Skip to main content

(Click to enlarge)

Before this cartoon appeared many places, I began hearing from anti-vaccine people. More are sure to follow in the coming days. It's almost laughable for me to have to type this, but let me say up front: I have absolutely no ties to Big Pharma. In general, I find pharmaceutical companies to be morally skeevy, but this does not mean vaccinations are some sort of conspiracy. Nor does it disprove the science supporting vaccination as an essential part of public health.

When all reputable medical organizations -- the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, etc. –- tell us that that any link between autism and vaccines has been thoroughly refuted, it takes a hefty dose of paranoia to think that you know better. What is fascinating about this issue is that it parallels global warming denial, but with a large lefty contingent. It’s a bit depressing, actually. But if progressives want to continue calling themselves “reality-based,” they have to take on pseudoscience wherever it appears.

(More below the fold)

This all started with a fraudulent paper in a prominent medical journal, long since retracted and refuted. It then took on a life of its own, fed by celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy and even Robert Kennedy, Jr. Nowadays it mostly boils down to the idea that Big Pharma is engaged in a huge cover-up in order to sell vaccines. I’m the first to note the many evils of many big corporations, but you cannot simply dismiss an overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, based on many subsequent studies. There is a difference between healthy skepticism and anti-intellectual paranoia, and this clearly crosses that line.

This wouldn’t matter so much if it wasn’t vaccines we are talking about here, one of the most important life-saving inventions of all time. Experts in the U.S. say we are already getting small-scale outbreaks because of the anti-vaccine movement, and experts outside the U.S. are getting increasingly worried about the potentially catastrophic consequences if these ideas get entrenched in the developing world. A recent Center for Disease Control study estimates that vaccines given in the U.S. from 1994-2013 will save 732,000 lives.

Here are just a few useful links on the science of vaccination:

http://www.cdc.gov/...

http://www.who.int/...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.slate.com/...

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

http://www.theatlantic.com/...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...

Originally posted to Comics on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos Classics and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (131+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, CwV, Lenny Flank, Lost and Found, Batya the Toon, jnhobbs, marykk, TX Freethinker, paulex, OllieGarkey, Hamlets Father, Brecht, belinda ridgewood, brokensnowshoe, Aquarius40, bleeding blue, Dave in Northridge, dotdash2u, Bob Duck, eyelessgame, BenderRodriguez, Powered Grace, Rikon Snow, bewareofme, Kathy S, MNGlasnant, Wary Idealist, stevemb, cocinero, mungley, Jon Sitzman, Meteor Blades, MKinTN, Hayate Yagami, commonmass, The grouch, PapaChach, hnichols, 420 forever, twigg, K S LaVida, Seneca Doane, Debby, Cadillac64, afisher, Lashe, jts327, Slaw, asym, quill, enhydra lutris, tampaedski, RLF, zitherhamster, OldDragon, brillig, serendipityisabitch, walden, drpmeade, fixxit, Question Authority, armd, DavidHeart, midnight lurker, flowerfarmer, spacecadet1, hbk, TerryDarc, Ahianne, JeffW, flevitan, MinervainNH, Pat K California, genocideisnews, glendaw271, GreatLakeSailor, T100R, meinoregon, Mokurai, Vince CA, TexasTom, Bill Roberts, paytheline, Hohenzollern, raoul78, Shippo1776, peptabysmal, Yoshimi, Joffan, mdetrano, IreGyre, puckmtl, chimene, koosah, sagesource, Most Awesome Nana, ericlewis0, mrchips46, Jyrki, northcountry21st, radical simplicity, lineatus, kurt, QuiteDragon, rini6, Shadowmage36, athenap, Zorba the Greek, R30A, hfjai, MouseNoMore, penelope pnortney, BadAdamD, zootscoot, GreenInCalif, Caittus, Phil N DeBlanc, thanatokephaloides, AR2, Grandma Susie, smileycreek, Terry S, Obi don, Sir Roderick, MissMudgeon, bill warnick, silverfoxcruiser, beesknees, JerryNA, lilyvaldem, dewolf99
  •  I'm tired of these stupid people (30+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:56:56 AM PDT

    •  in general, most anti-science kooks are harmless (29+ / 0-)

      and their idiotic babbling doesn't matter very much. At best, they might get a label printed on a bag that nobody will read anyway, or get a few people to not eat fish from California.

      But the anti-vaccine kookers KILL PEOPLE.

      They should not be tolerated here. Period.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:01:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Me Too (17+ / 0-)
      Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
       --Isaac Asimov

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:27:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think anti-science among lefties is a result of (10+ / 0-)

        two things:

        1. an anti-corporate ideology that is taken to asinine lengths, in which corporations run everything everywhere and everything that ever happens is a corporate plot.  Just substitute "Jews" for "corporations" and you can see hopw nutty this is.

        2. a huge reluctance on the part of the left to tell anyone they are wrong. We're all about democracy and equality, and some of us presume that should apply to reality as well--everyone's opinion about reality is equally valid and should be equally respected. It's horse shit. There are only two kinds of opinions in the world---those which conform to reality, and those which are wrong.  Period.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:44:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  anti science amongst lefties has it's origins in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drpmeade, IreGyre

          ideology. They fit the science to the ideology. I see it all the time.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:37:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That is not how either science or denialism work (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Betsrutan, kurt

          Science is sometimes wrong. Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis was once the world's most prominent AIDS denier because of his malign influence in South Africa. He is still a Global Warming denier and an adherent of astrology. I could give you a great long list of top scientists with quack ideas, such as Isaac Newton on bible prophecy, and Albert Einstein's rejection of quantum indeterminacy. But I don't have to.

          Bright Scientists, Dim Notions

          However, science has ways to recognize that it is wrong and to correct itself. We have been slowly getting better at it within the scientific community over more than four centuries. The popular understanding of science can still take centuries to catch up in the worst cases, when it threatens the received social order.

          Denialism is not based on anti-corporatism, as you can tell from the existence of denialist corporations. It is based on fear. Sometimes fear can be legitimate, and sometimes it can be entirely unreasoning, as in the case of anti-vaxxers who refuse vaccines that do not even contain thiomersal.

          For corporations, the worst version is a fear of having one's business model go away entirely, as it did for tetraethyl lead in gasoline in 1986. What everybody thinks of as the buggy whip manufacturing problem. The strength of this kind of denialism is roughly proportional to the amount of money involved. See also tobacco, power-plant scrubbers, catalytic converters, and seat belts, where it was not the whole business that was threatened. For fossil carbon, of course the threat is complete, except for coal used in steelmaking and for chemical feedstocks.

          In questions of disease, denialism is based on helplessness. We saw the same kinds of problem with AIDS denial before there were any effective and affordable treatments. It included denial that HIV exists or causes AIDS, or that it is an STD, demands that the FDA approve quack remedies, and refusal of governments, notably South Africa, to address transmission of AIDS for years. The Christian Right is still in denial about condoms, of course.

          Now that AIDS treatment is widespread and cheap (less than a dollar a day in developing countries, thanks to Bill Clinton), and those treated are far less infectious, often completely non-infectious, we can see how to reduce its spread and eventually get rid of it, even if we never find a cure.

          From my direct experience with AIDS deniers, I conclude that anti-vaxxerism will persist until we know what actually causes autism (which will itself be denied at first), and start effectively preventing a lot of it.

          Although there are significant numbers of people with autism who could contribute greatly to the world if we were willing to let them do it in ways that they can manage. See, for example, the successful case of Temple Grandin, described in An Anthropologist on Mars, by Oliver Sacks, and also Grandin's own books. Also Rain Man, a very different case of astonishing capabilities.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:22:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or Until We Start To Realize (2+ / 0-)

            that autism isn't some monster out to destroy our kids, take them out of their bodies and replace them with strangers. In fact, that's exactly what a cure for autism would do, because you can't take the autism out of the Autistic person without fundamentally changing who the person is.

            •  I saw that on The Daily Show yesterday (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thanatokephaloides

              Ron Suskind has a new book about his experiences with his autistic son, who, it turned out, was using every resource he could find in order to break out of the prison of his isolation. It turned out that Disney movies provided him with a key to reopen communication. The book is Life, Animated: A Story of Sidekicks, Heroes, and Autism.

              Stewart previously featured Why I Jump, written by an autistic teenager.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:51:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  As a victim of Asperger's myself, I heartily agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thanatokephaloides

            that more research on the cause(s) of autism is much needed.  I suspect that it is multi-factorial with many contributing factors rather than any single cause.   It might take a combination of a genetic glitch, exposure to some toxin, and a borderline nutritional deficiency.  Many vitamins are needed as co-factors for human enzymes.  And someone with a less than optimal gene for some particular enzyme might need much more of a vitamin that happens to be co-factor for that enzyme.

            •  Some factors are known (0+ / 0-)

              Autistic spectrum kids are six to eight times more likely to have gastrointestinal disorders, especially food allergies, and often improve when these are identified and avoided.
              It is to some extent auto-immune.

              But I have a real issue with all the blame going on here, and denial of some OTHER scientific facts that vaccine manufacturers don't want you to talk about.

              Like ineffectiveness.  The recent outbreaks of pertussis have been mostly among vaccinated kids. The newer acellular vaccine simply isn't good enough, and the bacterium is mutating to avoid it.  Annual flu shots are a crock, frankly. They haven't budged the rate of hospitalizations and deaths among the elderly from flu complications, and that's the population most targeted for shots.

              Like iffy ingredients.  Did you know many vaccines are now grown in human stem cells from fetuses aborted decades ago?  No, I'm not a pro-lifer.  I'm trying to point out the IMMUNOLOGICAL consequences of having human DNA in a concoction intended to produce a strong and lasting immune response. And yes, the companies admit that the DNA is in the finished vaccine.  Not all vaccinated people will get an auto-immune reaction right away (though that's exactly what Guillain-Barre syndrome is, and it usually follows a vaccination or infection)  but some will get one later in life and no one will make a connection.  Auto immune diseases are on the rise.  Do you want to guess at some of the reasons?  Studies linking certain vaccines with certain auto immune risks don't look so far out then, do they?
              And those shingles vaccine commercials won't mention that if you HAVEN'T had chicken pox, that the shot will give you the risk of shingles, not take it away.  It's a live virus vaccine. It takes up residence in your nerve cells just like a wild chicken pox infection, and if your immune system weakens later, it will come back as shingles. And be just as communicable, too.  Whose genius idea was this? Couldn't they have come up with a killed-virus vaccine for a disease known to be a lifelong resident once contracted?
              I hope to find open-mindedness in a "liberal" group like this, not blanket condemnations without thought.

              •  Warning: incorrect anti-vaccine assertions above (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                T100R, Justanothernyer

                by strawbale. Maybe I should say "lies", because some are lies.

                There is a small correlation between gastrointestinal problems and autism, but that is still being investigated. There is no clear cause and effect, and no good proof that fixing GI helps autism. It's mostly people selling miracle "supplements" and "cleansing" crap that are pushing this idea, as well as parents duped into buying their "cures". (Some are such strict diets or even bleach enemas that I call it child abuse.) Thanks to the discredited and retracted study in the Lancet journal, it's harder to get funding for studies like that. How sad that real research is tainted by a fraudster.

                The pertussis vaccine was changed to make it safer. It is slightly less effective, which just means you may need a booster shot.

                Vaccines are not grown in human stem cells.

                DNA is present in some vaccines make of killed bacteria. No kidding, it's true! Living things and dead things contain DNA. Who'd a thunk it? (So does food, strawbale.)

                Finally, shingles vaccine will not give you shingles or chicken pox. See www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/vacc-need-know.htm

                Open minded, strawbale, does not mean accepting every bit of kookery without evaluating it and rejecting garbage. Your comment was quite simply 99.44% garbage. I gave you 0.56% for proper spelling and punctuation.

              •  and yet another kook joins the fray (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justanothernyer

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:45:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Wow srawbale! (0+ / 0-)

                That has to be the most ignorant comment I've ever read on Kos. You really shouldn't believe everything you read online.

                I hope to find open-mindedness in a "liberal" group like this, not blanket condemnations without thought.
                Why would you expect people to accept false information with an open mind? Especially when you try and pass it off as absolute fact. If you knew what this site was about you would know the average reader here doesn't just swallow any old bullshit.

                The moral test of a government is how that government treats the children, the elderly, the sick, the needy, and the disabled.

                by stvmcghee on Sat Apr 18, 2015 at 11:27:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  A very long haul (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mokurai

            From my direct experience with AIDS deniers, I conclude that anti-vaxxerism will persist until we know what actually causes autism (which will itself be denied at first), and start effectively preventing a lot of it.

            Unfortunately, finding the cause of autism is going to be much, much harder than proving HIV is the cause of AIDS.

            Unlike AIDS, autism isn't a disease.  Its a label for a broad collection of behavioral symptoms that can vary dramatically in both frequency and intensity.  

            Every autistic child is different... and it is extremely likely that the "cause" of their autistic symptoms will also be different from child to child.

            Take my 15 year old son for example.  He has worn the "autistic" label since before he entered public school.  However we are a  rarity in the world of parents with autistic children - we KNOW why he is autistic.

            He has a genetic disorder called neurofibromatosis (NF).  NF is actually somewhat common, but our son's manifestation of it is rather rare.  In him, it has caused microscopic brain lesions and abnormal development of the neural connections in his brain.  These tiny changes have caused his sensory integration and impulsivity problems.  They have resulted in him having an auditory processing delay - his brain takes longer than normal to process the sound signals it receives.  It has affected his speech center, making it harder for him to figure out what words he needs to use.

            Combined, all these tiny defects result in a child that experiences our world very differently than the average child and has difficulty communicating using spoken language.  Since fluency in spoken language is the foundation for developing fluency in written language, he has trouble with reading and writing in addition to speaking.

            And yes, he is fully vaccinated.  I never once considered not vaccinating him.  I have a younger brother that came within a hair's width of dying because he got chicken pox when he was only 6 weeks old.  They didn't have a vaccine back then... but they do now and both my kids have had it.  

            Autism doesn't have a single cause.  We can rule out what doesn't cause it - like bad parenting and modern vaccinations.  But we will likely never be able to identify all the possible causes.

            Personally, I'd prefer putting research money into finding ways to help these kids grow up to be adults who are happy and able to interact with and contribute to whatever community they live in.  If that takes changing the community rather than the child, so be it. :D

            •  Quite right (0+ / 0-)

              I only meant to say that anti-vaxxerism might decline when we get diagnoses of autism down to historic levels, by identifying and doing something about any more recent causes. It is conceivable that we can do better than that in time, with gene therapy.

              Anything that we can do to address the problem of the parents' feelings of helplessness will help.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:57:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  In mathematics the "incompleteness theorem" proves (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          that in any mathematical system complicated enough to include two distinct operations (addition and multiplication are an example of two distinct operations in the system of arithmetic of rational numbers) will include some propositions that can be neither proved nor disproved.  In two dimensional Euclidean geometry the existence of exactly one line parallel to a given line through a given point not on that line has to be an axiom because it can not be proved.  It turns out that there are three kinds of two dimensional space: Euclidean in which there is exactly one line parallel to a given line through a given point not on that line, positively curved 2-space in which the closest thing to a straight line is a great circle and in which any two distinct great circles will intersect each other in two places (antipodes), and negatively curved 2-space in which there are several lines parallel to a given line through a given point not on that line.  This shows that mathematicians need to be prepared to remodel mathematical systems as they run into propositions that can not be either proved or disproved within their systems.

          I share the left wing bias against two big to fail corporations in all industries.  Too big to fail corporations are too single-mindedly devoted to maximizing shareholder profits to be deterred by anything other than strict regulation and well able to corrupt any appointed regulatory agency in about ten years of its being established and have now proved well able to corrupt elected officials also, including Congress.

        •  I agree with your second point, but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          not the first one.  Jews are people.  Corporations are not.  Corporations are legal fictions, but the publicly traded ones in particular are structured in such a way as to inexorably enrich their owners (typically already rich, unless it's a start-up, and even then probably rich VCs own most of it) at the expense of everyone else, and especially of the environment, i.e. the future habitability of the planet.

          One of the main reasons climate-change denial is so prevalent in the USA is that our corporate media, corporate-backed politicians of both major parties, and corporate-funded "think tanks" i.e. propaganda mills have worked tirelessly for decades to sell their anti-science viewpoint.  Why?  Because CEOs must maximize the next quarter's bottom line.  If they don't, they will be fired and replaced by people who will.

          Judaism is a religion.  Capitalism is an economic system.  For an academic analysis of how it works, see Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21s Century".  Or take my "aha" moment in the mid-1990s.  At that time, my wife and I were both earning good professional salaries, but month after month, the increase in the value of our tech stock portfolio far outstripped our salaries, even before taxes.  This is Piketty's basic point:  return on capital is greater than the overall rate of economic growth.  Or to put it bluntly, you earn more by owning stuff than by working hard.

        •  and my point is confirmed /nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:18:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I Might Change My Sig Line for That n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

        by midnight lurker on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:19:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Stupid and dangerous (4+ / 0-)

      All those brave people who choose not to vaccinate their children should spend a day or two in the infant ICU watching a 2 month old baby fight to breath because someone in her brother's kindergarten class decided that vaccinations for whooping cough were too dangerous.

    •  Maybe it's more insidious than that (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps they want to end overpopulation.

      Well, that's one way....

    •  I'm tired of people calling anti-vaxxer's stupid (0+ / 0-)

      Most "anti-vaxxers" aren't stupid. Take a look at yourself. Are you perfect? Are you a 100% sure you are right?

      In 1846,  a Hungarian doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis tried to get the medical profession to wash their hands after disecting a woman who had died of child-bed fever.  No. The doctors refused. They continued to go to the next delivery of a child with dirty hands. They couldn't believe that their spreading of germs could be killing women and babies. They could not and would not listen. Many people died.

      I think there is a similar situation here now. The "anti-vaxxers" are saying the vaccines aren't safe, especially in certain circumstances, like when multiple vaccines are given at the same time. The public and doctors need to wake up and listen before they harm more people.  

       

    •  Hey, I have ties, one way, with "Big Pharma" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kfunk937

      I'm alive due to my anti-hypertension medicine, I have an esophagus due to acid blockers, I can move around due to my ibuprofen and someday, my cholesterol will be under control.

  •  uh-oh, now you've said the name of Cthulhu . . . . (13+ / 0-)

    Now all of our resident crackpots will come barging in to tell us all about their nutty conspiracy theories . . . . . . . .

    Sadly, the leftwing is no more immune to anti-science kookery than the rightwing is. Though we do treat ours differently--the rightwing anti-science fringers get to set policy, while ours just get laughed at.

    (sigh)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:57:55 AM PDT

    •  Except in Portland.... (12+ / 0-)

      ...where water fluoridation was rejected in an initiative, led by anti-science kookery, including deliberate mischaracterization of a study in China where water fluoride levels were five times that of American fluoridated water.

      You can't spell "Dianne Feinstein" without "NSA".

      by varro on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:51:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I find it ironic that the left seems to have (13+ / 0-)

        taken up the "anti-flouride" thingie, since that was the signature issue of the Bircher nutjobs.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:07:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, actually the whole anti-vax thing (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jyrki, kurt, rini6

          originated on the right. Years ago, before Wakefield and before Rush and Michael Savage had turned right wing talk radio into big business, it used to lurk in the dark corners of the AM dial. And a lot of those commentators made General Jack D. Ripper sound rational. They were big on how vaccinations were poisoning the country.

          (In my own defense, I should say that I didn't actually listen to those commentators myself, but there were a bunch of geezers at my gym who would recite the latest revelations on a daily basis while we were all sitting around the sauna.)

      •  Somewhat amusing (5+ / 0-)

           I actually went to college at Southern Oregon State College and the chemistry department was given all sorts of cool equipment - that had I been attending a large university the equipment would have been walled away from us.      Anyhow, we had a number of Ion Specific electrodes and the water in Southern Oregon contained Fl in sufficient quantities that the tooth decay protection was almost perfect.  
             I haven't been their in years - but please don't tell the anti - folks....but maybe they could do with a really heavy intake of the Lithium that is also available in Ashland.

        •  what years did you attend? (0+ / 0-)

          The fact you call it SOSC implies it was a while back. I was there from 84-86 (then UO, then Evergreen).

          "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

          by quill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:32:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm *there* now (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quill, chimene

            And SOU (formerly SOSC formerly Southern Oregon Normal) just proposed getting rid of their physics major. Real step in the right direction there. We were hoping to send our president back to Ohio (she was a finalist of 3 at Youngstown State). Unfortunately she came back.

            Also, iirc, the head of the School of Science was a creationist up till 1992 or so. This is not a powerhouse of science and headed the wrong way.

            What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

            by TerryDarc on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:41:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  School of science wass pretty good in my time (0+ / 0-)

              I don't recall who was dean back then, but I think I received high quality science instruction (that was my major). Darlene Southworth was an inspiration to me.

              Wasn't so impressed by the math faculty though.

              "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

              by quill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:43:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, I've taken a couple of their courses (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                quill, thanatokephaloides

                And the profs were good to great. Not idiots at all.

                It was just, unbelievably, that the head of the school was a creationist. Happens, I guess here in anti-vax central as it were.

                What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

                by TerryDarc on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:55:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Good sig (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            quill
            Be careful how you go with the truth under your coat.
            Told to me by a British Zen master.

            Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

            by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:38:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That being said, at least in the US flouridation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rarely comments

        is not safe.  To be specific, the issue is the same as it was with the Therac-25, hardware interlocks are expensive and software is cheap.  The fact that they didn't want to build in hardware failsafes put hundreds of people in the hospital in Alaska which is sadly only just one example.  Note that the dosage in that case was around 150 mg per liter rather than the 1.5 mg/L that the WHO suggests.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:05:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On top of poor control over how much fluoride is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          put in the water at the water department, there is a lot of variation in how much water a person might drink in a day and in how sensitive a person might be to overdose of fluoride.  Also fluoride is not good for the water mains.  Some towns might have been able to save enough in damage to water mains to pay for hiring a young dentist fresh out of dental school to examine school children's teeth (with permission of parents), and drill and fill any cavities found. Also why dose everybody with fluoride in the water once fluoride is in most brands of toothpaste.  Not to mention the naturally occurring fluoride in tea (camellia sinensis).

      •  sorry, you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

        Fluoridation has little to no science behind it, and ample evidence of its dangers.  All developed countries have seen the same reductions in dental caries whether fluoridated or not.  It has been shown that taking fluoride internally is ineffective, and it is an unapproved drug being given in uncontrolled doses to an unconsenting population.  How is this a public good?
        Fluoride is not a nutrient. No process in the  human body depends on it.
        It is a developmental neurotoxin, lowering IQs by about 7 points in kids drinking fluoridated water vs. non-fluoridated.
        It damages kidneys.
        It suppresses thyroid function, in fact was even used for decades as a treatment for hyperthyroidism.
        It was once prescribed as Fosamax is today, supposedly to strengthen bones. This was stopped when the same sorts of spontaneous fractures and brittleness showed up. It weakens bones and teeth, not strengthens them.  Children with excess intake may actually have their teeth crumble.  Even slight excess produces mottling of the enamel, found now in 41% of American children according to the CDC.

        go here http://fluoridealert.org/... to start educating yourself.

    •  This turns out also not to be the case (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hfjai

      Anti-science kookery is required on the right, and in political terms a mild nuisance from a tiny minority on the left.

      That is not to dismiss the real medical harm of the anti-vaxxers, just to note that it does not affect progress on other issues.

      Marriage Equality: Anti-Science kookery only on the Right.

      Economics: Anti-Keynesian trickle-down kookery only on the Right. There are some bizarre left-wing economics ideas about, left over from Marxism, but they have little political influence in the US.

      Fossil Carbon: On the Right.

      The environment in general: On the Right

      GMOs: A bit on the left, but solid on the Right, which just loves monopoly monoculture agriculture.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, and there's also the question (19+ / 0-)

    of how, even if the connection were real, which it isn't ...

    ... how anyone could think that having a child with autism is worse than having your child die of measles.

  •  I'm not so sure about this "large lefty . . . (9+ / 0-)

    . . . contingent." That pretty much consists of RFK Jr. Most of these people are rightwing nutcases -- Jenny McCarthy, Donald Trump, Michele Bachman, etc. Also some affluent hippies of Marin County types, who I wouldn't really call lefty, that's conflating cultural symbolism with politics. (Whole Foods, anyone?) RFK Jr. is pathetic, but he's only a solitary wacko.

    •  alas, if you look back through all the vax diaries (19+ / 0-)

      here (particularly Darksyde's Science Saturday diaries) you will see that we have our very own contingent of anti-vaxers here. And they are definitely not rightwingers.

      Generally, our anti-vaxxers are motivated by an anti-corporate ideology which they have taken to idiotic extremes--they now see corporate plots behind every tree. Our version of the John Birch Society.

      That's why so many of our resident anti-vaxxers are also anti-GMO fringers and Fukushima nutters--the kind who declare that eating GMOs will kill you (it won't) and that whales are fleeing to California to escape Fukushima radiation (they aren't). They have become just like the goppers---things are true for them simply because they ideologically WANT it to be true.

      As I noted in another comment, most of our anti-science nutters are harmless. But the anti-vax contingent KILLS PEOPLE. They are anything BUT "harmless".

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:11:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All true. But the numbers here are ... (13+ / 0-)

        ...quite small.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:38:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the anti-vax movement itself is very small, (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jts327, JeffW, genocideisnews, wa ma, T100R

          compared to other anti-science movements like creationism or homeopathy.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:57:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it's also wrong to call anti-vax a "lefty thing" (6+ / 0-)

          From what I've read, and observed,  the anti-vax meme has little to do with political identity. There are fundy Republican anti-vaxers and granola Democrat ones too - as is the case with other medical/health psuedoscience.  

          It bothers me when this strain of anti-science is blamed on the left, especially since the anti-science/woo types I've met (grew up in SoCal, living in Portland, so I've met lots) tend to be politically ignorant and can swing just about any way on political issues. It's more about rejecting mainstream culture in general, than politics specifically.

          "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

          by quill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:52:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Amen! (0+ / 0-)

          I wish Greg Dworkin and others would quit labeling our anti-vaxxers as supposed lefties. They may share some sympathies outside of the RWNJ territory but few are friends of progressives. Simply nitwits.

          What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

          by TerryDarc on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Is it permissible to HR those making clearly false (0+ / 0-)

          statements on science related issues?

      •  I can understand anti-GMO and anti-nuke power (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lenny Flank

        people.
        Their development and use had cause problem due to their associated industry grossly f*ed up and caused damage (Monsanto and their misuse of GMO and Fukushima for their gross negligence in their reactor design/maintenance). At worst, the anti-GMO and anti-nuke groups are taking sledgehammer to the issue.

        Anti-vaxxer had no such excuse. Vaccine's "harm"/side-effects are well-documented and reasearched (allergic reactions, for example) and are blindingly obvious to be far less dangerous than the disease they prevent (1 in a million chance of dying from allergic reaction vs 1 in a thousand chance of contracting said disease and dying).

    •  Alicia Silverstone.... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quill, Ahianne, T100R, Jyrki, rini6

      ...just published a parenting book full of woo, including the "my kid didn't get vaccinated, and he's totally healthy" and "Derp, autism!!!"

      You can't spell "Dianne Feinstein" without "NSA".

      by varro on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:52:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More common than you think... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, TexasTom, Mokurai

      In my area (Humboldt county on California's North Coast, there is a large contingent of eco-groovy back-to-the-landers who do not vaccinate and send their kids to charter schools.  California recently authorized personal belief exemptions from vaccination for loony-tunes parents. The charter schools in our area in some cases have over 50% non-vaccination rates, according to recently released statistics:

      http://blogs.kqed.org/...

      Deplorable, deadly ignorance.

  •  The cartoon's great - your comments even better (26+ / 0-)
    if progressives want to continue calling themselves “reality-based,” they have to take on pseudoscience wherever it appears.
    Thanks for making this point so clearly.  Here's hoping your cartoon sparks some real debate and maybe, just maybe, helps change some minds.

    "The most dangerous worldview, is the worldview of those who have not viewed the world." Alexander von Humboldt

    by TX Freethinker on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:06:51 AM PDT

  •  Vaccines PREVENT need for pharmacueticals (40+ / 0-)

    Tell your critics who accuse you of having ties to "Big Pharma" that by preventing widespread infections, vaccines forestall or preclude the need for expensive antibiotics.

    When YOU vaccinate yourself or your child, you reduce the likelihood that I and your neighbors will need to take a long and expensive (and for the pharmaceutical company highly profitable) course of antibiotics.  Conversely, when I vaccinate my child, I reduce the likelihood that YOU will need a long and expensive course of antibiotics.

    Indeed, by making vaccines widely available, pharmaceutical companies are cutting into their own profits.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:07:49 AM PDT

    •  ^^^^THIS^^^ (11+ / 0-)

      In fact, I recall reading that the profit margins on most vaccinations is pretty minimal.  

      Way more money to be made in treating symptoms, so if there was a conspiracy it would be for Big Pharma to NOT want people to vaccinate, because there would be much more money in it.

      •  Small per dose. (5+ / 0-)

        But they sell them by the 100 million ... so they are quite a decent income generator :)

        We need pharmaceutical companies, but we need them working for us and that means we need to regulate them.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:01:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there was actually just a diary up here a couple (10+ / 0-)

          days ago that gave the figures.  IIRC, vaccines make up less than 2% of pharma company profits.

          Let me go find the diary . . . . .

          (runs off)

          OK, here it is:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The money quote from the linked article:

          Just to give some perspective, IMS, the top pharmaceutical market analysis firm, estimates the 2010 revenues for pharmaceuticals to be over US$955 billion, and will exceed US$1 trillion dollars by 2013. Big Pharma also shows revenues of around US$300 billion in medical devices in 2012, and close to US$320 billion in 2013. So the total revenues that Big Pharma will derive just from pharmaceuticals and devices will be around US$1.32 trillion.
          According to the World Health Organization, estimated 2013 global revenues for vaccines is around US$24 billion. In other words, from the Big Pharma perspective, vaccines make up around 1.82% of their total expected revenues in 2013. That’s essentially a rounding error in estimating revenues, that is, errors in estimating these revenues could have a value greater than US$24 billion.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:22:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds about right :) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            serendipityisabitch

            Bear in mind that it is also reliable turnover and cashflow.

            It is business so large and predictable that it can support an infrastructure that also builds and uses research labs, etc.

            Like the Bonds in an investment portfolio ... They are the security that permits the riskier growth opportunities :)

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:25:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So its a win win for both public and pharma. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg, kurt

              Public gets protection from diseases.
              Big pharma gets a consistent base income with which they can keep themselves running to develop new drug with.

              •  Indeed! (0+ / 0-)

                But someone on the internet told me it was all a giant conspiracy, and if I get a flu-shot, my penis might fall off ... or something.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, no, no! That's polio vaccine (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  twigg

                  and it is engineered to only do that to Muslims.

                  That is not very far off from what Boko Haram and others in the north of Nigeria believe. In Pakistan they think it is a CIA plot against Al-Qaeda, because of a dirty rotten spy who created a fake vaccination program in order to look for Osama bin Laden.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:02:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Last month GlaxoSmithKline paid $7.1 billion for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              the Novartis vaccine unit.

              A lot of pharmaceutical companies don't have vaccine divisions but some companies like GSK, Merck and Sanofi do depend on their vaccine divisions to produce significant revenue and profits.

              With the addition of the Novartis vaccines, GSK expects their revenues will be split across Pharmaceuticals 62%, Consumer Healthcare 24% and Vaccines 14%.

              •  I remeber Glaxo (0+ / 0-)

                when they were Glaxo Pharmaceuticals.

                They swallowed the Welcome Foundation to the point where they don't even carry the name any more.

                SmithKline did the same to Beecham, and how long before it is simply "Glaxo Pharmaceuticals" again?

                that is completely ignoring all the other acquisitions where the names just disappear forever.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:39:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  HPV vax: (0+ / 0-)

            A large part of that $24 bil is probably from the HPV vax, which is much newer and has higher prices and profit margins.

            The total from the traditional, older, vaccines is probably < 1% of their total revenue.

            "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

            by nosleep4u on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:42:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed - most vaccines are now off-patent (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Slaw, JeffW, SeekCa, kurt

        The majority of vaccines are now off-patent.  What this means is the original designer and maker of the vaccine can no longer claim exclusive rights to make and sell the vaccine - now other companies are allowed to make and sell the same vaccine.

        And due to the wonders of the marketplace, when two companies make and sell the same item, the two companies will compete with each other by lowering their price to attract consumers to use their brand.  The companies profit margin on the sale of that item is cut to the minimum.

        On-patent Prozac (fluoxetine): $4.50/pill; off-patent fluoxetine: $0.50/pill.

        The HPV vaccine is new and still on-patent.  The cost for the full dose of vaccine is $400-500 bucks (including what you have to pay to see the doctor and have them administer the injections).  But even that is pennies on the dollar compared to the cost of treating cervical cancer.  The money you will pay to the pharmaceutical companies while fighting cancer can easily be 100 times the cost of the vaccine.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:34:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  While there may be some truth to what you say (0+ / 0-)

      You seem to forget that vaccines don't cover a large percentage of infections that are out there and that profit is a big motive.  So I would call you argument in support of vaccines not a very good one.    

      The Republican party has become the politburo of capitalism. It seeks to direct the direction this country is going NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK.

      by tarminian on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:24:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and now the woo woo kookers begin to show up (0+ / 0-)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Changing your oil won't spare you a flat tire (12+ / 0-)

        Even if you change your oil regularly, you still may get a flat tire.  That is true, but it is not a good argument for refusing to change your oil.

        And yes, receiving the Pertussis vaccine will still leave you vulnerable to ear, skin, and upper respiratory infections.  That is true, and yet a very poor argument to avoid the Pertussis vaccine.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:45:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't add oil for a flat tire (0+ / 0-)

          just like you don't expect vaccines to deal with things like MRSA.  Which is becoming more prevalent do to the over use of antibiotics.

          The Republican party has become the politburo of capitalism. It seeks to direct the direction this country is going NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK.

          by tarminian on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:11:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So far, no vaccine for Staph (0+ / 0-)

            Sadly, there is yet no vaccine for infection with Staphalycoccus: the S in MRSA.

            Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if there was such a vaccine - tho' if there was, we can be sure there would be some people who would refuse to take it.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:46:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Seat belt don't protect you from being shot in the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, GreatLakeSailor, T100R

        head in a drive-by shooting, you shouldn't wear seat-belt.
        Guard-rail on bridge won't stop someone from committing suicide, we shouldn't have guard-rail.
        Why do we even have any safety-regulation at all? We won't stop people from doing dumb things to kill themselves.

        You know what? We SHOULD abolish vaccine all together and let natural selection sort it out. Your body can't handle a little measles running about? Kindly lay down and die so your weak gene don't pollute the gene pool.

        •  Excuse me (0+ / 0-)

          Did I say anything about abolishing vaccines?   I just said that the persons argument was not a very good one.  The best argument in support of vaccines is that they help prevent and contain the spread of some truly horrific diseases.   If that simple argument is not enough, then the person won't be convinced anyway.  

          The Republican party has become the politburo of capitalism. It seeks to direct the direction this country is going NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK.

          by tarminian on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:16:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not clear on your point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R

        Are you suggesting that because vaccines don't protect against everything that therefore...um....something?

        And yes, profit is a motive.  It is for ANY business.  But the mere fact that a company makes a profit doing something does not therefore automatically mean that there is some kind of nefarious plot afoot.  If that were the case, every single for-profit company on the planet is therefore suspect.

        But fortunately, we don't have to take Big Pharma's word on it, there are plenty of studies out there and plenty of data on the impacts of vaccines over the past half-century, and while Big Pharma paid for many, there are many independent ones as well.

        •  Remember who your target audience is. (0+ / 0-)

          People who are either on the fence or are anti.   Telling them that it will cost them less money, or that it might cost their neighbor less money will fall on deaf ears.   Name calling, using money as a reason and cartoon's like the one in this diary do a disservice to this community.   Once you start down the road of name calling and making fun of other peoples choices, no matter how strongly you disagree, you will never be able to convince them.

          The Republican party has become the politburo of capitalism. It seeks to direct the direction this country is going NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE THINK.

          by tarminian on Tue May 13, 2014 at 06:23:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The profit is quite small- covered well up above. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R

        As far as vaccines not covering certain infections, what do you mean? If you mean that there is not a vaccine to prevent every illness, well, no kidding. If you mean that no vaccine is 100% effective, well, no kidding. The CDC publishes that information. The CDC also says that vaccines are the most effective, cheapest, and safest way to prevent illness. Your comment is vague and not supported by the evidence.

  •  Even worse, (20+ / 0-)

    the spread of disease due to unvaccinated children affects others. The "herd affect".

    "No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up." --Lily Tomlin

    by paulex on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:08:23 AM PDT

    •  There is another unpleasant effect (16+ / 0-)

      related to "herd immunity".

      Some people are not able to be vaccinated for a number of reasons.

      Herd immunity protects those people too, and this selfish, stupid and ignorant attitude is not just a matter of citizens making their own choices.

      They are denying the freedom of a healthy life to others because .... they read something on the internet.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:03:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since much of the fear of vaccines overlaps fear (0+ / 0-)

        of autism, we really need to find out more about the causes of autism.  If we can identify genes that increase susceptibility to autism and maybe even better yet, identify the other factors involved in susceptibility to autism, we can screen the children of fearful parents for susceptibility to autism and both excuse from vaccinations those with genes that increase susceptibility to autism and inform parents of the other factors involved in susceptibility to autism.  If it turns out that exposure to mercury or any of the other toxic heavy metals does increase susceptibility to autism, then it would make sense to test the child for mercury, and recommend both chelation therapy for the child to get rid of the mercury and that only thimerasol free vaccines be given to the child.   If we could identify the genes involved, we can also tell what the genes code for and from that make a good guess at what the other factors that combine with the gene to cause autism are.

        •  this is baloney (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, T100R
          both excuse from vaccinations those with genes that increase susceptibility to autism
          Why? Autism and vaccines have nothing to do with each other.  Period.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:39:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem with Autism (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JerryNA, T100R

            As I said in a longer reply to an earlier comment,  finding the cause of Autism is likely an impossible task.

            Autism isn't a disease.  Its a label for a collection of behavioral symptoms.  Every autistic child is different and the cause of their symptoms is also likely to be very different from one child to another.

            My 15 year old son has a genetic disorder called neurofibromatosis (NF).  NF is actually pretty common, but my son's manifestation is rather rare.  In him, it has resulted in tiny abnormalities in his brain that are the direct cause of his autistic symptoms.

            My son is fully vaccinated.  I never once considered not vaccinating him.  IMO, the rate of autism among US kids is rising not because of vaccinations but primarily because of the effects of better diagnostic tools, increased awareness, and the massive change in what school looks like now compared to what it looked like 100 years ago.  

            We can certainly rule out what doesn't cause autism... like "bad parenting" and vaccinations.  But I doubt we will ever be able to fully identify every single cause of autistic behaviors.  Even if we could, using that information to then prevent autism would likely prove to have its own problems and collection of massively negative unintended consequences.

  •  But there is one side effect of vaccines (14+ / 0-)

    They cause unhinged people to come out of the woodwork with all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories.

  •  Jenny McCarthy (5+ / 0-)

    should be tried in the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity, no differently than Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic or some African warlord.

    Also, someone above said she was a righty.  I never had an idea of her politics ... where does it say she's a righty?

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

    •  Civil penalties are probably the way to go (6+ / 0-)

      She is partially culpable for the death and suffering to children who get pertussis, measles, etc.  If a link can be made... if a mother listens to Jenny McCarthy and then her kid gets sick or dies, then it seems reasonable to file a civil action against McCarthy for damages.

      It's not a first amendment issue.  If I deliberately give you information that is is demonstrably factually incorrect, after I am provided with evidence that the information is incorrect, and then I suggest that you act on that false information, and that causes a harm... then I am liable.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:15:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the same should be done to homeopaths, chiropracte (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stevemb, varro, T100R

        and all the other silly woo-woo anti-medical quacks.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:20:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Get in the fucking sack." (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreatLakeSailor, SeekCa

        •  Nothing wrong with chiropractors as long... (13+ / 0-)

          ...as they stick to the very narrow arena of health where they are actually helpful.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:40:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not aware of any valid science that shows (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            paytheline

            chiropractic actually does anything helpful to anyone, beyond placebo effect . . .

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:51:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I will give chiropractic a pass. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, Batya the Toon

              At the very worse its harm is only on those who chose to undergo it. Not like vaccine denial, which harms others.

              Also as far as I know, chiropractic's only claim of effectiveness is in pain management. Yes, it may be placebo effect, but pain reduction is pain reduction for the people involved, might as well let them do it.

              •  This. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ivorybill, athenap

                If it makes people feel better, isn't hurting anybody, and isn't making any false claims about itself, I see no good reason to object to it.

                •  Except for the ones that do make false claims. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Witgren

                  There are chiros who do make the claim to be able to treat ear infections, colic, IBS, fibromyalgia, and get a pass. And these same doctors will counsel their patients to avoid vaccines. There's a guy on one of the major highways heading into Pittsburgh here that advertised that he'd be happy to sign your kid's "Medically necessary" vaccine exemption form for parents a couple years ago.

                  -- If corporations are people, is the stock market for the sale of slaves?

                  by Orakio on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:13:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Isn't hurting anybody (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  grover

                  Until a patient goes to the chiro for pain relief and has a stroke because of a bad manipulation.  Or worse, a parent takes their kid to the chiro for a stiff neck, and the "doc" misses a disease diagnosis because he/she is untrained in actual diagnostic technique.

                  "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

                  by northbronx on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't see "some people are doing it wrong" (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jyrki, athenap, R30A

                    as an argument for "all people should stop doing it."

                    If it were, we'd have to discontinue the entire field of medicine.  Plenty of doctors who were trained in actual diagnostic technique have misdiagnosed their patients.

                    •  Stroke is a known possible side effect of (0+ / 0-)

                      cervical manipulation.

                      Ask your friends, family, neighbors, etc who go to chiros if they're aware of that. You'll get a lot of blank states.

                      Patients are legally and morally entitled to informed consent.  Many chiropractors don't disclose the risk much less ensure that their patients are actually informed.

                      There's a huge problem here.

                      © grover


                      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                      by grover on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:31:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  There are some misalignments of the spine (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              athenap, Batya the Toon

              and ribs that chiropractic and osteopathy can help with. I have one.

              The origin of chiropractic in the claim that manipulating the spine can affect cranial nerves is 100% quackery. Its further development into the claim that manipulating the spine can cure pretty much everything is weapons-grade balonium. (Futurama reference.)

              Cubert J. Farnsworth: Your explanations are pure weapons grade balonium. It's all impossible.

              Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being is a scientist is all about.

              Cubert J. Farnsworth: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:50:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's personal experiential evidence (0+ / 0-)

                (Tips for Futurama. :) )

                People who go to chiros for pain management of misalignments of the spine or joints feel better after their bodies are put back into proper alignment. Pressure on nerves can exacerbate some conditions. I know when I go to my chiro, I feel better because my body's not quite as crooked. I've got pressure on my sciatica and it alleviates that pain for a few months.

                Chiropractic falls into that grayish area of medical science that really does need to be addressed by the larger medical community because it fills a need not being met by the current medical establishment--which is, I think, some of the source of the anti-vax crowd's discomfort with vaxxing without question.

                We approach medicine in terms of parts and systems that are discrete from each other, but the parts and systems they address are in the same body, working together in ways we don't fully yet understand. The idea of this--treating a whole person--is something that's mostly absent from modern medical care. Clearly, people have a need for whole-person care, and will go find it wherever they can, whether it's inside or outside established medical practices.

                The problem is, they are finding it in places like anti-vaxxing, where "magical thinking" seems to be replacing common sense. Coupled with a terrifying childhood-onset condition that we know so little about (autism spectrum), and you get people who are willing to try anything and blame anything in the absence of what we don't know.

                Coupled with the occasional having-a-point about establishment medicine using practices that are either outdated or no longer effective, and you get just enough legitimacy and just enough question that people are willing to entertain off-the-track ideas.

                Many of these ideas aren't any more harmful than our medical system, some actually work for some people, and the placebo effect isn't to be discounted entirely (in the absence of anything actually being wrong, having a "feel better" reaction to an inert treatment isn't the worst way to spend your day).

                Understanding that the system isn't working for many people--that we are sick, so to speak--is going to be key to understanding why people embrace bad science, and maybe open some minds to new ideas that lead to better science, or at least, a better system in which good science plays a part.

                How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                by athenap on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:08:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Back in the 1800s, what is now mainstream American (0+ / 0-)

                  medicine made a clever move in founding several medical schools to train students in how to use allopathic patent medicines.  They managed to out compete the other health care schools of thought.  eventually the other schools of thought got together (loosely) and called themselves the eclectics.  I don't believe that any one school of thought within the eclectics all by itself is any better than allopathic medical care, but at least they have the humility to at least sometimes admit that they don't know and refer a patient to some other eclectic who is more likely to be able to figure out what to do.  Bad reactions to allopathic patent medicines are common enough to make the top ten causes of death if they weren't covered up.  Besides, most medical doctors go for a residency in some specialty rather than trying to become general practitioners right after their internship, and we don't expect specialists in one specialty to know any more about any other specialty than to be able to make a good guess as to which specialty to refer someone to, or maybe to refer the patient to another general practitioner than the one who sent him to the specialist in the first place.

                  •  I look for the word "allopathic" in any statement (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    T100R, Lenny Flank, Justanothernyer

                    as a warning that the person is into woo and quackery. Real doctors don't use the word "allopathic", only the far fringe "alternative" crowd who think homeopathy (magic water) is real. Given your thoroughly reprehensible comment above about kids with autism being better off dead, I see no reason to sugar coat it- you're foolish and are spreading dangerous nonsense.

        •  Oh, dear. I'm probably pulling a grenade pin here, (8+ / 0-)

          but chiropractic isn't quackery.  There's medical evidence of its efficacy, and (even here in the American south) we're seeing chiropractors and traditional allopathic practitioners working in shared practices, in teams.  It's actually really awesome, because the modalities can be very complementary.

          Allopathic medicine takes a much dimmer view of homeopathy, with understandable reason:  the succussion/dilution process removes any conceivably therapeutic amount of the substance being (supposedly) potentized.  I've personally experienced some beneficial effects from homeopathic remedies, but I believe it may have been placebo effect (which, for the record, has been studied and is quite real).

          Chiropractic actually involves physical joint manipulation and fascial release.  It is very real.  There are, unfortunately, less then ideal chiropractic practitioners out in the field, primarily those who treat their practice as a "cha-ching" moneymaking opportunity and spend very little time with each patient.  But there are also passionate, gifted, highly skilled practitioners who are genuinely working to make lives better, and are pretty darn good at it.

          I speak from very personal experience.  I have significant bilateral scoliosis, and believe me, I feel much more pain if I don't get bodywork done fairly regularly.  More muscle spasms and postural deficiencies too.

          Chiropractic - performed by a caring, skilled practitioner - is real and works.  It's not a lefty or righty conspiracy theory.

          Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

          by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:46:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Two sides (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Sitzman, Jyrki

            There are the money chiropractors and the ones who care.  It isn't hard to figure out which are which.

            •  Exactly right. (4+ / 0-)

              I have never encountered a chiropractor (in over 20 years of being treated) who discouraged me from seeing an allopathic physician; in fact, most of them have reached out directly to my PCP.  My current PCP and chiropractor have spoken many, many times.  At a former employer, I was issued a FMLA approval for time off related to back pain; this was coordinated by the two doctors.

              If any chiropractor, anywhere, tried to actively discourage you from seeking allopathic treatment, I just wouldn't see that chiropractor.  But don't write off the whole field on the sake of some bad apples.

              Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

              by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:02:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  whenever I see the words "allopathic medicine" . . (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Sitzman, flevitan, slouchsock

                I know I am dealing with woo-woo. No one else uses that term.

                The question at issue is not whether chiropractics allow or don't allow people to see real doctors. The question at issue is whether the chiropractic "treatment" actually does anything.  And there's no peer-reviewed data showing it does, beyond placebo effect.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:05:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heh, really? I just dislike the word "traditional" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  serendipityisabitch

                  for normal medical practitioners.  I don't even know where I picked up the word.

                  I don't think either of us are going to change our minds.  If we were face to face I'd offer you a handshake and agreement to disagree.

                  Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

                  by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:20:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I do know where you picked it up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slouchsock

                    There is only one group of people who use those words.

                    I don't think either of us are going to change our minds.  If we were face to face I'd offer you a handshake and agreement to disagree.
                    And I would reject your offer.

                    This isn't a matter of opinion.  Either woo-woo like chiropractic and homeopathy are real medical procedures, or they are not.  And they are not. There is no more "agreeing to disagree" over it than there is over whether the earth is flat or vaccines cause autism. That whole "my opinion is just as equally valid as yours" idea, is how we got into this mess in the first place.

                    Chiropractic has no valid scientific basis.  Period.

                    Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug)

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Wow, I looked up the term "allopathic." (0+ / 0-)

                  I didn't realize it had an old negative connotation, as used back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.  I'm definitely not using that word any more.

                  Gotta say it:  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  ;D

                  Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

                  by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:24:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  18th and 19th centuries . . . ? (0+ / 0-)

                    You can still find it used on the Web TODAY. It's a favorite word with the woo-woo crowd.

                    And rather than giving up the word, it would be more helpful if you gave up the woo-woo philosophy behind it.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:36:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I mentioned, and meant, the negative connotation, (5+ / 0-)

                      not just general use.

                      I wish I could convince you that I do not believe in what you're calling woo-woo; which, I believe, is the (outdated and disproved) allegation of old-school "straight chiropractors" that chiropractic was some sort of magical cure-all, and that if all joint dysfunctions could be addressed and fixed, the individual would be in a perfect state of health.

                      Lenny, I totally agree, that allegation is a load of crap.

                      "Straight chiropractors" are, I believe, largely in the minority anymore.  In the last 10 years I've interacted with probably 7 chiropractors, one of whom serves the Tennessee Titans football team.  Not a single one of those chiropractors ever tried to tell me, nor had any literature proclaiming, that their therapy technique would magically cure all my ills and make me a superbeing.  Every one of them took physical assessments of my condition, agreed I have pretty serious issues (the scoliosis and attendant DDD, arthritis and disc narrowing) that chiropractic would help but not cure, and discussed therapy courses with me which they then performed exactly as described, with very reasonable results.

                      Bit of a tangent - another BIG warning sign with any chiropractor is if they ask you to sign up (like an actual contract, if memory serves) for a very long-term course of therapy and pre-pay for all the sessions or make a payment plan.  That's crap, "cha-ching" chiropractic.

                      So really, I get that you dislike chiropractic, but would strongly dispute that chiropractors are anti-modern medicine.  (Again, I've never had that experience, and all my chiropractors have interacted positively and collaboratively with my treating family doc.)

                      I feel like you're trying to state unequivocally that chiropractic as a cure for all ills is disproved quackery, and get me to understand that.  I do understand that; it was never my position.  I wish I could communicate that more clearly.  I'm just saying that chiropractic therapy can treat some (limited, specific) conditions beneficially, and I believe that dismissing the entire field on the basis of outdated crap-marketing is a mistake.

                      This is kind of what I meant by pulling a grenade pin.  :-/

                      Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

                      by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:09:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the current website of the California Board (0+ / 0-)

                        of Chiropractic Examiners, the body that "licenses" chiropractics in California, features this quot at the very top of its page:

                        "The vertebrae of the spine are likely to be displaced or subluxated. One of more vertebrae may get out of place very much. This may cause serious complications, and even death, if not properly adjusted. Whoever pays no attention, or paying attention, does not comprehend them, how can he understand the disease which befalls man?  The doctor should look well to the spine, for many diseases have their origin in vertebral displacements." ~Hippocrates
                        So tell me again about this presumed "outdated crap-marketing" . . . . . .

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:24:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm telling you that's crap marketing. :-( (0+ / 0-)

                          Heartbreaking to see it.  Actually, if it's an actual Hippocrates quote, it's probably used more for dramatic effect (giving benefit of doubt).  I'd like to actually talk to some of the therapists in CA to see if they really believe that stuff, or take it to that extreme.

                          It really sounds like your experience is with, well, "straight chiropractors," the ones who apparently believe that if your spine is straight, you become superhuman.  That sucks, not just because it's clearly been a bad experience for you, but because there are still practicing doctors out there trying to push that marketing line (and, it would seem, even advocating avoidance of modern medicine, which is silly and counterproductive).

                          It would take me time you probably don't care to wait to find corroborative links, but if you're even remotely interested (and I encourage you to at least take a look), google integrative medicine or "chiropractic and medical doctors" and see what you get.  I think mostly you'll probably get a lot of marketing websites offering ways to profitably integrate your chiropractic clinic; not exactly informative, but perhaps indicative that the concept of such integration is fairly widespread.  Look, I'm in the heart of Tennessee, and integrated clinics are fairly common here, as are good relationships between chiropractors and MDs.  I'd think we'd (in the south) be behind the curve if anything.

                          The grenade started ticking when I responded to a post by you (no accusation intended here, just citing order of events) which stated chiropractors are silly anti-medical woo-woo quacks.  I'm stating, with respect and from direct personal experience, that while I have no doubt there are such unscrupulous (and cupiditous) chiropractic practitioners out there, they are not representative of the majority; hopefully not even of the plurality.

                          Again intending no offense, you can't convince me to abandon a belief in "woo-woo" chiropractic because I don't have one.  I know what it is, I know what it can treat, and I see ethical practitioners who work within those bounds to good effect.

                          Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

                          by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:57:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The quotation is fake (0+ / 0-)

                          It does not appear in the works of Hippocrates hosted at MIT, but only on Web sites devoted to chiropractic.

                          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                          by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:11:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  The first time I ever encountered the word (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  T100R, Orakio

                  "Allopathic" medicine was when I applied for medical licensure in Texas back in the 70's. It was right on the form as far as what license I was applying for. I had never encountered the term anywhere.  Of course in Texas you were also allowed to apply for a special license to dispense peyote.

                  I think the more appropriate term is "evidence-based medicine".

                  "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!" oder "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

                  by drpmeade on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:32:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If it works reliably, it's just "medicine". (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slouchsock, Jyrki

                    Everything else sounds like a duck.

                    In the true medical community, we have tradition based medicine: Where doctors are compiling lots of treatments that have appeared to work before, be it just making people feel better by ending the symptoms, (whence comes 'allopathic'), or treating the root. But we aren't completely sure. The placebo, nocebo, and plain old diversity of the human body, its issues, and the extreme diversity of its enemies confound the knowing. Too many MDs practice this. It's not bad, if the well spring of training and experience is good; but it's not good, in that the doctor is basically running down the body from a manual, like trying to troubleshoot from a list of successive steps; when you hit the end of the manual, you're kind of screwed.

                    You have Evidence based medicine, where we take that tradition, we test it to see what really does work, and throw out the rest.  This is good. It helps keep us from using treatments that don't actually work; it tosses out the bad traditions, and it finds some surprising things that do appear to help. But it's not the whole picture. Just a much better list of things that do and don't work.

                     The really good ones are trying to move beyond evidence based into true science based medicine: Exploring and using tools that make logical sense based on the rest of what we know about the human body, and which is consistent with its biology. It's time to start putting the puzzle pieces together, and see what the whole picture looks like - but to do that, we have to be able to look at the evidence and draw hypothesis about them, and follow where it leads. If we can't accept the evidence on its face, well...

                    -- If corporations are people, is the stock market for the sale of slaves?

                    by Orakio on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:27:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I mean, that's also true about doctors. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jyrki

              And virtually any job that involves being paid to care for other people's ills in some fashion.

          •  there is no peer-reviewed science showing that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Sitzman, twigg

            chriopractic does anything beyond placebo effect.

            And diseases are simply NOT caused by spinal or joint misalignments.  The very basis of chiropractic, is baloney.

            Sorry.

            I speak from very personal experience.  I have significant bilateral scoliosis, and believe me, I feel much more pain if I don't get bodywork done fairly regularly.  More muscle spasms and postural deficiencies too.
            What you are getting is plain ole ordinary osteopathic treatment. The "chiropractic" element is just unnecessary woo-woo.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:02:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  All the points made are reasonable (0+ / 0-)

              and the suggestions that we should discourage some practises via the law is problematic.

              Like many of these things, we do not educate people in a way that encourages or equips them to make rational choices.

              As a result they fall prey to any and every crackpot out there, from the preacher in the Mega-Church to at Anti-Vax crowd .... They all buy the same snake-oil, because they can't tell the difference.

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:06:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, the old "if your back is straight you won't (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch

              ever get sick," line is a bunch of hooey.  I've had chiropractors tell me that it is a bunch of hooey.  That used to be a marketing technique back in the 60s and 70s.  Any more, not so much.  I wish they hadn't even tried that angle, because it's created a lot of negative sentiment, like yours.

              You're right, osteopathy and syndesmotic treatment is absolutely the basis of healthy functional chiropractic.  Again, I have never had a chiropractor in 20 years tell me otherwise.  Well... ok, I think the very first guy I ever saw, back in the early 90s, might have had that old poster on his wall talking about the back straightness preventing disease thing.  That's the only instance, and honestly I may be creatively remembering it.

              I really hope the happy meeting of allopathic medicine and chiropractic continues.  From the little I read, chiropractic is still not very well understood; most studies seem to find it effective for low-back pain, but not broadly useful for other ailments (even syndesmotic ones).  I think that's probably a little narrow, as I've had good results with manipulation on my knees and shoulders, and know athletes who report similar good results.  I do think there's a lot of therapeutic potential in the field, but I'm probably about as disdainful as you are (Lenny) of anyone who seeks to claim that chiropractic is some mystic fix for any ill.  There's nothing mystic about it.

              I think you have been exposed to less scrupulous practitioners who are more trying to make money with it than help people.  I am sorry for that, and hope you see another side of this field of medicine in the future.

              Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

              by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:16:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Lenny, the fact that the common usage for (4+ / 0-)

              osteopathy tends to be chiropractic seems to be sending you down your own particular rabbit hole. Whether there's any "healing effect" or not, it's a useful tool. Aspirin doesn't "cure" most of the things it's taken for, but it does alleviate pain and swelling in a lot of instances, even though the base condition is still there.

              I've had reason to be really, really happy with a few people who put my spine in place and kept it where it belonged while muscle trauma was healing. I won't call it chiropractic if the word bothers you, but it's still useful.

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:02:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, as I said earlier, I don't really (0+ / 0-)

                care all that much about the chiropractic quacks--they are basically harmless, and if people want to waste their money on what is basically just a massage, that's fine. (shrug)

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:31:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  The issue is scope of practice (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Sitzman, Mokurai

            Chiropractors who stick to their knitting (biomechanical adjustments and alignments) are definitely okay.  It's when you have chiropractors insisting that they are an adequate substitute for medical doctors in treating various diseases that you run into the problem.  It's less of a problem now, I think, than it was 15 years ago, when chiropractor associations were aggressively trying to force states to allow them to serve as primary care practitioners, even when they don't have the authority or training to diagnose medical conditions or prescribe drugs.  

            •  no, the issue is whether chiropractic itself (0+ / 0-)

              has any valid basis whatsoever.

              And it does not.

              Maladies are not caused by spinal or joint misalignments.  Period. The very basis of chiropractic is baloney.

              The ONLY actual good chiropractic can do is indistinguishable from plain ole ordinary non-woo-woo osteopathic therapy. Or an ordinary massage.

              Indeed, that is precisely why chiropractics are NOT allowed to practice medicine--they don't actually do anything medicinal.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:16:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  To push back a little (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Batya the Toon

                I don't disagree, but chiropractors are licensed to do certain things, as are acupuncturists and in some states, naturopaths.  

                It's also worth bearing in mind that while medicine is definitely based on scientific principles, a lot of medical practice is not, and getting even M.D.s to practice "evidence based medicine" is a challenge.  Which does not excuse opening up people to even more non-scientific claims, but you do have to be careful about how you frame this discussion.  

              •  Living as I do... (0+ / 0-)

                ...in a small South Dakota town where massage therapy is hard to come by and expensive when found, but there are chiropractors, I've made use of chiropractic when I've had back pain from moving wrong or lifting unwisely. It has helped, for precisely the reasons you mention. But I just ignore them when they suggest I need to come back again and again, and I'm well aware that historically much of chiropractic has been pure quackery. I knew somebody about 30 years ago who quickly became disillusioned at chiropractic school when much more emphasis was based on teaching hard-sell techniques to convince people to come back for repeated, unnecessary adjustments than on teaching actual diagnostic and treatment practice and theory.

                But yeah, a good chiropractic back adjustment is indistinguishable from a good back massage.

                "No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." --MLK

                by Progressive Witness on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:47:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Is there something wrong with a good backrub? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Progressive Witness

                  :D Maybe if more people had more frequent backrubs, the world would be a happier place.

                  Every so often, I get a massage. It feels great, and it makes me feel better in my muscles and joints. Consequently, I'm more pleasant, more productive, and more energetic. I think better and feel better.

                  If I have to call it "osteopathic therapy" I guess I could do that.

                  How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                  by athenap on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:17:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  That's right. /nt (0+ / 0-)

              Not all people are human; not all humans are people.

              by Jon Sitzman on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:17:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  There's very little justification to no for (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jyrki, athenap

            the theory of chiropractic (basically, that almost all illness and much injury is related to spinal alignment and the effects of misalignment on muscles and in particular nerves). [On the other hand, I don't know of any who claim that chiropractic can help ALS patients.]

            But in practice, chiropractors who are not wed to the theory can be very effective massage therapists and often offer patients a better holistic [note: literally] evaluation than most doctors.

          •  Yes it works but sadly it is quite limited. The (0+ / 0-)

            same is true of acupuncture though it's benefits are pretty much limited to pain relief.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:22:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not even much evidence for pain relief. (0+ / 0-)

              Some, in poorly controlled studies, but the better the study, the less effect. It's basically the placebo effect, which is still weaker than a good dose of anti-inflammatory drugs.

        •  If they cause harm... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Orakio, Joffan

          I'm maybe less litigious if the result is not so harmful.  The anti-vaxxers hurt people.  Homeopaths give people water and charge them money.  It's stupid, but not as harmful... at least usually.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:14:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the danger comes if people are stupid enough to (5+ / 0-)

            depend wholly on the quack medicine and delay or avoid real treatments.

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:29:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right. There's a major difference (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              genocideisnews, T100R, Orakio, ivorybill

              between "Take this as a supplement to your medication" and "Take this instead of your medication."

            •  Don't forget interactions and oopses. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivorybill, T100R, slouchsock

              Like herbal cinnamon amplifying the blood sugar effects of diabetes medications, causing hypoglycemic crashes - or causing Tylenol to explode your liver.. Or the homeopathic teethers they forgot to dilute, and ended up feeding a bunch of kids belladonna - aka deadly nightshade.

              And all that's presuming you actually got what you paid for...

              -- If corporations are people, is the stock market for the sale of slaves?

              by Orakio on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:03:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Getting What You Paid For" (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JerryNA, Orakio

                isn't an issue to be discounted.

                There's an economic underpinning to alternative medicine that should be looked at. How many of us avoid going to the doctor unless it's something "important" - because our insurance doesn't cover it, or is too byzantine to figure out if that office visit will cost $25 or $225 (my insurance will cover my kid's doctor visit if the doc finds something wrong that is covered. Try going to the office if whatever they find isn't covered and I get charged the whole price--if I knew what was wrong, I wouldn't have needed the damn visit!).

                Alt. medicines can often be found over the counter, and it's much easier, cheaper, etc., to pay $15 for a tincture of weapons-grade bolonium (h/t to Mokurai for the Futurama ref) than it is to visit the doctor and find out you're not covered, or you haven't met your deductible, or that the meds you really need aren't available in generic form and will cost you 200 bucks a pill. You end up managing symptoms instead of treating causes.

                How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

                by athenap on Wed May 14, 2014 at 09:24:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Amen (0+ / 0-)

                  I try to manage with books about alternative health care to help with diagnosis and over-the-counter nutritional supplements and herbal remedies to treat myself as much as possible.   I remember coming down with another miserable urinary track infection very late on a Friday afternoon, rejecting the idea of trying to get treated by an MD on a weekend, and looking up in James A. Duke's The Green Pharmacy what to try for urinary track infections.  It offered two choices--garlic which I did not have in the house and did not really want to eat straight and cinnamon which I did have on hand and which sounded more appetizing than garlic.  So just guessing, I tried chowing down a teaspoon full of cinnamon every four hours that I was awake for the rest of the weekend.  By Monday morning I felt like myself again, so I kept up the cinnamon for two more days and let it go at that.

                  •  You treated a self-limiting condition with nothing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Orakio, T100R

                    Basically, it would most likely have gone away on its own. Neither garlic nor cinnamon treat UTIs.  I'm not saying this because I think GA830 will listen to me, but in the hopes that other people will not believe in nonsense "natural cures".

                •  While this is an important point... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  T100R

                  There's another set of problems that floats around in quackery that I was actually referring to.

                  Herbals are significantly unregulated; there is absolutely no control of quality. We begin with a product that is inherently variable; when there actually is an active, disease-treating compound inside a leaf or flower, it is impossible to know how much of it there is without a lot of testing, and based on ten million different factors, you can get ten million different dosages from ten million different leaves. So you can buy a bottle of cinnamon pills, have 10% of them be an effective dose for sugar control, 89% be insufficient, and the 100th send you into hypoglycemic shock. We compound this with an industry that is not required to prove in any way that what it is giving you is what is labeled on the bottle - You don't have any assurance that the cinnamon in that pill is all cinnamon or powdered red clay with 5% cinnamon to make it smell right.

                  Homeopathy's central theorem violates the laws of physics and chemistry as we understand them, you can't get what you pay for by definition.

                  And much of alt medicine is deeply intertwined with conspiracy theories; usually centered around how Big Pharma is trying to make money by addicting and killing you. They ain't gonna submit to evil gubmint regulations, bought and paid for by Pharma Shills.

                  -- If corporations are people, is the stock market for the sale of slaves?

                  by Orakio on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:15:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  She does not appear to have any political views (0+ / 0-)

      She tried to get both McCain and Obama to support her anti-vaxxerism, and both turned her down.

      Playboy Playmate of the Year and video host

      Lots of bad movies and TV shows

      Lapsed and returned Catholic, but has had public disagreement with the Church over her mother's divorce

      Good at talking, but not so much at saying anything

      As far as doctors can tell, her son does not have autism, but an aphasia (the inability to understand or express language) + seizure disease, Landau–Kleffner syndrome.

      She claims that she does favor vaccines, but not too many at once, because that can cause "immune disregulation" that could lead to autism. This contradicts previous statements. For example, after Wakefield's research was shown to be fraudulent, and was retracted, and Wakefield lost his license, she defended him, claiming that the only evidence against him was just the opinions of a newspaper reporter.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:41:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our species seems intent on... (5+ / 0-)

    ...taking greater issue with objective reality all the time.

    It will literally destroy us if we don't arrest the trend.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

    by The Termite on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:31:57 AM PDT

  •  Stupidity is infectious (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lenny Flank, commonmass, JeffW, T100R, a2nite, Jyrki

    That's why celebrities should check their facts before commenting publicly on health issues that can cause kids to die.  

    http://www.parenting.com/...

    Bill Maher?  I'm assuming he was joking about swine flu vaccine, since it is so rare that other health priorities may be more important.  

    Jim Carrey?  I think he got that from his ex girlfriend.  

    Don't forget that celebrities are also often clear negative examples: drugs, abuse, reckless driving, etc.  

    •  also don't forget that celebs don't have (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, The grouch, varro, JeffW, T100R

      medical degrees, and their opinions about medical practice are no better than the opinions of my next door neighbor or my car mechanic or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  (shrug)

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:40:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, but they should be better informed. (0+ / 0-)

        These celebs have money, and often time. They are capable of getting good information more easily than most. Heck they often can pay for assistants and researchers to get them the facts, although I gather some of them do not avail themselves of such things. So they could, and because their words reach a wide audience, I feel they should inform themselves before sharing their "wisdom".

        •  they should just shut their mouths (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OldDragon

          They are actors, for crissakes.  It's not their job to give medical advice to people. That's what we have "doctors" for.

          Though to be fair it's not THEIR fault that lots of people are indeed stupid enough to listen to medical advice from an actor. . . .

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, Ken Jeong is a doctor... (0+ / 0-)

        ...but most celebrities aren't.

        You can't spell "Dianne Feinstein" without "NSA".

        by varro on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:58:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Two words: (6+ / 0-)

    Herd Immunity.

    A concept whose simplicity eludes the Anti-Vaxxers, right and left.  

    Not understanding scientific principles is one thing, deliberate misunderstanding of established science is something else altogether.  Sadly that's not confined to the Fox-viewing froth-spewing conspiracy-minded wingnuts.  

    A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism. -Carl Sagan

    by jo fish on Tue May 13, 2014 at 07:50:01 AM PDT

    •  "Parasite" and "free rider" (5+ / 0-)

      Three more words.  People who like the idea of herd immunity for their kids, to benefit from whatever perceived slight risk people who vaccinate their children are willing to incur, but who refuse to contribute to the common welfare.  These are not people you would ever want to share a lifeboat with.  

      Knowing Alicia Silverstone is one will make me boycott any future project she is associated with.  I already boycott Jenny McCarthy.  This is such a moral failing that I am tired of hearing "on the one hand" or "on the other hand" discussions.  There is no other hand, unless your kid has bona fide medical reasons for not being vaccinated.

  •  Best friend has a PhD in immunology (10+ / 0-)

    and is really frustrated by all of the bogus claims about immunizations.  When you don't immunize your kids you expose them and the people around them to disease.  I got Whooping Cough 10 years ago.  Thank God I was relatively healthy at the time.  Had I been much older, I probably would have died.  I got it from a parent that had not immunized her children.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:24:15 AM PDT

    •  My secretary got measles (8+ / 0-)

      when I was pregnant.  She and I both are in the age cohort that might or might not have been vaccinated as a child -- she wasn't, and I wasn't, but I had the disease.  She had no idea how she had gotten sick and she was out of the office for several weeks, basically, in quarantine, and her doctor was so alarmed when she showed up at his office that he ordered to her to leave as soon as he figured out what was wrong, and communicate with him only by phone so no one else (particularly, young infants) would be exposed.  

      People have forgotten (or never knew) what widespread incidence of these diseases can do.

      •  yep. the anti-vax kooks seem to think that (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Slaw, JeffW, T100R, a2nite, Jyrki

        if we all stopped vaccinating, all those diseases that used to kill people before vaccines, would just stay away.

        They won't. They'll all come back and start killing people again.

        That's why we have vaccines in the first place.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My mother was a teacher back in a time (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, a2nite

        and a place where vaccinations were given at the school. The kids needed to return with a signed permission slip, and not surprisingly as often as not never showed the note to their parents. Her solution to that issue was to teach her students about what the diseases did to people. She taught high school, and pulled no punches. The rate of vaccination for the students she taught was pretty much universal. People don't remember how serious the diseases really are.

      •  I had chicken pox, mumps, measles, and German (0+ / 0-)

        measles all before there were vaccines against them.  I was vaccinated against smallpox twice, once as a small child such that I did not remember it and again in my late teens in an institution that vaccinated everyone on general principle.   In my 30s, I was tested for immunity to German measles and found to be lacking any antibodies to it, so I had to be vaccinated.  Chicken pox, mumps, and German measles were all no big deal, measles was the first time I was ever sick in bed feeling bad enough that I did not mind having to stay in bed at home and miss school.

  •  Recently there was a rec listed diary on the death (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    serendipityisabitch

    of Farley Mowat, who has been ridiculed by biologists for years for inventing science out of whole cloth and inventing things that never happened.

    He was a great writer, who wrote beautiful books about the arctic, he also said he'd never let facts get in the way of truth, his truth, and he didn't.

    The left is just as kooky as climate deniers, only about different things.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Tue May 13, 2014 at 08:40:51 AM PDT

  •  Big Pharma and vaccines (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Slaw, T100R, dasher3, Jyrki

    I'm as reflexively anti-Big Pharma as the next person, but if you study the issue, you'll find--as my magazine did when we wrote on this very thing years ago--that Big Pharma makes FAR LESS off vaccines than they do from their big-name brand-name drugs. It's not even close. So if Big Pharma is pushing vaccines because there's big money in it, they've been doing a piss-poor job of actually MAKING big money.

  •  Mumps isn't fun... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and I can say that fifty years after having them.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue May 13, 2014 at 09:38:56 AM PDT

  •  It's LEGO, not LEGOS! (0+ / 0-)

    The person in the last panel wring his will is obviously not a Lego fan. The plural of LEGO is LEGO.
    -signed, an AFOL

    "Get away from me, Padre. You stink of the irrational.” - Lex Luthor

    by Sark Svemes on Tue May 13, 2014 at 10:53:17 AM PDT

  •  hi lenny (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Throw The Bums Out

    two words..."darwin award" to anti-vac folks.
    my grandchildren are fully vaccinated.

    If you don't know that evolution is a fact, we have nothing else to talk about.

    by oysterwitch on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:10:43 AM PDT

    •  The sad part is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R

      most of the anti-vaxxers were vaccinated themselves as children.  They might not get their boosters, but they're really anti-vaxxing on behalf of their kids.  It's their kids that are going to "win" the award, or maybe only second prize (profound brain damage), or third prize (sterility, deafness, and/or blindness).  Sounds like a fun lottery!  Where do I buy a ticket?

      "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

      by northbronx on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:13:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, though sadly in some places the choice (0+ / 0-)

      is not quite as clear as it is in the US (and Canada, Europe, Japan, etc) as sometimes the risk of getting HIV or hepatitis from the vaccinations is worse than the risk of getting the disease.  Or to put it another way, would you have still gotten your grandkids fully vaccinated if you knew that each needle and syringe had been used on 20 other patients with at best a rinse under tap water before being used for your grandchildren's shots?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:31:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I got a Tdap booster a few weeks ago. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slouchsock

    I was about due for a tet booster, and there's been several pertussis cases in the area recently (thanks, anti-vaxers!) so I decided to get a Tdap.

    Also, my kiddo has had all his shots.  

  •  great cartoon... (0+ / 0-)

    and great comment.  Thanks for lending your art ot science awareness.

  •  My mom's a polio survivor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R

    She's waiting for it to make a return to the USA because of these idiots.  And when it does -- I agree with her, it's inevitable, thanks to international travel -- the salsa is going to hit the fan.  Remember that you can't cure polio, you can only treat it.  And if that means you spend months in the hospital on a ventilator unable to move, then more months learning to walk again... well, at least you're not dead.

    My mom's now 80 and has post-polio syndrome.  She can't walk, she's on enough chronic pain medication to kill a horse, and she spends a frightening amount of money per year on home care aides and to insure her wheelchair-lift equipped minivan.  The aides are only partially covered by private insurance; she's not poor enough for Medicaid.  This doesn't take into account the one-time costs to build accessible ramps, retrofit a bathroom and buy that van, either.  But hey, why prevent any of this?  Polio: the gift that keeps on giving.

    "Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom." -- G.W.Carver

    by northbronx on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:56:01 PM PDT

    •  I vaguely recall (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb

      an exchange on the Daily Show that went something like this:

      Guest: I'm not going to have my children vaccinated for polio because we don't have polio in the US any more.

      Stewart: Yes, but we have airplanes....

      •  Several years ago we thought we were about to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        T100R, Jyrki, stevemb

        wipe out polio. It existed in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, all of which had programs to vaccinate the vulnerable for a considerable distance around every known case, in the manner used to eradicate smallpox in the wild. It was working in spite of rumors in Nigeria that the actual purpose of the vaccine was to sterilize all Muslim children. One could always take previously-vaccinated parents and their children to a village to demonstrate to the headman and mullah that it was not so, and get them to talk to the populace.

        Then an idiot spy created a fake polio vaccination campaign in order to search for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Now vaccination workers (among many others) are being murdered in Nigeria and Pakistan, and foreign fighters have taken active polio into Syria. There are also cases in Somalia, and in border regions of Kenya and Ethiopia. The virus has been detected in Israel, but there are no known cases.

        WHO has just declared this a World Health Emergency.

        BBC: World facing polio health emergency

        New Scientist: Global emergency declared as polio cases surge

        The world is trying to put in place and enforce a ban on air travel from certain countries by people who have not been vaccinated, and to vaccinate people crossing their land borders.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't tell the Republicans all that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb

      they might label polio a "job creator" and demand that we stop vaccinating immediately.

  •  Why all the attention on vacinnes... (0+ / 0-)

    ... and so little on our food supply? It's not just anti-biotics and steroids that they feed the animals that feed us - we are consuming toxins in GMOs and increased pesticide use that they cause. Why is none of that being examined for their effects on our children?

    •  toxins in GMOs? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, R30A

      Details, please.

      This is the landscape that we understand, -
      And till the principle of things takes root,
      How shall examples move us from our calm?

      (Mary Oliver, "Beyond the Snow Belt.")

      by sagesource on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:00:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The two biggest accomplishments of GMOs seem to be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dasher3

        Roundup Ready crops of many things and crops with the Bacillus thuringensis toxin built in.  Caterpillars that used to be susceptible to Bt toxin are breeding for resistance to it.  Also the natural version of the toxin has a switch that turns it on only in the very alkaline guts of insects and off in the acid guts of most warm-blooded animals.  Cooking destroys the toxin, but raw corn with the GMO toxin in NOT good for cattle.

        •  this is baloney (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, T100R
          Also the natural version of the toxin has a switch that turns it on only in the very alkaline guts of insects and off in the acid guts of most warm-blooded animals.  
          There is no difference between the "natura;l version" and the GMO version. The GMO itself simply takes the gene out of the bacteria that makes the Bt and puts that gene into the corn, where it makes the very same Bt. They are absolutely identical.

          The toxin does not get "turned on" or "turned off", any more than curare or strychnine does.  You are just babbling.

          The Bt works because it attacks a very specific protein---a protein that insects have but mammals do not. And THAT is why Bt kills bugs but doesn't do anything to mammals.

          raw corn with the GMO toxin in NOT good for cattle.
          This is baloney too. There is NO serious scientific study showing that eating Bt does anything harmful to anything that is not an insect.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:45:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ps--why does it not surprise me even remotely to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justanothernyer

          see that so many of our resident anti-GMO fringer crackpots are also anti-vax dumbfucks?

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:05:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  there is no valid science showing that eating GMOs (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, R30A

      causes any harm whatsoever.

      The only "toxins" in GMOs are Bt, which specifically affects only insects--it has no effect on human physiology. Roundup-Ready GMOs contain no toxins at all of any sort whatsoever. PS--Bt has been sprayed on food plants for almost 100 years now, before GMOs were even invented, and existed naturally in the soil for millions of years before that. And in all that time, it has had no demonstrated effect on humans whatever.

      Oh, and pesticides are used on non-GMO plants too, in case you didn't notice. Blaming GMO plants for the effects of pesticides because we spray pesticides on GMOs, is like blaming grass for the effects of fertilizer runoff because we spray fertilizer on grass.  It's silly.

      So to answer your question--why isn't science studying this? Because it's all baloney, and there's simply nothing there to study.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 02:22:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  @sagesource and @Lenny Flank (0+ / 0-)

        The Bt toxin, which has been genetically modified into the plants, has been proven harmful. Plants that are engineered to be more tolerant of pesticides are causing  more pesticide use as the insects also become more tolerant. So yes, they are responsible for more chemicals in our food supply.

        "While Bt toxin has been used quite safely in conventional and organic farming as an occasional spray used when dealing with a pest problem, now it has been engineered to be produced by and present throughout the inside of every cell and intercellular space of the plants themselves..."

        http://www.greenmedinfo.com/...

        "A new lab study has shown that the Cry1Ab toxin causes cell death in human embryonic kidney cells, and that combining Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac toxins with the effects of the pesticide Roundup, could delay apoptosis, which could promote cancer."

        http://digitaljournal.com/...
        and many other studies.

        And I want to repeat my comment about the anti-biotics and steroids that are routinely given to the animals that produce our milk and that end up on our plates. This cannot be harmless. Where is the uproar?

        •  bullshit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R, R30A

          Bt does not affect humans. It affects a specific insect protein which humans do not have.

          That is why Bt has been sprayed on food plants since 1920--almost a hundred years ago, half a century before GMO plants even existed--and has never had any demonstrated effect on anyone.

          If you disagree, by all means please tell us (1) what you think Bt does to humans and (2) what biological mechanism it uses to do whatever the heck it is you think it does.

          Plants that are engineered to be more tolerant of pesticides are causing  more pesticide use as the insects also become more tolerant.
          You, uh, do realize that the very same pesticides are sprayed on non-GMO plants, right?  And you do realize that non-GMO crops outnumber GMO by a very large margin, right?

          PS---if the pesticides are harmful, then how the hell does it help to ban the plants they are sprayed on? We know fertilizer runoff from grass lawns is harmful--does that mean, in your view, we should outlaw grass lawns?

          This cannot be harmless.
          Why not? Because you say so?

          Same question, then. Tell us (1) what you think it does, and (2) how it does whatever the heck you think it does.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:43:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But it does (0+ / 0-)

            I have already given you two links that point out that

            A) spraying a chemical on plants is different than engineering that chemical into the plants (so why would you repeat that argument as though you were actually making a point?) and

            B) that Bt has been shown to be harmful to embryos and that it has been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses.

            If you're not going to read these studies, I can't help you.

            •  and I have already pointed out that your links are (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              R30A

              bullshit.

              spraying a chemical on plants is different than engineering that chemical into the plants
              Bullshit.  It's the very same chemical.
              Bt has been shown to be harmful to embryos
              Bullshit again.  Humans do not even HAVE the protein that Bt attacks.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 05:04:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  BS is your speciallity (0+ / 0-)

                How much of that chemical will you actually consume after spraying? How much of that chemical will you consume when it is embedded into every cell of that plant? The same chemical at how many more times the concentration? And you think that doesn't matter at all?

                It's impossible to discuss anything with that kind of willful ignorance.

                •  you have already been consuming it (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sir Roderick, JerryNA

                  along with everyone else for almost 40 years now.

                  And so has everyone else.

                  And nobody has shown any harm from it, in anyone, anywhere.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:14:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... not with the concentration and directness from embedding it into the cells of the plant directly versus occasional spraying, most of which doesn't persist. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp, but you insist on ignoring it over and over again.

                    In 2011, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:8
                    •93 percent of pregnant women tested
                    •80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies
                    •67 percent of non-pregnant women

                    The study authors speculated that the Bt toxin was likely consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class—which makes sense when you consider that GM corn is present in the vast majority of all processed foods and drinks in the form of high fructose corn syrup, corn oil and other corn products.

                    And from the article I quoted earlier, it has been shown to damage embryonic kidney cells.
                    •  um, no, you have been directly consuming the Bt (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JerryNA

                      that is manufactured in every cell of the plant by the gene.  It has been used in the US since the 1970's.

                      In 2011, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:8
                      •93 percent of pregnant women tested
                      •80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies
                      •67 percent of non-pregnant women
                      And it did what to them, again . . . . ?

                      The toxin is found in EVERYONE's blood---it is a natural product found in soil that has been around for millions of years.  It has not had any demonstrated effect on anyone, anywhere, at any time.

                      PS---most people also have measurable amounts of hydrogen cyanide in their blood, from eating fruit seeds. That doesn't do anything to anyone either.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:05:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  It is not the same toxin. The natural toxin is on (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dasher3

                only in the alkaline guts of insects like caterpillars and off in the acid guts of most warm-blooded animals.  The GMO version of the toxin is on all the time.  It is destroyed by cooking, so most cooked food is harmless to humans.  The raw GMO toxin is NOT good for cattle.

        •  this is a good example of how the GMO fringers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          R30A

          bullshit us.

          Let's look at the Seralini study, about which you write:

          "A new lab study has shown that the Cry1Ab toxin causes cell death in human embryonic kidney cells, and that combining Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac toxins with the effects of the pesticide Roundup, could delay apoptosis, which could promote cancer."
          And now let's look at all the bullshit parts you left out, starting with the fact that the journal itself that it was published in, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has withdrawn Seralini's paper because his known data doesn't support any of his conclusions.

          Some further points you neglect to mention (or, more likely, never knew to begin with since it's not mentioned in any of the fringe crapsites that you got your information from):

          The rats that had NOT been fed GMO food got tumors too, at nearly the same rate as the GMO-fed rats.  That's no surprise, since the variety of rat Seralini used--the Sprague-Dawley strain--was SPECIFICALLY BRED to be highly vulnerable to tumors, so they could be used in cancer research.

          Seralini's study only used TEN individual rats for the control and test group, which makes all his "findings" statistical nonsense. The sample size is simply too small for any meaningful data.

          NO major scientific institute accepted Seralini's findings as valid, including groups in the US, Asia, and Europe.

          When you actually look at all the claims made by the fringe GMOers, you alas find that they are all bullshit.  Every one of them. Without exception.

          If you disagree, how about we go on to talk about the good Dr Huber and the magic GMO killer-microbe that only he can see . . . . . . . .

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:57:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wrong study (0+ / 0-)

            You are referencing a different study. This one was published May 2012. It did not involve rats. It has not been withdrawn and is still available on the Journal of Applied Toxicology website.

            "Here we have tested for the very first time Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt toxins (10 ppb to 100 ppm) on the human embryonic kidney cell line 293... "

            Not rats, human embryonic cells.

            If you don't like that offer, those results have been replicated, here are some other references.

            http://www.collective-evolution.com/...

            •  type (0+ / 0-)

              Spell checker mangled the word "author" into "offer".  

              At that site you will find links to many other studies by different authors that come to the same conclusions.

            •  same author, though (0+ / 0-)

              Seralini has already proven himself an unreliable source.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ps--even if THIS study isn't flat-out bullshit lik (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JerryNA

                the last one was, it still doesn't mean diddley without a plausible mechanism. Rattlesnake venom kills body cells too---but you can drink a glass full of rattlesnake venom, straight, without any harm at all----the venom is broken down in the stomach.

                So if you want to argue that eating Bt causes kidney cells to die, you need to show a plausible mechanism for it. And since Bt is broken down in the stomach (the protein that Bt attacks is not found in humans) and since people have been ingesting Bt for almost 100 years now without any measurable effect, I think all you have to show that is some arm-waving.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 02:21:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the mechniasm was clear (0+ / 0-)

                  Bt is being passed on from mothers to their unborn children and they are the ones suffering. Or didn't you bother to read any of the article before finding fault?

                  And as to your previous comment, the link I gave you cites many studies with different authors with very similar results. This is not just one study.

                  •  that is not a mechanism (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JerryNA, T100R

                    You have not shown that the Bt actually DID anything to anybody.

                    All this death and destruction and damage you keep waving your arms about---and you are still utterly unable to point to anyone anywhere at any time who was actually harmed by eating GMO Bt--despite the fact that millions of people have been eating it over several decades now.

                    That's why it's simply impossible to take you seriously.

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:16:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes, it is (0+ / 0-)

                      It demonstrates that Bt is NOT "broken down in the stomach" as you claimed. It can enter the blood stream and be transferred from a mother to her unborn child and that it causes kidney damage to fetuses.

                      All of that was already stated clearly in the posts above and yet you continue to deny that any damage is being done.

                      And this is only what we know so far. Monsanto controls research in this country and their three month studies are designed to show nothing. So we wait for reports from Canada and Europe because they're the ones doing serious research. And many European countries have banned GMOs as a result of their research.

                      This type of GMO has only been out for a couple of decades, not several. Don't keep trying to confuse use of the pesticide with the GMO embedded toxin.

                      In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, And it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.
                      You are in the denial and the one nobody can take seriously.
                      •  no, it's not (0+ / 0-)

                        A "mechanism" is a means whereby something does something to something else that produces an effect.

                        "Bt in the blood" doesn't mean jackshit, unless you can show us what that Bt in the blood DOES to produce any known health effect.

                        And you can't. Because there isn't any.

                        it causes kidney damage to fetuses.
                        It does no such thing, and you have not shown that it does.  Neither does any of the studies you cite. You are simply bullshitting us.
                        This type of GMO has only been out for a couple of decades, not several.
                        Bullshit.  Bt has been sprayed on crops for almost 100 years. It has no demonstrated effect on humans.

                        GMO Bt has been around since the 70's.  It too has no demonstrated effect on humans.

                        In the end, reality always wins.

                        by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:08:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ps--it seems as though your entire "Bt in the (0+ / 0-)

                          blood" is itself bullshit (I should know better by now than to just take the crackpot's word for anything).

                          The study did NOT find "Bt" in anyone's blood--they found Bt FRAGMENTS.  Not surprising since, as I noted earlier, Bt toxin is DIGESTED in the stomach.

                          This is no surprise--an earlier study had already found Bt FRAGMENTS in cows, where it was also digested in their stomach. The paper is here (PDF file):

                          http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.mp.br/...

                          So yet again, we see that the "evidence" presented by the crackpots, on examination, always turns out to be bullshit.

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:25:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Once again... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...you reference a different study than the one I was referring to. The link is up there, why don't you try actually reading it before attacking it this time?

                            Hint, it was about pregnant women and their fetuses, not cows.

                          •  and once again, you miss the whole point (0+ / 0-)

                            The Seralini study you cite discusses external cells exposed to the toxin.  It does NOT talk about absorbed toxins having any effect on the kidney.  And it can't because, as study has already shown, only fragments of the toxin reach any cells.

                            Since Seralini has already bullshitted his way through one study to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach, it's hard to say whether he did it deliberately this time too, or if he just can't do a proper experiment.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:04:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  sigh (0+ / 0-)

                          GMOs with the Bt toxin were not approved until the mid 1990s.

                          And you keep pretending that the pesticide is equivalent to the toxin produced in the plants. As though 3000-5000 times higher concentration is meaningless. As is the fact that most of the pesticide is washed off and not consumed at all.

                          It has been shown to cause damage to human embryonic kidney cells (referenced above). That study has been out there and unchallenged for years. But of course, you can choose not to believe it as you have chosen not to believe many other facts.

                          •  and more arm-waving (0+ / 0-)

                            No harmful effect has been shown from Bt in any human being. No fetal kidneys have been damaged by Bt.

                            If you think otherwise, then show us.  Who was damaged, when and where.

                            If Bt is as dangerous as you say it is oh noez, you should have millions of victims to point to.  So let's see 'em.

                            But you won't.  You can't.  There ain't any.  (shrug)

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:01:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  unlike the CT nutters, I am perfectly willing to (0+ / 0-)

                            admit when I'm wrong:

                            GMOs with the Bt toxin were not approved until the mid 1990s.
                            You are right. I am wrong. I apologize for mis-remembering. See, that didn't kill me.

                            Now then, that is 20 years worth of data which shows no effect whatsoever of that Bt on any human being.

                            How many more years do you require before you'd be satisfied there's no effect.  Another twenty?  Fifty?  A hundred? A thousand? Five thousand?

                            Or will no length of time ever satisfy you, period.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:08:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes herbicides are used on both non-GMO and GMO (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dasher3

        crops but in larger amounts on GMO crops, which are volunteering and becoming annoying herbicide resistant weeds, encouraging farmers to use even larger amounts of herbicides.  Also the weeds that were weeds before Roundup Ready GMOs are breeding themselves for herbicide resistance, further encouraging use of larger amounts of herbicide.  And now the GMO makers are making GMO crops resistant to 2,4-D also known as Agent Orange and are seeking approval to use these 2,4-D resistant crops and 2,4-D in farmer's field.

        •  This is just nuclear grade nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

          Nobody is trying to market Agent Orange. Prove it, provide a citation- and not a link to a conspiracy theory website like whale or naturalnews.

        •  this is flat-out dishonest bullshit (0+ / 0-)
          And now the GMO makers are making GMO crops resistant to 2,4-D also known as Agent Orange and are seeking approval to use these 2,4-D resistant crops and 2,4-D in farmer's field.
          The toxic ingredient in Agent Orange was dioxin, which was an IMPURITY introduced during the manufacturing process. Dioxin is NOT a component or ingredient in 2,4-D.

          That is not a matter of opinion or of corporate conspiracy--that is a matter of chemistry. There is no dioxin in 2,4-D. Period. End of debate.

          You are either an ignorant dumbfuck who has no idea what he/she is blithering about, OR you are a deliberate deceitful intentional liar.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:56:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ps--the use of herbicides on non-GMO crops (0+ / 0-)

          produces the very same resistance, in the very same weeds. In the very same manner.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:58:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I have not met or read an anti-vaxxer... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R30A

    ... who wasn't openly as full of paranoid shit as a Bircher.

    Anti-vaccination?  You and I are not friends, and I do not wish ro coordinate with you on issues where we DO agree.

    I will, however, refrain from calling you a murderer until I now about your work in relation to this twisted, sick movement of idiocy.

    Whatever your politics, you're as bad as most Republicans.

  •  Hmmm. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixerguy

    If a person is not even willing to discuss the issues of vaccination reasonably, then you are no better than the right-wingers who refuse to compromise on any of their issues (guns, abortion, religion.)

    I think it is an exercise in futility to discuss vaccinations in a general sense. Each one has to be examined on its own. Tetanus is not something that can be transferred from one individual to another. HPV can only be transferred if you are engaged in needle sharing or sex. Those are a much different conversation than a mumps or polio vaccination.

    I grew up being taught to question everything and everyone. Teachers, doctors, and our leaders. That does not mean you can't agree with or accept many things they say, but it should never be a license to cede your own thoughts or opinions. This is especially true when it is based on examining scientific data.

    Not too long ago, we were being told that all of the science showed that cigarettes were not proven to cause cancer. Doctors told us that mammograms and prostate screenings saved lives. The ADA told us that mercury fillings were safe. We have learned that many of these claims are no longer true.

    I still question whether fluoride in our drinking water is harmful. The use of hormones and antibiotics in animals. The dangers of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides. Damage that cell phones and EMF can do to us. Radiation and pasteurization on our food supply. And, the short term and long term damage that aluminum and other adjuvants can cause to young infants and children.

    To clear up one fallacy. Dr. Wakefield's study did not conclude that the MMR caused autism. He noted that in the "clinical study" that he was involved in, that many of the children had the measles virus in their intestines. His actual recommendation was to break up the MMR and offer three separate shots at different times.

    I don't believe that either Jenny McCarthy or Dr. Wakefield have ever stated they are true anti-vaxxers. They, like Dr. Sears, believe in eliminating some vaccines from the schedule and spreading out the shots. Nevertheless, just question any of the science of vaccinations, and well, we have seen the reaction even on Daily Kos.

    I, on the other hand, am a true anti-vaxxer. No shots, period. Anyone else is welcome to get as many as you want, but I believe that the side effects (and the diseases that come with it) outweigh the actual diseases themselves.

    •  thanks for your opinion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb, R30A

      I will give it the due consideration it deserves. (snicker)

      Morans like you KILL PEOPLE.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supporting Wakefield is CT (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lenny Flank, stevemb, R30A

      You are right on the edge of HRability.

      In addition to being a kook and a crank. Declaring yourself to be the soul of reason and all of us to be the nasties is one of the clearest symptoms.

      If you show any signs of being willing to discuss facts, I will back off. Otherwise, I will consider recommending you for the Hide on Sight list. Your choice.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Tue May 13, 2014 at 04:47:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, stevemb, R30A

      What side effect could the polio vaccine have that would be worse than Polio?

      •  I guess you are not aware of VDVP (0+ / 0-)

        From the New England Journal of Medicine:

        VDVP = vaccine-derived polioviruses

        "The emergence of circulating VDPVs forces us to accept the reality that we are fighting fire with fire and that once eradication of WPV [wild polio virus] is assured, the use of live polio virus vaccines will need to cease globally in a coordinated manner. Because cVDPVs will probably continue to circulate for at least 1 to 3 years after WPVs are eradicated, and live polio viruses may be reintroduced from rare immunodeficient persons who continue to excrete virus, the world will need to rely on inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) indefinitely to maintain immunity."
        So, the live polio virus can cause polio. Luckily, we are only pawning off the OPV to third world countries. We moved to the IPV (inactivated version) in 1999. Most of the reported outbreaks in Nigeria, DR, and Haiti are due to the VDVP.
        •  no shit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, T100R

          This has been known since forever.  ALL live vaccines have a percentage chance of causing the disease.

          How about you tell us how many people you think were killed by polio vaccine--and let's compare that to the number of people who were killed by polio without the vaccine.

          Then everyone will be able to see how silly you are.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:47:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Self-Contradictory Gibberish (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R30A, JerryNA
      I think it is an exercise in futility to discuss vaccinations in a general sense. Each one has to be examined on its own.
      I, on the other hand, am a true anti-vaxxer. No shots, period.
      Is the first statement a bogus attempt to appear moderate, or is the second statement an indication that you've lost track of your own argument (if it can be dignified with that term)?

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:24:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really a conflict (0+ / 0-)

        I could probably consider some vaccines, but changes would have to be made to verify that they were actually safe and effective. This means for both short term, long term, and in conjunction with other vaccinations.

        The fact that vaccine makers have no true liability for their product, no double blind testing has ever been done by the CDC on even one vaccination, and no long term studies have been done on young children receiving so many vaccines at a young age, makes me consider that the risks are too great at this point.

    •  I reject the flu shots. I don't have much (0+ / 0-)

      exposure to other people, I have been taking something that started as a multivitamin and mineral feed additive for cattle and then was found to protect workers in the plant that made the cow supplement from respiratory infections well enough for the effect to be quite noticeable when they reviewed their health insurance and found that those working in the manufacturing plant were hardly ever getting sick, while office workers and outside sales reps had about the same experience of illness as the general public every winter for several years, and have not gotten the flu since I started taking it in the winter instead of getting a flu shot.  About the same price but I hate getting shots.

    •  I must admit, I fear the mercury in dental (0+ / 0-)

      fillings more than the mercury in the preservative that used to be used in most vaccines.  I can't afford to get all my old mercury filling removed, but I at least insist on acrylic for any new fillings.

    •  Wakefield commited fraud and his MD was revoked. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R

      Anybody who still calls Wakefield a doctor and believes & repeats anything that criminal says should be viewed with extreme skepticism.

  •  Such a perfect summary! (0+ / 0-)

    From the sadly hilarious cartoon to the references at the end and the historical perspective in the middle this was great. Thanks!

    (ps is there any way I can have this implanted directly into antivaxer brains?)

    An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

    by rini6 on Wed May 14, 2014 at 06:53:05 AM PDT

  •  What scares me -- (0+ / 0-)

    wasn't even addressed in the cartoon.
        POLIO.
    I was part of the first generation to get this vaccine - actually both of them.
       I do remember the iron lungs.
       Post polio syndrome is around.  I know a couple of people with it and it is hard on them.
      We cannot let this genie out of the bottle again.

    I went to a seminar that sounded like something on mental health.  It was on autism.  I learned a lot about it, including that even 4 years ago, vaccine was the bad guy, while going to the next speaker, a neurologist explained the neuron level differences.  Apparently, in autism, brain neurons get cut back more than average.

    And somewhere today, I read that people with autism spectrum disorder have 1/3 to 1/2 fewer immune cells.

  •  I have autism and I'd like to weigh in here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vejeestu, Batya the Toon, dasher3

    First off, let me say that there is something very dark and sinister about parents' belief that it is somehow better to expose their children to horrific diseases that can can kill or injure millions to save them from becoming autistic....like myself or my brother or my daughter.   Please take a moment and recognize how offensive that is to autistic people.  We have to constantly deal with the world dehumanizing us, by subjecting us to all kinds of barbaric and inhumane torture in the name of treatment.  It needs to stop.

    Second, we autistics don't like the other extremists of the vaccine argument either because they are quick to claim science, but the truth is they haven't done their homework.  If you read autism research in any depth, you'll quickly discover that autism has a strong auto-immune competent.  Or you can interview any 5 autistic adults about their health and you'll see a pattern emerge.   Our immune systems don't function in the same way as everyone else.  Do vaccines cause autism?  No.  It does however, add to the assault that a young child born with an impaired immune system is already facing.  Pesticides, household chemicals, allergy-provocative foods have been causing damage before vaccines came into the picture.  

    There is a good case to be made for customizing vaccines or using a delayed schedule as is typical for children with auto-immune issues.....for those children for have a clear family history of any auto-immune disorder, including autism.    The price of genetic testing is falling dramatically,  that should be our guide on how to best immunize a child as opposed to an outdated cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all model.

    The overfocus on vaccines has kept the autism community from being able to have necessary conversations about housing, employment, access to health care, sexuality and gender.  People with autism grow up and there aren't resources for people like myself or my brother or my daughter.

  •  What the US needs is a Department of Common Sense! (0+ / 0-)

    Need I say more?... OK:

    What you don't know CAN absolutely kill you (and your kids)!  Welcome to the Darwin Awards; and may luck be ever in your favor!

  •  Its Not Black and White (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, to CinderMcDonald.  These are very complex issues, yet the complexity is leveled down to various memes and loud shaming of those who aren't so quick to drink the Kool-aid.

    As a thirty year practicing professional in the natural health field, I have found that practically every parent who comes in with an autistic child will unflinchingly tell you that it was after such and such a vaccination that the issues began.  Does this mean there is a cause and effect relationship.  No.
    Does it mean that in every case, the parents are guilty of false attribution?  No.   Does it mean that, as Cinder is saying, there may be underlying immune issues that make this child  more susceptible to problems from vaccine?  Perhaps - BUT - few care to look beyond a purely causal argument.  

    Each person, each child is different.  Vaccine schedules do not admit of individual differences, but are applied across the board.  Does this really make sense?

    Was Wakefield entirely debunked?  As a matter of fact, that is just another meme, not a fact.  

    "I think that the government or certain public officials in the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick. I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation."
    - Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), largest U.S. federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical research. Dr. Healy has no known conflicts of interest in the vaccine-autism debate.

    http://www.bmj.com/...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
    http://www.activistpost.com/...

    http://www.fourteenstudies.org/...

    http://gaps.me/...

  •  Question (0+ / 0-)

    I had the measles as a child - before I could be vaccinated in school.

    Despite repeated exposure as a daycare worker and kindergarten teacher, I have never gotten the measles again.

    Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population.

    This is not some left or right wing kook organization - this is a paper on the NIH site. And it is not the only case where there was a measles outbreak in a school with 90% to 100% compliance on vaccination.

    How can you blame these outbreaks on the unvaccinated when all of the children were vaccinated? Isn't it possible that the vaccines themselves are losing efficacy and need to be re-done rather than pushing more and more and more doses?

    •  um . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sir Roderick, JerryNA

      Vaccines lose effectiveness over time. They also don't work 100% of the time.  We've known this for half a century now.  Do try and keep up.

      (sigh) It always makes me cringe to see all of the anti-vax dfumbfucks here crawl out from the woodwork.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:53:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Left-Wing Science Denial (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sir Roderick

    It's not merely the anti-vax stuff that sets off leftists. It's our end of the political spectrum that's also in the forefront of opposition to nuclear power and genetically modified organisms.

    If I were looking for a ray of sunshine, I'd point out that most of the things the righties deny — climate change, acid rain, the tobacco-cancer link, the Holocaust — are actively harmful, while the left chooses to deny things that are arguably helpful. The exceptions to this rule of thumb are evolution and the Moon landing (denied by the righties, but belief in which is hardly harmful) and guns (opposed by the left precisely BECAUSE they are often harmful, tho nowhere near as much as the paranoid claims made about them).

    But denialism based on political tribalism is hardly restricted to any ideology or political party.

    That's why we need to emphasize critical thinking in our schools.

  •  Guillaine-Barre Syndrome (0+ / 0-)

    In 2000, I was nearly killed by a tetanus shot that left me permanently disabled with limited use of my arms and legs.  During the past 14 years, I have had contact with many people who have experienced similar life-threatening vaccine reactions.  I am not against vaccines, but think that they should be used with discretion and never taken while sick.  Physicians will often give a child too many at one time when he or she has a cold, which is poor medical practice.  

    It is easy to treat other people as if they are less intelligent when you have never had an extreme vaccine reaction, which is basically rude.  The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists documented vaccine reactions, however, it is two years behind because of reporting and documentation requirements.  You may be surprised at some of the results.  Hope you aren't in the statistical minority that has a reaction.

    •  I have a friend who is allergic to peanuts and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sir Roderick, JerryNA, T100R

      was almost killed because of it.

      Is it your opinion, then, that we should outlaw peanuts?

      How about we take all the people you think have ever been killed by vaccines, and compare that number to all the people who died of diseases that are now prevented by vaccines.  Let's see which number is larger.

      (sigh)  Teh stoopid, it makes my head hurt.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:55:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Outlawing vaccines (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dasher3

        If you bothered to read the post, I said "I am not against vaccines, but think that they should be used with discretion and never taken while sick."  It is important to read, Lenny.

        •  alas, I have seen too many anti-vax kooks also say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          T100R

          "I'm not against vaccines, but . . ." and then go on to quote all the standard anti-vax crapola about the "dangers" of vaccines.

          And all your talk of "too many vaccines at once" and "dangerous anti-vaccine reactions" and "documented vaccine reactions" ("you may be surprised at the results!") are all standard anti-vax bullshit.

          If you're not an anti-vaxer, then stop parroting all their horseshit bullet points.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:11:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reality (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry that you are so angry, Lenny, but I am entitled to an opinion based on my reality of a vaccine reaction and then needing to learn to walk again.  I speak from experience only and do not parrot any "horseshit bullet points."  

            There is a medical protocol for allergic reactions to peanuts, however, most physicians do not recognize vaccine reactions.  If they were more knowledgeable of the symptoms and different treatments available, some of the disabilities could be alleviated.

            Since no one died and made you Christ, I think I will continue to maintain my cautious opinion of vaccines.  All of my family members continue to get their shots and that is fine with me.  

            You may consider an anger management course to learn how to accept the opinions of those who disagree with you while maintaining your point of view.

      •  Funny you should mention an allergy to peanuts (0+ / 0-)

        Peanut oil plus aluminum in vaccines may be the cause for the rise in peanut allergies. Aluminum increases a person's reaction to anything, not just the dead bacteria in a vaccine.

        •  this is simply horse shit (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kfunk937, poco

          And since anti-vaxx dumbfuckery is bannable here at DKos (as is all science denial), you had better not post it again.

          BTW, did you happen to notice that the comment you are replyling to is almost a year old......?

          (sigh)

          Teh stoopid, it hurts..........

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Apr 19, 2015 at 07:05:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  anti-science kooks?? stupid people????? (0+ / 0-)

    have you SEEN the kind of "science" these vaccines are based on, the kind of "proof" submitted to these so-called health agencies to get vaccines approved? i have, and all it is - is a bunch of very expensive and irrelevant horse hockey. it's made of money, not good science, and that's why few people know how dangerous these "life saving" vaccination programs are. even OTC meds - how many people know that a huge % of humans are very allergic to tylenol? in fact, more people die (and die quickly, so there's no doubt what caused the death) from tylenol than just adverse event reports on ibuprofen and aspirin together every year. what's the fda's answer? tylenol is no longer allowed to use "safer" in their commercials.  NO DO NOT try to tell me who's the stupid kook and who's not. i don't allow anybody to stab needles full of toxins and immune suppressants into my body that kill some people, but don't kill others. what makes it safe is that good ole file-starting  beginning fee of $1-mill to the fda, followed by other, increasing fees... this daily kos is almost enough to take me to the unsubscribe link...i cannot believe you one-eyed blind pseudo medico-apologists on an otherwise intelligent list like this!!

  •  how much $ does Big Pharma make on vaccines? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R

    answer: not very much. They really aren't interested in vaccines, antibiotics, or anything along those lines. There's a LOT more money in treating ongoing conditions and anything connected with male sexuality.

  •  Very funny (0+ / 0-)

    @JenSorensen, maybe you should stick to real comics. You're about as knowledgeable of vaccines and the so-called anti-vaccine movement as they are of cartooning. Last I checked, getting medical advice from a cartoonist, writer, and graphic journalist was about as advisable as getting surgery from a barber.

  •  Vaccines necessary, but wait if your kid is sick! (0+ / 0-)

    Per http://www.vaccines.gov/... "If you are sick, you may still be able to receive a vaccine, depending on which vaccine you need and the type and severity of your illness. Talk with your health care provider about the vaccines that might be recommended for your age, health status, and lifestyle. To learn about situations in which you should wait to receive a vaccine or shouldn’t receive one, check the Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) for the particular vaccine you need. If you have a chronic health condition, you can find more information in our guide to vaccine recommendations for chronic diseases. "

    While vaccines administered to healthy kids have been eliminated as the source of the increase in autism, it is possible that giving vaccines to kids with already-challenged immune systems (sick kids) did have at least some contribution to triggering autism, given how many people claimed that their kid's regression happened shortly after a vaccination. Regression occurs in only a small portion of autism victims, and it is possible that some other stress trigger might eventually have occurred in these kids.

    Often in the 1980s when I took my kids to the doctor for an ear infection or something, I would be told by the nurse what vaccines my kids needed, and given a choice of getting them now or coming back for them. I think my grandson  is being told to come back for them, but I'm not sure. He is autistic, but not regressive.

    Before skipping a vaccine altogether, I'd consult with a Homeopathic practitioner if there is a homeopathic version of the vaccine available.  It is much less likely to have a side effect, although the evidence of effectiveness is less established.

    For Flu (influenza) virus, don't get it while you have a fever.

  •  Not to mention... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that the so called "rise" in autism cases is actually due to a tendency by psychiatrists to label any child that doesn't fit in with the other extroverted psychopaths that our public schools want.

    They "diagnose" these children with whatever's popular in the literature at the time, and usually don't even consult the DSM or do so loosely.

    Twenty years ago, it was a "rise" in cases of ADHD because that was the popular diagnosis at the time, and an overprescription of harsh stimulants.  I was a victim of that trend back in the 90s myself.

  •  If there was a Big Pharma conspiracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R

    it would be on the anti-vaccine side.  Because cures are less profitable than long-term disease management.  Fortunately smallpox was eradicated before Big Pharma figured that out, otherwise they would have started producing and marketing smallpox treatments instead of smallpox vaccines.

  •  The true irony is that if we were to get to full (0+ / 0-)

    vaccination and could eradicate these vaccine-preventable diseases, then we could stop vaccinating for those diseases (like we did for smallpox). The anti-vax loons are preventing us from stopping vaccinations, because we would not need them any more (at least for some diseases).

  •  but obviously there must be a connection.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, dasher3

    I was vaccinated for multiple diseases as a child and I contracted liberalism. I know the logic doesn't work. But how else do you account for my contracting this horrible disease that causes me to be concerned about everyone else as much as myself?? Maybe I was dropped on my head like my conservative friends keep telling me.

  •  OK, I'm a little tired of this blind faith ... (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    kfunk937

    OK, I'm a little tired of this blind faith in vaccines.  Read The Vaccine Book, by Robert Sears.  Not an anti-vax book by any means, but a realistic look at the risks/benefits and a more intelligent schedule that the crazy level that we pump poisons into tiny babies.  Get off the "vaccines are perfect" bandwagon and become educated.

  •  Who ya gonna believe? (0+ / 0-)

    a scientist or a playboy bunny?

Meteor Blades, Pat K California, Vince CA, Chilipalmer, Bill in Portland Maine, Powered Grace, bcamarda, Yoshimi, hnichols, dpeifer1949, brillig, Bill Roberts, RLF, Chirons apprentice, ybruti, mungley, parryander, Nova Land, Josiah Bartlett, TexasTom, chimene, fixxit, stevemb, peacestpete, mrchips46, K S LaVida, Lashe, twigg, PapaChach, JVolvo, kurt, marykk, Cronesense, Dave in Northridge, Seneca Doane, jnhobbs, Joffan, gizmo59, MKinTN, JeffW, TX Freethinker, bill warnick, Buckeye Nut Schell, Kathy S, glendaw271, brokensnowshoe, MinervainNH, Justanothernyer, rini6, Jyrki, IreGyre, Question Authority, sfarkash, Hamlets Father, commonmass, smileycreek, Mokurai, serendipityisabitch, Aramis Wyler, mookins, BenderRodriguez, Lost and Found, ThirtyFiveUp, ericlewis0, cocinero, LordRobin, Bob Duck, ban nock, implicate order, FarWestGirl, mikejay611, Araguato, SpotTheCat, midnight lurker, Grandma Susie, IB JOHN, loblolly, enhydra lutris, Vatexia, T100R, quill, OldDragon, a2nite, 420 forever, 2thanks, belinda ridgewood, UberFubarius, bewareofme, OllieGarkey, dotdash2u, peptabysmal, nthelurch, Most Awesome Nana, flevitan, Tigger Too, koosah, The grouch, David Michigan, Alhambra, JerryNA, Jon Sitzman, backwoodsbob, tampaedski, jjerg, duhban, northcountry21st, quetzalmom, luerwulf, Sir Roderick, Ellamenta, thanatokephaloides, docclay, GreatLakeSailor, paulex, hbk, Caittus, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, Cadillac64, kfunk937, CorpFlunky, rgrein, Ebro, bobcat41702, tstraw, Whamadoodle, Darth Cthulhu, Do Not Push

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site