Vaccine dangers

Posted by Bob Weber on Sep 19th, 2011 in Educational, Ideological Misconceptions, Our Changing World | 0 comments

Flu season is coming up and with it some vaccine propaganda is spreading. Just last week, presidential candidate Michelle Bachman was spreading unsubstantiated rumors that the HPV vaccine caused mental retardation. Now articles are appearing questioning the flu vaccine and vaccines in general. Take this article entitled, Why Our Family Won’t Be Getting A Flu Shot This Year (Or Any Year). This article has several holes and logical fallacies when making it’s case against vaccines, here is an analysis of a few of them.

Is there evidence the flue vaccine is effective?

Here is a quote from the article

In 2004, The National Vaccine Information Center cited that the vaccines did not actually contain the flu strain that caused most flu outbreaks occurring that year. In that same year, the Lancet published a study showing no correlation between the flu shot and the decreased risk of contracting pneumonia.

This is largely suspect. First, “The National Vaccine Information Center” is another anti-vaccine organization, while they may state that the vaccine doesn’t work, the CDC thinks the flue vaccine is worth promoting, at least to children and senior citizens. Even if you think the CDC is part of some big government conspiracy to spread autism and mental retardation, simple logic would tell you that if the flu vaccines are working they would suppress the spread of the flu strain contained in the vaccine. The fact that another strain is causing the annual outbreaks is really an argument that vaccines DO work.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. has research that shows the damage of vaccines to the brain as well as the toxicity of MSG, Aspertame and Sucralose

There is a retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, who is making a living lecturing and promoting the dangers of vaccines, artificial sweeteners, MSG and other random chemicals and food additives. He, appearantly, isn’t actually doing any ‘Research’. At least a Google search could find information on no actual published results of any of his work. There is, on the other hand, published studies of the flu vaccines effectiveness.

The United States began recommending influenza vaccinations for preschoolers in 2006 and for all children 6 months and older in 2008. But Canada did not require preschoolers to be vaccinated until 2010.

The scientists found that after 2006, the rate of emergency room visits for 2- to 4-year-olds was 34 percent lower in Boston than in Montreal.

In fact, there is significant historical evidence for the effectiveness of vaccines. Unicef lists 7 diseases that have been brought under control by use of vaccinations and one, Smallpox, has been eradicated completely saving 5 million lives each year.

Can we believe the scientists?

In a two telling paragraphs near the end of Why Our Family Won’t Be Getting A Flu Shot This Year (Or Any Year) the author really exposes the root of their position on this whole issue.

There isn’t any way you will ever convince me that injecting those things into my body or my child’s body is safe, no matter how many medical studies you produce. It’s important to keep in mind that many of those studies showing favorable results are actually funded by the drug companies and special interests who are pro-vaccine.

When our bodies become too toxic, they attempt to ‘detox’ these substances out. The real cause of influenza is the body’s ability to remove toxins from the foods we eat and from the environment around us.

So the author will cling to their beliefs in spite of medical and scientific evidence? What are the author’s belief’s based on? Research from a medical doctor, Dr. Blaylock? Speculation? Rumor? Conspiracy theories? The idea that vaccine manufacturers are funding studies and promoting vaccine uses is likely untrue since vaccines aren’t made by many companies and are considered a low profit margin product.

Finally, trying to identify the ‘real cause’ of influenza is just ridiculous. There is plenty of research into the origins of influenza and viruses. Viruses have been studied for over 100 years, so to say that the flu is just a product of our diet goes in the face of a century of science and medicine? What’s next? treating disease with leeches?

Vaccines are safe and do serve a purpose. Being conservative or religious does not mean you should deny the results of scientific research and application of the scientific method or take the word of some charlatan who can’t backup his theories with any actual facts.

Politics and Religion

Posted by Bob Weber on Jan 4th, 2009 in Ideological Misconceptions, Inspiration | 0 comments

Seems like politics is full of hot button issues these days that are considered ‘moral’ issues. Abortion, gay marriage, pornography, drinking age, etc..

Sometimes I catch some heat from friends and family members for not being more fanatical about these issues. This quote neatly sums up exactly what I think about any nanny law that attempts to address these laws.

Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience. If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free.
John Leland – Right of Conscience Inalienable.

Why we have Separation of Church and State

Posted by Bob Weber on Dec 19th, 2007 in Ideological Misconceptions, Religion | 0 comments

There is constantly a huge discussion about the Separation of Church and State here in the US. This discussion resolves around many issues ranging from major items like the removal of state sanctioned prayer by students in public schools, Roe v. Wade and the teaching of evolution in public schools to stupid issues like removal of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, removal of the cross on Mount Soledad and restricting Christmas decorations on public property.

The more devout among us seem to regard the idea of Separation of Church and State as an affront to our Creator. They consider a godless government as a sure-fire path to destruction. While that stance may have some validity, an article on the front page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal really struck a chord – reminding me why the Freedom of Religion is a good thing.

Russian President Vladmir Putin, by all accounts, is a downright scary man. Some would consider him borderline evil. He has brought stability to a Russia that has been in chaos since the end of the cold war – but at what price. Putin has little regard for civil liberties, been accused of orchestrating assasinations on foriegn soil and is oddly remeniscent of his bolshevik predecessors.

One thing Putin knows, that escaped the Communists, was the power of the Church. Putin has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church with open arms, even receiving a public blessing for his heir-appearant First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Using one’s personal religious beliefs to bolster public support (a tactic President Bush has been accused of using), while suspect, is fairly common and accepted. Using the head of a country’s largest religous institution, in this case Patriarch Alexy II f the Russian Orthodox Church, to receive an endorsement from God himself is a step beyond.

Separation of Church and State may not be a perfect policy when it comes to the public morality, but it is much preferred to the alternative. Any time the heads of the Church and the heads of Government begin to collude and abuse their power over the public we are reminded of how great the American Constitution is. We may constantly fight over these issues… but at least we are free to fight.

The Myth of Steroid Abuse

Posted by Bob Weber on Jun 13th, 2007 in Ideological Misconceptions | 0 comments

Just saw this video today. It’s from a November 16, 2006 episode of HBO’s Real Sports.

Isn’t it amazing how a handful of wacky politicians, news people and doctors can create such a false stigma that is so widely believed.

The media position against steroids is so strong, my mother actually commented last week that she didn’t want to give her dog steriods due to the potential damage. The only reason I can think she would equate steroids with damage is the news stories about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. Although there can be side effects from long term use of steriods in pets, I’m guessing she was basing her comments on her exposure to news stories about illegal anabolic steroids.

Internet Porn

Posted by Bob Weber on Feb 25th, 2007 in Ideological Misconceptions, Sex & Dating, Tech | 1 comment

Kelly over at A Yoga Coffee Outlook posted a comment about an initiative to ask Adult websites to require a password-protected login before allowing even free access to explicit adult content.

Kelly’s response is quite insightful and an opinion that I agree with completely. To expound on her point of view, to address some misconceptions about the Internet and generally express my personal irritation with using the “what about the children?” argument to intrude on our constitutional rights, there some points I would like to make.

Internet regulation is extremely difficult and expensive to enforce.

The Internet is a global phenomenon. Many sites are run from outside the United States. Laws regulating content not only violate 1st Amendment free speech rights of US citizens, but also require cooperation from other governments if the violating sites are run from severs on foriegn soil. Efforts such as these (or other regulations on things like file shareing and online gambling), if put into law, are phenomenally difficult to enforce and defend in the courts.

Porn is an economic driver of technology.

Since the inception of the Internet, adult sites have been one of the primary ways to monetize the technology. Online Pornography, like it or not, is a very lucrative business. If their current practice of allowing free viewing is a effective marketing technique (which we must assume it is) there is no motivation for the sites to voluntarily require passwords to view free content. This being the case any initiative is doomed to failure.

There is no central authorizing body.

There is no central repository of personal information that can be accessed to verify a person’s age. As such there is no way for any site to verify that a visitor is over the age of 18 and eligible to view free content. Most sites with adult content make an effort to validate their viewer’s age, but without making the visitor jump through hoops (which again, the industry is not motivated to do) and collecting credit card or other information, there is no easy way to confirm the visitor is of legal age. If ‘password protection’ was enabled it would probably be extremely easy to circumvent, especially for a teenager that has grown up in the current technological environment.

The burden of responsibilty for protecting children must rest squarely on a parent’s shoulders, not on the benevolence of an adult website provider or on the government.