I went on a bit of a Twitter rant just now, via iPhone while grabbing a coffee at Starbucks, after my phone got a CNN Breaking News alert which announced: “A now-retracted UK study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an ‘elaborate fraud,’ a medical journal reports.” Here’s the rant:
What say you, @JennyMcCarthy? RT @cnnbrk: Study linking #autism to vaccines a “fraud,” medical journal BMJ reports http://on.cnn.com/hJiZpB
The fraudsters who invented vaccine-autism link have blood on their hands every time a child gets sick or dies due to loss of herd immunity.
Also, continued belief in the long-disproven vaccine-autism link is a searing indictment of our society, culture, education and media.
That Obama, Clinton & McCain each made wishy-woshy statements about vaccine-autism “link” in 2008 is indefensible and almost beyond belief.
Our society’s inability to purge itself of empirically false ideas, despite all the volumes of information available, is a sign of deep rot.
Or perhaps it points to something deeper than societal: a flaw in human nature itself. Either way, it’s a BIG problem.
So basically, I blame Jenny McCarthy for the decline and impending doom of Western Civilization. 😉 #PANIC
But srsly: she should be shunned & universally condemned for role in propagating this pernicious lie. Instead, she was on ABC 12/31 in NYC.
If you can’t tell, I find the vaccine-autism b.s. extraordinarily depressing. It tests my faith in the very idea of human progress.
Wonder how Nazis could ever rule a civilized nation? Look no further than the continued mainstream belief in a long-disproven outright lie.
And, no, I’m not saying the “autism-vaccine link Truthers” are Nazis. Just that humanity’s inability to purge itself of known false ideas…
…is intimately related with the ability of an evil, inhuman regime based on pernicious lies & vile scapegoating to win over the masses.
BTW, #LetMeBeClear: when I talk about “purging” false ideas, I don’t mean censorship. I mean aggressive counterspeech & shaming of liars.
This, of course, all ties in with — and indeed, was specifically referenced in — my Grand Unified Theory of PANIC!!!!. We’re all heading toward that Event Horizon, and Jenny McCarthy is leading us there… or something.
Well that answers that question….there actually is an issue we apparently agree 100% about.
Next up:
Global Warming
This was just a bit overdone, but a lack of perspective seems to be standard around here. Everything is OMG The Worst Thing Evah! … until the next thing is.
Just to add to the above, it’s fine to level your guns at Wakefield — his seems to be a classic case of greed providing cover for a predetermined scientific conclusion based on falsified evidence. Of course, scientists frequently sell out to one side or the other for money (this has been the case with global warming, tobacco, and for many medicines and vaccines), but few stoop so low as to alter the evidence they are using.
Yet, Jenny McCarthy now has “blood on [her] hands”? Really? I’m sorry, but does your child have autism? Have you experienced the trauma of your child being fairly normal after birth and then after a couple of years, quickly slipping into a non-responsive introversion of such severity that it seems impossible something outside must have caused it? And is it really out of the realm of possibility that a vaccine or childhood medicine could cause harm? Yeah, sure, in this case the science was bunk, but there is typically so much information overload (mixed with misinformation and incomplete information), that yes, parents have concerns, and they are unsure whom to trust.
I agree, now that the science has been thoroughly debunked, Jenny McCarthy should not be out there continuing her crusade. But that’s not how it works. People don’t let go of their illusions and their beliefs quickly or easily, despite mounting evidence slapping them in the face.
Haven’t you ever had a friend in a bad relationship, and you tell her, “This guy’s a jerk, you should leave him”? And how often is the response, “Why, of course! You’re right — I should dump him right now!”
And in the mean time, this autism-vaccine thing has become a cottage industry and a poster child for the hordes of modern skeptics out there. It’s not just Christian Scientists anymore: now you have European states freaking out and banning genetically modified food, and DDT is another great example of science being grossly misrepresented and thousands of people (if not millions) suffering and dying as a result. Eventually this autism-vaccine thing will fade, and three other bogus crusades will pop up right behind it and take another decade to publicly debunk despite the mountains of evidence.
So yeah, this is tragic, but guess what? It happens all the time. And especially with the autism stuff, have just a wee bit of compassion here before you jump up comparing the autism-vaccine crowd to Nazis. Most of those people are driven by the same impulses that lead people like your wife and my wife to buy organic, natural, pesticide-free, hormone-free foods and avoid microwaving in plastic tupperware containers: They are taking actions to minimize what they perceive are real health risks, no matter how minuscule in reality they really are. If in ten years, science proves Plastic 3 is actually safe and not linked to cancer, are you going to throw your wife under the bus for having a role “in propagating [a] pernicious lie”?
Or, vice versa, maybe science will suggest that radiation and microwaves emitted from portable electronic devices are harmful to children under the age of 5, and God Forbid, one of your children is going to start having health issues and come down with some rare form of cancer. I have no doubt, despite you being the technophile that you are, that you’d be leading the charge against Apple and Sony and all other companies selling smart phones and laptops.
The bottom line is, you and I are in no place to judge these people and decry them as the end of Western Civilization. Human beings in general are not always rational, and we are continually forced to make leaps of faith, act on incomplete information, and make decisions based on a mix of reason and emotion. To me, the real issue is when these risks (or the perception of them) leads to Nanny State intrusions, such as bans on trans-fat, forcing us to wear bike helmets, or not allowing us to talk on cell phones while driving. I frankly don’t care if Jenny McCarthy is 100% wrong, or if there’s a 1% chance and a sliver of scientific evidence that the MMA vaccines cause autism. That’s a chance I’m going to take, and my child is going to have the MMA vaccine — just don’t let the state tell me what I can and cannot do in this regard.
Well said AML…
As to vaccines. I never really thought the Autism link made much sense so am not particularly surprised that it’s a lot of hokum.
However, that vaccines writ large are the panacea of modern society is rather over the top for the simple fact that not all vaccines are created equal.
Different vaccines, while sharing the same concept, have different bases, different degrees of virulence, different non active supporting ingredients, stabilizers etc. And those ingredients are of variable quality with the advent of the counterfeit black market pharmaceuticals.
All of that means that a vaccine carries with it, like all medical procedures, a certain level of attendant risk. So long as we live in a free society, each person should be allowed to weigh the (real) attendant risk against the probability of them becoming ill with the disease in question, and the likely severity of that infection.
As Becky and I discussed a while back, I personally take a calculated risk each year not to get a flu shot. Unlike say a teacher, I’m in a fairly low risk group for contracting the flu. I am generally quite healthy so the cost for contracting the flu while certainly unpleasant is highly unlikely to be in any way life threatening. But most importantly, my immune system over reacts to the flu shot, so when I get the shot I tend to get knocked on my but for about 4 days. But I’ve never actually managed to get the flu. So in my case the cost for getting the shot is quite high, and the benefit quite low. But it is a calculated risk none the less. On the other hand I do make sure my tetanus shot is up to date because while the particular shot hurts like hell, I’m involved in a number of outdoor activities that put me at a reasonably high risk of actually getting exposed to tetanus.
Another example, it would be silly to get the smallpox vaccine today because smallpox has been eradicated. Unless, of course you plan to be visiting Sub Saharan Africa and enjoying some local wild meat. In which case you will have a remarkably high chance of getting Monkeypox. Conveniently the smallpox vaccine will also prevent monkeypox.
Or, lets say that in the very near future there is a functional vaccine to prevent HIV/AIDS. Should everyone get the shot? All vaccines carry between a low and exceedingly low risk of infection with the actual virus. Since it is a new vaccine, lets say those odds are 1 in 100,000. Still a good bet, but not quite as good a bet as it was eh? But if you are a 20 something that likes to hook up with lots of different people in bars, probably one that’s worth taking. If you are a celibate Monk… probably not so much.
Just because a vaccine exists does not mean you should automatically get it, or be compelled to get it. The risk of contracting the disease in question, the severity of the disease in question, and the potential side effects and efficacy of the vaccine all play into the decision to be or not to be immunized.
I should note that I disagree with AML on the cell phones note. Talking on a cell phone while driving places other people in peril not just the driver. I have no problem with people imperiling themselves, but I also have no problem with legislation that attempts to prevent them from imperiling others. By that kind of logic, drunk driving should be legal, and that is simply daft. Likewise, I think things like marijuana should be legal, but it certainly should not be legal to smoke out while driving a car. (And the people that throw cigarette butts out the car window, especially while still lit should be shot)
The DDT example is particularly apt here. Rachel Carson has far, far more blood on her hands than Jenny McCarthy.
Just a couple of quick points:
1) “comparing the autism-vaccine crowd to Nazis” … this is really fucking irritating, because I very specifically disclaimed that I wasn’t doing that. Please read more carefully.
2) The difference between our wives “taking actions to minimize what they perceive are real health risks, no matter how minuscule in reality they really are” by eating organic food, and Jenny McCarthy & co. encouraging people not to vaccinate their children, is, first of all, our wives aren’t public figures who are spreading misinformation to a gullible public, and secondly & more importantly, even if the health benefit of eating organic and the like is “minuscule,” there’s no countervailing health drawback. The only real drawback is the hit our budgets take. 🙂 Finally, the science isn’t settled against our wives’ positions. For all of these reasons, the notion that I’ll have to “throw [my] wife under the bus for having a role ‘in propagating [a] pernicious lie'” if science ultimately proves her wrong is utterly absurd.
3) “you and I are in no place to judge these people and decry them as the end of Western Civilization” … the latter was and is obviously hyperbole, but I disagree that we are in “no place to judge” public figures who ignore facts and evidence and logic and reason, and persist in damaging, deadly consipracy-mongering bullshit. I can damn well judge Jenny McCarthy just as I judge Alex Jones and Lyndon LaRouche. The fact that lots of people are irrational and genuinely believe stupid bullshit is not a “get out of jail free” card for public figures who choose to spread those beliefs to the masses. Nor is it an excuse for the media and our educational system to fail to give the masses the information they need to differentiate between truth and fiction.
That said, you’re doubtless right that my rant overstates things a bit. But, hey… it’s a rant. That’s what rants do.
P.S. I take your point about McCarthy and other autism-vaccine crusaders being grief-stricken parents grasping at straws, but again, when you’re a public figure, you have a certain responsibility to not go around misleading the masses out of blind rage or grief. I don’t recall you or others on the Right giving Cindy Sheehan a free pass for all of her batshit crazy statements just because she was grief-stricken by the loss of her son, nor should you have. When someone assumes the mantle of a public spokesperson on an issue, that person has to be held to account for not using their bully pulpit to propagate untruths.
Since we seem to be in agreement that evidence doesn’t support vaccines as a *direct* *cause* of autism, I have to wonder if it might be possible that we are seeing more autism now directly related to the number of folk saved from the diseases by the vaccine … I wonder if there is some correlation between the folk that *would* have died from the diseases but for the vaccines as compared to the folk coming down with/being diagnosed with autism … perhaps some gene(s)-based link of greater susceptibility to dying of vaccinatable diseases correlating with autism …
I also found myself realising that, for all that the “scientific folk” on here champion that Evolution is Settled Science, most of ’em don’t believe in evolution enough to actually let it do what it is presumed to do …
(Of course, in no way do I, personally, advocate any form of eugenics beyond the type of self-selection done by aware Tay-Sachs gene carriers who choose not to have their own biological children – I commend them for the courage and wisdom to be able to make what is potentially a very hard decision on a highly-emotional subject.)
I am curious how others here respond to the concept, above … I am not even sure how I would go about designing the study to try to prove or disprove the hypothesis …
dcl @ #5, I feel compelled to point out that, the first year my employer offered the flu shot, I decined to get it for pretty much the same reasons you have stated. Incidentally, that was a month before Brendan’s wedding. You’ll recall I was more or less a member of the walking dead that week. Since then, I learned my lesson and get the flu shot every year. 😉
dcl @ #6, I stand by my cell phone defense. Lots of things are equally dangerous and yet are legal, such as driving while: fiddling with the radio, nav, or climate control; talking to passengers; doing one’s makeup; reading (whether directions or a magazine / newspaper); fighting off lack of sleep; and trying to calm down screaming children in the back seat. I agree these risks potentially imperil your fellow passengers as well as others on the road, but I’m willing to live with all of those risks — unless you want to make all of those things illegal and give cops an even greater plethora of excuses to pull you over.
Brendan @ #8:
1) Yes you did, and really, you’ve already lost this argument due to Godwin’s Law.
2) I don’t agree that we know today that “there’s no countervailing health drawback” to eating organic, non-GM foods. In any case, I think you missed the point of that entire paragraph, which was to point out that McCarthy et al (note: this does not include Wakefield and all the trial lawyers trying to make a buck off of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers) are driven by the same impulses to protect their children as our spouses. The key difference is our spouses are relying on better science and have a much smaller platform than McCarthy et al.
3) You seem to have missed my earlier paragraph, where I said:
There’s a big difference between ideologues like LaRouche or Jones and health / environmental crusaders like McCarthy.
Which leads to my response to Brendan @ #10:
I don’t recall you or others on the Right giving Cindy Sheehan a free pass for all of her batshit crazy statements just because she was grief-stricken by the loss of her son, nor should you have.
It was obvious from Day One that Sheehan was a far-left anti-war wingnut, and her son’s death was simply a convenient excuse to raise her platform to some sort of media darling level. The only way that she could be compared to McCarthy is if A. Jenny McCarthy was also an anti-medicine Christian Scientist, and B. Cindy Sheehan had a really nice rack.
Be that as it may, I repeat: there’s a difference between ideologues and people who are organizing and crusading against some perceived environmental / health ill or risk.
AML, I agree that the things you cite are other potentially dangerous distractions to drivers some more and some less so than talking on a cell phone. As a general point irresponsible driving behavior is rather rampant and deeply problematic. Some of those things it may be possible to write a law handling, other’s it is virtually impossible. But I have no objection to laws that promote the safe operation of a vehicle. As a compromise to the question, what about a law that assigned full fault and double liability to a driver who was on a cell phone at the time of any accident? It should at least be feasible to check cell phone records and identify if the person was on the phone at the time. Simply put, accidents that occur while on a cell phone, applying make up, eating dinner, re-programing your nav system etc. all are not accidents.
As to the flu shot, I may change my mind at some point, as I get older the cost benefit on it will clearly change. If I didn’t have the kind of negative reaction to the flu shot that I do I would probably just get it to be safe.
As a compromise to the question, what about a law that assigned full fault and double liability to a driver who was on a cell phone at the time of any accident?
I understand and sympathize with the thought process behind this proposition, but I don’t think it actually makes any sense. For example, what is “double liability”? I’m not sure that term has any real meaning. Any accident has an actual cost, and liability is just a matter of determining who’s responsible for paying what part of it. And I’m not sure that assigning full fault to someone who is on a phone makes sense either. What if one party is speeding and driving recklessly by weaving in and out of traffic, and the other is going exactly the speed limit and gets clipped. You’re really going to move the liability from the reckless driver to what in this instance is the safe, not-at-fault driver?
I think the better approach is probably to have a multiplier on fines or “points” if a cell phone, nav, or some other identifiable distraction is a contributing cause to the violation. For example, speeding 15 mph over the speed limit is a $100 fine, but it’s doubled if you’re on a cell phone, and/or the point hit on your record is 2 instead of 1, and/or you lose the option of going to traffic school to avoid the point(s).
What if one party is speeding and driving recklessly by weaving in and out of traffic, and the other is going exactly the speed limit and gets clipped.
* I meant to add that the party being clipped is talking on the cell phone.
Well, anyone needing evidence that Alasdair is a delusional moron, here’s incontrovertible proof for ya:
“I also found myself realising that, for all that the “scientific folk” on here champion that Evolution is Settled Science, most of ‘em don’t believe in evolution enough to actually let it do what it is presumed to do …”
Wow. Really? You think that in order to believe in the scientific basis of evolution one has to do nothing to prevent it from happening? What kind of idiot are you? If I also accept as settled science that viruses cause disease, does that mean I should do nothing to try and not get sick? How about bacteria which causes other diseases, should I not take antibiotics to prove my belief? You know what else I believe is settled science? Gravity. So I assume I shouldn’t ever use a parachute if I jump from a plane because then i’m not putting my faith in gravity either?
There is nothing even REMOTELY contradictory about accepting that evolution is real and has led to the existence of the various animals and plants on earth today, and ALSO working to cure disease and other problems.
But hey, if you want to go live in the woods without any man made inventions or advances until you die of starvation since you couldn’t hunt to save your life without tools, be my guest. I pity the animals that come to take care of your corpse, your stupid might be contagious.
I think Alasdair is referring to the fact that those of you in the manic left frequently gnash and wail about the number of species that are going extinct, instead of realizing and accepting the fact that extinction is a natural result of evolution.
Wow gahrie, you have opened my eyes, we should TOTALLY just start killing of species left and right and damn the consequences. We shouldn’t give a rats ass about the conditions that WE cause because hey, shit happens! Screw the environment we don’t need it anyway! It’s all good! Eventually someone will fix it, well if its financially lucrative enough I suppose. You know what else would be cool? Polluting the air, cause then the people who don’t die of asthma or other conditions are weak, we want only the STRONG to survive!
Moron.
AML, you are right, double damages is the accurate term.
As to the example you cite, what if the vehicle that was weaving through traffic was an ambulance with lights and sirens on and you failed to react because you were on the phone? Simply put they shouldn’t have been on a cell phone then should they, then they don’t have to worry about it. If your phone call is more important than driving then take the bus.
In the EU they have strict liability for drivers that hit pedestrians, cyclists, and other “vulnerable road users”. Pretty much the only way the operator of the larger vehicle can not be at fault for an accident is if they were completely stopped in a place where it is reasonable to be completely stopped for a somewhat significant period of time. You know what the result of that law is? A hell of a lot less pedestrian fatalities and a lot less “accidents” between bikes and cars.
I would certainly support a strict liability rule for drivers engaged in distracting behavior. I also would not have much of an issue with that law giving the judge in such cases a certain amount of wiggle room, you know, to do their job as a judge.
A car is a lethal object, drivers need to be responsible for driving said lethal object safely. If whatever you are doing is more important that driving then stop driving until you have completed that task.
It took a very long time for us to even begin to treat drunk driving seriously in this country. And we still don’t take it nearly seriously enough. Run into a downtown drunk and flailing a fire arm and shoot someone well, you are doing serious jail time replace gun with car and shoot with hit you still essentially get a slap on the wrist…
We need to realize that as useful as cars are they carry a very high inherent risk, and must be operated safely and responsibly.
The new Merc ads drive me nuts, they are basically saying, our cars are designed to try and make up for your grossly irresponsible, negligent, and reckless driving behavior. Which seems to imply that such behavior is acceptable so long as you are driving a car that make up for it. That’s stupid.
I don’t care if someone wants to endanger themselves, but one of, if not the, primary function of government is to handle situations where one person is endangering another.
Oh, and David, one small pice of advice. Don’t feed the trolls. I only bother with Al’s comments if they are referenced from some other relevant discussion this practice was suggested to me at the DC Brendan blog meet up, and it seems to work quite well. (not that my conversation with AML is not completely off topic, but at least so far it seems reasonably rational. AML is, of course, arguing from a more car centric perspective and my argument is basically boils down to that car centric perspective is, in fact the problem….)
dcl…. you should move to Davis, CA. Really, I think you’d be quite happy there. 😉
I have been toying with the idea of getting a masters in viticulture…
David K:
1) OK..how do you decide which species are supposed to become extinct, and which ones aren’t? Surely interfering with nature and evolution by preventing extinctions is just as damaging and bad as causing extinctions. What if we are preventing the evolution of new species because their ecological role is being filled by a species we are not allowing to become extinct. And note, I am not being sarcastic, I am totally serious.
2) Man is part of nature, and thus any action we take is “natural”. What if nature/Gaia/God/etc intends for us to cause the extinction of certain species?
I only bother with Al’s comments if they are referenced from some other relevant discussion this practice was suggested to me at the DC Brendan blog meet up, and it seems to work quite well
This is interesting. Is there a list of such “trolls”? Who else is joining in this shunning of those they disagree with…. isn’t this idea fundamentally illiberal in the classic sense of the word?
I ignore those who’s comments do not contribute in any relevant and or constructive manner to a discussion of the issue or tangent thereof being discussed.
It has nothing to do with shunning those I disagree with. I ignore comments that either do not make sense, are irrelevant, or are completely and totally divorced from reality because such comments and posters are a waist of my time.
As you may have noticed on this very thread AML and I have a fundamental disagreement about policy. But we are also both accepting of certain relevant facts to that debate.
Al’s comment was simply trolling and there is no reason to feed the trolls.
I don’t recall you or others on the Right giving Cindy Sheehan a free pass for all of her batshit crazy statements just because she was grief-stricken by the loss of her son, nor should you have.
Just to clean up a minor point…
I’ll think you’ll find that most of us on the right weren’t attacking Ms. Sheehan personally (at least not at first) but instead the leftwing organizations that were exploiting her and her grief.
We also pointed out that as soon as she was no longer useful to them, the Left abandoned Ms. Sheehan, and in fact began questioning her sanity.
gahrie #17 – thank you for reading and understanding what I said, rather than taking the davidkian knee-jerk contrary approach …
#20 is the classic Cult of AGW approach … prevent/discourage dissenting expressions lest the *reasons* behind opposition become well-understood and well-disseminated … and, yes, the approach *is* fundamentally illiberal – of course, since the Dems and their supporters tend to pay lip-service to liberal concepts, it’s not a surprise …
“Al’s comment was simply trolling and there is no reason to feed the trolls.” – classically ignores my initial agreement with the overlying premise of Brendan’s post about the lack of valid science behind the campaign to stop vaccinating due to incrfeased autism …
(grin) Responding to my first paragraph (containing said agreement) would have required actual thinking – a practice sadly observed more b y its absence …
While on the topic of new species vs species going extinct, how many additional species of sheep now exist precisely because of Man’s efforts ? How many additional species of potato now exist because of Man’s interference ?