
< <<<<>>>>>>
I have to say, her position makes the blood boil right out of my ears. Thanks for any suggestions.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:46 am
In a new salvo from the peanut gallery and our renowned Dr. Mercola:
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Miscellaneous/andrew_wakefield_scientific_censorship_and_fourteen_monkeys_1302.html
Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
February 12 2010
A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey argues that Dr. Andrew Wakefield is currently being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes — with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
cont’d…
February 15th, 2010 at 8:23 am
@Tony S,
I’m coming in (very) late to the party as well. Just spent the week in Disney World where I didn’t have Internet access for half the week. (Closest I had was twittering via text messages.) Here are a couple of things I’d let her know about the points she brings up:
1. Vaccines really aren’t that profitable. It would make companies a lot more money to sell treatments for diseases than preventative shots. If “Big Pharma” was truly the evil entity anti-vaxxers make them out to be, they’d allow polio to run rampant and sell high-priced drugs to manage the condition rather than prevent it. Of course, this isn’t meant to suggest that “Big Pharma” is nice. Of course they are driven by profits. But if a bunch of people started suing over vaccines (due to real or imagined harms), the companies would stop producing vaccines and we’d all suffer.
For this reason, the “Vaccine Court” was established to look into cases. Yes, in some ways it is a shield for pharmaceutical companies, but it has been effective at weeding out baseless claims.
2. There are legal exemptions because there are valid reasons for not being vaccinated. If you have an egg allergy, then getting a vaccine that is grown in eggs could lead to a life-threatening reaction. Other children have immune system disorders that mean they can’t be vaccinated. We don’t want to force these kids into being vaccinated when it can mean severe injury or death (due to their specific conditions), so there are exceptions. Also, since the USA recognizes the right of people to practice their religion freely, people can generally refuse on religious grounds. (Obviously, many here would argue that this isn’t a valid reason for refusing vaccines, but it is considered a legally valid one.)
3. No doctor will guarantee 100% safety or efficacy because no doctor will guarantee 100% safety or efficacy of anything. Even things that are considered “for all intents and purposes 100% efficient” are billed as 99.98% or something like that. (I’m thinking IUD’s specifically.) There’s always that 0.02% chance that *something* could happen which renders the treatment ineffective and there’s always the chance that you have some reaction to the drug/treatment/vaccine. Here’s the thing though, if you get a vaccine, you might have a 0.02% chance of getting a reaction (and an even smaller chance of getting a severe reaction). If you don’t get the vaccine, though, and you get the disease, you likely have a 90%+ chance of having a moderate to severe reaction.
4. About the hygiene claim, from antiantivax.flurf.net: “Anti-vaxers claim that better hygiene has led to a decrease in disease, rather than vaccines. However, many of the diseases prevented by vaccines are airborne, and are not greatly impacted by improved sanitation or hygiene.”
Also, it’s odd that, when vaccine use drops (like in the UK with measles), the disease rates surge. Are the countries also being hit with a hygiene epidemic as well?
5. Alternative doesn’t equal correct. In many cases, alternative is worse because it means “not peer reviewed, not based on actual science and just based on cherry picked data that the person selling the ‘cure’ put together.”