|
My experience is that this sort of thing takes root on the backs of some con artist somewhere that wants to sell a miracle cure. (hint: they never actually cure anything) Quackwatch has a great page on it, actually: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html Actually no, two: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html Really, if somebody uses any of the reasoning on those pages to justify something it's more or less mandatory to look at them and say "yup, you're full of poo poo." Generally speaking, though, these are exactly the phrases that all quackery, including anti-vaccination movements, use. It's always a secret they don't want you to know about that they are trying to suppress because money. I won't say that the medical world is bursting at the seams with saints but really, if a "miracle cure" that a mom that just happens to live three houses from me was discovered the medical world would be all over that poo poo.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:And cookware, deodorant, and a million other things. Aluminium is one of the backbone materials of our society. I guess they all fall under the same logic of it's alright in large chunks outside, but once in me as atoms crap. Still, I didn't know that people actually had concerns about it. Yeah aluminum is pretty damned awesome for how much can be done with it and how safely. You have to practically eat half a kilogram of raw aluminum all at once to actually be hurt by it. I think the thing that gets people freaked out is that it has zero biological use so it's "unnatural" and "doesn't belong in the body" or some such nonsense. Which is absurd, it's extremely non-reactive and non-toxic so long as you aren't deliberately eating huge chunks of the stuff. If it weren't so drat safe we wouldn't make things like, you know, aluminum cans. Alumina is also one of the reasons that clay works and why pottery exists and people have been using ceramics for thousands of years. This whole  BUT ALUMINUM crap is utter nonsense. poo poo is everywhere and if it actually were that toxic we wouldn't use so much of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
The thing that really gets me about the whole thing is that many people fail to realize the difference between "making choices for yourself" and "making choices for others." If you believe medicine is wrong than you are perfectly well within your rights to refuse treatments offered to you. What you cannot do is prevent others from getting treatment based on your beliefs, including your own drat children. Same goes for vaccination; refusing to vaccinate actually harms others. This sudden revival of horrifying diseases from the past is a direct result of anti-vaccination movements. I can understand things like "we probably over prescribe antibiotics, let's cut back a bit" but "let's just chuck all medicine away for ever and go back to sucking on plants for everything" is insane.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:It seems to me that depending on the researcher you're looking at it can be either, both or neither. Some deny any difference, some play up neuroplasticity to such a degree that it ultimately leaves any sort of dimorphism or even innate ability totally mutable (I don't know that I'd agree to that extent, I think neuro plasticity works within constraints). Myself I have felt convinced of the existence of dimorphism with regards to the brain for some time, but have encountered resistance enough to at least acknowledge that many people still disagree. I was a little surprised to see a neuroscientist named Gina Rippon recently endorsing a strict, social constructivist position on the matter, stating there is no difference at all between male and female brains. I think you can find other neuroscientists who would disagree, but if nothing else it seems unsettled within even neuro research communities. What to make of that, who knows. Like any field of science you have personalities with strident opinions. Pasko Rakic held out on adult neuro genesis way longer than was tenable, but that's how it goes I suppose. Sometimes you don't see consensus settle until another generation of researchers come along, and my own opinions notwithstanding I don't know how solid of a consensus there is. The problem with the brain is that it's a ridiculously complex organ that we just flat out don't understand very well. Neuroplasticity is, in fact, a thing in that that's how we learn. The brain literally rewires itself to adapt to what you've learned over your life, for better or for worse, and that's how things like habits and skills form. Certain neural pathways get reinforced, which is why repetition is such a good learning tool, while others get ignored and eventually discarded. It's how you forget or your skills rust. Neuroplasticity, however, does not mean that anybody can become anything or learn anything. There are limits that you have based on particular traits of your brain, which is why studying IQ exists. There are people that just plain have smarter brains than others. Meanwhile there are people who have certain parts of their brains that are better. I'm sure we've all met somebody that was clumsy as hell but otherwise brilliant or a person who struggled with basic math but was a walking dictionary. While there are some proven differences in male and female brains they're actually pretty minor, overall. There are trends but they are just that; trends. The average difference can't predict anything about individuals and because of how the brain works it's entirely possible that the differences are ultimately learned. Boys and girls tend to be taught differently, socialized differently, and exposed to different information, which affects how the brain wires itself and what pathways are stronger. That, of course, goes back to the nature/nurture debate that is still raging. It isn't an easy problem to solve because, again, the brain is a monstrously complex thing that we just don't understand yet. Which is, I think, why anti-vaxxers get so obsessed with "but this affects the brain!" Nobody has really proven that it doesn't so they decided to believe that it does. Which, of course, leads to "well nobody has actually proven that this doesn't happen so I'm going to be safe and..."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How can such an utter moron have made so much money? His name became synonymous with having a lot of money so he charged people to put his name on things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:Why don't more chiropractors lose their licenses for practicing outside their area or expertise? My wife's boss is an anti-vaxxer, and has a child with autism, who is being "treated" by a snake oil chiropractor by using anti-chelation agents. The chiropractor doesn't actually provide the chemicals, but encourages the naive father to order them online. This sounds like a severe ethical violation. It all has to do with semantics. Any idiot off the street can create a "wellness center" and as long as they don't say things like "I am a doctor" it's perfectly legal. Herbal supplements aren't regulated. There's a gently caress ton of "alternative medicine" and "natural remedies" that have zero regulation on them. Being something like a chiropractor gives it a sense of legitimacy because of a logical fallacy whose name I forget right now. Short of it is people tend to assume that an expert on one thing is an expert on everything but there's a major failing on that. Somebody with a PhD in physics can most definitely be expected to give you good answers on physics but is not guaranteed to know anything at all about Australian spiders. The alternative medicine craze and all of this talk of "BUT ARE FREEDUMZ!!!" has let all manner of snake oil salesmen gently caress up the health of a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
sleepingbuddha posted:Yeah, but I'm a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and could be penalized or even have my license taken away for practicing outside of my expertise. It seems like there should be more enforcement with quacks like this. Couldn't a legit MD be sanctioned for telling a patient to take something with no known benefit and a high likelihood of negative side effects? It seems like a chiropractor should be held to similar standards. You're right, there should be standards for things like "wellness centers" and stuff. The simple fact is that there isn't. That's how people get away with this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:How old are you kids? If they're older than three or four, then even if her theories were true they'd be safe. I have autism, and one of the most important things to know about it is that it develops extremely early on in life, and becomes apparent when a person's a toddler. If you can't convince her that vaccines don't cause autism, make that case that they're too old for it to develop anyway. Autism is a disorder that comes from the basic structure of a person's brain, and it can't develop after the initial years of a person's life. No but you see vaccines cause changes that lead to autism when the brain is that young and very malleable because reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It's my understanding that before we had vaccines, one in three kids died before age 21. Now not all of the decrease in mortality will be from vaccination, but I'd guess that at least half of it is. Vaccination was also a major component in how smallpox got eradicated. It's part of why polio is also being systematically annihilated. And, you know, that whole "measles and mumps epidemics no longer happen" thing. That's a pretty major win for vaccination, I'd say. I don't know about you guys but if a doctor gave me an option between "your child will be at increased risk of developing autism" and "your child will have a high likelihood of dying of a horrifying disease" I'd take the autism.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Lord_Ventnor posted:Like, they think it's literally a disease one can catch? Never underestimate how profoundly stupid or misinformed people can be. Few people fact check much, if anything, so all some people know is "Jenny McCarthy said vaccines cause autism." Why people take medical advice from a celebrity rather than a doctor is beyond me but there you have it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So what was this rear end in a top hat's plan if people turned out to be loving morons and linked all vaccines with Autism? (You know, exactly what ended up happening.) I really hope he privately feels at least a little horrified at what he caused. Reading about the guy I get a weird feeling that his entire motivation was "acquire a gigantic bag full of money." It really reads like a greedy prick that didn't give a poo poo who he hurt so long as his bank account got more digits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Shakugan posted:So there was a story (here) in Australia in the last few days about the family of a girl who developed problems (around the time she got a vaccine, fluvax I think it was called) getting a massive payment awarded to them with the judge apparently saying that it was the vaccine that caused the problems. Bullshit or not one case of somebody getting ill thanks to a vaccine does not make all vaccination bad. If memory serves a tiny percentage of people are actually inadvertently killed by vaccines in general every year. They on a rare occasion have issues. Some people get sick or die. It happens. It's utter bullshit that this gets trotted out as an argument against vaccines because vaccination, as a general concept, prevents waaaaaaaay more death and illness than it actually causes. Maybe I'm crazy but I'd take "the polio vaccine killed two people this year" over "polio killed thousands this year and permanently crippled many more."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:I'm autistic. It's a mental thing, though, and that makes it play by a different set of rules than physical things. It's partly physical sure, in that it's a brain thing, but one thing about mental disorders and mental handicaps is that there's always those arguments over what is a problem and what is just personality quirks. It can be totally crippling or it can be a mild annoyance. When it comes to mental things they generally want to fix the parts that damage your life and let the rest be. In the case of autism it can also come with advantages. The hyperfocus that some autistic people show can be useful and I was reading a while back that engineers tend to be way more likely to be autistic. I know a few autistic people and they range from a bit socially awkward and annoyed by bright lights to literally doesn't speak for days at a time and has trouble functioning in society. This is why Autism Speaks and its mission to destroy autism is very controversial and is pissing off a lot of people, especially those that are autistic. It's a mental disorder, not a disease. The anti-vaxxers are insane because they'd rather a horrifying, murderous disease exist than a mental disorder. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Typically they talk about preservatives that contain mercury. Note that these ingredients have been proven safe. I feel like this is another one of those cases where the people just flat out don't understand science or chemistry. Yeah, mercury is toxic by itself. So is chlorine. How insane will these people go when somebody informs them that salt has chlorine? A toxic element can become nontoxic if it's mixed with other crap.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Basically people are panicky and don't weigh risk well. That's basically the center of it. Perception > reality and unfortunately for vaccines the horrifying diseases they prevent aren't killing anybody anymore. You're more likely to die of vaccination than you are of smallpox today so it's obvious that vaccines are deadly, terrible things that must be banned.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I feel like it bears repeating that you have no chance of getting smallpox today because smallpox has been eradicated. There hasn't been a case of smallpox in decades. A lot of people actually seem not to know that. Vaccines are basically magic; if we can get them to everyone the diseases they immunize against can sometimes be wiped out completely. Which is basically my point. The last confirmed case of somebody getting smallpox in the wild was 1977. That's ancient history to a lot of people. Meanwhile polio is slowly but surely being eradicated in exactly the same way. Polio just flat out no longer exists in certain parts of the world but you can't tell people that because "well nobody I know is getting these diseases but MY CHILD MIGHT BECOME AUTISTIC!!!!!" A lot of it is very individualistic nonsense too. If you tell some people "we are doing this thing so nobody will die of this horrifying disease, but there is a tiny chance your child will die because of this thing we are doing" the only thing they hear is "THIS WILL loving KILL YOUR CHILD DO NOT LET THEM DO IT!" Maybe I'm crazy but I'd certainly take a tiny chance of my child dying of a vaccine over a much larger chance that they'll die of some terrifying disease. Hell I'd also say "hell yeah keep vaccinating everything" despite the tiny chance of death if that means more diseases will go the way of smallpox.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Biological warfare can be as simple as "we are sieging a city, find every dead plague victim you can and chuck their bodies over the walls." One of the horrifying possibilities is that one of the samples of smallpox gets lost/stolen, somebody deliberately breeds a poo poo load of it, and unleashes it. It's also nice to know that there are people that would be immune to it and can wade in and clean up the mess if that happens. The other snag is that people might still, in some remote places, carry the disease but still be immune to it. If one of those people manages to infect a few other people it can spread. We're pretty sure smallpox is totally gone in the wild but, well, Earth is pretty loving big and we can't be absolutely certain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:We don't need those samples to make more vaccine. It's absolutely unclear why the last small pox samples have not been destroyed. Probably because he US and Russia are stupid stubborn fools. Some day they might actually turn out to be useful, somehow. Science hates throwing stuff like that away simply because you have no idea what it might be useful for. This is also a good argument for the preservation of endangered species from purely practical terms. They might turn out to benefit us some day.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It's interesting that the proponents of maintaining the virus samples are just saying "Well what if we need the samples in the future?" but aren't articulating what we could possibly need them for. It's literally the same as saying "we need to keep smallpox around because reasons". Can you predict the future? I can't. That's the whole point of that argument. A crazy problem we never could have foreseen or planned for might some day come up that smallpox is useful for, somehow. Who knows?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
The other question, then, is why somebody would want to use smallpox as a weapon in the first place. As far as weapons go it really, really sucks. Yeah it's pretty virulent but it kills indiscriminately, you can't control it, and we have a poo poo load of weapons that are more effective, easier to target, and require less of a cleanup. Unleashing smallpox would be a stupid thing as it would likely contaminate an area for years to come which, generally speaking, is a thing you don't want to happen. Smallpox is a horrible weapon that is pretty unlikely to ever be used as one.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So why does polio still exist? They're not done exterminating it yet? Last I heard people are working pretty hard on that and the theory is that it won't be long before polio only exists in a few vials in a lab somewhere as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Agreed. Actually, genetic biodiversity is exactly the reason. It's important, based on the idea that was brought up of "once this is gone it is gone forever." Just because it isn't useful now doesn't mean that it never will be. Plus, "people think pandas are cute and like them and looking at them makes people happy" is actually plenty justification to keep pandas in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
torpedan posted:Heh, it is a small world. My wife knows one of the people who was in that waiting room. On one hand I really hope that a lot of anti-vaxxers are going to "holy poo poo we're stupid, quick go get vaccines now!" On the other hand I just know that there are going to be some screaming about how this is just a conspiracy by big pharma to deliberately create an epidemic to squash the anti-vax movement. Because obviously if they wanted measles to be exterminated by now it would have been.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Who would've guessed that ignorant people tend to be ignorant about ignorance itself? Hey I know in my gut that it works and that literally everything organizes medicine does is to make you sick and take your money. My gut feelings are always right because they just are ok?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
torpedan posted:Ebola is more of a special case though. It is very easy to make a claim saying that essential oils will cure a disease when the odds of actually encountering said disease are very slim. I do agree that there will be portions of the population that will never be swayed, but I do think there is a noteworthy segment that may be persuaded otherwise once the stakes are very high. That's probably why the anti-vaccination movement even got its foot hold. I remember my grandparents telling me about all the awful poo poo they saw smallpox and polio cause in the world when they were children and were absolutely adamant about vaccinating everybody, throwing money into vaccine research, and getting rid of more awful diseases. I remember asking my grandmother about her smallpox vaccine scar and hearing her say that yeah it was kind of ugly but that's nothing compared to smallpox. I don't think I ever met a single person in her generation that was against vaccines because drat near all of them had met somebody that was crippled somehow by polio. I remember hearing a few stories about how god awful outbreaks of measles or mumps could be and how awesome it was to have vaccines for them. How many anti-vaxxers have even met somebody that's had a horrifying disease? It's balls easy to convince people to start getting vaccines when hideous diseases are running rampant apparently but when they go away it's "well they just want to sell you vaccines!" Yeah and I don't want to have to worry about your unvaccinated child sharing their hideous diseases with my child, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
torpedan posted:This question is a pretty common topic when talking about anti-vaccination and the rhetoric behind it. It makes sense on a lot of levels as vaccine side effects are visible, as well as many things which are claimed to be a link to vaccines, but the effects of the disease is themselves is much less so. This is not to say that some diseases are not still prevalent enough to witness, pertussis is a good example of one, but going back to what Is being discussed about persuasion it is very easy for people to selectively ignore that information. As a whole people on both sides of the topic have good intentions and that only feeds into the complexity of trying to convince people to vaccinate their children. I actually had pertussis as a kid and holy gently caress balls was that awful. I've have yet to meet an anti-vaxxer in the wild but you can bet your rear end I'm going to mention that and say "oh by the way, there's a vaccine for that."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
Yarbald posted:I absolutely love pointing this out to people who ramble on about Big Pharma pushing vaccines for profit. They don't even realize they're supporting Wakefield in effect, who was guilty of doing exactly what they're raging about Big Pharma doing. Of course the biggest difference is that Wakefield's study was fabricated bullshit from the very beginning and deliberately so. The guy was specifically setting out to demolish his main competitor in any way possible and didn't give a poo poo that he was literally lying to sell an inferior product. Big Pharma isn't perfect by any means but Wakefield was way worse than they are.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:no, she's not spewing lizard people nonsense, but she's still dumb. I don't know, the government sneaking microchips into injections is almost lizard people levels of paranoia.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:two different posters though. Ah, OK. I thought it was all the same person.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:but even that has been refuted. Again, these articles are scare tactics that push parents away from valid parenting options in an incredibly hostile and judgmental way. If you look at it a lot of it is the same tactics that cults use to brainwash their members. Nobody cares about your child as much as we do. Trust us, everybody else just wants to sabotage our superior thoughts and MURDER YOUR BABY! Don't trust THEM! You know we're right because we care unlike thooooooooose people. Anybody that disagrees with us is a deluded fool that must be set right, ignored, or destroyed. They want to harm your baby! Don't trust them! Like really, what do they know? They don't care enough to find the best solution. We do! Trust us!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Oh, it's also become a conservative talking point that the measles outbreak is happening because of illegal immigrants. Doesn't Mexico have a much higher vaccination rate than America?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Then why do I keep seeing calls to "more natural ways", rants about the evil money hungry ways of "Big Pharma"/FDA/Monsanto and so on? I get that they don't compromise 100% of anti-vaxxers, but to shove them under the rug and say "well both sides are bad" seems really naive. Conservatives aren't the ones calling for folks to rely on "Mother Nature" or to "listen to the wisdom of thousands of generations of mothers", while pulling out their healing crystals and so on. Have you ever been to suburbia or met a suburbanite? Honest question; it's an important thing to think about in this kind of situation. The reason this sort of thing happens, and this also factors in to upper class white suburbanites often being lolbertarian or conservative shits, is that in suburbia it's very, very easy to create a little social bubble and yourself and your community. Suburbanites generally move to the suburbs to get away from all the terrifying poo poo in the city like, you know, people different than me and people who believe things different from what I do. It becomes unbelievably easy to totally isolate yourself from the rest of the world. This is why you have entire communities where the vaccination rate is like 30%. These people do not view the world outside their community as relevant and believe that the entirety of the rest of the world is actively trying to harm them. These are people that will pat each other on the back for being afraid of them and not trusting them. These are also people who likely don't have jobs that require them to deal with the public. This insular attitude and insular life leads them to just plain not seeing anything they do not want to see. Unwelcome things are kept out of the bubble. Like was said it's often upper middle class white people with disposable incomes. These are people with more time on their hands than, say, a poor person would have on top of a view of themselves as better and special just because of their social class. These are also the same people that buy into the Indigo Children bullshit (hello Jenny McCarthy, how are you today?). Your average hippie is socially aware enough to understand that your actions affect others and you should care about that. Suburbanites only care what happens within their bubble and the rest of the world can get hosed. Since they have never seen first hand the awful poo poo these diseases can do they just don't care but the off chance that their child might become autistic is the end of the loving world. These are also people that expect to raise the next generation's doctors, lawyers, leaders, and scientists so anything at all that threatens that must not enter their bubble. These are people that also sometimes believe that their children are exceptional in every way and are thus just flat out never going to have to deal with those diseases that you mere mortals have to deal with. Disease is something that happens to poor people and is brought on by how much poor people suck. I, a non-poor person living in the suburbs, am untouchable by such things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is the most elitist pile of crap I've seen on this thread. I wasn't accusing suburbanites of all being conservative shits but rather pointing out how people in the suburbs create these little bubbles where outside views are not welcome. Some communities go full on anti-vax crazy and others go full lolbertarian. It depends on the community. The other side of it is these people actually, you know, have money so they're often the target for marketing, up to and including pseudoscientific "medical" bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Wait a minute here. Do political world views ever lead to someone being anti-vaccine? Anti-vaccine isn't a political stance, it's a science stance. I assume when we talk about anti-vaccine people we are talking about people who think vaccines are ineffective or dangerous, not people who think children shouldn't take Gardasil to stop them from having sex. Anti-corporate views can lead to somebody being anti-vaccine. In that case it's the "CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING YOU PAY THEM TO INJECT POISON INTO YOUR BABIES!!!!!" nonsense. Extreme environmentalist attitudes can as well. These are the people obsessed with doing everything the most natural way possible and consequences be damned. Lolbertarian views can also lead to it in a roundabout way because of the whole "well you can't force me to do things so nyah" crap. In that case it's a matter of "well I can believe and do whatever I want" leading to people choosing to believe and do really loving stupid things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:A lot of people also have a very poor understanding of statistics and the methods used to collect and evaluate epidemiology. Like, a lot of people honestly believe the Amish don't get cancer because they can't quite wrap their heads around the fact that you have to go to a hospital to get diagnosed and become a statistic. I actually had somebody use the "...but people didn't cancer 2,000 years ago!" argument when telling me I was dumb for using regular doctors and not visiting the herbalist who "balanced" things. Yes they loving did get cancer 2,000 years ago. What do you think caused deaths of "old age?" Cancer was one of them. It isn't just a matter of people misunderstanding statistics either; some people deliberately ignore or misinterpret them. That or they pull up a news story about somebody that died during a treatment as if it invalidates the other million people that got better thanks to that treatment. That or they pull up the example of this one person they know who is allergic to penicillin so obviously we should never use penicillin ever at all and that means that vaccines are obviously bad too because they're basically penicillin for viruses, right? edit: Of course now that I think about it more I imagine a lot of this naturalist crap is the result of marketing and wishful thinking. If you go to the doctor with a problem they're going to give you a treatment that "will probably work, I don't know it does the job most of the time." Then sometimes it just doesn't or it has side-effects or you react badly to it. Medicine is stupidly complex so that poo poo happens sometimes. Then on the other hand you have companies like Pom saying "if you drink a poo poo load of overpriced pomegranate juice you will literally become immortal and invincible!" ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thread question: People do not see the harm from things first hand so they assume they do not exist. I mentioned this before but where I'm originally from vaccination is basically gospel because pretty much everybody remembers awful diseases. I had pertussis as a child and remember seeing teenagers that were out of commission for weeks thanks to chicken pox. People that have not seen such things but hear "VACCINES HAVE POISON AND CAUSE AUTISM  " every day of their lives are going to start thinking that whatever good they might do doesn't compensate for the bad.pangstrom posted:I get what you mean by skewing (where the average wouldn't be representative of when a lot of people actually died), but in the context of a vaccination argument you kind of have to include kids getting mowed down by whatever. Late 50s is really stretching it, I think, though I have no specific knowledge and a quick google isn't turning up anything. Living without technology / in the wild / without semi-modern healthcare / whatever is loving brutal. Yeah we die of being fat and lazy but it takes awhile for that to catch up to you unless you're morbidly obese or something. And even then you're probably going to make it to 40. In the medieval period a man that lived to 18 could reasonably expect like 60 years. Things that skewed it down were children dying of course but also women dying young. Death during childbirth was pretty common and obviously men don't have to die of that. Then there was war and violent deaths and stuff. Even so, barring accidents (workplace safety is kind of new thing), famine, and violent deaths people could probably live to 60 if they died naturally for much of human history. Famines are another big thing in that they gently caress up peoples' immune systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
So is this how America ends? Not with a bang but under the massive weight of our society's collective idiocy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:To be fair, that was always how it was likely to end. Now I'm just going to create my escape plan and then watch as everybody tries to figure out who to blame while the nation burns instead of putting out the drat fire.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
One of the issues here is that we need to decide as a nation whose rights are more important. However, I think this is kind of an easy case; if I fill a syringe with a disease - any disease at all - and just start randomly injecting people with it you'd agree I did something wrong because that's hosed up. Similarly if I come down with the flu and my first act is to run downtown and vomit all over anybody I can find to try to give them the flu as well once again you'd agree I did something wrong. Intentionally spreading disease it not an OK thing to do. What we're seeing now is that people refusing to vaccinate is causing diseases to spread. But is that on the same level as intentionally spreading them? Negligence is actually covered by law; if I fail to repair something properly and it hurts somebody it's my fault. Is failure to vaccinate on the same level? People are within their rights to refuse medical care or generally do things that only harm themselves. But what if an action harms others? I'll compare that one to drunk driving. It's legal for me, an adult over 21, to get ragingly drunk if I really want to. I can get myself blackout drunk at home however often I want to. However, I cannot legally get ragingly blackout drunk and then drive my car somewhere because that puts others at danger. Vaccines are similar, in a way; do we make it illegal to remain unvaccinated?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't really see that connection in the public eye, to be honest. It's not hippies, it's helicopter mom freaks like Jenny McCarthy. They have no ideology except HIDDEN DANGER!!! It's also worth noting that Jenny McCarthy believes that her child is literally a wizard. No. Seriously. She refers to herself as an "indigo mom" and believes her child has magical powers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2015 22:46
|
|