Anti-vaccine junk science: A question of ignorance

Schaum,

RE: Walter

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/thanks_but_no_thanks_from_a_happy_atheist.html#comments

Farnaz:

"Schaum,

You really have to check out Secular Saboteur, Bill Donohue's essay on this blog."

Can you send me the link? I can't find it.

Why do you think Walter is being accusatory? I don't see that.

Schaum,

You really have to check out Secular Saboteur, Bill Donohue's essay on this blog. Donohue, Catholic League. Trying to sell his book, I guess.

At all events, a stronger case for atheism has yet to be mad. I'm thinking of sending out a general call to all God-Dissers in the Greater American Area.

Pamsm,

My sister lived, and homeopathics were part of the regimen that she used to bring her health back. It was not alone as the cure, but that is usually the case in intervention. It was a primary tool.

I have no need or care to convince you of anything. You are, however, certain that homeopathy, (and most of all other alternative practices, I would bet), are quackery of the first order. Your beliefs are set, and so your judgment of contrarian positions is as well. So, closed. Just as well.

My sister lives, and orthodox medical techniques and medicines were killing her, literally, before she rejected them. That worked for her, and it damn well works for me.

My brother lives, only by the grace of orthodox medical techniques. That, as well, damn well works for me.

I am open to any avenue. You could not possibly say the same, and you do not need to. All is good.

I at least have received all that you sent me, and written to me, with care, I hope. Enough said.

Walter,
Check Susan's latest:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/hate.html

Peter is looking for a place to post.

JTTN:

"The strength of any species lies in the breadth of the gene pool."

And clearly, yours needs its filter cleaned.

Gas on. I have no more time to waste on you.

JTTN,
Apples and oranges. Yes, doctors are human, often work while tired, and sometimes make mistakes. Some of these mistakes kill people. Sad, but true.

They are, however, treating people with techniques and medicines of proven and demonstrable efficacy that work when properly applied.

This is quite different from homeopaths, who are killing people not with mistakes, but by the deliberate application of "medicines" (actually water) not demonstrated to cure anything. They don't conduct medical trials by normal scientific standards because they know that they and their concotions will be shown for what they are - frauds.

You think the linked site was biased? Did you explore it at all? Do you even know what the site is about? Start here:
http://whatstheharm.net/whatisthis.html

Explore other pages. They're just trying to save you from yourself, but noooooo...

Here's another site:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-01-14

and an excerpt from it:
"In homeopathy, any substance can be a remedy; even a non-substance. My favorite is “eclipsed moonlight.” I’ve been trying to find out how they collect it to prepare the remedy; no one’s talking."

Bah, JTTN, do whatever you want. Die of something eminently curable by taking water - oh, sorry, I mean water with the "memory" of eclipsed moonlight. I'm done.

Fudgy Tennessee Pi,

LOL! Do you think you might post under your own moniker for awhile? Walter has started accusing and baiting on the previous thread. (Creep)
-------------------------------------
International diplomatic efforts under way are far too little and too late to constrain Iran’s progress. Iran is committed to war with its enemies and Israel is first on the list.
Iran’s nuclear capability is likely to be used in such a war. The US will not act to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel. Israel has the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, even if the US opposes an attack. The Israeli public is prepared to accept the consequences — diplomatic and possibly military — of such an attack. Therefore Israel should attack Iranian nuclear installations.

Posted by: FarnazMansour1 | October 20, 2009 4:24 PM

"And I dislike unsubstantiated suppositions, posturing, gas, and unproved/unverifiable claims."

Ah, the sound of.... yes, gas, an infernal spew from a sulpherous vent. Mmmm, a blowhole. You proved Faithful to task.

"Begone."

What, and we were just starting to have so much fun, massah!

Love your vision of the future human, Hans. And if you are an example of that most Excellent of Species, hell, 'tis no wonder those of 'lesser value' look for buttons to push. A shame, too. The strength of any species lies in the breadth of the gene pool.

But then it's vileness lies there, too.

JTTN:

"I dislike disdain and arrogance. "

And I dislike unsubstantiated suppositions, posturing, gas, and unproved/unverifiable claims.

You have lost all credibility with me.

Begone.

Schaum,

"Of course...because you can't."

Yes, I can. Just did, to Pamsm, before posting to you. You were not paying attention.

Take your smoke and mirrors and put 'em in a dark spot.

I dislike disdain and arrogance. Bitter? You should get that negative trait bred out of you, it is unbecoming even from a distance, and especially in the company of so many otherwise brilliant attributes that you carry.

Schuam:

"Mixing of races would of course not be allowed."

Hmmm. This has a familiar ring to it.

JTTN:

"I find no good reason to post up links to substantiate that well known and common issues are, well, well known and common, "

Of course...because you can't.
More smoke.
More mirrors.
More negative emotion.
No facts.

I remain unsurprised.

International diplomatic efforts under way are far too little and too late to constrain Iran’s progress. Iran is committed to war with its enemies and Israel is first on the list.
Iran’s nuclear capability is likely to be used in such a war. The US will not act to prevent an Iranian attack on Israel. Israel has the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, even if the US opposes an attack. The Israeli public is prepared to accept the consequences — diplomatic and possibly military — of such an attack. Therefore Israel should attack Iranian nuclear installations.

Schaum,

Your wrist slap to me:

"You are attempting to reinforce your position by making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion. These are red-herrings unless you have factual answers, or data that would project reasonable answers. Do you?"

I find no good reason to post up links to substantiate that well known and common issues are, well, well known and common, as is medical malpractice and doctor error, wrongful medical death, etc. You only sought to derail my argument by insinuation that it was a "red herring", though any thinking brain knows it is a real issue and threat, all the greater in terms of affected human lives as most people seek treatment from MD's, not ND's.

I have no intent to offer supporting data to that assertion.

Further, it was Pamsm's anti-homeopath website that was "making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion." That is, if you actually read it, and did so from a mildly open mind.

This completes the list of links that were to be included in the previous posts. Did not know two was a maximum. Live, learn.

http://www.baxter.com/about_baxter/news_room/downloads/ps_medication_errors.pdf
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11623

Pamsm,

Bit one:

Pamsm,

Thank you for the link to Baloney Detection. I enjoyed it. I am not a science purist as you appear to be, and it is not my religion, ( and so, scientologist!), but as I have repeatedly said I have great regard for science, and in no way revile or eschew it. As opposed to you, who appears to revile anything that is not scientifically or empirically provable.

There is much in 'science' that is not near absolutely certain, or even nearly virtually certain, though proponents and afficianados of the purely rational brain act as if all is known, and revile those that propose there is more to understand or take into account. I am of the second group.

I was not much for your post on homeopathy slander. As I said, that was one biased web page. Quackers are out there, and perhaps in greater numbers in the homeopathic community than in the orthodox medical community for a number of reasons, but I do not know that. ( Haven't the time to research it and give you data, Schaum, so this is more of my hot air, though some I daresay you will not get all pissy about, eh?)

The 10th question of the baloney checklist was telling, and is what I spoke toward in saying that we find what supports what we already judge to be true. We look for validation of what we believe, as opposed to the other way around. Your anti-homeopathic website was that, to me.

Here are some links related to deaths from medical errors and malpractice in the traditional medical fields. It is not that it is an irrational statement that malpractice is rampant, (or at least present), in the medical practices. I scanned through many and took just a few, off of two searches. This is generalized information, not victim specific. Your webpage was far more emotional based, contrary to Schaums' claim, than mine, and more alarmist by it's nature.

As I was unable to include many links in the previous posts, I add two here and in the next.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/41088.php
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=deaths-from-avoidable-medical-error-2009-08-10

Bit two:

I am not here to prove any theories, and there are no user rules that suggest I must put up supporting data to a claim. I am not here to prove or disprove anything. You guys are, however. Big into it. That is your gig and I don't have time to go there. It does not "prove" anything, and certainly does not "negate" my experience or justifications for my beliefs.

I have some very real reasons to believe in and support alternative therapies and practices, as they HAVE worked for me, my family and friends that I love. Though you, perhaps, and others of purely scientific bent in these Hollowed Halls, ( 'a' transposed), sneer at therapies and practices that lack your seal of approval, and reject the opinions and experiences of those who are allied with these practices, this does not an invalidation make.

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm
http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

The last one is certainly more aligned to the alternative medical community, but has some fascinating insight. None of which may find any resting place in you I fear. But then, I care little at this point.

Bit three:

The arrogance of the rationalist can be every bit as vile as the self-righteous religionist. Some better, some worse. Ego centric academics and liberals are, in some aspects, in no inferior position to the blowhard conservative fundamentalists of "middle America".

I could tell you a story of my sister who nearly died in the "care" of the orthodox medical community and lived ONLY because she stopped all therapies and communications with her doctors and sought her own council and that of practicing alternative therapists, homeopaths included. She was at the edge of death and was given weeks to live, but only if she continued debilitating therapies. She did not continue them, and rebounded into vitality.

But then I could tell you a story of my brother who is living today ONLY because his life was saved, and he was coaxed out of a six week coma, by the skill and therapies of some of the most brilliant doctors and surgeons I know.

I am not just the mystical, magical thinker your insult wants of me.

Storytime is over, at least for the moment. I have lost my taste for it.

Peace to you, Pamsm. Again, thanks for the links.

the arminius we know and love is spelled without an "e".

i'm sure farnaz and schaum hadn't noticed the different spelling before commenting...

I do not believe the person posting as Armenius3124 is our "Armenius."

Could Armenius comment to say if this is true or not?

EdByronAdams wrote:
"However it will happen. Imagine the first engineered athlete to appear in the Olympics."

Hi Ed,
I don't think you need to be too concerned about this coming to pass any time soon. It's true that we've mapped a few genomes, including our own, but that's still light years away from knowing what each of those genes does, and how it controls, or is influenced by, other genes.

A great deal of evolutionary change happens at the embryonic level - small changes in the timing of gene expression during development (often courtesy of what was once considered "junk" DNA) can have a profound effect on the resulting phenotype.

Neoteny, which accounts for much of what makes us human, is one such result.

The new field of study - Evo Devo - is all about this. See also Epigenetics.

We're far from understanding all this well enough to actually engineer a human to our particular specifications.

Positive eugenics is the form of Eugenics, which promotes marriage and breeding between people considered "desirable", and though a positive Eugenist may view certain persons as "undesirable, the defective need not always be with us, since people with hereditary defects come from the general population. By promoting marriage and unions between Desirables, it may be possible to increase the national even universal average in the course of four or so generations. If enough "desirables" wed and produced desirable off spring, than it is logical to think that after several generations of "through bred" that the Hereditary superiority could begin to trickle down into the more average population. However, who is the "desirable" who is the "undesirable"? will "they" decide? who are "they"? The government should have such power as to decide who should reproduce and who should not. Those with genetic diseases or deformities would be forbidden to breed. But not euthanized. Positive Eugenics is a way of rewarding the desirables to produce offspring, such as government rewards. Like a lottery. Getting back to the long term affects on society in general. If a couple that is desirable weds and produces off spring, than the children would have an advantage (say 50%) of getting those good genes. but if three generations went by with nothing but Desirables wedding and producing off spring, than the children would be almost always (say 90%) possess those desirable traits. Further more, if those "through breds" where to wed the "averages" than their children would also have a high chance (say 85%) of inheriting those good traits. Mixing of races would of course not be allowed.

Many of you, dear readers, are probably asking "but what is a good trait?" a good trait could be anything from a higher resistance or immunity to disease to a healthy mentally and physical well being. But more so the Mental well being than the Physical. There are many good-looking emotional basket cases, just look at a large portion of our celebrities. It also does not imply those with large fortunes and wealth should be the only "desirables", wealth is an unreliable symptom of a persons Geno-type. Those with HEREADITARY handicaps would be forbidden to breed. But those handicapped individuals that became such due to accidents and not to bad genes would be considered "average" as well. If you research more into the subject of Eugenics, you will come to realize that what the Nazi's did was a misunderstanding of what Eugenics was really meant to be

Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

Daniel12.

I've been following your chat with Pam, and the book you might need is called;

"Darwin's Ghost: The Origin of Species updated" by Steve Jones.

Jones is a biologist and writer and well worth reading.

Farnaz:

Always enjoyed Georgia crumb cake myself.

Tennessee pi, anywone?

The results of one large, highly-respected study of mental retardation illustrate the potential power-for-good of eugenics. Two percent of the sample were retarded, and they produced 36% of the next generation of retardates (Reed and Reed, 1965). Clearly, if that 2% had not had children, mental retardation would have been reduced by 36% in one generation in that group. With only slight modification, these figures can be applied to the general population. If the retarded were given sufficient cash or other incentives to adopt permanent birth control, mental retardation could be cut by approximately 1/3 in just one generation. This is only one among many possible eugenic measures, but this step alone would significantly alleviate all social problems, prevent a good deal of child abuse and neglect (the retarded make very poor parents), provide a big boost to the economy, and cause the "misery quotient" to plummet.

Egalitarians take a circuitous route to solving social problems - they keep trying to change people by altering their environments. Despite witnessing their abysmal string of failures, our natural desire to alleviate suffering and improve the world persists. This desire finds new hope in eugenics based on science, not propaganda and wishful thinking. Eugenics takes the direct route. It holds the unique potential of actually creating a better world, of making profound, concrete, lasting improvements in "the human condition" by improving human beings themselves.

A massive disinformation campaign about IQ, genetics, and race has been waged by liberal journalists and Marxist academics against the Western world since the 1950s. Like an octopus with far-reaching tentacles, it's wrecked havoc in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is that it's made it impossible even to have a serious public debate about eugenics, an obvious prerequisite to implementing a eugenics program. Such wholesale dishonesty might be expected under a Communist regime, but for this to take place in democratic societies cries out for an explanation.

To fully understand why egalitarianism reigns supreme and eugenics has been made into a taboo subject, this topic must be viewed as part of the larger Zeitgeist which also includes obeisance to "diversity" and "multiculturalism," reverse discrimination, attacks on Christianity, support for ruinous immigration policies, promotion of promiscuity and homosexuality, advocacy of miscegenation, and moral relativism, much of which can be subsumed under the rubric of Political Correctness. Did this pervasive belief-system just "happen," like the weather, or did people make it happen? If the latter, who, and why?

When a serious crime is committed, the first question a detective is likely to ask concerns motive, i.e., "Who benefits?" Likewise, one might reasonably ask, "Who benefits from this dishonest and destructive Zeitgeist?" It's an extraordinarily interesting and important topic, but unfortunately, unraveling this issue any further is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead I will refer the reader to Kevin MacDonald's brilliant book, The Culture of Critique (1998), the source for answers about the Zeitgeist and the hidden agenda behind it. MacDonald makes a shocking case, but one which is well-documented and compelling.

The advances in genetics does pose a challenge for the species. Transferring the randomness of sexual recombination and mutation to the more ordered process of engineering can be a boon or a threat. One can hardly bemoan the notion that sickle cell anemia, phenylketonuria or Huntingtons disease might be engineered out of the population but we have been frightened of any effort to improve the human condition through genetics ever since the Nazis latched onto eugenics and gave it their own perverted spin.

However it will happen. Imagine the first engineered athlete to appear in the Olympics.

Daniel12:

" I am not that wealthy--in fact I am poor. But for the biology books I will definitely put up some money."

The violin music is sweet. In this country we have a thing called Public Libraries, which, with a Library Card, allow you access to books without charge. If you are near a college or university, most will allow locals to have access to their books as well.

Borrowing books is not a new concept.

Pam, you have the last word. I have nothing more to add and concerning this subject it is true I need to learn more. Reading Darwin and going online and learning about breeding has really surprised me. I had no idea there is so much to learn. It seems no one talks about such things and they seem so important what with all the advances in genetics, the cloning of animals, etc. I think everyone should know something about this--starting with myself of course. It seems endlessly fascinating and complex and frightening. I hope the human race can manage all this knowledge because it seems all biology is tending toward man altering himself toward what he desires. Without a doubt I think biology is the most important science. So much of everything else depends on how we approach the subject. I would definitely recommend that if someone wants to know something of science to get into biology. Reading Darwin has been astonishing enough. He seems so modern, not dated at all even though of course we can tell here and there he did not know what we know today. Do you by any chance know any good books on biology I can read? I mean ones like Darwin's origin, ones that deal with all the forms of selection as Darwin did but updated. I definitely know I should head to the bookstore--Borders--and put up some money for some good books. I usually get my books from used book stores and library sales--book events as well. I am not that wealthy--in fact I am poor. But for the biology books I will definitely put up some money. Thanks for the lesson even though it has been harsh. But I suppose one should understand that some of the most important lessons are harsh. And biology is without a doubt a tough subject. The best I can say for myself about this subject is that I am at least thankful I am not a creationist and doubting what Darwin discovered. Maybe that part is most frightening of all--biology advancing rapidly and many people stuck in centuries old views. I think biology should be figured as prominantly as possible on television--public networks and even regular T.V. It seems more and more it is a national duty to know biology. But maybe that is going too far. I just know I am pretty excited by what I have learned so far. I definitely plan to read some more.

JustTilThenNow

As expected, you offer only smoke, mirrors, and your ever-present gas. No proof, no data...nothing.

Why am I not surprised.

JTTN,
"I haven't the time to respond to you how I would like to now"

Before you do, please watch the video on this page, entitled Baloney Detection Kit.

http://www.skeptic.com/

Then, if you think your ideas meet those ten criteria, come back. But be prepared to say how they do.

Ukba,
"Homeopathy can be helpful for some people. And I know of some people who are really into that stuff."

Sure, so can sugar pills. And there are also some people who are "really into" tinfoil hats and believing that aliens have sexually assaulted them.

This is something like arguing that billions of people believe in Christianity, so it must be true.

"I say Darwin both illuminated artifical selection and natural selection--that he hit upon the fundamental underlying foundation of both,--the working foundation for further study. And you seem to agree with the part about artifical selection because you say in those days 'the breeders flew by the seat of their pants'. Well of course they did--and Darwin pointed this out plenty of times in his work. He clearly stated they worked unconsciously (the breeders) and had been doing so for thousands of years. And when he, Darwin, came along it was a great step forward in selection period--whether natural or artificial."

No, Daniel. He didn't help breeders at all. You don't know what you're talking about.

Breeders already had the right idea - you choose the animals with the phenotypes closest to your ideal, and you breed them to one another. This was what they did then, this is what we do now. It was, and is, far from "unconscious."

We now know (no thanks to Darwin) that what we're choosing is a genotype. But because we have no way (even today) of knowing that genotype precisely, we still do it the old-fashioned way. We do have a few available DNA tests in some breeds - mainly for hereditary diseases. We also understand about dominant and recessive genes, which helps us to know what we might expect from a breeding where certain traits are involved. Again - no thanks to Darwin.

What Darwin did was show how nature was able to make "choices" like those a breeder made. That's all. He taught breeders nothing.

I have been a dog breeder for nearly 30 years - I know whereof I speak.

You misunderstand Darwin completely and are not worth arguing with further.

Schaum,

"To hell with being a good man. Get yourself an education and learn to handle the language, and the rudiments, at least, of logic."

Your motto?

He does have the "rudiments" of logic. You are just extremely critical as a starting point, and of him the more, and whatever he says.

I am not defending Daniel here,he can be annoying, but it is clear that you have little heart for what irritates you. Bitter? The acidity is clear from a distance. You may be what you choose, it's just some tendencies can be a complement to our fellow humans, and some just expose corrosiveness.

Hello Schaum,

"You are attempting to reinforce your position by making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion. These are red-herrings unless you have factual answers, or data that would project reasonable answers. Do you?"

There are several things here. We could start with the link that Pamsm posted. Is that factual? From a quick reading it was clear that it was biased, deliberately skewed toward a prejudged position, to support that prejudged position. Do you trust data that comes from such sources? Indeed, it can be accurate, or at least based in some fact, and then torqued into a political or emotional statement.

Does a web page Truth make?

I do not need to offer supporting data for anything that I opine. Neither do you, nor do you. I am sure that data is available for malpractice of physicians, as well as incompetence. I have no doubt that homeopathy has it's share of incompetence. Are you saying that you refuse to recognize this in conventional medicine, even as stories of malpractice are reported as commonplace in the media?

Red herrings they are not. My point was clear, and I had neither the time nor inspiration to research some web pages to offer you "data" on what is widely known. This is no "negative suggestion", though your attempt to derail it as such, seeking "data" is noted.

“You say that homeopathy helps you? Read about a few it didn't help”

Homeopathy can be helpful for some people. And I know of some people who are really into that stuff. But I have to say it is not for me. Vaccines are beneficial but sometimes adverse reactions can happen as Desiree Jennings found out after receiving a seasonal flu shot.

http://current.com/items/91185472_desiree-jennings-life-ruined-by-flu-shot.htm

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-101909-al-flu_shot_reaction.2312a4218.html

JustTilThenNow:

"Hey, how many have died in the hands of competent physicians and surgeons, that either had a bad day, misdiagnosed by understandable oversight or lack of information or honesty of the patient? How many over prescribed, or poorly prescribed, for fear of malpractice suits? How many are more interested in pushing procedures over acting based on the human in front of them, just to pay the malpractice insurance?"

You are attempting to reinforce your position by making appeals to emotion and negative suggestion. These are red-herrings unless you have factual answers, or data that would project reasonable answers. Do you?

Daniel12:

"Daniel12" and "Daniel-12" and "Daniel_12" and "DanielTwelve" are all DIFFERENT screen names. I haven't seen anyone attempting to copy your style, content or logic. Stop whining.

Daniel12:

"If I ever decide to become a good man"

To hell with being a good man. Get yourself an education and learn to handle the language, and the rudiments, at least, of logic.

Daniel12:

"

Pam, think for a moment about what you are saying. Your historical interpretation goes something like this: Both artificial and natural selection not understood before Darwin. Breeders flying by the seat of their pants and no understanding of natural selection existent. Then comes Darwin illuminating natural selection only--his work absolutely no illumination on artificial selection. Then comes genetics illuminating artificial selection. What you essentially have is artificial selection jumping from being something applied by the seat of one's pants to genetics bypassing Darwin completely, as if Darwin was no important stage at all in understanding artificial selection. That of course is wrong.

Pam, you contradict yourself.

I say Darwin both illuminated artifical selection and natural selection--that he hit upon the fundamental underlying foundation of both,--the working foundation for further study. And you seem to agree with the part about artifical selection because you say in those days "the breeders flew by the seat of their pants". Well of course they did--and Darwin pointed this out plenty of times in his work. He clearly stated they worked unconsciously (the breeders) and had been doing so for thousands of years. And when he, Darwin, came along it was a great step forward in selection period--whether natural or artificial.

But you want to say because Darwin knew nothing of Mendel and others--the genetics--that he had nothing to do with illuminating artificial selection. That of course is flat out wrong. Darwin was a major step in understanding artificial selection. And here is where you contradict yourself--your very words: "Everyone already knew about artificial selection. What they didn’t understand was how nature, apart from God, could do the same thing. Darwin showed them how." How do you reconcile saying that everyone knew about artificial selection with saying previously that people knew nothing and flew by the seat of their pants? Answer: no reconciliation is possible.

The true story is that prior to Darwin breeders worked unconsciously and we had Lamarck. After Darwin a great deal of understanding was had concerning selection period--whether artificial or natural. Then came genetics illuminating not just artificial selection as you seem to hold, but selection period. That is the correct historical order and interpretation.

Hey, how many have died in the hands of competent physicians and surgeons, that either had a bad day, misdiagnosed by understandable oversight or lack of information or honesty of the patient? How many over prescribed, or poorly prescribed, for fear of malpractice suits? How many are more interested in pushing procedures over acting based on the human in front of them, just to pay the malpractice insurance?

Hello Pamsm,

Thank you for your last couple of posts, as well the link that you sent. I haven't the time to respond to you how I would like to now, unfortunately, but wanted to send out more of that love and appreciation.

The link does have a discernable aftertaste of bias. How many died in the incompetent hands of inattentive and uncaring physicians, or outright doctor quackers? This site already condemns ANY time spent in 'alternative' medicines as lost and useless and valueless.

There are sites that could be filled by those successes who rejected orthodox medical treatment for alternative practices and continue to live today. For there are people, some I know personally, that are alive today and were brought back from the brink by practices and therapies that doctors either gave no value to or argued directly against.

I will have to come back to this later, I am sorry to say. Thank you for your passionate podium pounding projecting the plea for p(h)armaceutical pleasure pills. I have enjoyed the joust.

“Pam, Tell me something. Do breeders when they breed animals have the animals changing themselves according to Lamarck's theory or do they follow Darwin's theory? Answer: their changing of the animals follows the ground rule Darwin laid out.”

Gee, Daniel, if you’re going to answer it, why ask me? But in fact, the answer is, they use neither. In Darwin’s day, they flew by the seats of their pants, choosing phenotypical traits that they liked and breeding on with the animals that possessed them. Today, although still largely the same, they add in a bit of genetics, especially where DNA testing is possible.

D12: “Prior to Darwin neither breeders nor observers of nature had a grasp of the underlying mechanism.”

They didn’t after Darwin, either. Darwin knew nothing about genetics or DNA

D12: “He used breeding to gain insight into natural selection and in return natural selection illuminated what breeders were doing.”

First part is right, second part is wrong.

D12: “Darwin is known for getting the mechanism of selection right whether it be natural or applied by man in breeding. Furthermore, Darwin had no problem with natural or artificial (applied by man) selection. He did not say he was the discoverer of natural selection in contradistinction to artificial selection…”

Of course he did. Everyone already knew about artificial selection. What they didn’t understand was how nature, apart from God, could do the same thing. Darwin showed them how.

D12: “Darwin was interested in both. And again, without him describing the underlying mechanism there would have been no satisfactory explanation for change in animals whether in the state of nature or in breeding in captivity.”

He was interested in artificial selection to the extent that it illustrated his theory. And again, he did not describe the underlying mechanism for artificial selection. He never said "how" animals change, only "why" they do.

Has anyone noticed that we have here both a daniel12 and a daniel-12 here?

Schaum, thank you for the kind words. If I ever decide to become a good man rather than the evil man you describe me as being I will be sure to model myself after you.

JTTN,
You say that homeopathy helps you? Read about a few it didn't help:

http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Again, it seems someone is trying to pose as me on this thread. A few posts back someone with the handle Daniel-12 posted a piece. I did not write that. That person should really pose as Schaum or Pam or really anybody else here. Then the person might have some authority. Everyone knows I get nothing right.

Daniel12,

"Darwin is not identical to natural selection, he is identical to the mechanism he described whether it be natural or exercised by man in altering species for his own benefit--including altering himself."

Daniel, as usual, you are completely out to lunch. The "method he described" is natural selection. Human selection, as used by breeders, is not the same thing, and Darwin knew that. He was comparing what nature does to what humans do, and explaining how such a thing was possible.

Pam, Tell me something. Do breeders when they breed animals have the animals changing themselves according to Lamarck's theory or do they follow Darwin's theory? Answer: their changing of the animals follows the ground rule Darwin laid out. Prior to Darwin neither breeders nor observers of nature had a grasp of the underlying mechanism. Darwin answered that in both cases. He used breeding to gain insight into natural selection and in return natural selection illuminated what breeders were doing. Darwin is known for getting the mechanism of selection right whether it be natural or applied by man in breeding. Furthermore, Darwin had no problem with natural or artificial (applied by man) selection. He did not say he was the discoverer of natural selection in contradistinction to artificial selection, he treated both insightfully. Pages and pages of the origin of species are devoted to explaining what occurs when breeders cross this variety with that, etc. (pages and pages devoted to why some hybrids are sterile and others are fertile). In fact the "origin of species" tackles virtually equally natural and applied by man selection. Darwin was interested in both. And again, without him describing the underlying mechanism there would have been no satisfactory explanation for change in animals whether in the state of nature or in breeding in captivity.

Daniel12,
"Darwin is not identical to natural selection, he is identical to the mechanism he described whether it be natural or exercised by man in altering species for his own benefit--including altering himself."

Daniel, as usual, you are completely out to lunch. The "method he described" is natural selection. Human selection, as used by breeders, is not the same thing, and Darwin knew that. He was comparing what nature does to what humans do, and explaining how such a thing was possible.

And you need to get off the notion of self-directed human evolution. It isn't possible.

As politics trumps science, inconvenient scientific findings are simply cast aside. Such manipulation prompted the Bush administration’s removal of accurate information about condoms from the CDC website, replaced with inaccurate claims about the high failure rate of condoms. Flawed science on the right wrongly links abortion with breast cancer, and teaches that women cannot become pregnant from rape ("fear prevents ovulation"). Some sex education classes, limited to abstinence-only, teach that "women need financial support, men need adoration." Policy that denies access to emergency contraception is steered by those seeking reclassification of contraceptives as abortifacients, and re-definition of pregnancy as the point of fertilization instead of the medical definition, implantation.

Global warming theory was denounced as "a hoax" by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla) — "nothing less than environmental socialism," charged Rep. John Doolittle (R-Ca). Ridiculing promotion of fuel-efficient automobiles, Inhofe mocked efforts "to mold the behavior of U.S. businesses to conform with the "global warming ideology." Ultraconservative legislators voted in 1998 to slash $200 million earmarked for energy efficiency initiatives and renewable technologies research, while essentially forbidding any discussion of global warming and climate-related issues.

During the Reagan administration, the Centers for Disease Control ceased maintaining records regarding mortality and morbidity rates of poor minority women denied access to legal abortion. Subsequently, tracking gun morbidity and mortality statistics was likewise halted. The politicization, manipulation and suppression of science by the Bush administration reportedly led to heavy editing of the 2002 Environmental Protection Agency report on pollution, resulting in the removal of a section on global warming. Journalist Tom Yulsman reported that the "National Assessment" of potential consequences of climate change in the U.S., produced by hundreds of scientists after extensive review, was relegated by the administration to a "black hole" (The Denver Post, 8/21/05).

In the spirit of political inquisition, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has demanded that three scientists relinquish records of every study related to climate research they have completed, every source of funding for their work, the location of all of their data archives, a description of everything they have done with the data, and all of their computer code, observed Yulsman. The "crime" of these scientists is a reconstruction of climate history demonstrating warmer temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century than any period during the past 1,000 years. Barton himself is reported the beneficiary of more than $1.7 million in campaign contributions from oil, gas and electric utilities. The purposeful corruption of science by ideologues in service of absolute political power and patronage portends regression to a new dark age in America.

JTTN (cont'd.),

You: “Louis Pasteur was an "18th century guy", so how are you using that bit as a form of derision?”
then
“Adjustment to the last post: Pasteur was a 19th century guy. Much more reliable, those.”

Yes, indeedy. By his time, they actually had some idea what disease was, and what caused it.

YOU: “I am sure that you are aware that science is built upon the works of those that came before. Do you really spit out ‘18th century guy’ as vile, when so much grew from dem guys? Since you love Wikipedia:” [link to a list of 18th Century experimenters in various fields]

Science is built upon the works of those who actually get something right, as evidenced by successful experiments. Nothing has been built on homeopathy. Nothing. It does not factor into modern medicine at all. It is still just as it’s founder propounded it.

You: “The basic assumption of homeopathy is to introduce a diluted amount of the pathogen, toxin or 'illness' to prime the immune system to preparedness in battling it. You suggest it is the same, fundamentally, with vaccines.”

Here you are simply, and completely, wrong. Homeopathy does not use pathogens or toxins. Vaccines use viruses, not homeopathy. If it did, it would be required to prove the safety and efficacy of its “medicines” (and I use the term extremely loosely) with controlled double-blind studies. It does not. It uses herbs, such as stinging nettle. Herbs that supposedly cause the same symptoms as disease would cause. Then it dilutes them until nothing remains. You are buying water.

You then descend into arguments about big pharma. Their business practices may suck, but their products are pretty damned good, so far.

But it’s OK, JTTN, keep on believin’, ‘cause this is how the herd really does get thinned.

I’ll look for you in the Darwin Awards.

JTTN,
“Do you seriously consider Wikipedia to be a definitive source of unbiased information?”

Sometimes. Wikipedia is not where I learned about Homeopathy, but I read their article, found it to be factually correct and not opinionated, so sent the link. I can provide others.

How about Quackwatch – a doctor’s site devoted to helping people avoid ripoffs?
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html

Or the Skeptic’s dictionary - the Skeptic’s Society being a group devoted to fostering critical thinking:
http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

Check out some of the links at the bottom of this one. Here’s an excerpt from one page:
“Swiss scientists compared the results of more than 100 trials of homeopathic medicines with the same number of trials of conventional medicines in a whole range of medical conditions, from respiratory infections to surgery. They found that homeopathy had no more than a placebo effect.”

BTW, when you’re on that page, you’ll see an ad for a book on the right, called “Becoming a Critical Thinker.” Consider ordering it.

There are others. Even the NIH’s center for alternative medicine isn’t complimentary. But you’ll have to find that one yourself – I’ve reached my link limit.

You: “It is a common disease that we all tend to choose what will confirm what we already believe. Nay?”

Nay. My beliefs call for actual evidence, yours are sheer gullibility. Homeopaths don’t do controlled double-blind experiments. Ask yourself why not.

Daniel12:

"Massive and constant use of antibiotics does not wipe out bacteria--cannot be used as if WMD against bacteria."

And nobody here has made that claim, you ignorant, uninformed, uninquiring twit.

Daniel12:

"Tell me Schaum, what is it about me that deserves to be spoken to as you speak to me, despite all your knowledge of the holocaust, all the evil of which men are capable?"

Oh, grow up! You deserve scorn because you pass yourself off as a genius, an intellectual, when you have repeatedly proven that you are nothing more than an ignorant and racist flunkie. You have nothing to say that is related to reality. You drag race into everything: you are a racist. You deserved to be treated as exactly what you are.

Do not equate yourself with the Jews. They did not choose to remain ignorant! That was your choice. Live with it.

Part one.

To Edbyron from Daniel. What Darwin is known for is his correct understanding of the mechanism of evolution--and that mechanism is that species put out variants of themselves and these variants result in the transformation of species. This process occurs naturally--natural selection--but it is also the process that breeders capitalize on when they breed animals. Darwin is not identical to natural selection, he is identical to the mechanism he described whether it be natural or exercised by man in altering species for his own benefit--including altering himself. You seem to believe that if a species is not altering naturally and that man has a hand in it it has nothing to do with Darwin. To get a better grasp of what I mean contrast Darwinism with Lamarckism. Lamarck believed species acquire characteristics and pass them on. Darwin said no, species put out variants of themselves and some of these variants go on to alter the species. It occurs naturally and it can be directed by man to a degree--but the underlying mechanism is the same.

Part two.

As for my saying that the effect of man on himself by medicine--and of course the preservation by such of people that would have probably died in past times--is a form of natural selection, well I said no such thing. What I did say is that medicine is allowing a greater variety of humans to exist, and it seems that all the variation in human males in contradistinction to females this is bringing out--going by test scores in school, more likelihood of autism in boys, etc.--is evidence of the observation of Darwin that when a species varies it often favors one sex over the other in this process. I am saying that the evidence seems to point out that the human species is evolving to greater intelligence (the fossil record bears this out), and this evolution proceeds asymmetrically, favoring the male of the species over the female. That is all.

As for the problem of I.Q. negatively correlated with fertility, here I think we can see in common. I do think this is a problem--not least because so much dangerous technology has and is coming into being. And as for this problem not having anything to do with race, well that is just absurd. We both know damn well that low fertility and high I.Q. means white people, Asians such as the Japanese and others, and that high fertility...you fill in the rest.

edbyronadams,
"Cultural evolution is orders of magnitude faster than organic evolution..."

i have called this our "cultural chromosome". "dna" on this chromosome is stored (and "inherited") in libraries, schools, bars, homes, and in our minds. every human learns millions of little bits of cultural info about behavior, religion, math etc...

like you say, this cultural dna evolves much more rapidly than actual dna.

Daniel 12 wrote,

"Societies that allow people to live who would have died under natural selection is not Darwinism, true, if by Darwin we mean natural selection only. But Darwin is not only natural selection. When we breed animals or plants or have society allowing people to live who would have died under natural selection we are still following the rule Darwin laid out about species evolving by putting out variants of themselves. Darwin himself in "The origin of species" began his defense of natural selection by bringing up examples of the effects of animal breeding. The effect of man in breeding animals, or having society allow people to live who would have died under natural selection, is to imitate and hopefully improve on natural selection. But all so far follow the general rule of species putting out variants of themselves.

As for whether the human race is becoming more intelligent or not, the fossil record plainly shows a path toward greater intelligence. As for fertility and I.Q. being negatively correlated, high I.Q. people have always been in the minority, have always reproduced less--and still the human race has evolved toward intelligence. No doubt there must have been many setbacks in the development of intelligence--and we should worry today about the less intelligent outbreeding the more intelligent because we have WMD--but the general trend has been toward the evolution of intelligence."

Darwinism and the theory of natural selection are the same thing. When he used the example of artificial selection in "Origin", it was to advance the notion of the variability of species and the possibility of selection. He did not claim that any such artificial selection occurred in the natural world. Furthermore, the idea that genetic defects that propagate in the current human population because of medical technology is a form of natural selection is absurd. To link that to the general trend of higher cranial capacity in the evolution of hominids is bizarre and to link that to sex linked phenotype expression is downright kooky.

Cultural evolution is orders of magnitude faster than organic evolution and seems to have a greater bearing on measured IQ (mostly attributed to better diet) than anything that has happened to gene frequency. That does not negate the firmly established trend of a negative correlation between measured IQ and the number of offspring and if we wait long enough, perhaps that will overwhelm the cultural factors.

Why you introduced the subject of race into the discussion, which I did not, speaks to another of your own peculiar obsessions.

To Schaum from Daniel. You are not so much sarcastic as plain mean spirited. Interesting coming from a man who owns--how many Schaum?--a hundred books on the holocaust? Tell me Schaum, what is it about me that deserves to be spoken to as you speak to me, despite all your knowledge of the holocaust, all the evil of which men are capable? Is it that I deserve what the Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies did not deserve? Please explain. But there is no explanation is there? How to reconcile all that knowledge of the holocaust with you saying to me "did your mommy clue you in?" not to mention all the times you called me ignorant, village idiot, etc.? I think we have a discrepancy. Perhaps people should not study the holocaust. It might make us more mean spirited rather than less. Or does the study of the holocaust make us better men? There is a piece of work for you Schaum. Write a piece on how the study of the holocaust makes us less evil, better men. I would like to read that piece.

Massive and constant use of antibiotics does not wipe out bacteria--cannot be used as if WMD against bacteria. Bacteria always outstrip medicine it seems. Antibiotics must be used sparingly, paradoxically, to beat bacteria. The less exposed bacteria to antibiotics the more they can be treated by antibiotics. This means people must discipline themselves, not use antibiotics until as a last resort. People must allow themselves to become sick, paradoxically, to not die of bacteria. Most of the time people recover without antibiotics. Antibiotics should be used only on the most difficult cases. But people are undisciplined. They prefer that science just keep trying to develop some form of medicine that crushes bacteria completely--makes diseases of such extinct. Science might be able to do such, but in the meantime antibiotics should be used sparingly--and there should be a law supporting this. Because if not used sparingly--and science not coming up with a definitive antibiotic--we find ourselves living as our forefathers, subject to diseases we wish had never returned. Interesting. It seems at least in some cases man can develop quite effective medicines. The problem is people do not know how to take them. Interesting how this parallels use of weaponry. Easy to develop but really no sense of when to use and not to use. Same old story, I suppose, of man not equal to the technology he creates.

Onofrio below:

Perhaps *global warming* is the earth's fever versus our virulence...

Awesome. Hats off to you. Combination of knowledge of medicine--what exactly a fever is--with something of Gaia theory.

To Schaum from Daniel. I knew you would reply as you did--try to make out what you said as sarcasm. The sarcastic part was the part about me thinking I am a genius and that I think so because, among other reasons, I have everything Socrates wrote. You did not know Socrates wrote nothing. You are faking that you did know and that it was sarcasm. There was no reason to add that as sarcasm. The sarcastic point had already been made. You were essentially saying I think I am so smart because I have an extensive library--as if that makes me smart and nothing more. I believe you are faking the part about Socrates. I believe you thought Socrates wrote things. That mistake is not so rare.

"'Tis a vise."

Gripping, tuneful atonement for my duelling quips and prosy gruel?"

More my odd little connection of nonsense. Your great verse is a vice. And visa versa.

Not to deny it could be a vice, as our resting places have the trouble of being, now and then. But for me, it is no trouble.

Justillthennow

"'Tis a vise."

Gripping, tuneful atonement for my duelling quips and prosy gruel?

Rest you.

"And you tell me I'm uninformed?"

Where did I say that?

Damn, how did that get repeated in here? Because of this?:

"You may make the uninformed judgment that my experience is deluded, as you like."

From where did you receive information of my experiences, and their validity or delusion? Perchance from your certainty that you know what is valid experience and what is deluded? Careful, here the line between 'rationalist' and 'religionist' become hazy!

"BTW, DITLD is correct, antibiotics do not weaken the immune system at all.

Where do you get this stuff, JTTN?"

Continue to repeat that first statement, over and over, as you have, and feel really, really good about it all... All of it...

Then you can forward it to CNN or Fox, and I bet they would just love it. Make a ninety second bit on it. Bookend it with corporate funding from, hey, the list is long, any number of vested interests.

From a magickal, mystical thinker...

With love. (Serious on the last part. Love is a serious endevour!)

"'Twill thin our thicket to a stick."

God, (I mean you, Onofrio!) you got some great verse. 'Tis a vise.

Adjustment to the last post:

Pasteur was a 19th century guy.

Much more reliable, those.

Pamsm,

Do you seriously consider Wikipedia to be a definitive source of unbiased information?

It is a common disease that we all tend to choose what will confirm what we already believe. Nay?

Louis Pasteur was an "18th century guy", so how are you using that bit as a form of derision?

I am sure that you are aware that science is built upon the works of those that came before. Do you really spit out "18th century guy" as vile, when so much grew from dem guys? Since you love Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_century#Scientists.2C_researchers

The basic assumption of homeopathy is to introduce a diluted amount of the pathogen, toxin or 'illness' to prime the immune system to preparedness in battling it. You suggest it is the same, fundamentally, with vaccines.

And you deride homeopathy, (among the many valuless...), torocrap (?) antennae all a tizzy, eschewing the deluded, while singing praises to the pharmaceuticals.

"And then you tell me smugly that it has "proven worth" to you? I could draw circles on your arm with various colors of felt tip pen for 5 days, and your cold would go away. Would that prove cause and effect to you?"

Smugly? Really?

It does have proven worth to me. You have passed judgment, based on whatever, and so negate (there comes that word again!) the possibility that value could be there for others, for you have precluded it's possibility. What a surprise!

Your felt tip pen 'example' is clearly intended as an insult to my 'intelligence'. Certainly my rationality, since you clearly toss that out from consideration.

Who is smug?

"And you tell me I'm uninformed?"

Where did I say that?

I know more people than I can count that have compromised immune systems, and one of the common denominators with all of them is overuse of antibiotics as well as other prescription drugs, along with far too many that were not breast fed, or were taken off the breast far too early. Formulas, don't you know, are far better than mothers milk, now that science understands nutrition....

The dollar will always be king over 'higher ideal', in a privatized, capitalistic economy.

I know at least a dozen people that got a flu shot in the last year that got sicker than they remember. For what, exactly? To keep from getting sick?

No, because they were more afraid of the propaganda that they could DIE if they did not get the shot.

Be a cheerleader for $ fixated multinationals if you want, Pamsm, but keep your smug judgment of contrarian perspectives in your own bag, thanks loads.

I am in no way against the 'miracles' of science. I have been clear about that. But science, and the pharmaceuticals, have their own 'interests' in mind, and they are invested in the outcome and their own betterment financially, and in no small way.

You don't think this plays? Probably not.

BTW, DITLD is correct, antibiotics do not weaken the immune system at all.

Where do you get this stuff, JTTN?

"Perhaps AIDS is just natures "new" way of thinning the herd, since we've done a good job of thwarting other natural thinning-out diseases."

Perhaps *global warming* is the earth's fever versus our virulence...

'Twill thin our thicket to a stick.

Schaum,

"Perhaps AIDS is just natures "new" way of thinning the herd, since we've done a good job of thwarting other natural thinning-out diseases."

Careful, now Schaum. I have heard that banter from contrarians and ne'er do wells who, seen as such and antagonists to boot, are roundly criticized for bigotry and hatred and all things hate crimes. Seems one must be a friendly before your (otherwise obvious) message might get a hearing.

AIDS backed up by porkers.. 'tis a rich stew... You would have all saying "Praise the Lord but pass the vaccine!"

JTTN,
Did you read the page on Homeopathy that I linked to?? And it doesn't sound like quackery to you? Diluting your "active ingredient" down to pure water, and then banging it on a table to "activate" it?? That this was thought up by one 18th century guy?? That scientific testing shows no benefit??

And then you tell me smugly that it has "proven worth" to you? I could draw circles on your arm with various colors of felt tip pen for 5 days, and your cold would go away. Would that prove cause and effect to you?

And you tell me I'm uninformed?

I have always thought you a magical, mystical thinker, rather than a rational one, and you just keep confirming it.

"people would almost prefer, willfully, to be ignorant of things that are easily come by and learned."

Not unlike religion.

I don't think that antibiotics cause people to develop weakened immune systems. The problem with antibiotics is that their misuse, overuse, or incomplete use sometimes promote the growth of drug resistenat bacteria.

Homeopathic theory is not really based on science. People can try it if they like, but there is no scientific assurance that it works, and I do not have any confidence in it.

Chemotherapy treatment for cancer IS INDEED a toxic treatment. The object is to kill all of the cancer before killing the patient. As bad as it is, for many kinds of cancer, that is all we currently have. Everyone who takes chemotherapy knows the dangers and risks. No one is trying to deceive them or seduce them into drinking the "poison" dearie. The very suggestion, in my opinion, marginalizes the extreme problem that cancer patients and their doctors face, in trying to fight such a deadly disease with such primitive drug strategies.

Many people are blessed with good heatlh and with good luck. That is no reason to gloat over those of us who have had bad health and bad luck. This is an attitude that I cannot understand.

Getting back to the subject of the flu vaccine: apparently, many people have no idea what a vaccine is or how it works. I was under impression that this was basic common knowledge. Now that I am aware that it is not, I can understand better how people might be afraid of being vaccinated. But is a real shame, isn't it, that such common and ordinary information must lay dormant in unread books, and that people would almost prefer, willfully, to be ignorant of things that are easily come by and learned.

The bottom line, I suppose, is, if a person is afraid of the flu vaccine, then just don't take it.

Daniel12:

"To Schaum who said my personal library contains everything Socrates ever wrote...Socrates wrote nothing."

No s*it, Sherlock! You actually caught one! You are not entirely incapable of sarcasm, after all! Congratulations. Maybe this means you've learned to do some research before you start writing your drivel.

Or did mommy clue you in?

Hello Pamsm,

Thank you for the delightful response. No doubt my last one to you was also a joy.

"Homeopathy is a therapy that has proven worth to me, and I have used successfully for years. You may make the uninformed judgment that my experience is deluded, as you like. I also value antibiotics and vaccines, and all the advances that modern medicine has brought us. Yet it is clear that overuse of antibiotics weaken an immune system and make individuals more susceptible to colds, flues and infections. Some are essentially anti-all-biotics, killing a wide spectrum of bacteria and friendly microorganisms in an attempt to wipe out the insulting ones. This stripping of internal resources is not a help, of itself, even if the frontal attack on the malevolent bacteria is a relief to the overtaxed immune system. Scorched earth.

Chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer is a blessing to love if it keeps one alive, but then it kills you to keep you alive. While some people go into remission with no treatment. I have a list of friends with this result.

It does not make chemotherapy friendly because one may live through the treatment and extend what appears to be a sure oncoming death. It just means that the toxicity that chemotherapy is was used, (just sip a bit of this, dearie...), in a careful trade, for longevity.

I am aware that we have come, over the last one hundred years, light years in terms of medical and pharmaceutical tools for intervention in disease. But coupled with those advances have been, likewise, light years of advance in civic hygiene alone, not to mention personal hygiene, nutritional advances, overcoming of widespread poverty and malnutrition, and on. The purity of present day water supplies to metropolitan areas alone, compared to the filthy water that was available to drink at the turn of the 19th century, is enough by itself to account for improved survivability rates to disease and greater life expectancies.

You cannot give credit for increased health and survivability of the population to antibiotics and vaccines alone, Pamsm, even if they have carried a great deal of that weight.

"By constantly combining and recombining genes every generation, people "keep their genes one step ahead of their parasites," thereby strengthening resistance to bacteria and viruses that cause fatal diseases or epidemics."

Yes, recombination gives lots more variation for evolution to work on - that's why so many organisms, plant and animal, use it.

I thought Ridley made a lot of sense, and I love the comparison to the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass:

"'Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else — if you run very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'

'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

Great analogy to the organism/disease arms race.

Part one.

"Dainel 12 reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinism. Stating that societal structures that allow people who would have been naturally selected to die to live on and reproduce is a form of Darwinism is to miss the "natural" in natural selection. Furthermore, since there is a negative correlation between IQ and number of children born, putting forth the idea that we are currently on some Darwinian trend toward greater intelligence is absurd."

Societies that allow people to live who would have died under natural selection is not Darwinism, true, if by Darwin we mean natural selection only. But Darwin is not only natural selection. When we breed animals or plants or have society allowing people to live who would have died under natural selection we are still following the rule Darwin laid out about species evolving by putting out variants of themselves. Darwin himself in "The origin of species" began his defense of natural selection by bringing up examples of the effects of animal breeding. The effect of man in breeding animals, or having society allow people to live who would have died under natural selection, is to imitate and hopefully improve on natural selection. But all so far follow the general rule of species putting out variants of themselves.

As for whether the human race is becoming more intelligent or not, the fossil record plainly shows a path toward greater intelligence. As for fertility and I.Q. being negatively correlated, high I.Q. people have always been in the minority, have always reproduced less--and still the human race has evolved toward intelligence. No doubt there must have been many setbacks in the development of intelligence--and we should worry today about the less intelligent outbreeding the more intelligent because we have WMD--but the general trend has been toward the evolution of intelligence.

Part two.

And we should be careful saying that the less intelligent are outbreeding the more intelligent, for the less intelligent in this case are peoples not Asian such as the Japanese, and not European. In fact such people are Muslims, blacks, et al. Strange how we cannot say of a people that they are less intelligent than another people--for that would be racism--but we are allowed to say that the people that reproduce the most are the least intelligent. Or rather we say fertility is negatively correlated with I.Q. and do not mention any people at all although everyone knows what this means--and no one cries racism.

I.Q. negatively correlated with fertility has always existed. By definition to be high I.Q. is to be in a minority. But if we could correlate I.Q. with fertility no doubt that would be an astounding jump in human development. But could we organize a society that would allow that? Of course not. That would be discrimination against the less intelligent. There has never been a politics of the more intelligent allowed to breed more than the less intelligent. Consolation: the human race has developed anyway. Why is this so? Natural selection actually favoring the development of intelligence no matter how absurd that seems in the short view? Seems to be the case.

To Schaum who said my personal library contains everything Socrates ever wrote...Socrates wrote nothing.

"Perhaps AIDS is just natures "new" way of thinning the herd, since we've done a good job of thwarting other natural thinning-out diseases."

Nah, nature doesn't give a fig - she's got no skin in the game - whatever happens, happens. The virus that causes AIDS, however, has plenty to gain in jumping from green monkeys to humans - a whole new niche to exploit.

We're ahead of the curve on diseases, thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, but we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back too hard - the disease-causing organisms have time and reproductive rate on their side. They can evolve faster than we can find new miracle drugs.

Just finished reading The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley. Great book, builds on a lot of my prior reading. I almost never re-read, at least until lately now that I’m disposing of my library, but I think I'm going to go back to it after a couple of weeks and read it again. On first reading I'm not sure I agree with some of Ridley's more extreme ideas about the relationship between violence, pornography and men but it remains debatable. I really like the perspectives presented on intra-specific aggression and competition, even if in and of themselves these things are a weak theory for driving the development of human intelligence.
He says one of the main biological reasons we have sex is to combat disease. By constantly combining and recombining genes every generation, people "keep their genes one step ahead of their parasites," thereby strengthening resistance to bacteria and viruses that cause fatal diseases or epidemics.

"In 1900, the annual crude death rate from infectious diseases was 800 per 100,000—in 1980 it was thirty-six per 100,000 (but it crept back up to sixty-three per 100,000 by 1995, because of the impact of AIDS)."

Perhaps AIDS is just natures "new" way of thinning the herd, since we've done a good job of thwarting other natural thinning-out diseases.

DITLD,
"OTC cold medicines only moderate the discomfort of symptoms, often by sedative or tranqulizing effects. I personally do not like most of them, and usually do not take them."

I don't like the ones with sedatives, either. But they also have decongestants and cough suppressants - and that's the good part. Try Dayquil, or other "non-drowsy" types. If you're quick, and take it at the first hint of a cold coming on, it will never develop symptoms.

From Answers.com on life expectancy at birth in the Twentieth Century:

"The gain in life expectancy at birth over the twentieth century, from forty-seven to seventy-seven years, far exceeded the increase that occurred from the beginning of human civilization up to 1900. This extraordinary change reflects profound changes both in the timing of deaths and the causes of deaths. In 1900, 20 percent of newborns died before reaching age five—in 1999, fewer than 20 percent died before age sixty-five. In 1900, the annual crude death rate from infectious diseases was 800 per 100,000—in 1980 it was thirty-six per 100,000 (but it crept back up to sixty-three per 100,000 by 1995, because of the impact of AIDS). At the beginning of the twentieth century the time of death was unpredictable and most deaths occurred quickly. By the end of the century, deaths were heavily concentrated in old age (past age seventy), and the dying process was often drawn out over months."

Scientologist?? Not hardly. Not even lowercase.

I believe in things that have proven worth. Antibiotics and vaccines are such things. At the turn of the twentieth century, a huge percentage of children didn't survive childhood, and their mothers frequently didn't survive their birth. Great swaths of the population succumbed to epidemics of smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and to simple infected wounds. Calvin Coolidge's son died when a blister on his toe, that he got while playing tennis, became infected. Died. From a blister.

I also have excellent torocrap antennae, and homeopathy sets them to vibrating like unto breakage.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Nothin' like that good old timey snake oil - or prayer - for curin' what ails ye!

Hey, Rex_Feral!

Here you are as well. And all pasting and copying on multiple strings, just like a pro! How special!

"May you find Christ and leave the internet and television alone."

Yes? This is really your suggestion? And you are here on the internet to spread that Good Word, and do the Work of Christ, so you need not follow your own advice?

" Read your Authorized King James Bible diligently and obey it."

I do not have a King James Version, RexFeral. Not my cup of tea, that version. What a surprise. But I know many that do. We don't talk much, though. There is just something that happens in those brains, and I have a harder time communicating over the abyss that seems to be formed. It gets to a shout, and by then it is no longer any fun.

Peace, and shalom, salaam and santih to you, RexFeral.

Hello Walter IFC,

No, I was not saying that Pamsm was an L. Ron Hubbard droid, a believing Scientologist of that alignment. My bad. I've gotten a bit into the habit of Capitalizing for effect, and bending words.

But then, perhaps I am a malealinguistaholic. Be careful, things are contagious around here. :-)

May you find Christ and leave the internet and television alone. Read your Authorized King James Bible diligently and obey it. Ask God to show you the old paths (Jeremiah 6:16)--the old way of living and worshipping God. Look for the old ways--Father working, Mother cooking, cleaning and caring for the children. You will find rest for your soul and a whole new world will be opened to you. You will be changed at your root. We have almost lost our manhood and womanhood--our deceptions are great but the word of God will deliver us if carefully applied to our lives. God made man to rule the world. Man was destined for greatness. May the men reading this understand that they are the image and glory of God. Repent of your sins, hide the word of God in your heart and rise to who you were made to be. Get out of debt (including your house note) for the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). Woman, clean your house and teach your children at home from the Authorized King James Version of the holy scriptures. That book will give you the foundations/rudiments of everything in all of creation and every subject to be studied--Language Arts, Geography, Counting/Mathematics (e.g., Geometry), History, Botany, Law, Economics, Science (e.g., Chemistry)--everything. Embrace Genesis 1:1 - 2:7 as your outline--read it to your child regularly. By God's grace and almighty power, babies can read while they are still in diapers. Two year olds can praise God and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Three year olds can read the Authorized Version of the scriptures. Four year olds can learn cursive writing. Five year olds can expound the word of God. Little children can exercise Biblical discernment and be wise. They can choose righteousness because they can see and feel its excellencies for themselves...On this website, there were times that I knowingly did not use proper English grammar. Please forgive me for this transgression. If you have a problem accessing any of the files resident on our server, try capitalizing the file name, e.g., http://www.Jesus-is-Lord.com/couldnt.htm becomes http://www.Jesus-is-Lord.com/COULDNT.HTM .

God has the last word, and His last word is glorious for you and for your people.
Every single last Israelite that suffered and died in Egypt; every single last Israelite that died on the way to the Promised Land; every Israelite that died in wars, in various captivities and in the various holocausts will be brought back to life in the resurrection.
Please read this great promise in the book of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, chapter 37.

1 The hand of the LORD came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones.

2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry.

3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”
So I answered, “O Lord GOD, You know.”

4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!

5 Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live.

6 I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.”’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them.

9 Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.”’”

10 So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army.

11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’

12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

13 Then you shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves.

14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken it and performed it,” says the LORD.’”

Pamsm has it EXACTLY right. Frankly, I am a little shocked at the degree of ignorance there seems to be on this subject.

"Vaccinations" stimulate the immune system to fight a specific virus. With the flu virus, it can be tricky to come up with the right vaccine, because a projecton must be made in advance, which strain of the flu will take off and be dominant in any given flu season. And of, anyone can catch unusual or odd strains of the flu any time of the year, for which a seasonal flu vaccine might not have provided immunity. There is really nothing toxic or hazardous in a flu vaccine.

Antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections. If a course of antibiotics is not taken to completion, the remaining bacteria, being the more resistant bacteria will the grow and multiply into a drug resistant strain. And of course, it would seem to be common knowlege, antibiotics have ZERO effect on viruses. (Doesn't everybody know that by now?)

OTC cold medicines only moderate the discomfort of symptoms, often by sedative or tranqulizing effects. I personally do not like most of them, and usually do not take them. Often, just plain asperin relieves nasal inflamation, calms a cough, and provides mild sedation.

Statistically, living a healthy life and having a strong immune system may make people, in general, less likely to catch a cold or get the flu. Yet for individuals, there is way to say who will get the flu, and there is no way to say who will have complications. A perfectly healthy person can get sick from the flu, can develop complications, and can die from the flu.

As I said before, and will repeat, people who do not take the flu vaccine still benifit from it, because all of the other people who do take it help control the extent of a flu outbreak, and moderate or stop the virus from spreading.

I am just flabergasted that all of this is not common knowledge. Maybe we should have a little less argument of evolution vs creationism, and just a little bit more just plain old science taught in the public schools.

jttn,
re scientology, "i do not think it means what you think it means."

(indigo to vizini in the princess bride)

pam,
to you, jttn said,
"You are a believing Scientologist..."

i he using "scientologist" correctly? i think not. i think jttn means someone who trusts hard science. when i hear "scientiologist" i think L Ron Hubbard.

(actually, i also think of frank zappa's parody in joe's garage: L Ron Hoover and "the first church of appliantology" - a group of people who "get off" on vacuum cleaners and other household appliances...)

pam,
"...would figuring out the allergy pattern be analysis, and applying it to colds, synthesis?"

i would say that's a good broad description. but most processes are done in bits: a bit of analysis, then a bit of synthesis, then analysis of the recent synthesis, followed by more synthesis based on that analysis etc...

in a simple way, think of a painting. you draw a tree (synthesis), look at it and say, "that looks bad" (analysis), maybe look at a few pictures of trees, or study some real leaves (more analysis), then try again (synthesis).

Hello Pamsm,

Thanks for the post. I don't believe your take on it, for me, but what is new. Glad that OTC suppressants work for you, but they are not my ticket.

You are a believing Scientologist, and I am happy for that. I have much to learn from that take, and am happy to. But homeopathy has worked well for me so far, so I am unlikely to toss it out the door on this recommendation.

We do align with what out minds view as allies, no? And segregate from what we view as hostile, whether hostility exists there on not. Iraq, anyone?

However I am all for pursuing knowledge of what is unknown, even seen as suspicious, so I will look into these concepts you forward.

My, but you do seem to see homeopathy suspiciously, Pamsm!

Walter,
In my post to JTTN, the part about over-the-counter cold meds, would figuring out the allergy pattern be analysis, and applying it to colds, synthesis?

"the discussion about analysis vs/and synthesis"

I only have a vague memory of that. Probably should read it again.

"No, I don't know. Should I feel ashamed right about now?"

No, not ashamed, but you should start learning a few things about medicine.

First - eschew homeopathy. It's quackery of the first order. They take something that is meant to irritate the very thing that the disease irritates, and add a tiny amount of it to distilled water. Then they cut that compound with more distilled water, and continue doing this, often hundreds of times, until the original substance can no longer be detected. If you enjoy paying for water, by all means, support them.

Vaccines are just killed or attenuated viruses, mixed with fluid (such as normal saline) to make them injectable (this is done just prior to injection so no need for preservatives). There are no "toxins."

Although the dead or weakened virus isn't able to cause disease, it stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies just as the real thing would do. Then, when said real thing comes along, the antibodies are there in force to attack it.

Antibiotics are for bacterial, not viral illnesses, and should never be used when the illness is viral. Many people used to routinely die of infections that we don’t think twice about today. For a good read on the subject, try The Demon Under the Microscope: From Battlefield Hospitals to Nazi Labs, One Doctor's Heroic Search for the World's First Miracle Drug by Thomas Hager.

My great-grandfather died of an abscessed tooth. The abscess had ruptured due to poor dentistry, and he got septicemia. Antibiotics were very new then, and were sent for, but didn’t reach him in time.

As for OTC symptom suppressors, they just make you feel better while your body does its thing. But they can be preventative, if you’re quick. I discovered this when I developed my first (and so far only) allergy, to household dust, when I was in my mid-thirties. Dusting made me cough and sneeze uncontrollably, but I discovered that when I stopped, and got into fresh air, the symptoms remained, and lasted several days, as though I had a cold. It seemed that the irritation of coughing and sneezing was somehow self-perpetuating.

It made me wonder whether I could stop an actual cold from getting a foothold by taking a symptom-suppressor immediately when I felt the first tiny scratchy sensation in my throat, or the first sign of stuffiness. And, by Jove, it worked! I have had only a couple of full-blown colds since then, and those were when I was either out of cold meds (which I keep at home and work), or away from home where I couldn’t get to any quickly enough.

I’ve told some friends about this, and it works for them, too.

oops, should have said:

"Pamsm is right, the flu vaccine stimulates the immune system with dead or damaged flu viruses so that the live flu viruses CANNOT readily infect a person"

Maybe when there is such an obvious typo, people can figure out the intended meaning?

pam,
i absolutely loved that book. i still count it among the best i've ever read. i loved how it treated the left and right brain ways of looking at things. the discussion about analysis vs/and synthesis. i still think of that book a few times a week while working on a project. i'll consider whether i'm doing analysis or synthesis? they require different ways of thinking.

Hello Pamsm,

"Surely, JTTN, you know that vaccines do exactly that - exercise the immune system."

No, I don't know. Should I feel ashamed right about now? I know that homeopathic medicines follow the concept of introducing to the immune system a small dose of the toxin or pathogen to jump start response. I know that vaccines usually introduce a bit of the pathogen as well, and so there is a similarity for sure. But I did not take it as a homeopathic remedy, and I know there are compounds and toxins in vaccines that are not conducive to immune system support.

Next looming uncertainty in my mind, (so displaying my ignorance after spouting my opinion!) is how it is that vaccines are expected to be "immunizations", in to make immune from, these diseases, as opposed to being (a la homeopathy), a temporary boost to the immune system against a specific disease.

I hold the belief that any of these interventions are usually counterproductive to a more healthy and functioning immune system, so I rarely use homeopathics and only get antibiotics when I am well over my head, and I never use over the counter symptom suppressors. I believe they make the duration of symptoms longer and that I arrive at the other end not stronger but weaker. I happily use vitamins, minerals, live foods, fluids, fasts, exercise (even while moderately sick!) and sauna for body strengthening and purifying of flu symptoms.

Well, we all have our ways.

Justillthennow

Pamsm is right, the flu vaccine stimulates the immune system with dead or damaged flu viruses so that the live flu viruses readily infect a person.

I think that you may be confusing the flu with a cold. Even with the worst cold, a person can usually get along fairly normally. But just ordinary flu is devestating, spiking fevers, intermittent chills and sweats, headache, painful cough, aching muscles, and inablity to swallow food or water, followed by days or weeks of weakness and debilitation.

Hundreds of thousands of people are hospitlized for the flu every year, many of them simply because they sweat out too much fluid, and cannot drink enough to replace it, others because they develop bronchitis and pneumonia.

I have never heard of any government requirement for people to get a flu vaccine. I did not know that was a controversy. But it seems a little flippant and short-sited to dismiss the flu vaccine, because you do not understand how bad the flu is and how benign the vaccine is.

People who don't take the flu vaccine still get a benifit from it, since flu epidemics are muted and less hazardous because of all of us who do take it. The more people who take it, the better it works. That belief is not "communistic" or "socialisstic," it is just a fact; the more people who are immune, the less widespread the virus is.

I know many people who seem to confuse the flu with a cold. They are not the same thing by any means. I do not think this issue of the flu vaccine is really a religious issue, so why bring it up here? But resistance to being vaccinated is puzzling to me.

Think what a world this would be without vaccines. Just go back a couple of hundred years to see what it was like. Back then, people didn't worry so much about cancer, or heart disease, or strokes, the things we worry so much about today. Because no one lived long enough to get those diseases. In those days, children died like flies of infectious diseases, and if they did live to adulthood, still, infectous diseases was an ever-present threat, in a way that we cannot imagine today.

Again, I will say, it is a little weird that people are so afraid of vaccinations.

"But as well I am for exercising the immune system, like the body, to keep it operating well. When we... take over the counter cold medicines to suppress common cold symptoms and get injections to battle more virulent and evolving strains, I think we are doing ourselves no benefit."

Surely, JTTN, you know that vaccines do exactly that - exercise the immune system. And while OTC meds may alleviate symptoms (hallelujah, say I) they do nothing to cure the disease - that is done by the (wait for it) - immune system.

It's true that the flu vaccines may miss the mark because the viruses have evolved beyond what the vaccine can affect, but the vaccine isn't likely to hurt, costs little, and might help. As DITLD said, who wants the flu, even if it doesn't kill you?

"so, pam, you're a technical writer? i presume you've read 'zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'."

Yes, and yes. Not that you'd be able to discern the former from my use of "magnus opum", when I meant (of course) "Magnum opus." Getting dyslexic in my old age...? The opium part was intended, however. :)

It's been many years since reading Pirsig's book. I enjoyed it - learned a fair amount about internal combustion engines, which has stood me in good stead.

It put a few new wrinkles in my mind, I suppose, but I'm not a huge fan of navel-gazing philosophy in general. As (I think) Richard Feynman said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

'Maybe it is perfect...'

So sayeth those that glimpse the Tao:^)

Not that they really speak of it......

__________

Zen master Huang Po tells us, 'there is only One Substance with myriad forms, and that Substance is called the One Mind - but the true nature of that One Mind is very far from anything the term represents... One Mind being a mere contrivance.

It is beyond all categories, concepts, descriptions, or definitions, and we are that. While we say that things are neither real nor unreal, in some sense this one Substance is the only reality. So few people truly understand this. It is a pearl beyond price!'

Taken from the Zen Teachings of Huang Po as translated by John Blofeld.

Edbyronadams,

"What is needed is a stronger spiritual sense to make us choose the better of our dual nature as human beings. Alas, the keeper of this column denies spiritual reality since it lacks empirical evidence. In that, she is part of the problem, not the solution."

Alas indeed, more so that the existence of God is and has been hotly debated for eons, not least because His/Her existence lacks empirical evidence. You would think God would plan that part out better, to be better received and followed.

That said, I agree with you. Lacking clear tracks to the Truth of All Things, we must find means to choose better the better of our dualistic natures. That aim is not denied by atheists, (so far as I have seen in the majority), that do not hew to a common spiritual heritage.

"Would that include a stronger moral sense? Because, if not, we might not be areound to witness the advance of mind."

What is needed is a stronger spiritual sense to make us choose the better of our dual nature as human beings. Alas, the keeper of this column denies spiritual reality since it lacks empirical evidence. In that, she is part of the problem, not the solution.

Persiflage,

"As an agent of change, it is doubtful that the progressive organic evolution of cognitive functions is remotely competitive with the effects of the infusion of information that now comes in waves - rather than particles :^)"

Do you not think that this is just another aspect of environmental conditions that press forward necessary evolutionary adjustment? Perhaps the collective human cognitive functions have reached a 'critical mass' of potentiality, and is up to the task, on a species wide level at least, of adapting to what that mind has manifest for consumption.

Maybe it is perfect...

Hello DanielintheLionsDen,

Who wants to get the swine flu? Who wants any flu at all? But I certainly empathize with your post and concern, particularly with underlying health risks.

I think that you should do whatever it is that you choose. I am not opposed to vaccines per se, and I am clear that some have worked well and have, arguably perhaps but almost certainly, saved innumerable lives. I have had the several that have become required for children and participation in public schools. But I am not a proponent of flu vaccines, have never had one, do not expect to have one, and am indeed deeply against the idea of making them required.

One of many reasons is the mutability of the strains. I believe in science, but I do not believe that they are accurate and effective as, say, a laser guided bomb. And a vaccine not only requires the vehicle and guidance system to get into the body and to target, but it is the payload that is unleashed that is the most crucial. Trying to hit a moving target.

But as well I am for exercising the immune system, like the body, to keep it operating well. When we sit in cars to get to work, rolling chairs in an office, worship at the radiating computer screen through the day and tv screen at night while eating our KFC, take over the counter cold medicines to suppress common cold symptoms and get injections to battle more virulent and evolving strains, I think we are doing ourselves no benefit.

That said, there are times that choosing vaccination, even in my skeptical mind, is intelligent. You may well be on the right road, and I am sure that you certainly are not a "weird freak" for choosing to immunize. It may well be a lifesaver. So, Cheers and be thankful that we live in an age that it is an option we can choose.

Farnaz:

" Because, if not, we might not be areound to witness the advance of mind."

Say on, Farnaz. I do a lot of thinking about a literal existential problem: human extinction. Any ideas/views?

"The future of human intelligence is a highly speculative venture - but in all likliehood, it will increase exponentially among select groups through time."

Would that include a stronger moral sense? Because, if not, we might not be areound to witness the advance of mind.

"As an agent of change, it is doubtful that the progressive organic evolution of cognitive functions is remotely competitive with the effects of the infusion of information that now comes in waves - rather than particles :^)"

yes, our "cultural chromosome" is now evolving MUCH faster than our biological ones.

The future of human intelligence is a highly speculative venture - but in all likliehood, it will increase exponentially among select groups through time.

As an agent of change, it is doubtful that the progressive organic evolution of cognitive functions is remotely competitive with the effects of the infusion of information that now comes in waves - rather than particles :^)

Three interesting links that speak to the issue, including noted futurist/physicist Freeman Dyson.

http://www.rawilsonfans.com/articles/HII.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Edbyronadams wrote:

" putting forth the idea that we are currently on some Darwinian trend toward greater intelligence is absurd."

But...but...but...surely you are wrong. Daniel12 himself has assured us repeatedly that he is a great genius and that he writes for the generations yet to come. His personal library includes everything Socrates ever wrote!

hahahahahahahahahah

Dainel 12 reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinism. Stating that societal structures that allow people who would have been naturally selected to die to live on and reproduce is a form of Darwinism is to miss the "natural" in natural selection. Furthermore, since there is a negative correlation between IQ and number of children born, putting forth the idea that we are currently on some Darwinian trend toward greater intelligence is absurd.

Justtillthennow

Yes, they killed George Washington by bleeding him when he had a respiratory illness. Maybe he would have died anyway, but bleeding sure didn't help. I believe he was 69 and probably would have a few good years left.

What about when newscasters say things like, "there is not need to worry, the swine flu only kills people who have underlying health problems like asthma or heart disease."

How is that supposed to make us feel better? I have asthma, and I have family and loved ones with heart problems. To me, the swine flu seems pretty threatening. Even if it probably would not kill me, I still don't want to get it, I want the shot.

The flu causes alot of suffering, and it kills alot of people every year. The flu certainly causes much greater harm than the vaccine. Maybe there is some small risk to taking a flu shot, but the flu is pretty nasty, even if you are not likely to die from it.

It is strange to me, what people are afraid of. I think alot of the fear of a flu shot is actual fear of the needle, and the momentary pin-prick of the needle.

People seem to want "magic" but science is not magic; to gain immunity to a dangerous infectious disease, there is a price to be paid, getting stuck with a needle. I thank God for all of those needles with the flu vaccine inside.

Does that make me some kind of weird freak?

Magnum opium!

Hilarial.

i find daniel12's opining plodding. in his effort the explain everything it takes a paragraph to say a sentence. maybe he's trying to be precise and thorough.

so, pam, you're a technical writer? i presume you've read "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".

Pamsm,

Don't give me too much credit too quickly. Though I did comprehend much of Daniels latest five chapters in his Magnificum Opium, I confess, (as is appropriate in these Sacred Halls of Atheism!) to the Truth. I skimmed over as much as possible while maintaining comprehension. Usually I just pass them on a thermal. Had an itch to understand, this time. That will usually bring one down, to earth that is.

Love your comments!

Gotta give you credit, JTTN, for slogging through the entirety of Daniel 12's latest magnus opum (opium?). I seldom make it past the first paragraph or two of anything he writes.

if he's taking credit for the good, he's gotta take blame for the bad.

Hello Pamsm,

"If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he knows the plane is going to crash. Why not intervene (if he's going to do so at all) before that happens, ..."

Jeez, Pamsm, you got me. I got no idea why God is a selective and cruel like that... :-)

From the 'religionists' perspective, I believe, it is also an unknown, (not that the existence of said deity is not highly questionable in some circles. Not stone circles, I assure you.

Assuming said deity, and that the deity in question is of an Intervening Variety, why does S/He answer some prayers and not others? Duh-no, but could forward any number of possibilities. However, from a what is perspective, it is clear that equality is not shared by all, or even many, in life. It is already an imperfect balance, and the whys for one life being in a pit and another being in the liege's tower could be a reflection of the inconsistency with which 'prayers' are answered, as well as crash landing sites of doomed planes....

It's a mystery!

The fact that some address cause and gratitude for a near miss of a bullet to a deity should not be seen as a thing to criticize. We all would be grateful. Some just think that it did not have to do with them, maybe, or luck, whatever that is.

Hello Daniel12,

"It would seem whether anyone likes it or not--for it is inexorable--that medicine is becoming more and more a form of secular salvation to all. A replacement of religion in the promise of eternal life and a rock hard foundation of the socialist's dream."

Without getting into many of your, um, many points in your last treatise on, um, your view of life, I respond to two.

Curious perspective, this. Secular salvation. Perhaps it is a salvation, when considering that even 400 years ago our doctors were bleeding the devil out of the sick, literally, as a standard cure. This is not witchcraft or folk medicine or shamanism, nay nay. These were schooled 'doctors' that done learned how to heal the sick... Heal 'em all the way to the afterlife.

Religion and medicine were not the best of friends, perhaps, but the two were surely in cahoots together, (working it out in the crib). There was little to no education that was not funded or subsidized or overseen by the Church.

These days science is on it's own cognizance, it is not beholden to religion, or to follow religions questionable assumptions.

That alone is a form of salvation, to be sure. But anything, allopatic, homeopathic, shamanic, that helps or helped someone to further their life is a form of salvation to them. An antibiotic is a more direct intervention, (usually, it seems), than prayer to a deity. Not eternal life, that, and one does not need to be a socialist to desire it. Or even a bloody liberal.

Hey, if science could only develop an anti-liberal pill! It is seeking to eradicate all the ills of mankind, is it not?

The second part is almost not worth addressing in the moment, though it seemed to be the main thrust of your novella. The asymmetrical preference for increased intelligence in the male.

I do not know if there is anything valid to this claim, but if there was I would have to guess there was some need for it, evolutionarily speaking. The first thought that comes to my mind, (doubtless slower than in a female brain!), is that the male of the species in in dire need of reupping their intelligence quotient, and I do not mean testable IQ. Or is that testes IQ? See, I could use a boost.

Part one.

Vaccinations a moral duty to not only develop but require that all persons subject themselves toward?

It would seem whether anyone likes it or not--for it is inexorable--that medicine is becoming more and more a form of secular salvation to all. A replacement of religion in the promise of eternal life and a rock hard foundation of the socialist's dream. But of course there are objections to this trend--various ones. It seems an increasingly attenuated religious protest is made along the lines that God's decision about whether one lives or dies is being subverted--that man is trying to save himself when it is God who should do the saving. Another objection seems more difficult to understand but consists now this way and then that of denying to some people healthcare. Seems difficult to understand but not really. Call it the political/economic objection. Still another objection is that some forms of medicine do more harm than good.

Part two.

When the subject is vaccinations objections on religious lines--in fact virtually all lines--come up short. There is just too much evidence vaccinations work, and they are so simple and effective that the typical response to the simple and effective is evoked: quick familiarization and acceptance. The sole valid objection seems to be along the lines that these forms of medicine might do more harm than good--for example, give a child autism. And my belief is that such medicines do indeed give autism--at least in a particular sense: These medicines save lives and therefore the net effect is to save the genetically problematic as well as the fundamentally healthy. In other words, there are more autistic children because medicine and civilization have advanced to the point where such people are likely to live rather than pass away as they undoubtedly did in ruder, more dangerous times.

Part three.

This is not to say there are not other causes of autism (food additives as well as vaccinations?) but we must begin with the evident. And the evident is that a greater variety of humans are coming to exist by the increasing success of medicine. In fact new conceptual understandings--at least hypotheses--are being born by medicine opening up a world of data which combines quite well with data from the educational system, data from the biological sciences--specifically evolution by natural selection--and data from other sciences as well. What I specifically mean is that we can combine the fact of medicine allowing a greater variety of humans to exist with test scores in school. And we can combine these two sets of data with observations concerning Darwin's natural selection. And we can combine these three sets of data with evidence from other sciences. And all this evidence seems to cause a shock to modern sociology which ironically is a great cause as well as effect of the spread of medicine in the direction of universal healthcare.

To be clearer, we have of course, first medicine allowing a greater variety of humans to exist than could exist in the past. Second, the observation by Darwin that when a species puts out variants of itself on its way toward evolving to another state these variants are often likely to occur more in one sex rather than the other. And third, test scores in school--tests in general--which show boys as being more likely to score both higher and lower than girls (girls represent an average in comparison to boys although of course there are both high and low scoring girls). And fourth, evidence from other sciences which will be brought up in proper place. What I am trying to say is evidence from paleontology shows humans have been varying for millions of years in the direction of increased intelligence--the fossil record concerning humans bears this out. Intelligence is clearly the greatest variable character in man--so variable it distinguishes us from all other animals.

Part four.

And it seems that humans in varying toward intelligence are following Darwin's rule that when a species varies this variation often occurs more in one sex rather than the other. In other words, and to take all the evidence in hand, the human race is varying toward intelligence and this variation is asymmetric and favoring man over woman. The success of medicine is increasing the variety of humans. Test scores show boys to vary more as to intelligence than girls. In fact boys are more likely to suffer from many types of disorders concerning intelligence than girls. For example, the obvious, that boys are more likely to be autistic. To say it again, but in different words, Darwin pointed out that when a species varies on its way to a new evolved state this variation is often asymmetric and favors one sex over the other. Humans are varying toward intelligence and boys show this variation more than girls.

And now to bring in some evidence from other sciences, it should be obvious why the above is no surprise. Asymmetric development is far from a rarity in nature--in fact it probably is more the rule than otherwise. Many animals, including humans, favor one limb over the other (in humans, of course handedness). Shells spiral in this direction or that. Plants corkscrew in one direction rather than the other. Even crystals have demonstrated an asymmetric development. But of course all this is anathema to modern sociology which declares all humans are equal and not just that every person is deserving of certain rights. But what can modern sociology--which many have pointed out is not a hard science, but often human desires and theory presented as actualities--do about hard evidence? Not much. The evidence clearly shows that the human race is on an asymmetric course in its development of intelligence, and this asymmetry is in the direction of man rather than woman. Perhaps we have the increasing socialization--the universal spread--of medicine as both a cause and effect of the socialistic dream, but evidence from medicine and the other sciences is showing the true picture of humans in relation to humans and humans in relation to the rest of nature and the world. The question is how much we can change the truth and how much we have to live with it. And that should always be kept in the forefront of mind. There should be no vaccination against it.

"That is if you make the assumption that god is doing the killing. If you do not assign god the causation of the disaster, and make it, say, fate or karma or just the sh t that happens or John Doe's fault, then god can intervene and save you..."

Sorry, JTTN, that won't wash. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he knows the plane is going to crash. Why not intervene (if he's going to do so at all) before that happens, instead of after, and save the baby, too? Why doesn't this occur to these people?

Have you ever seen people after a severe hurricane, or a tornado, being interviewed in front of a scene of total devastation, where multiple lives were lost, saying something like "When it was blowing, we were in the closet/bathtub/basement praying for mercy, and the good Lord answered our prayers - praise be! It's a miracle that we're alive!"

Like none of the dead people were praying? And like "the good Lord didn't allow their entire community to be flattened, including their own home? And they're praising him? Puh-leeze!

Hello Walter IFC,

" if you say, "god saved me", you're essentially saying "god chose to kill him...but not me.""

That is if you make the assumption that god is doing the killing. If you do not assign god the causation of the disaster, and make it, say, fate or karma or just the sh t that happens or John Doe's fault, then god can intervene and save you, (though clearly not someone else).

You are assuming, in your argument, that god is doing all things. The "thank God for saving me" people usually are not making that assumption.

Notwithstanding junk science, and admittedly there is an abundance of that, I don't think the public is being unreasonable in what appears to be its reserved reaction to a vaccine that was developed and tested in so short a time.

Remember that in the 50's the Salk vaccine was released for public consumption after massive testing and trials both in the United States and in Canada. It actually caused 250-300 cases of polio, and a dozen or so deaths.

Swine flu lawsuit 1:35

CNN's Susan Candiotti reports on a nurse's lawsuit to stop mandatory flu and H1N1 shots for NY health care workers

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/10/14/candiotti.h1n1.shots.cnn

justillthennow, you said,
"Whether religious or not, survivors of disasters or accidents, where the possibility of death was real and close, all seem to be thankful that they are alive first, considering the loss of others secondarily."

well, sure, but can't people just think, "boy, it was LUCKY that i survived"? if you say, "god saved me", you're essentially saying "god chose to kill him...but not me."

Hello Walter IFC,

"indeed, it's the ultimate in egocentricism to say "god spared us" when others were killed. happens all the time in earthquakes, tornados, car crashes etc...

I don't think I'd call that the ultimate. Of course we are all ego centered, so what is not done for egotistic reasons, or from an ego foundation? Whether religious or not, survivors of disasters or accidents, where the possibility of death was real and close, all seem to be thankful that they are alive first, considering the loss of others secondarily.

Those that reverse the order of those priorities are rare indeed, and truly in service.

"she was blubbering about how God had miraculously saved her...on and on. Not a word about what he'd one to her house, the other family, the baby, or the pilot."

indeed, it's the ultimate in egocentricism to say "god spared us" when others were killed. happens all the time in earthquakes, tornados, car crashes etc...

"it's weird...the games god plays. he seems cruel for inflicting disease, but is great for equipping the inflicted to deal with it."

What's even weirder is that they continue to look at it this way...and be grateful!

I remember a newscast about a plane going down. It struck two houses - one directly, where a family, including an infant, was killed, and one slightly. Both houses burned, but the occupants of the other house managed to escape. They interviewed the woman on the show, and she was blubbering about how God had miraculously saved her...on and on. Not a word about what he'd one to her house, the other family, the baby, or the pilot.

If he wanted to intervene, why not just prevent the engine problems??

"Agreed, but there is a sovereign rule of the internet that we should obey: 'Do not feed the trolls'"

Yes, I wrote that, Arminius, but at the same time, I reported the post via the "Report Offensive Comment" link. On this thread, and on another, where he was posting under yet another name. I asked them to please block his IP address, although I don't know whether they can do that.

thanks webmaster, for removing those!

my church once had olie kolzig (wash capitals goalie) to our church to give a talk to the kids about life, god and so on. he was REALLY great, i thought, about listening to parents, being nice, trying all sports (instead of specializing at age 10), and of course the perfunctory god stuff. he talked to each kid getting an autograph for a while. anyway he really seemed like a decent guy.

his son has some form of autism (by it's newly expanded definition) and he spoke of the vaccine connection. of course he wondered why god did this to his son and family, but spoke of the "strength" god gave them all to persevere...

it's weird...the games god plays. he seems cruel for inflicting disease, but is great for equipping the inflicted to deal with it.

Hi, Pam,

"Time for your medication, JJ.

Agreed, but there is a sovereign rule of the internet that we should obey: "Do not feed the trolls"

Time for your medication, JJ.

Another matter re the Swine flu vaccine. In all fairness, we should recall the original inclusion of squalene in the vaccine, with the CDC proclaiming no danger. Squalene has been removed, but we still have thimerosol. A close friend of mine did early work on mercury toxicity from sources previously unexamined, generally considered harmless. They weren't, he found. While it appears that most physicians don't have doubts about the safety of thimerosol, other investigators, including my friend,
do.

Some vaccines do not contain thimerosol, but the priority is pregnant women. I consider this when I think about having my own daughter vaccinated. In the end, we'll probably do it, but not without anxiety.

The great Protestant theologian, Jonathan Edwards also had a small pox vaccination at a time when the disease was raging. He was not so fortunate as the intrepid Catherine, dying a few weeks later from a secondary infection.

Daniel,

If Katherine the Great did not know the smallpox vaccine would work but took it anyway, it was an act of faith.

Faith is not exclusive to religion. Nor is it a trait found only in ignorant and superstitious people, but something that also lives in the boldest and most innovative individuals among us.

Do you know what important person took the smallpox vaccine when it was first introduced in the eighteenth century, to encourage all of the ignorant and supersitious people to take it?

It was none other than Katherine the Great, Empress of Russia. Since the vaccine was new, she did not know for sure if it would work, or if it might not harm her instead. But she was an educated person who understood the science behind the vaccine, and she gave it a try.

Now here we are, these centuries later, and still we have so many ignorant and frightened people, who do not even know as much science as Katherine knew,

It is kind of pitiful, isn't it?

While I agree with Susan Jacoby that most anti-vaccination sentiments are unfounded, especially those for childhood diseases that, in the past, killed many it isn't that hard to recall the former swine flu vaccine debacle during the Ford administration.

A bachelor's degree in biology doesn't qualify me to judge the science of the new vaccine but I know it was a rush job, just as the vaccine in 1976 was a rush job. That should send up caution flags. Luckily for me, I work alone much of the time and I'm healthy. Forgoing the vaccine is an easy choice. For my loved ones, it isn't so easy. There are factors to balance.

Susan, a good essay, and I tend to agree, in the main. However, I do have a colleague whose son developed an autism spectrum disorder following his exposure to a certain medication.

The mother is a scientist and, pursued the matter with great vigor, consulting with the foremost experts in the nation. Bottom line: There was, in all likelihood, a genetic predisposition. Had the child never been exposed to a trigger, it would have remained dormant.

This in no way is meant to be an argument against the swine flu vaccine, simply a suggestion that "coincidence and consequence' are not always easily distinguishable.

This same thing is happening among people with dogs. All sorts of conditions/disorders are being laid at the door of vaccines.

And vets are seeing a resurgence in the old diseases that once seemed to be gone forever.