Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 10:38:03 GMT -5
That's part of it, but rates have been rising long since they were properly able to diagnose these conditions. The same is true for autism, ADHD, severe allergies, and mental illness. Improved diagnosis only accounts for a fraction of the observable increase. Also, the fact that your husband would have died before giving birth to your children is consistent with the theory that technological intervention has subverted the process of natural selection. No it's not. At the age of 25, a male would have had, what 10+ years of a potential sex life? He could very well have father multiple children by the age of 25 although that might vary some depending on what historical era we're talking about. Possibly, but i) statistically speaking, all that matters is what percentage of individuals procreate before age 25; so long as the percentage isn't 100, the theory comes into play, and ii) an individual who lived to age 25 with an undiagnosed disorder in the 20th century might well have only lived to half that age in previous generations, depending on the stresses they faced.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 4, 2015 10:46:45 GMT -5
I think it's much more likely that vaccines have allowed the weaker, those with diseases, to survive childhood and therefore get old enough to get diagnosed with things.
Also, the things that are rising at an "alarming" rate didn't exist by name just a short while ago and the criteria for diagnosing isn't set in stone yet. See add and adhd being combined into adhd and not having to have hyperactivity to be diagnosed with adhd. And I only got diagnosed as a kid because in my childhood being bright, fast, outside the box thinker with horrible organization skills didn't make anyone bat an eye.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 1:08:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 10:48:55 GMT -5
We are definitely post evolutionary in our development. We have bypassed natural selection in many more ways than vaccines. Not sure why that would be the first place one would choose an attempt to revert? I'm not suggesting that we revert. Regardless, if the theory is correct, vaccination opponents would be wise to eschew vaccines. I get hints of evolutionary thinking in the 'right to be sick' literature. It certainly isn't a popular (or politically correct) view, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. And to answer your question, immunization is a particularly attractive choice for reversion because childhood disease is a particularly powerful and indiscriminate selector of genetic fitness. Why stop there, let's stop feeding them and giving them shelter and see which of the little buggers make it through...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 4, 2015 11:08:19 GMT -5
Merged this thread with the previous vaccines thread in CE. Two is enough.
- Virgil (Mod)
I'll have to say the merge confused me and I thought the Christie Ebola vs. not being vaccinated thread was deleted. That thread was more about politicians, Ebola, and contrasting that with their public views on vaccines.
I think the bulk of this thread is anti-vaccine and the Christie one had a very different emphasis IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 1:08:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 11:18:31 GMT -5
I'm actually on the fence about vaccines. I like to listen to both sides.
I think it's right to question. I think it's wrong to ignore answers just because they aren't what one wants to hear.
And I think it's a little silly to question whether should avoid them specifically for evolutionary reasons. To me that's like the conversation awhile ago about whether, if we could cure mental retardation, we should... because you know those people teach us so much...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 4, 2015 11:23:47 GMT -5
For the sake of making this thread interesting, let us consider a hypothetical: ... Suppose the problem with vaccines isn't what they cause, but what they prevent. . "A lack of vaccine use. A lack of herd immunity," some scientists claim, but the data doesn't support their conclusions, leading to pointed skepticism even among their peers. The resurgence is happening both in highly vaccinated communities and not. Two things - first, vaccines are not really the problem in us de-evolving. Vaccines only prevent random diseases from killing the weak. The bigger problem is is all of modern medicine. Almost all medical conditions are survivable now - including genetic ones. The weak survive & go on to reproduce & the problem continues. But, unless you want to get rid of modern medicine, this isn't going to change. Just getting rid of vaccines while keeping all the drugs we use isn't going to change anything. We are to a point where we have our evolution in our own hands & I give it under 100 years before we are genetically able to change people's coding to get rid of many diseases or pick & choose what kind of child you want.
Second - link to the bold part? Because from what I have read most of the large outbreaks are occurring in communities with low vaccination rates:
•2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio. •2008: The increase in cases in 2008 was the result of spread in communities with groups of unvaccinated people.
And of the current outbreak: Patients range in age from seven months to 70 years. Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
So just curious what data you have that shows it is happening just as much in communities that have high vaccination rates.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 11:28:55 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that we revert. Regardless, if the theory is correct, vaccination opponents would be wise to eschew vaccines. I get hints of evolutionary thinking in the 'right to be sick' literature. It certainly isn't a popular (or politically correct) view, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. And to answer your question, immunization is a particularly attractive choice for reversion because childhood disease is a particularly powerful and indiscriminate selector of genetic fitness. Why stop there, let's stop feeding them and giving them shelter and see which of the little buggers make it through... A noble attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but dare I point out the many orders of magnitude difference in risk between eschewing vaccines and The Lord of the Flies. Obviously the goal would be to embrace natural selection as little as possible to ensure a sustainable genetic fitness of the species.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 4, 2015 11:38:30 GMT -5
Two things - first, vaccines are not really the problem in us de-evolving. Vaccines only prevent random diseases from killing the weak. The bigger problem is is all of modern medicine. Almost all medical conditions are survivable now - including genetic ones. The weak survive & go on to reproduce & the problem continues. But, unless you want to get rid of modern medicine, this isn't going to change. Just getting rid of vaccines while keeping all the drugs we use isn't going to change anything. We are to a point where we have our evolution in our own hands & I give it under 100 years before we are genetically able to change people's coding to get rid of many diseases or pick & choose what kind of child you want.
Second - link to the bold part? Because from what I have read most of the large outbreaks are occurring in communities with low vaccination rates:
•2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio. •2008: The increase in cases in 2008 was the result of spread in communities with groups of unvaccinated people.
And of the current outbreak: Patients range in age from seven months to 70 years. Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
So just curious what data you have that shows it is happening just as much in communities that have high vaccination rates.
You missed the news this morning I see: Source: www.bbc.com/news/health-31069173Dang! That is awesome. So I totally overestimated the timeframe since it is already starting. It will just keep going to more genetic conditions & we will continue our evolution, but no longer through natural selection, but through our own medical knowledge.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 11:41:48 GMT -5
For the sake of making this thread interesting, let us consider a hypothetical: ... Suppose the problem with vaccines isn't what they cause, but what they prevent. . "A lack of vaccine use. A lack of herd immunity," some scientists claim, but the data doesn't support their conclusions, leading to pointed skepticism even among their peers. The resurgence is happening both in highly vaccinated communities and not. Two things - first, vaccines are not really the problem in us de-evolving. Vaccines only prevent random diseases from killing the weak. The bigger problem is is all of modern medicine. Almost all medical conditions are survivable now - including genetic ones. The weak survive & go on to reproduce & the problem continues. But, unless you want to get rid of modern medicine, this isn't going to change. Just getting rid of vaccines while keeping all the drugs we use isn't going to change anything. We are to a point where we have our evolution in our own hands & I give it under 100 years before we are genetically able to change people's coding to get rid of many diseases or pick & choose what kind of child you want.
Second - link to the bold part? Because from what I have read most of the large outbreaks are occurring in communities with low vaccination rates:
•2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio. •2008: The increase in cases in 2008 was the result of spread in communities with groups of unvaccinated people.
And of the current outbreak: Patients range in age from seven months to 70 years. Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
So just curious what data you have that shows it is happening just as much in communities that have high vaccination rates.
I posted three links to anti-vaccine sites way back when (just use the filter to display all my posts in this thread). I believe all three of them have numerous links to studies that show outbreaks in vaccinated populations. One of them purports to debunk some of the CDC-backed studies, claiming they routinely censor data. Regardless, the more effective a measles vaccine is, the greater the impact it has to the "vaccines reduce genetic fitness" thesis. Oh great. Let's trust that medical authorities, eugenicists, and big pharma will fix us a hundred years from now, because that worked so well with all the technologies that wiped out the genetic fitness of our species. Hope your parents can pay up, kid.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 11:44:33 GMT -5
Why stop there, let's stop feeding them and giving them shelter and see which of the little buggers make it through... A noble attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but dare I point out the many orders of magnitude difference in risk between eschewing vaccines and The Lord of the Flies. Obviously the goal would be to embrace natural selection as little as possible to ensure a sustainable genetic fitness of the species. This is starting to make me think of eugenics. And having someone else decide who's considered 'genetically fit" to continue the species. Or those old arguments about a woman giving birth to 6 kids with assorted mental and physical issues finding out that she's pregnant again and would you abort or not. If you answer abort, you've killed Beethoven (or some famous composer) And I'm not comfortable with someone other than me and my partner deciding what to do about our fertility. And it's all the fault of those darn vaccines. Why, oh why did Edward Jenner try to figure out a way around smallpox in 1796!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 11:44:37 GMT -5
Dang! That is awesome. So I totally overestimated the timeframe since it is already starting. It will just keep going to more genetic conditions & we will continue our evolution, but no longer through natural selection, but through our own medical knowledge. It's just that easy! I admire your optimism, madam.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 11:45:15 GMT -5
People have always used their brains to survive nature. We need fire. We can't outrun chickens or lions. We're soft, squishy, vulnerable and tasty. We take a ridiculously long time to be able to walk or eat or on our own. How fast do chickens run? And if we don't outrun them, are there really dire consequences? I'm told there are some vicious chickens out there on the farms.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 11:47:08 GMT -5
A noble attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but dare I point out the many orders of magnitude difference in risk between eschewing vaccines and The Lord of the Flies. Obviously the goal would be to embrace natural selection as little as possible to ensure a sustainable genetic fitness of the species. This is starting to make me think of eugenics. And having someone else decide who's considered 'genetically fit" to continue the species. Or those old arguments about a woman giving birth to 6 kids with assorted mental and physical issues finding out that she's pregnant again and would you abort or not. If you answer abort, you've killed Beethoven (or some famous composer) And I'm not comfortable with someone other than me and my partner deciding what to do about our fertility. And it's all the fault of those darn vaccines. Why, oh why did Edward Jenner try to figure out a way around smallpox in 1796! You're missing the point. This is parents deciding of their own free will not to vaccinate their children, and whether or not that's wise. By necessity, it's only a subset of the pro-vaccination crowd in the "children must be vaccinated; government must interfere" camp. Anti-vaxers are inherently pro-choice (with regards to vaccines).
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Feb 4, 2015 11:57:25 GMT -5
People have always used their brains to survive nature. We need fire. We can't outrun chickens or lions. We're soft, squishy, vulnerable and tasty. We take a ridiculously long time to be able to walk or eat or on our own. How fast do chickens run? And if we don't outrun them, are there really dire consequences? No fried chicken. Ever.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 12:19:45 GMT -5
Damn. Proboards ate my post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 1:08:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2015 12:21:49 GMT -5
Started listening to Brave New World yesterday... How timely.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 4, 2015 12:30:56 GMT -5
Two things - first, vaccines are not really the problem in us de-evolving. Vaccines only prevent random diseases from killing the weak. The bigger problem is is all of modern medicine. Almost all medical conditions are survivable now - including genetic ones. The weak survive & go on to reproduce & the problem continues. But, unless you want to get rid of modern medicine, this isn't going to change. Just getting rid of vaccines while keeping all the drugs we use isn't going to change anything. We are to a point where we have our evolution in our own hands & I give it under 100 years before we are genetically able to change people's coding to get rid of many diseases or pick & choose what kind of child you want.
Second - link to the bold part? Because from what I have read most of the large outbreaks are occurring in communities with low vaccination rates:
•2014: The U.S. experienced 23 measles outbreaks in 2014, including one large outbreak of 383 cases, occurring primarily among unvaccinated Amish communities in Ohio. •2008: The increase in cases in 2008 was the result of spread in communities with groups of unvaccinated people.
And of the current outbreak: Patients range in age from seven months to 70 years. Vaccination status is documented for 34 of the 59 cases. Of these 34, 28 were unvaccinated, one had received one dose and five had received two or more doses of MMR vaccine.
www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
So just curious what data you have that shows it is happening just as much in communities that have high vaccination rates.
I posted three links to anti-vaccine sites way back when (just use the filter to display all my posts in this thread). I believe all three of them have numerous links to studies that show outbreaks in vaccinated populations. One of them purports to debunk some of the CDC-backed studies, claiming they routinely censor data.
Well, then surely you can point me to an actual study showing that herd immunity has no impact on outbreaks.
I don't intend to go through dozens of studies looking for proof of your point, which seems to be herd immunity has no impact on outbreaks. Mostly because I don't believe you can find proof. Do outbreaks occur in highly vaccinated communities - yes. Are they are severe as outbreaks in low vaccinated communities - hell no.
Regarding you links - one had no studies & had this little tidbit "thought this was a silly concept because if vaccination truly worked, then any child who was vaccinated would be protected from disease, no matter how many ‘infectious’ unvaccinated kids there were, and if the 95% herd immunity figure was a genuine argument, it only points to one thing: the medical profession don’t really believe in the effectiveness of their own vaccines." Which shows the writer doesn't understand vaccines because there is never an expectation of 100% effectiveness.
The other two seemed more intent on proving that people have more life-long immunity to diseases they have actually caught & continue to be exposed to every few years. That is undoubtfully true. However, at what cost if it means these disease must run through our communities every few years. And how does that dispute herd immunity?
Herd immunity does not mean there will never be an outbreak or no one will ever get sick. What it means is very few exposed will get sick & therefore very few will expose others to the disease & an outbreak will be smaller & more short-lived than in an unvaccinated community. I would love for you to find a study that disputes this.
I'm not interested in that theory because you would need to include all medical practices & medication, not just vaccines. I'm interested in your claims regarding highly vaccinated communities seeing the same rate of infection as less vaccinated communities. Party because you posted all the herd immunity links earlier & this seems to be part of your anti-vaccination stance. So back it up
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 13:04:54 GMT -5
I'm not interested in that theory because you would need to include all medical practices & medication, not just vaccines. I'm interested in your claims regarding highly vaccinated communities seeing the same rate of infection as less vaccinated communities. Party because you posted all the herd immunity links earlier & this seems to be part of your anti-vaccination stance. So back it up The links I posted are where I sourced the claim. There's at least 100 pages of material between the three of them. I just skimmed the headings, and studies on instances where vaccinated communities experienced outbreaks seemed to be a common theme. I'm not anti-vaccine, and I don't care enough about the topic to research it intensively. My involvement in these threads is purely academic. If I cared as much about vaccinations as you appear to, I would investigate contrarian sites thoroughly, claim by claim. ETA: "claims regarding highly vaccinated communities seeing the same rate of infection as less vaccinated communities" isn't an accurate paraphrasing of the hypothetical. As I understand it, the grievance is that highly vaccinated communities aren't seeing the reduced rates of infection suggested by the putative efficiency of the vaccines. Just because a theory isn't actionable doesn't mean it's not correct.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 4, 2015 13:22:57 GMT -5
Is this suddenly the new talking point of the Left and the next group to Demonize? Parents have a right to say NO I don't want my kid injected with a vaccine. My kids are vaccinated. If theirs are not that is up to the parents. Why are you making this about right vs. left? (as usual) That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 4, 2015 13:37:49 GMT -5
DH has a rare autoimmune disorder. Four generations ago they didn't have a name for it so no one would have been diagnosed with it. You just would have died young and mysteriously, like a ton of other people. Until the 70's and the advent of prednisone and cancer drugs people with his disease died 5 months to a 1 year after diagnosis. One of the leading causes of death for his disease is heart attack or stroke because it weakens blood vessels. If someone had died of a heart attack forty years ago at the age of 25 they would have thought it was stress, not jumped to the idea that it was caused by underlying auto-immune disorder. That's part of it, but rates have been rising long since they were properly able to diagnose these conditions. The same is true for autism, ADHD, severe allergies, and mental illness. Improved diagnosis only accounts for a fraction of the observable increase. Also, the fact that your husband would have died before giving birth to your children is consistent with the theory that technological intervention has subverted the process of natural selection. Most of us carry SOMETHING untoward in our genes, up to and including diabetes. Are you suggesting we stop using insulin, because those people will just breed, undermining natural selection?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,726
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 4, 2015 13:39:06 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 4, 2015 13:44:26 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
"Hippy dippy liberals" who live on communes, do juice fasts, eschew gluten and eat only organic, aren't likely to vaccinate. I saw them interview such a woman on TV, and they sure as hell aren't vaccinating.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Feb 4, 2015 13:46:19 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
"Hippy dippy liberals" who live on communes, do juice fasts, eschew gluten and eat only organic, aren't likely to vaccinate. I saw them interview such a woman on TV, and they sure as hell aren't vaccinating.
The extreme left and extreme right are often right next to eachother on issues.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 13:55:03 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
If our kids were born in 2010-early 2012, it's very probably my DH would have argued against vaccines. I don't argue well (can you tell?) so he likely would have won the verbal part but I'd have just taken the kids in for vaccines and told him later. Much later. I feel that strongly that kids should be vaccinated that I would have gone behind his back to get it done. The time frame corresponds to when he was eating an extremely restrictive diet.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 14:01:03 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
"Hippy dippy liberals" who live on communes, do juice fasts, eschew gluten and eat only organic, aren't likely to vaccinate. I saw them interview such a woman on TV, and they sure as hell aren't vaccinating.
And some of the ultra conservative religious groups don't vaccinate either. Wasn't a Hadrasic (sorry, spelling) Jewish community hit hard by measles in the last few years? And this is from State today. www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/conservatives_and_liberals_hold_anti_science_views_anti_vaxxers_are_a_bipartisan.html
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 4, 2015 14:02:52 GMT -5
That's part of it, but rates have been rising long since they were properly able to diagnose these conditions. The same is true for autism, ADHD, severe allergies, and mental illness. Improved diagnosis only accounts for a fraction of the observable increase. Also, the fact that your husband would have died before giving birth to your children is consistent with the theory that technological intervention has subverted the process of natural selection. Most of us carry SOMETHING untoward in our genes, up to and including diabetes. Are you suggesting we stop using insulin, because those people will just breed, undermining natural selection?
I'm not suggesting we do anything. I'm just putting out some food for thought.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Feb 4, 2015 14:06:01 GMT -5
I'll state this first and get it out of the way. I AM NOT ANTI VACCINE. That being said, I wonder why it seems to be a crazy idea suddenly to question the medical consensus and make personal decisions? There have been many many cases of the medical community getting things really wrong, just as there are for getting them right? Did you know that the polio vaccine was live trialed in 1.8 million US children? It turned out to be a good thing (no denying), but it could have just easily turned out horribly wrong. Thalidomide for morning sickness? In retrospect if a woman questioned or refused to take this at her doctors suggestion, would she be considered a nut? The medical community used to perform lobotomies as a routine procedure. Now looking back, it is seen as one of the most barbaric practices in medical history. But at the time it was seen as the best treatment for many ailments. Did you know the inventor of it was given a Nobel prize? Who would argue against that? Think about this, if popular belief at the time was a lobotomy would fix your (global you) ailment. Why would you question it? Would you be a nut for challenging that this is an appropriate treatment? Think about the doctors that did challenge it. If they hadn't we'd still be subjecting countless people to it. I'm not saying that medical community is bad or shouldn't be trusted. But they should be questioned. We also should maintain the rights to make our own decisions.
THANK YOU for saying this! This is probably hands-down the most sensible thing I've read on any of the vaccine threads.
Contrary to what a few people are trying to make me out as, I'm not an anti-vaxxer either. But I absolutely agree that we have every right to question what we are told. Questioning authority or status quo is a cornerstone of freedom. When we lose the right to question, or to have control over our own bodies and over the health and wellbeing of our families (the talk of forced vaccinations, jail time for non-compliers, CPS taking kids who don't want treatment away from their families, etc) we are perilously close to a police state. Hitler springs to mind. So does Mussolini and assorted other Asian dictators (Mao, Pol Pot).
CLEARLY WE ARE NOT THERE - YET. But to guard the freedom we all regard as precious requires that we constantly question.
That is all. At least it is for freedom-loving people.
ETA: see, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP? We actually agree (sometimes) more than you think
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2015 14:19:18 GMT -5
I'll state this first and get it out of the way. I AM NOT ANTI VACCINE. That being said, I wonder why it seems to be a crazy idea suddenly to question the medical consensus and make personal decisions? There have been many many cases of the medical community getting things really wrong, just as there are for getting them right? Did you know that the polio vaccine was live trialed in 1.8 million US children? It turned out to be a good thing (no denying), but it could have just easily turned out horribly wrong. Thalidomide for morning sickness? In retrospect if a woman questioned or refused to take this at her doctors suggestion, would she be considered a nut? The medical community used to perform lobotomies as a routine procedure. Now looking back, it is seen as one of the most barbaric practices in medical history. But at the time it was seen as the best treatment for many ailments. Did you know the inventor of it was given a Nobel prize? Who would argue against that? Think about this, if popular belief at the time was a lobotomy would fix your (global you) ailment. Why would you question it? Would you be a nut for challenging that this is an appropriate treatment? Think about the doctors that did challenge it. If they hadn't we'd still be subjecting countless people to it. I'm not saying that medical community is bad or shouldn't be trusted. But they should be questioned. We also should maintain the rights to make our own decisions.
THANK YOU for saying this! This is probably hands-down the most sensible thing I've read on any of the vaccine threads.
Contrary to what a few people are trying to make me out as, I'm not an anti-vaxxer either. But I absolutely agree that we have every right to question what we are told. Questioning authority or status quo is a cornerstone of freedom. When we lose the right to question, or to have control over our own bodies and over the health and wellbeing of our families (the talk of forced vaccinations, jail time for non-compliers, CPS taking kids who don't want treatment away from their families, etc) we are perilously close to a police state. Hitler springs to mind. So does Mussolini and assorted other Asian dictators (Mao, Pol Pot).
CLEARLY WE ARE NOT THERE - YET. But to guard the freedom we all regard as precious requires that we constantly question.
That is all. At least it is for freedom-loving people.
ETA: see, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP? We actually agree (sometimes) more than you think
Yepper.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 4, 2015 14:24:50 GMT -5
I'm with Welts on this. Why does it need to have anything to do with right or left? It would be likely those who are into eating well, organic, etc. might have more than a few non-vaccinators among them.
Because there is a progressive left and a progressive right which both believe that if something is a good idea- it must be mandated. This means we're often forced to have an argument we don't want to have because what's at stake is who the gun ends up being pointed at.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 4, 2015 14:29:27 GMT -5
I'll state this first and get it out of the way. I AM NOT ANTI VACCINE. That being said, I wonder why it seems to be a crazy idea suddenly to question the medical consensus and make personal decisions? There have been many many cases of the medical community getting things really wrong, just as there are for getting them right? Did you know that the polio vaccine was live trialed in 1.8 million US children? It turned out to be a good thing (no denying), but it could have just easily turned out horribly wrong. Thalidomide for morning sickness? In retrospect if a woman questioned or refused to take this at her doctors suggestion, would she be considered a nut? The medical community used to perform lobotomies as a routine procedure. Now looking back, it is seen as one of the most barbaric practices in medical history. But at the time it was seen as the best treatment for many ailments. Did you know the inventor of it was given a Nobel prize? Who would argue against that? Think about this, if popular belief at the time was a lobotomy would fix your (global you) ailment. Why would you question it? Would you be a nut for challenging that this is an appropriate treatment? Think about the doctors that did challenge it. If they hadn't we'd still be subjecting countless people to it. I'm not saying that medical community is bad or shouldn't be trusted. But they should be questioned. We also should maintain the rights to make our own decisions.
THANK YOU for saying this! This is probably hands-down the most sensible thing I've read on any of the vaccine threads.
Contrary to what a few people are trying to make me out as, I'm not an anti-vaxxer either. But I absolutely agree that we have every right to question what we are told. Questioning authority or status quo is a cornerstone of freedom. When we lose the right to question, or to have control over our own bodies and over the health and wellbeing of our families (the talk of forced vaccinations, jail time for non-compliers, CPS taking kids who don't want treatment away from their families, etc) we are perilously close to a police state. Hitler springs to mind. So does Mussolini and assorted other Asian dictators (Mao, Pol Pot).
CLEARLY WE ARE NOT THERE - YET. But to guard the freedom we all regard as precious requires that we constantly question.
That is all. At least it is for freedom-loving people.
And some of us don't understand why freedom loving people would put the lives of others, in their own community, at risk by not vaccinating. If you love your freedom that much, then why are you putting your society that supports that right at risk? That's what I'm questioning. Diseases can and have wiped out societies - estimates are that between 50%-90% of the Native American population died after contact with Europeans (1450-1750ish) because they had no little to no resistance to measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, influenza, whooping cough, TB, cholera, diphtheria and chickenpox and whatever else came over.
|
|