After my recent rant about the anti-vaccination morons on the BBC News Have Your Say site, I thought I'd maintain balance by linking to a discussion that left me feeling quite optimistic.
It's about embryonic stem cell research and there's more common sense there than I woulod ordinarily expect to find on HYS. There are some loonies, but overall I think reason is winning the day.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Sunday, 11 May 2008
I still seem to be living in a stupid country
The latest BBC news Have Your Say is about a proposed scheme for mandatory vaccination of young children. Far too many of the most recommended comments demonstrate the complete ignorance that has been spread in this country by the tabloid media. Knowledge about vaccines, and even basic critical thinking, seems to be almost totally absent from this cross-section of the population. For example:
This is prime vintage nonsense. I had a little look and I couldn't find any credible evidence for the cancer angle. As for the autism/neurological conditions slant, it is a known fact that reporting of such conditions has increased with improved screening and wider ranges of diagnosis. In fact, all of the vaccine/autism "evidence" disappears if you take proper account of increasing diagnoses. So, not only a coincidence, but really a lie as well.
The suggestion being debated is the introduction of mandatory vaccination linked to child benefits. So the bulk of the objections take the form of "It's 1984 all over again!" The problem is, it's already illegal to kill someone either on purpose or by your own negligence. By not vaccinating your child you still get to rely on the herd immunity from all the other vaccinated children and your kid will probably not catch measles. However, if rates drop low enough (as they have done in some areas) it becomes possible for these diseases to take a hold in the population and spread through the unvaccinated. At this point, all unvaccinated children are at risk.
In addition, those weaker members of sicuety who do not have immunity for one reason or another are also put at increased risk. By not vaccinating, parents risk not only the health of their children but that of others as well. To me, this seems very selfish.
All treatments have side-effects, and in rare cases these will be seriously harmful. However, it seems ot me that this is the much lesser risk. Especially as the vast majority of the purported negative effects of vaccines are entirely fictional.
"...parents who refuse to have the MMR/AUTISM jab..."Autism jab? So somebody else reads the daily Male, or whatever other filth tabloids were spreading these lies about the MMR vaccine and autism. Studies show that there is no link between the two. This doesn't stop the flourishing movement that aims to spread this misinformation. If, as a result, some of the weaker members of society (young children who may be allergic, for example) catch measles and die I know who I'd blame.
"Vaccines should never become compulsory. I almost died after a diptheria vaccine..."This is, of course, why the plural of anecdote is not data. We seem to have managed to put vast portions of people through education without giving them any critical faculties whatsoever for examining evidence and thinking rationally. Just because one person might win the lottery every week doesn't mean I have good odds if I buy a ticket.
"No parent should be forced to jab a kiddie. With bad hygiene you could be infecting millions with HIV!"Yes... Someone has clearly been smoking something a little stronger than their usual crack. Welcome to the land of straw men. Imagine! If all cars were designed to explode, loads of people would die. We should ban cars! Down with the witch-craft of car manufacturing! Off with it's head!
"In the past few decades, as the number of mandatory vaccines has skyrocketed, there has been a corresponding skyrocketing of childhood cancers, including leukemia and brain tumors. Various neurological diseases, autism and immunilogical illnesses have likewise skyrocketed since the proliferation of vaccines. Coincidence?"Probably, yes.
This is prime vintage nonsense. I had a little look and I couldn't find any credible evidence for the cancer angle. As for the autism/neurological conditions slant, it is a known fact that reporting of such conditions has increased with improved screening and wider ranges of diagnosis. In fact, all of the vaccine/autism "evidence" disappears if you take proper account of increasing diagnoses. So, not only a coincidence, but really a lie as well.
"There is no absolutely proof that vaccinations work. Ever."This one is a classic. If vaccines don't work, where the hell did smallpox go? Is it behind the fridge? Maybe it's on holiday in the Bahamas? Oh wait, I think I have it. It's living with Hitler in his secret 4th Reich Moonbase on the dark side of the moon isn't it? Makes about as much sense as this.
The suggestion being debated is the introduction of mandatory vaccination linked to child benefits. So the bulk of the objections take the form of "It's 1984 all over again!" The problem is, it's already illegal to kill someone either on purpose or by your own negligence. By not vaccinating your child you still get to rely on the herd immunity from all the other vaccinated children and your kid will probably not catch measles. However, if rates drop low enough (as they have done in some areas) it becomes possible for these diseases to take a hold in the population and spread through the unvaccinated. At this point, all unvaccinated children are at risk.
In addition, those weaker members of sicuety who do not have immunity for one reason or another are also put at increased risk. By not vaccinating, parents risk not only the health of their children but that of others as well. To me, this seems very selfish.
All treatments have side-effects, and in rare cases these will be seriously harmful. However, it seems ot me that this is the much lesser risk. Especially as the vast majority of the purported negative effects of vaccines are entirely fictional.
Friday, 9 May 2008
Pro-Lifers Show Their True Colours
You remember the pro-life crowd, right? The ones who claim that abortion is murder and should be banned at all costs (whilst also killing the occasional living doctor) and protest about it vociferously. Well, one of their groups in the USA has finally demonstrated that what they want is not in fact to do with killing babies, it is entirely to do with taking away women's reproductive choice. We always knew they didn't care about reality, but this?
Apparently using the pill is, in fact, as bad as abortion. Their claim that the contraceptive pill is the same as a chemically induced abortion is totally ridiculous. I always suspected (alright, I always downright assumed) that the main aim of the pro-life lobby was to take away the right for women to have autonomy over their own bodies. At least when i say it now, people won't think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
They also trot out all of the usual overly-emotive arguments, generally talking about "tiny babies" when what they mean is ova. These people even seem to equate unfertilised eggs directly with children, which is kind of scary. How slim is their grasp of reality that a single cell has the same rights as a human being?
Also, I know I haven't posted for ages. I've been busy banging my head against the brick wall of science. It is ever so rewarding sometimes...
Apparently using the pill is, in fact, as bad as abortion. Their claim that the contraceptive pill is the same as a chemically induced abortion is totally ridiculous. I always suspected (alright, I always downright assumed) that the main aim of the pro-life lobby was to take away the right for women to have autonomy over their own bodies. At least when i say it now, people won't think I'm a conspiracy theorist.
They also trot out all of the usual overly-emotive arguments, generally talking about "tiny babies" when what they mean is ova. These people even seem to equate unfertilised eggs directly with children, which is kind of scary. How slim is their grasp of reality that a single cell has the same rights as a human being?
Also, I know I haven't posted for ages. I've been busy banging my head against the brick wall of science. It is ever so rewarding sometimes...
Friday, 18 April 2008
They should have seen this coming
The rather useless "Fraudulent Mediums Act" of 1951 is set to be replaced with new legislation being discussed in Parliament soon. The old act pretty much failed, probably because it tried to distinguish a fraudulent medium from a genuine one. It must have been tough, separating out the people who knew it was crap from the true-believers, in fact very few prosecutions were even brought and the vast majority failed.
The new laws will bring all forms of paid-for psychic and mystical services under the Consumer Protection Act. In other words, mediums will have to provide some form of proof that they are contacting dead people and can be held liable for harm resulting from their nonsense. Oddly, the psychics are a little miffed about this. Even more oddly, they waited until after the legislation was announced to submit their petition to 10 Downing Street. I'd have thought the most convinding time would have been, you know, before. They're meant to be psychic after all.
I can see why their pissed off though. If I'd made a career out of defrauding people with my carefully honed cold-reading skills, I'd be pissed off that my cushy little job was going to be "regulated."
The new laws will bring all forms of paid-for psychic and mystical services under the Consumer Protection Act. In other words, mediums will have to provide some form of proof that they are contacting dead people and can be held liable for harm resulting from their nonsense. Oddly, the psychics are a little miffed about this. Even more oddly, they waited until after the legislation was announced to submit their petition to 10 Downing Street. I'd have thought the most convinding time would have been, you know, before. They're meant to be psychic after all.
I can see why their pissed off though. If I'd made a career out of defrauding people with my carefully honed cold-reading skills, I'd be pissed off that my cushy little job was going to be "regulated."
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Ono, Here we Go
OK, I'm gonna talk about Expelled again. I'll get the warning in early so you don't feel disappointed.
You see, I wasn't surprised when the producers of Expelled pissed of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. I wasn't particularly surprised when their film was so bad that even Fox News slated it. I wasn't even surprised at the monumentally bad way they have handled their PR - although perhaps I should have been with a film that has plainly spent orders of magnitude more on PR than on making a good film. I was, however, pleasantly surprised when I discovered the latest thing they've done.
They've only gone and pissed off Yoko Ono. Some would speculate that this isn't particularly hard to do, and might go on to remind us that she broke up the Beatles. Or allegedly broke up the Beatles, or in fact they broke themselves up. Even amongst secular music lovers her involvement with John Lennon towards the end of the Band's career seems to be regarded as an unholy act, a deadly sin, truly unforgivable.
Now, I would speculate that this is all just a bit melodramatic and a waste of time, but it doesn't matter any more. Because, atheist music lovers, she has a chance to redeem herself of any sin you think she may have committed.
She could sue the arses off Expelled for a start. You see, over the course of the film they play Imagine, by John Lennon. You might think this would be in some kind of ironic capacity, but from what I've heard, you'd be wrong. It seems that they play the song beside images of wars purportedly caused by "Darwinisn" (which in their minds = Atheism) presumably in order to claim that this is the result of "no religion."
Of course, being the smart business-people they are, the producers of Expelled got permission to use the song. Right?
Her lawyers are apparently "exploring all options," which I hope is lawyer speak for "putting together a cast iron case and demanding all their money off them." I'm always a little wary of the litigation culture, but if it applies to one it applies to all. If the lone file-sharer or school play that uses material without permission gets sued, then so does the film company.
This will, of course, be in addition to the other impending law suits pertaining to the other stuff they nicked from other people's work. I'm starting to wonder if they made any of the film themselves. Of course, all the bits with Ben Stein in are probably theirs and we can't sue them for that.
Pity.
You see, I wasn't surprised when the producers of Expelled pissed of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. I wasn't particularly surprised when their film was so bad that even Fox News slated it. I wasn't even surprised at the monumentally bad way they have handled their PR - although perhaps I should have been with a film that has plainly spent orders of magnitude more on PR than on making a good film. I was, however, pleasantly surprised when I discovered the latest thing they've done.
They've only gone and pissed off Yoko Ono. Some would speculate that this isn't particularly hard to do, and might go on to remind us that she broke up the Beatles. Or allegedly broke up the Beatles, or in fact they broke themselves up. Even amongst secular music lovers her involvement with John Lennon towards the end of the Band's career seems to be regarded as an unholy act, a deadly sin, truly unforgivable.
Now, I would speculate that this is all just a bit melodramatic and a waste of time, but it doesn't matter any more. Because, atheist music lovers, she has a chance to redeem herself of any sin you think she may have committed.
She could sue the arses off Expelled for a start. You see, over the course of the film they play Imagine, by John Lennon. You might think this would be in some kind of ironic capacity, but from what I've heard, you'd be wrong. It seems that they play the song beside images of wars purportedly caused by "Darwinisn" (which in their minds = Atheism) presumably in order to claim that this is the result of "no religion."
Of course, being the smart business-people they are, the producers of Expelled got permission to use the song. Right?
Her lawyers are apparently "exploring all options," which I hope is lawyer speak for "putting together a cast iron case and demanding all their money off them." I'm always a little wary of the litigation culture, but if it applies to one it applies to all. If the lone file-sharer or school play that uses material without permission gets sued, then so does the film company.
This will, of course, be in addition to the other impending law suits pertaining to the other stuff they nicked from other people's work. I'm starting to wonder if they made any of the film themselves. Of course, all the bits with Ben Stein in are probably theirs and we can't sue them for that.
Pity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
