Researchers Investigating Self-Boosting Vaccines 218
An anonymous reader writes "Vaccines, contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, are some of the most effective tools in modern medicine. For some diseases, a single shot is all it takes for lifetime immunity. Others, though, require booster shots, to remind your immune system exactly what it should prepare to fight. Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health, and the herd immunity concept as well. Scientists are now looking into 'self-boosting' vaccines in order to fix that problem. Some viruses are capable of remaining in the body for a person's entire lifetime. If researchers can figure out a way to safely harness these, it may be possible to add genes that would create proteins to train the immune system against not just one, but multiple other viruses (abstract). This is a difficult problem to solve; changing the way we do vaccinations will itself have consequences for herd immunity. It also hinges on finding a virus that can survive the immune system without having uncomfortable flare-ups from time to time."
So genetically modify a virus, (Score:3)
use it to fight disease and work for us, not against us... where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right, just before 90% of human race died, and 6% turned into zombies that ate the rest... except for Will Smith of course.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Human species.
Yep. That's what's wrong with what he said...
Re:paid4ads by Merck an insult to slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Even better: "Not getting your shorts [sic] threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??
No, you Anonymous Coward dumbass - That's not how herd immunity works.
Imagine everyone in a kindergarten is vaccinated against smallpox but Fred's vaccine didn't work and for whatever reason Fred isn't immune to smallpox (biology is never 100%). However, Fred remains protected against smallpox because the rest of his class ("his herd") is immune, so the virus doesn't get the chance to leap to him.
Now imagine 10 kids in Fred's class are NOT vaccinated against smallpox - Now the virus has a chance to take hold and infect Fred, even though he's vaccinated. Fred has lost the benefit of the immunity of the herd.
Vaccination works because a) the immunity takes hold on the majority and b) we live in herds.
That's only half of it, the lessor half. (Score:3)
Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.
If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body a
Re:paid4ads by Merck an insult to slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Dangerous road ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pro-vaccine, but engineering a virus to live in your system for an extended period of time (up to the life of the carrier) is scary in a number of ways.
Others have mentioned the possibility of a mutation taking the previously harmless virus into harmful territory, which is bad enough, but remember this virus has been engineered to survive in your hostile immune system, so if it does mutate, good luck in getting rid of it afterward.
Less obviously, if it survives in your body indefinitely and activates yo
Chickenpox and shingles already does this. (Score:2)
.
I didn't RTFA to see whether it's modifi
Which is proof that this may _not_ be a good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.
So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.
And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.
So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.
We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, what does the vaccine virus do if you become immune compromised later, either through disease or as a necessary side effect of medical treatment?
Clearly, to have a boosting effect, it must do something periodically to challenge the immune system and get beaten back. What if it finds itself unopposed one day?
A person might get sick! (Score:2)
I like.
Instead of flaming war between pro and antivacc (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your 'Do no harm' doctrine is the cause of thousands of kids getting sick of preventable diseases.
I'm not sure about you, but that seems to be causing an awful lot of harm.
Are you disputing that vaccines work at all? Or just paranoid about possible side effects?
Vaccines are taken by the vast majority of Australians. I don't know about the US.
I have not heard of any ill effects on a wide scale from them. Just the standard effects of perhaps a mild fever after some (which is because you are fighting the virus
Probably not a good idea (Score:3)
for those who have bad reactions to a given vaccine it could mean death or a lifetime of ongoing issues.
only those in denial won't accept the fact there are exceptions and why most all medical treatments come with warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
So how many people infected with the real Yellow Fever develop unwanted and serious side-effects (including death and lifelong disabilities)?
Re: (Score:2)
This gets old... (Score:5, Interesting)
"contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd..."
What is the point of this statement? I mean seriously, what's the point? I've been reading this site for years and it just seems to be getting more and more like this—which is not a good thing.
Who cares what the "anti-science" crowd thinks? Why even bother mentioning them? Why acknowledge their existence, particularly when NOT responding to one directly?
Just report the fucking story. What some other childishly labeled crowd thinks about it is irrelevant. I can't even get through a remotely interesting story about geology without some asshole making a "the earth is only 6000-years-old" joke. Who... fucking... cares? It's not. We know. We get it. The joke is old and tiresome. I really wish I was coming here to read interesting discussions about the science at hand. Instead, I'm constantly deluged with this kind of childish bullshit.
Vaccines remain a coin flip (Score:2)
In case the "pro-science" crowd thinks otherwise, plenty of people do not develop immunity after receiving a vaccine. For example, Gardasil is only about 38% effective in preventing cervical cancer. In some cases, the vaccine can cause the disease itself. Or is that too heretical for the pro-science crowd?
Re:Why not take it one step further? (Score:5, Funny)
Easier said than done (Score:3)
One of the big points about viruses that remain in the body long-term, is that they somehow manage to find shelter in which to evade the immune system -- at least for most of the time, and at least from those parts of the immune system that might otherwise eradicate them. (See for example 'virus latency' at http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(10)00217-9?script=true/ [cell.com]).
Many of the mechanisms of that sheltering are still unknown, or incompletely known. That means, in turn, that it's at le
Re: (Score:3)
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
Something readily transmissible? Make sure you use something that isn't likely to mutate... I propose influenza, rhinovirus, or coronovirus. What could possibly go wrong? ;)
How do you test it first? (Score:2)
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
I imagine that will be exceedingly hard to achieve. You need to make a virus which triggers an immune response but which does not get wiped out by it to the point where it is no longer transmissible. At the same time, since the virus will remain within you all your life, you have to ensure that any future event which might suppress your immune system will not cause the virus to flare up and cause an illness.
I could imagine medicine perhaps achieving the first two goals but how can you be sure that you h
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.
I think there was a holiday in the US a few days ago for some reason and I suspect they are still recovering from it so there just isn't much of interest happening over there.
THERE IS NO "ANTI-SCIENCE" CROWD (Score:2)
The argument is devolved to a binary straw-man: a "pro/con" proposition - to the end of stifling nuanced inquiry and actual understanding.
Mary Shelly wasn't anti-science when she wrote "Frankenstein".
Goethe wasn't "anti-science" when he wrote "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". If you aren't immediately familiar with the fable, it is worth revisiting. The story concerns the casual nature of hubris, particularly in the domain of technical insight.
There is a very real delusional aspect to a culture that uses scie
Re: (Score:2)
Are you Australian? I'm not seeing the connection...
Re: (Score:2)
It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.
Au
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-vaxxers are anti-science and kill kids.
People like former Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy have blood on their hands.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
well the 'pro-science' crowd misrepresents the issues as well. it's not that the 'anti-science' crowd distrusts science, they distrust the motivations of the people using the science. That I can understand. It seems like any good thing these days comes with a boatload of do-not-want 'features' designed to make it easier for the providers to use it as a vector for consumer hostile activities. This is especially true when it's difficult to understand technology where the details are naturally obfuscated fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:5, Insightful)
You, and others, don't get it.
The doubt is unfounded. There is *no* science to back up the claim that thimerosol or vaccines cause autism.
When the Netherlands, and I believe Denmark banned Thimerosol, the supposed trigger of autism caused by vaccinations, did the incidence of autism fall?
No.
The claim that thimerosol and vaccines cause autism has been proven wrong empirically because of this, and the people who continue to push this dangerous meme kill kids.
--
BMO
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I completely get it. There are people who simply do not believe a specific claim of science. They were convinced of the counter claims the same way 90% of the people are convinced of the scientific claims, someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter. Very few people have the resources or skills to replicate the vast majority of scientific discoveries so until they see it in use or have it explained to them by some authority in the matter, they have to trust someone. That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim. They could very well believe and understand all the other science claims out there.
Like I said, stop playing Bush, it's not a with us or against us situation.
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:5, Insightful)
>That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim.
When you take Jenny McCarthy's claim over a doctor's claim, you are anti-science.
There is being skeptical, and then there is just plain nuts.
Jenny McCarthy kills kids.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
so anyone who believe Jenny McCarthy automagically disbelieves everything else with science? They are actively working to thwart science, how does this work for you in this imaginary world?
False dichotomy (Score:3)
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it ag
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but does that make you anti meat? No it does not. I'm not saying these people are
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to hate all science to be anti-science anymore than you have to be against women's suffrage to be sexist. When you reject science when it disagrees with what you really wish to be true, you're anti-science. Either you accept the outcome of the scientific method or you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. No, science covers a lot of stuff and to be anti-science you have to be against all science.
Here, lets break it down for you.
Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word.
Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.
When you put them together, you get A person apposed to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the ph
Re: (Score:3)
Your username is apt. You may attempt to redefine what antiscience means just by saying what the individual components mean and you can pretend that other people care about your definition, too. But that's not how English works and nobody gives a shit what your definition of the word is if it doesn't match with how it's used. I think this thread is basically over. I'll go argue with someone smarter.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you probably should have looked up what the definition of antiscience was before you tried to redefine it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience [wikipedia.org]
You see, there is already a defined term and it is the same as combining two words together as the term is.
Re: (Score:2)
The article also goes on to list many examples of anti-science. While not calling out anti-vaxxers explicitly, it does list some very similar antiscience beliefs:
Again, it's how people use the term - i.e. to reject well established scientific knowledge. You are welcome t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science. It is Wikipedia after all. I wouldn't have listed it if it wasn't the only thing in the Google search that didn't require combining anti- and science in the literal sense that you already rejected. But as it turns out, it does the same and has done so since 2006 or so.
And to be clear, opinions are not to mean there is no scientific backing or the rejection of science pertaining to them, it's just that their opinions are sw
Re: (Score:2)
These are opinions that are in direct conflict with well established scientific knowledge and they aren't antiscience? Um, right. The article makes clear that polemics such as the anti-vaxxer crap count as antiscience. As a description of what antiscience is, it's the closest I've seen to what they mean and what others mean by it, and what I mean when I use the term. I frankly don't care if you define the term some other w
Re: (Score:2)
saying that 'jenny mccarthy kills kids' is about as fallacious as it gets. she has no control over anyones' kids. their parents do. the choice lies with them, not her, and choosing to give or not give their kids a particular vaccine does not automatically mean death. You're no more rational than many of the people you accuse..
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:4, Insightful)
People who deliberately spread misinformation so that kids die of whooping cough, measels, and other preventable diseases do kill kids as surely as holding a gun and pulling the trigger.
Because they do it not out of concern for children, but because of money, and backing away from fraud exposes the fraud. So they continue.
If you feel that this is out of line, feel free to foe me.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
the blame chain game always ends the same way: tyranny. maybe you're from a country that doesn't respect free speech because it doesn't understand the difference between speech and action?
Re: (Score:3)
What in the fuck does free speech have anything to do with this?
Jenny McCarthy is free to say whatever damn-fool thing she wants to say, but just because she's free to do so doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the bullshit that comes out of her mouth. There are people dying because of what these loons are saying, and they are responsible for that. You morons who dredge up free speech at the drop of a hat really generally mean "consequence-free speech." There's no right to that and there never will be. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
well because people who think like you do are often the ones demanding that the law should force artificial 'responsibility' for speech instead of holding the people who took the action accountable instead. speech is just words. Action is different. jenny mccarthy doesn't kill kids with her words. guardians not giving some kids vaccines may cause some to die. Then again, giving them half baked vaccines shoved out the door by big pharma can also kill. If you want to blame mccarthy for it, then you also
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest that the next time you get sick, that you definitely don't see a doctor, because big pharma is obviously out to get you.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".
She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible fo
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".
Adults don't resort to calling people names because they can't make a case for their position.
She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible for lying to people and misleading them.
No, she isn't. I agree, she's stupid and useless, but she isn't responsible for the choices of others just as others aren't responsible for her stupid choices. We are our own volition and agency. Just because some asshole says something doesn't mean you rush to comply without thinking about it.
Again, what in the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the current vaccines. They work and complaining about "big pharma" is just so much bullshit. Or did you have some actual scientific data behind your paranoia?
I never said vaccines don't work. They do work, most of the time. Do you have any idea how much bullshit the FDA lets s
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you quit misrepresenting what people say to you. It makes you come across as arrogant and stupid as jenny mccarthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Which position do you claim is unjustified? And what names have I called you, exactly?
Let me ask you something. If you think what you say is so unimportant, why is free speech so important to protect? Either speech is important or it's not. You can't have it both ways. This is where the childishness comes in. You want to be able to say what you want and not have to wo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what you think. You are a conspiracy nutbar.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
So are you now making the claim that medical science has never been wrong? How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_misuse [wikipedia.org] or how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide [wikipedia.org] ? Just because a drug is effective doesn't make its application or use for a particular purpose correct. And yes, vaccines are drugs. And like all drugs big pharma has an interest in seeing as much use (=sales) of those drugs as it possibly can. In the case of Thalidomide it took years for the effects to be revealed then man
Problems with science as a social enterprise (Score:2)
Building on that theme: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science [pdfernhout.net]
====
Some quotes on social problems in science
Here are some related broad quotes on social problems in science, some of which relate to competition for funding.
From an article about a sociologist and anthropologist who studies science and technology, Bruno Latour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's some industrial grade ignorance. Let me try to correct some of it.
See cross thread where I point out that all knowledge is provisional. If you get your news from pop science writers, or you read every paper as if it's been handed down by god on stone tablets, then you're going to be wrong a lot of the time. Stick with the scientific consensus and you're in a much better position.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you can copy and paste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter
Yeah, really authorative. A Model who's claim to fame is that she managed to make Jim Carrey say "I do".
it's not a with us or against us situation
That's not it. The problem is that this nude models statements have caused the lives of more than one thousand children is the problem. That many, many more now have disabilities and brain damage because of her. Her statements and those of the fraud she uses as justification have been proven wrong. Still she keeps pushing the issue, thereby killing more children. Not only is she killing children whose par
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
lol.. the Jesus anti-science crowd. That's cute. are you bigoted all by yourself or is there some course we can attend to be just like you?
I don't personally care if people are killing children or not. Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant. Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is. The wording "anti-science" is nothing but a fallacy so people can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes..
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.
Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant
Sorry, the only person showing any kind of ignorance here is you.
Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is
Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific. There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example,
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an anti-science situation. You cannot possibly claim that these people reject evolution, electrons, chemicals, or anything else that is covered by science. You can say they are anti vaccine, anti-something specific, but not anti-science with any confidence at all.
Re: (Score:2)
We know that vaccines work.
They have worked ever since Jenner did his smallpox vaccine.
The science is indisputable.
I suggest you go to an anti-vaccine website and look around. Just pick one, and then go to a few more. It's not just anti-vaccine stuff.
Anti-vaxxers as a whole are anti-science.
And not only that, they are dangerous. They kill kids.
http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2012/07/anti-vaccination-propagandists-help.html [fieldofscience.com]
--
BMO
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
with your style of reasoning, EVERYONE kills kids.. you know what? YOU kill kids too, every time you buy food to eat, you condemn some starving kid in ethiopia to starvation.
Re: (Score:2)
>Anti-vaccine is not anti-science,
Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.
Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.
You seem especially butthurt about this.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
no, you are taking a false dichotomy and labeling anyone who disagrees as 'butthurt.' It's you who's butthurt apparently about jenny mccarthy. I agree, she's worthless and stupid, but that doesn't explain your stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Jenny McCarthy is only one of many. I'm using her as an example.
For instance, read this article in Forbes about a *nobel laureat* who has gone off the deep end.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/ [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Their position may be unscientific, but that's not the reason to distrust the status quo. It's not the vaccines themselves, it's the motivations of those distributing them. The FDA is far from a perfect entity, and they let all kinds of stupid shit slide for political, social, and economic reasons. There are plenty of recalls for deadly toxins that were sold as cures on record. I would not be first in line to take version 1.0 of any vaccine offered. There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as wel
Re: (Score:2)
> There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as well even from well established vaccines, esp the 'live virus' ones.
There are two polio vaccines, a killed virus, and a live vaccine. If you got a shot, it was the killed virus. If you got an eyedropper in the mouth, it was the live weakened virus.
Show me a single peer reviewed paper showing how the live polio virus has risk factors besides allergy.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I left out a word.
I said: "how the live polio virus"
Should say "how the live polio virus vaccine"
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
> Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter
I said this before, and it has proven true again.
Your name fits you.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. why do you try to get into arguments you cannot win then cry and try to insult people for? Things in this world are not just because you say so. There are meanings to words and definitions that make communication productive. You should try following them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you tell me. Is science more then evolution? Or is it only evolution? Anti-science by definition would be against science and that is not that case at all with the vast majority of these people.
If you want to call someone a moron, perhaps you can explain why science is only evolution or vaccines?
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument has devolved into an argument about semantics.
You have lost.
If you are anti-evolution, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-cosomology, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-medicine, you are anti-science.
Because each of these positions means that you have to reject the fundamental basis of science - hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing the results experimentation with your hypothesis and reality.
Anti-vaxxer "logic" is much like the "logic" of a religionist. Circular, with no testing and
Re: (Score:2)
>My argument was always semantics.
Then you're a moron.
>They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science.
Science is more than just a subject. It is an outlook. It is a way of life. A bush hunter, who reads tracks and spoor is more of a scientist than any of these anti-vaxxers, because he observes the environment and tests his hypothesese by being either successful or not successful.
To disbelieve the mountains of tested evidence in favor of some quack celebrity's opin
Re: (Score:2)
They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science
This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely. The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields, but they do in fact reject the methodology entirely. There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry". Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. You wish it was close to a bush hunter reading tracks. You are over romanticizing the entire concept.
So here is some facts you are ignoring. I did a couple checks on the people you claim are antiscience. First, they do not cla
Re: (Score:2)
So they reject evolution, chemistry, electronics and everything else in science? Or are you making shit up?
Actually, from what I have been able to gain from them, they only apply it to a portion of the field. They aren't claiming vaccinations to not work, they are claiming
Re: (Score:2)
There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science
You don't get it. There is no X and Y in scientific method. There is only scientific method. They reject that. Without scientific method there is no science.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'll preface my comment with, I find it extremely funny how unscientific your comment is and how you turn to name calling as if it allows you to make a point. I also find it extremely interesting in how everyone is essentially saying "blasphemy, if you don't believe exactly as I do, you are against all things I believe in". That's a religious argument and perhaps you should check if science hasn't become your religion. Either way, it doesn't matter, you are too ashamed of your beliefs to bother with a l
Re: (Score:2)
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method.
I'm sorry, but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable and if someone does not completely believe everything as stated, they are against it all. It doesn't work in reality and make you look like a religious nutcase when you attempt to push it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you do not get it. X and Y is the product of the scientific method and rejecting either does not mean you reject the scientific method
If X and Y is the result of scientific method, yes, rejecting X means you reject scientific method, if you at the same time accept Y it means you suffer from schizophrenia in addition.
but you simply have to give up this idea that anything science is irreproachable
I don't have that idea. I see the schizophrenia though. Hallucinations are common.
Re: (Score:2)
Science is a set of *methods*, an aspect of which is that to qualify as science you have to apply the methodology in all cases, not just the ones that aren't connected to your chosen superstition.
A classic -The "anti-science" crowd (Score:2)
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm [cdc.gov]
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, for what it's worth, I was torn between posting a response to the fact this was modded flamebait, or modding it up. I chose the former.
Re: (Score:2)
>It's a valid point.
No it isn't. Anti-vaxxers do not have science on their side. All the science is against them.
To call them anything but anti-science is whitewashing the situation.
> If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments.
Ever since former Dr. Wakefield's fraudulent study, for which the Lancet retracted and he lost his license, any and all reasoned arguments hae fallen on deaf ears.
>If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,
But they
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (Score:4, Insightful)
>It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd.
You missed the point in that the anti-vaccine crowd has *no* peer reviewed study that says vaccines cause autism, and the one that was, was retracted, and Andrew Wakefield lost his license due to fraud.
> I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.
No, they need to be riduculed and made embarrassed, because of the hundreds of thousands of studies on how and why vaccines work, they can't be arsed to read a single one of them. They are kooks, and the way you deal with kooks is to riducule and ostracize them until they come around.
> you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.
Might I direct you to the nearest university library and fuck off.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Mercola is a quack. He doesn't even believe that HIV causes AIDS.
And to call Andrew Wakefield a doctor is false. He is not a doctor. His license was pulled because of his fraud.
You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
I made that remark after going to the Wikipedia page on Mercola.
Mercola is a fucking quack, and he's interviewing a fucking quack and a scientific *criminal* who perpetrated fraud against children everywhere.
The fact that you support these two idiots make you just as idiotic as they are.
You are a moron. Full stop.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
>"If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,"
.
"But they are. It's like arguing with creationists."
.
Yep, it's as bad as trying to argue with the anti-fluoride idiot brigades which keep popping up over and over and over. Example, even the additional fluoride for La Jolla didn't start until 2011, and if you read the comment at the end of the article, you'll see someone calling it "poisoning":
http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/01/31/city-set-to-start-fluoridation-on-tuesday/ [lajollalight.com]
.
One place i
Opinion is anti-science. (Score:2)
"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.
Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".
As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to th
Anti-Science is exactly the right term (Score:3)
The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.
The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"
The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"
Put simply, you yourself know
Re: (Score:2)
This will almost certainly fall on deaf ears, but here goes, anyway.
Just because people hold opposing opinions does not give them the right to respect for those opinions. Both sides of a debate don't deserve equal airtime, equal attention, or equal consideration. Sometimes people are just wrong. And it's OK to call them on it.
The
Re: (Score:2)
>We all need an education in what is really information, and what is unfounded speculation.
I agree.
And the "mmr vaccine and thimerosol causes autism" is completely unfounded speculation.
>so let's all keep an open mind.
This statement is always trotted out by people who equate true facts with lies, that everyone's opinion has equal weight, whether true or not.
It's bullshit.
The anti-vaxxer stuff is bullshit and fraud by Andrew Wakefield, repeated by celebrities and quacks worldwide, who no longer has a l
No They Don't you Anonymous Creten (Score:3)
That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't argue too much, but 100 years ago was 1912. Not exactly the dark ages. People were doing science as we would recognize it today, and they knew about stuff like germs, hand washing, and much more.
But your experience 10 years later might be much better. WW I led to quite a lot of medical advances. It would still seem primitive, but you would recognize it as "modern medicine."