Study showing vaccines cause autism is 'elaborate fraud'.

Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Oprah, Bill Maher and this author are elected officials? Who knew!

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

John Kerry and Chris Dodd are both well known nut cases when it comes to vaccinations.

Much better argument than Oprah/Bill Maher :)

How about this one:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." President Barak Obama.

What three states have the highest refusals? Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. Are these bastions of the Republican and Tea Parties that I'm not aware of? On Evolution, Global Warming, and some other areas the right has gone completely nuts when it comes to sciences but this area is your backyard, not mine.

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

Ulairi wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Oprah, Bill Maher and this author are elected officials? Who knew!

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

John Kerry and Chris Dodd are both well known nut cases when it comes to vaccinations.

Much better argument than Oprah/Bill Maher :)

How about this one:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." President Barak Obama.

What three states have the highest refusals? Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. Are these bastions of the Republican and Tea Parties that I'm not aware of? On Evolution, Global Warming, and some other areas the right has gone completely nuts when it comes to sciences but this area is your backyard, not mine.

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...

Apparently debunked

Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

Not in Overland Park, KS it isn't. It is mostly Tea Party sympathists who don't want the government in their medicine, but thanks for your input.

To your point, however, you are correct that there are dipsh*ts on both sides. I knew people, VERY left, in grad school who didn't have their kids vaccinated.

When I reference geography, as a rule you can assume I mean in that specific geographic area.

Ulairi wrote:

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

That's because the Republican and Tea Party are too busy denying climate change, promoting creationism, and generally sh*tting on science to worry about vaccination (except the kind they think will turn their daughters into sluts).

This isn't even close. The Right is anti-science in a big way and it's embedded in their politics because reality clashes hard with their ideology.

SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

Not in Overland Park, KS it isn't. It is mostly Tea Party sympathists who don't want the government in their medicine, but thanks for your input.

To your point, however, you are correct that there are dipsh*ts on both sides. I knew people, VERY left, in grad school who didn't have their kids vaccinated.

When I reference geography, as a rule you can assume I mean in that specific geographic area.

The only part of Overland Park I remember is when I moved there during my second semester of my senior year to (Blue Valley Northwest high school) and I wanted to get the f*ck out as quickly as possible. It was like all the stereotypes of high schools in movies rolled into one. Though, the Hen House grocery store had a really good bakery on 135 and metcalff.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

There are liberal politicians who fell for the anti-vaccine hysteria as well. It most certainly isn't pushed instiutstionally by the Republican party or the tea party. When Bachmann tried to make that play during the campaign it backfired big-time.

Culture matters and the largest cultural proponent of this form of nuttery is the left not the right.

That's because the Republican and Tea Party are too busy denying climate change, promoting creationism, and generally sh*tting on science to worry about vaccination (except the kind they think will turn their daughters into sluts).

This isn't even close. The Right is anti-science in a big way and it's embedded in their politics because reality clashes hard with their ideology.

And the left has the precautionary principle. I am not arguing that right now the right is more anti-science than the left. I think the real problem is that ignorance is flowing in the beltway

In other news, pertussis doesn't care if a toddler's parents are stupid hippies or moronic rednecks.

More on topic, I'm hoping states start prosecuting parents for refusing to vaccinate. Oregon has established a history of prosecuting parents who let their kids die because of their faith-healing beliefs. I don't see this as being any different.

Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

Not in Overland Park, KS it isn't. It is mostly Tea Party sympathists who don't want the government in their medicine, but thanks for your input.

To your point, however, you are correct that there are dipsh*ts on both sides. I knew people, VERY left, in grad school who didn't have their kids vaccinated.

When I reference geography, as a rule you can assume I mean in that specific geographic area.

The only part of Overland Park I remember is when I moved there during my second semester of my senior year to (Blue Valley Northwest high school) and I wanted to get the f*ck out as quickly as possible. It was like all the stereotypes of high schools in movies rolled into one. Though, the Hen House grocery store had a really good bakery on 135 and metcalff.

It is still exactly as you remember it (Hen house is really good, still). I hate it, but there are really good jobs down here. I still do live on the Missouri side, however, and commute.

SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

So apparently thanks to these anti-vaccination people, I have to go get my whooping cough vaccination updated. Looks like where I work, Overland Park, KS has an outbreak.

Thanks Tea Party.

It's pushed primarily by the left and not the right. But, thanks!

Not in Overland Park, KS it isn't. It is mostly Tea Party sympathists who don't want the government in their medicine, but thanks for your input.

To your point, however, you are correct that there are dipsh*ts on both sides. I knew people, VERY left, in grad school who didn't have their kids vaccinated.

When I reference geography, as a rule you can assume I mean in that specific geographic area.

The only part of Overland Park I remember is when I moved there during my second semester of my senior year to (Blue Valley Northwest high school) and I wanted to get the f*ck out as quickly as possible. It was like all the stereotypes of high schools in movies rolled into one. Though, the Hen House grocery store had a really good bakery on 135 and metcalff.

It is still exactly as you remember it (Hen house is really good, still). I hate it, but there are really good jobs down here. I still do live on the Missouri side, however, and commute.

Is Jess and Jim's steakhouse still around? That place was AWESOME. Also, Big Bubba's BBQ and Gates. There is a lot to like about the KC area but man, Overland Park and Johnson County suck.

This is a cultural thing that cuts both ways. The right is far more anti-science at a party, but this is something different. It's almost a completely different subject. This is like 9/11 truthers combined with homeopathy enthusiasts mixed with the attachment parenting movement. No side is immune (ha!) because there are elements that can appeal to anyone.

*EDIT* Responded after the convo had moved on. +1 timeliness.

Ulairi wrote:

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

What is the left's objection to animal research aside from the ethics issue?

Funkenpants wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

What is the left's objection to animal research aside from the ethics issue?

I've never seen any legitimate objection to animal research outside of simple animal rights. Definitely not an anti-science thing.

Ulairi wrote:

Is Jess and Jim's steakhouse still around? That place was AWESOME. Also, Big Bubba's BBQ and Gates. There is a lot to like about the KC area but man, Overland Park and Johnson County suck.

Not sure, I am not a big meat eater, so I don't go out to the steakhouses. But I love Gates' BBQ sauce.

Hey, aren't we supposed to fight with eachother! Stop trying to trick me!

Funkenpants wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

What is the left's objection to animal research aside from the ethics issue?

More than half of people who describe themselves of the left are against animal research. Even how that is framed shows a lot of bias. If I say I'm against stem cell research due to ethical issues (and I'm not saying I am) then I will be attacked as being anti-science. But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science. But sometimes ethical considerations are worth more than what science is able to do. Everyone's line is different.

Ulairi wrote:

I am not arguing that right now the right is more anti-science than the left. I think the real problem is that ignorance is flowing in the beltway

I am. And you know that it is true.

That some people on the Left might have bought into the erroneous autism/vaccine link doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientific ignorance flowing from the beltway is coming from the Right.

You were correct when you said culture matters. The Right regularly denies anything science tells them if it clashes with their ideology. It's why they can't accept climate change because admitting that it exists would require extensive government regulation of business in order to address the problem. It's why they can't accept HPV vaccines because they think that even acknowledging genitalia will turn their daughters into sex crazed monsters. It's why practically Republican presidential candidate in recent years has denied evolution, because admitting that it's true would upset the ignorant religious base they pander to and rely on to keep them in power.

Ulairi wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

This, anti GE crops and animal research are the lefts bugaboos when it comes to science.

What is the left's objection to animal research aside from the ethics issue?

More than half of people who describe themselves of the left are against animal research. Even how that is framed shows a lot of bias. If I say I'm against stem cell research due to ethical issues (and I'm not saying I am) then I will be attacked as being anti-science. But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science. But sometimes ethical considerations are worth more than what science is able to do. Everyone's line is different.

I'm all for testing cosmetics on fetuses.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

I am not arguing that right now the right is more anti-science than the left. I think the real problem is that ignorance is flowing in the beltway

I am. And you know that it is true.

That some people on the Left might have bought into the erroneous autism/vaccine link doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientific ignorance flowing from the beltway is coming from the Right.

You were correct when you said culture matters. The Right regularly denies anything science tells them if it clashes with their ideology. It's why they can't accept climate change because admitting that it exists would require extensive government regulation of business in order to address the problem. It's why they can't accept HPV vaccines because they think that even acknowledging genitalia will turn their daughters into sex crazed monsters. It's why practically Republican presidential candidate in recent years has denied evolution, because admitting that it's true would upset the ignorant religious base they pander to and rely on to keep them in power.

Is there some pressing public policy concern that evolution is playing into? The left is anti-nuclear power. Can I attack them as being anti-science? That has far more impact in our daily lives than some knuckle dragging Biblical literalist nut bag's view on evolution. What about GE crops? We have people on the left promoting starvation because they don't like GE crops.

The only area you really have is global warming.

Ulairi wrote:

More than half of people who describe themselves of the left are against animal research. Even how that is framed shows a lot of bias. If I say I'm against stem cell research due to ethical issues (and I'm not saying I am) then I will be attacked as being anti-science. But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science. But sometimes ethical considerations are worth more than what science is able to do. Everyone's line is different.

Source, please.

I'm going to take an educated guess that if the Left has an aversion of animal research, it falls much more in the camp of using animals to test cosmetics and the like than it does with legitimate scientific research.

This is an issue where you simply can't claim conservatives and liberals are essentially the same. Those on the Right have openly and widely embraced ignorance and the same isn't true for the mainstream Left.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

More than half of people who describe themselves of the left are against animal research. Even how that is framed shows a lot of bias. If I say I'm against stem cell research due to ethical issues (and I'm not saying I am) then I will be attacked as being anti-science. But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science. But sometimes ethical considerations are worth more than what science is able to do. Everyone's line is different.

Source, please.

I'm going to take an educated guess that if the Left has an aversion of animal research, it falls much more in the camp of using animals to test cosmetics and the like than it does with legitimate scientific research.

This is an issue where you simply can't claim conservatives and liberals are essentially the same. Those on the Right have openly and widely embraced ignorance and the same isn't true for the mainstream Left.

For stem cell and animal research to be equal I'd like to see proof of an equal amount of suffering happening.

Edit: I also would need to see proof an equal amount of potential gain from the research as well. Not all animal research is the same either.

Ulairi wrote:

But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science.

There's a difference between denying the reality described by science and disagreeing with methodology used by scientists in research. By your standard, someone would be designated anti-science if they objected to involuntary human testing of drugs or medical procedures.

Ulairi wrote:

The left is anti-nuclear power. Can I attack them as being anti-science?

There's a glaring difference between the vaccination issue and the nuclear power issue. Nuclear power may be useful, but there are known risks in using it. Those risks might be outweighed by the benefits it provides, but we're at least in the area of reasonable disagreement and reasoning based in science and the real world.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

More than half of people who describe themselves of the left are against animal research. Even how that is framed shows a lot of bias. If I say I'm against stem cell research due to ethical issues (and I'm not saying I am) then I will be attacked as being anti-science. But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science. But sometimes ethical considerations are worth more than what science is able to do. Everyone's line is different.

Source, please.

I'm going to take an educated guess that if the Left has an aversion of animal research, it falls much more in the camp of using animals to test cosmetics and the like than it does with legitimate scientific research.

This is an issue where you simply can't claim conservatives and liberals are essentially the same. Those on the Right have openly and widely embraced ignorance and the same isn't true for the mainstream Left.

I'll apologize, according to PEW Research it's 48% of democrats, but still a very anti-science belief.
http://speakingofresearch.files.word...

Funkenpants wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

But, if someone says "I'm against animal research for ethical reasons" that person won't be called anti-science. Both beliefs are anti-science.

There's a difference between denying the reality described by science and disagreeing with methodology used by scientists in research. By your standard, someone would be designated anti-science if they objected to involuntary human testing of drugs or medical procedures.

Ulairi wrote:

The left is anti-nuclear power. Can I attack them as being anti-science?

There's a glaring difference between the vaccination issue and the nuclear power issue. Nuclear power may be useful, but there are known risks in using it. Those risks might be outweighed by the benefits it provides, but we're at least in the area of reasonable disagreement and reasoning based in science and the real world.

And we're back to the lefts major anti-science position, the precautionary principle. I think we can have reasonable disagreements on a lot of things, including with conservatives who are against evolution or global warming two positions I completely disagree with. I think one can be reasonable and hold wrong view points. My only problem with the anti-evolution beliefs are when they try to put religion into the science room (which not all conservatives want to do) and I think a lot of the global warming disagreement is more on what are we going to do about it versus what is really happening. I don't agree with the left's wet blanket malthusian solutions but I'm a firm believe in science and technology are going to fix it for us.

How is the precautionary principle anti-science? That's an idea of public policy akin to "know what's at the bottom of the hole before you leap into it." Is that stopping the accumulation of scientific knowledge? Is it denying the reality that science describes?

Funkenpants wrote:

How is the precautionary principle anti-science? That's an idea of public policy akin to "know what's at the bottom of the hole before you leap into it." Is that stopping the accumulation of scientific knowledge? Is it denying the reality that science describes?

I'll quote the hed reg czar for Obama:

“imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risks, and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms.”

He is talking specifically about the precautionary principle. Science in advance can never show it will or will not impose harm.

Ulairi wrote:

Is there some pressing public policy concern that evolution is playing into? The left is anti-nuclear power. Can I attack them as being anti-science? That has far more impact in our daily lives than some knuckle dragging Biblical literalist nut bag's view on evolution. What about GE crops? We have people on the left promoting starvation because they don't like GE crops.

The only area you really have is global warming.

Denying evolution means you deny, well, all of science. Denying evolution means you deny everything we've learned about biology. Of course, that means you deny all of modern medicine. Denying evolution means you deny physics, because the only way the Earth is 6,000 years old is if god radically f*cked with the fundamental forces of the universe. Denying evolution means you deny geology, because you have to accept that everything from Carbon-14 dating to the fossil record is really just something god did to test our faith. Denying evolution means you have to deny astronomy (and physics again) because we really shouldn't be able to see early universes with telescopes because there's simply no way light could cross billions of light years in just six millenia.

Denying evolution is the simplest way to say I'm functionally retarded and shouldn't be allowed to dress myself, let alone be a Congress person.

Yes, the Left is more anti-nuclear than the Right, but it's not because they don't believe in nuclear fission. It's because they don't believe in the nuclear industry's ability to do it safely or in their ability to properly dispose of waste materials. You just have to look at Japan to see that those fears are legitimate to some degree.

The same with GE crops. They aren't against genetically modifying crops--that's been a part of agriculture for 10,000+ years--but they simply don't believe Monsanto's claims that its GE crops are 100% safe when it comes to their long-term impact on the health of people who eat them and the environment in general. If anything, they want more scientific tests to determine their safety.

Again, that isn't an anti-science position. That's a "let's use science to prove that a technology can safely be used before we rush to use it simply because a private company wants to make lots of money right now".

And, no, the Left isn't promoting starvation because they don't like GE crops. The breakthroughs in agriculture that have fed the world have come from hybridization, not GE. And where there is a GE crop that might benefit people in need, you actually have companies fighting to keep those crops out of the hands of starving people all in the name of protecting their intellectual property (and extracting as much wealth from the poor as they possibly can). They even sue the crap out of farmers when their supposedly non-spreadable modified crops leak into other fields when their patented terminator genes don't work properly.

Ulairi wrote:

He is talking specifically about the precautionary principle. Science in advance can never show it will or will not impose harm.

How is it anti-science to say, "The scientists don't agree whether or not X is dangerous, so maybe we shouldn't do X until they can give us a firm answer?" That's not questioning the validity of scientific research. It's pro-science in that it references science as the ultimate arbiter of whether risk exists or not.

Ulairi wrote:

I'll apologize, according to PEW Research it's 48% of democrats, but still a very anti-science belief.
http://speakingofresearch.files.word...

And 33% of Republicans.

But hey, that result (both actually) is startling to me. Because that's specifically about scientific research, not corporations researching for shaving gel or cosmetics. (I did some searching too and found more elaboration on the results Ulairi found. If you're interested, the full-length report I found is here.)

If we're not going to conduct legitimate scientific research using animal test subjects, then that's going to severely hamper our ability to make meaningful advancements. And most legitimate scientists are going to treat their test subjects as humanely as possible.

Ulairi wrote:

I'll apologize, according to PEW Research it's 48% of democrats, but still a very anti-science belief.
http://speakingofresearch.files.word...

Really? Only 52% of the American public is in favor of animal research.

Pew[/url]]
More than nine-in-ten scientists (93%) favor the use of animals in scientific research, but only about half of the public (52%) agrees.

That 48% of Democrats who are against animal research is exactly the same as the 48% of Americans in general who are against animal research.

If you want to talk about anti-science beliefs by political affiliation, then let's talk about the 39% of Republicans who think that humans have existed in their current form since the beginning of time (vs. 30% of Democrats) or the pathetic 26% of Republicans who think that we've evolved over time through natural processes (vs. 36% of Democrats).

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-60.gif)

Or the 28% of conservative Republicans who deny that the Earth is even getting warmer (vs. the 4% of Democrats)? Or the 30% of Republicans who accept the scientific consensus that humans are responsible for warming (vs. 64% of Democrats)?

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-63.gif)

Or the 56% of Republicans who reject stem cell research (vs. the 71% of Democrats who are in favor of it).

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-66.gif)

And, contrary to what you've been claiming in this thread, there essentially isn't any difference between the parties when it comes to childhood vaccination. 71% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats are in favor of required vaccination while 26% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats are in favor of having parents decide.

IMAGE(http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-69.gif)

If you want to learn more, you can peruse the entire Pew Research study instead of just linking to a single chart in an attempt to paint Democrats as being "very anti-science".

Kraint wrote:

LarryC:
Herd immunity has been compromised in parts of the US, the risk of death is increased, and the morons are still refusing vaccinations. Voluntary compliance is a non-starter because the unvaccinated do not take the entirety of the risk on themselves. Their stupid refusals put others at risk.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2018180929_apuswhoopingcough.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/05/oregon_whooping_cough_cases_ri.html

Both reports you mention suggest that it's adult vulnerability to pertussis that's causing the problem, not parent refusal to have their children vaccinated (just as I suggested). If anything, that issue is a red herring that's confusing policy and introduces confirmation bias in assessing the data.

According to the first link you cite, less than 10% of adults were vaccinated, and this was due to ignorance of the general public, not the anti-vaccine movement. Indeed, it would not make sense for the anti-vaccine movement to influence adult vaccination, since no study ever made has even suggested that you can acquire autism as an adult from any source.

In here, SallyNasty thinks that it's because of the anti-vaccine people that he has to get boosters. That is not true. All pertussis immunization from vaccination wanes and must be re-upped on a regular basis, regardless of the pediatric immunization record. That's just good policy, not a necessity because of the reasons he thinks.

More on topic, I'm hoping states start prosecuting parents for refusing to vaccinate. Oregon has established a history of prosecuting parents who let their kids die because of their faith-healing beliefs. I don't see this as being any different.

Unnecessary and counterproductive. If it is decided that forced vaccinations are good public policy, then simply vaccinate the children perforce instead of resorting to criminalizing non-vaccination. The latter takes up additional judicial and law-enforcement time and energy for what is essentially the same thing.

OG_Slinger:

If it's worth anything, my view is that most of you are more or less anti-science. Not particularly surprising - most people are (even those of you who think that they are for science).

Proof:

Denying evolution means you deny, well, all of science. Denying evolution means you deny everything we've learned about biology. Of course, that means you deny all of modern medicine. Denying evolution means you deny physics, because the only way the Earth is 6,000 years old is if god radically f*cked with the fundamental forces of the universe.

These statements, together, show that your understanding of these concepts is not scientific but mythological, probably in the usual layman manner. Do not be offended. This is common, even normal.

However, you cannot claim a scientific basis for a refutation of the entirety of medical knowledge on the basis of the non-acceptance of Theory of Evolution. That simply does not follow, even from very basic logical process, let alone scientific method.

Oh geez. Do we need another evolution debate thread to split this off into?