I can get a shot, but I choose not to, so it would be wrong for me to urge others to do so for MY protection.
And what is it you want me to cite? The definition of “controversial”? Neither side must have a valid argument for something to be controversial. A controversial topic inspires or is likely to inspire public disagreement. Do you deny that there are ant-vaxxers in existence in sufficient numbers that there is cause for concern? A stance that is not controversial would be one that only a trivial number of people disagree with.
In other words, the existence of disagreement is what makes something controversial, not the validity of the evidence on one side. It is exactly this type of muddy thinking that makes actual science so difficult for many to understand, inspiring denial or blind worship.
That argument makes no sense at all. Getting a flu shot is a good idea. Urging others to get a flu shot if they can medically also makes sense.
The existence of a group of really stupid people who have opposed vaccination since Edward Jenner’s day means not one damned thing. Would you say that the fact that Obama was born in America is controversial just because a number of stupid people are tying to argue that he was really born in Kenya? Anti-vaxxers are fucking morons and have been so for centuries.
The only muddied thinking here is your own. Where has anyone here demonstrated blind worship? The flu shot is a good idea for most people. The shot carries minimal risks and some very real potential benefits. This is not in dispute.
I will agree that something being controversial does not imply that both sides of the controversy have equally legitimate complaints.
However, only a few posts ago, you used the idea of vaccine controversy to buttress your argument against getting vaccinated. So, which is it? Are the anti-vaxxers’ arguments without merit or are they and if they are without merit, what justifies your opinion that vaccines are dangerous?
No, I didn’t. I contradicted jsgoddess’ claim that they are not controversial, not because it matters to me that they are controversial, but because the claim is false.
Public opinion is not something I take into consideration when making my own medical decisions, although it occurs to me that if one is dumber than average and recognizes this fact, blindly making the choice that is the choice made by people brighter than you regardless of whether you understand it or not may be your best course of action.
I do not believe that anti-vaxxers have many good arguments against vaccinations, and I am not against vaccinations. It is a fact, however, that vaccinations are not 100% safe, not an opinion. I feel that they most of them are WORTH THE RISK in most cases and for most people. They do not have to be completely without “danger” for that to be true. You know, even driving to the location to receive the vaccination is not completely safe either.
Humans are typically very poor at risk assessment. We assume that “feelings” are natural and that critical thinking is a skill that can be taught. If this is true, is it really only morons that could doubt that getting vaccinated is the best idea for everybody? Hardly anyone actually reads actual studies, and if they did, most people could not evaluate the science behind them anyway. Instead, you get a blurb from a news source that purports to tell you the study’s conclusion and you feel that warm tingle that you’ve gotten all sciency, you smarty you!
Consider the fact that scientists and doctors frequently get drugs approved that are later recalled, also at the behest of scientists and doctors. That means the original scientists were wrong, or the later ones were. Either way, a batch of scientists that were trusted who shouldn’t have been.
Consider also that we are told of the following recent epidemics: obesity, autism, and early puberty. Why are these things happening? Vaccinations, pesticides, high-fructose corn syrup, pollution, GMO food, hormones and antibiotics, preservatives, toxins, genetics? If science could actually answer that, it would be far more convincing that it isn’t the stuff that it’s not. Insisting that it isn’t something when you don’t have the real answer is not compelling to a lot of people, and that’s not a sign that they are fools. People have become reasonably suspicious since they are repeatedly told that various pesticides, medications, etc. are safe and then told that oooops, no they aren’t. They don’t have the means to analyze the data, so they go with their feelings, which are that introducing “they don’t know what” via needle into one’s body may not be such a great idea.
Personally, I can read and think critically just fine, but if you can’t, blindly following whatever you’re told “science” says may indeed be your best bet.
Vaccines do not cause autism. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. A list with commentary complied by my co-author and Ms. Lucy Baldwin.
If you grind those axes any further AnaMen, you’re going to end up with skewers. Your posts have been heavy on antagonism and embarrassingly light on evidence-based conclusions.
No.
I don’t think vaccines cause autism, and would never argue that they do.
To someone that DOES believe that there is a link, asking the natural question “if vaccines don’t cause autism, then WHAT DOES?” is not a symptom of stupidity.
Not every person that opposes vaccine compliance or consideration of individual vaccine tolerances actually believes that autism is an issue, you know.
I don’t know what causes autism, but last I checked, a genetic component triggered by an environmental factor seemed like the most plausible theory.
Guess who probably brought us that “environmental trigger” though? Thanks, scientists!
I do sometimes forget that critical thinking is not for everyone. Carry on!
No u.
NPR host Diane Rehm was offered something experimental when she was pregnant ca. 1960 and quite miserable, too. She declined, and has always wondered if it was thalidomide.
The main reason Dr. Frances Kelsey declined its approval in the States was because a sizable percentage of the people who take it long-term develop a bizarre neuropathy and often lose the use of their thumbs, a disability that is sometimes irreversible. And the thalidomide molecule has two different three-dimensional structures, and the one that causes birth defects is the one that’s not pharmaceutically effective. Had the drug been tested on primates, this would have been caught because it causes phocomelia in monkeys too.
I have dispensed it a number of times, usually for multiple myeloma. Geraldine Ferraro said that she took it herself.
One other thing about thalidomide and pregnancy. The time period where it causes birth defects is very narrow, and often before a woman even realizes she’s pregnant in the first place - something like days 39 through 41 for arm defects, and 40 through 44 for leg defects. Thousands, if not millions, of people used it as a routine sleep aid because it was believed to be that safe. People had tried to commit suicide with thalidomide, and failed.
And there were plenty of stories about harried mothers giving it to their misbehaving children, so they would settle down for a while. :eek:
As for flu shots and pregnancy, they are recommended because high fever in a pregnant woman can be very dangerous for the baby.
I was about to applaud you for vaccinating your daughter against HPV, but then I saw it was you and thought, “Oh, of course LavenderBlue would get her girl vaccinated!”
You do good work, madam!
Oh, and I get my flu shot on the 17th. My employer brings in a nurse to do them at the office for free.
The mighty seer, Maple Bar, proffered this advice to you, O Leaper: “Thou shalt journey to the HR office with two boxes of KK filled with the entire pantheon of donut demigogs. Thou shalt inform them of the wickedness of offering two donuts for every flu shot to every employee. And you shall be rewarded justly.”*
*As per SEC rules, I am required to disclose that I will profit with your soul and that of all others who succumb to “Homer’s curse” in return for undisclosed powers involving various dark arts & sprinkles (Hmmmm…sprinkles) and all the other responsibilities and duties that come with membership within this evil cabal.
Perhaps not, but it’s a symptom of a blind willingness to buy into a discredited and fraudulent conspiracy that’s been disproven so many times that at this point, continue to pander to the “vaccines = autism” crowd by attempting to educate them is a waste of precious time and resources.
Since we don’t know the environment factor, if any, making a claim that it’s scientists (general, broad brush accusation) merely marks you as a science-rejecting conspiracy theorist moron.
“We don’t know what causes autism, therefore science/scientists/conspiracy/vaccines/aliens/blahblahblah!” Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale appeals to you.
I did not know that critical thinking is synonymous with uninformed supposition. Consider me schooled.
It was on my list and then I forgot. Thanks for the reminder!
I’ve never had a problem with the flu shot, take it faithfully and don’t get the flu. Last time I had it was in 1980s. Missed a week and a half of work and wanted to die.
We wouldn’t have the means to create environmental toxins without the technological developments brought about by science. That is not a rejection of science, and we’d obviously have other problems instead.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy, aliens, or whatever. I don’t really care that we no longer live in thatched huts drinking pure water and breathing clean air and dying from snake bites or falling off cliffs.
Mods, I apologize, I did not realize this was in MPSIMS and not in the Pit. My statement that rejecting science makes “you” a moron could be construed as a personal insult (although I meant the general you, and not the specific poster).
There are plenty of places in which people do still live in thatched huts, but the “pure water” thing is a bit problematic in those areas, so feel free to move there and reject science.
Without supposition, we’d have no logic, math, or science.
In science, it’s called “developing a hypothesis.”