Vaccines and The Arrogance of Ignorance

Sound Off

Zachariah Wasson - This is an old "Prometheus" post I came across that explains perfectly why I have to deal with so many arrogantly ignorant goofballs on a daily basis. People with no education in physiology or immunology who would like to explain to me why I am wrong about vaccines; people with no background in the health care system or health insurance always want to tell me why I am wrong about health care reform.

I don't come to your job, knock the dick out of your mouth, and tell you how to stroke the shaft; don't try to educate me about things that you, yourself, have no education in. There are a vast number of things that I know absolutely nothing about. For that matter, I am greatly deficient in my understanding of physiology and immunology compared to experts in these fields who are actually about the business of conducting research. I defer to them when I must, because I am fully aware of my limitations. We must all be aware of our deficits , and understand that Google and Wikipedia are ...

Zachariah Wasson - ...no substitute for real knowledge.

Jayson Leary - The anti-vax movement, which claims vaccines cause autism , is a quite dangerously anti-scientific and bizarre societal phenomenon .

Perhaps one day there may be alternative to vaccines , but to reject them wholesale (despite the noted medical protection they offer) , based on anecdotal coincidences that have been trumpted up , by those who are given to kitschy "thinking outside the box" , is indeed deplorable.

It is good that there are those like you who denounce that particular form of obscurantism ...one which I had only heard of it passing, but one which ought to be rebuked as you are doing , as the tripe of MTV and t.v. based cultural trends in general , ought to as well .

Rick Manwiller - Not to be the wet blanket here, I have come across several "facts" being promoted in the medical mainstream that are blatant misdirections (if not outright lies). The industry's refusal to even debate these issues are what damages it's credibility with many people, and causes some to look into what else might be incorrectly passing for medical truth.
I'm not saying my past 7 years of independent research is necessarily spot on either, but I have called a few physicians on a lot of their wrong info, and have had it corroborated.
'College knowledge' is only valuable if it allows new info to be considered, but unfortunately, quite often economics plays too large a role - it's simply not financially feasible to change massive amounts of published curriculum when new info begins to rear it's ugly head.

Zachariah Wasson - Rick, this is a complex issue which will require careful unpacking (which, unfortunately, my schedule will not allow me to do presently). I would like to point out, though, that facts are *never* decided by debate, but by rigorously controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed, independently replicated trials. Debates are a ruse to confuse people into believing that they have witnessed a search for truth. But a debate is no more a search for truth than a jury trial. They are merely a proof of which side hired the best arguer. Facts need not be debated, because the evidence is all that is needed to prove or disprove something.

I am curious as to what specific claims you have heard physicians make that are wrong. Also, it is important to keep in mind that, while individuals and even a current scientific consensus may be temporarily wrong, the self correcting nature of the scientific method is what makes it superior to the less rigorous standards of "alternative" medicine. This is why the argument that "college knowledge" is always outdated is dubious. Scientific knowledge *is* constantly revised to account for new data. While college curricula may be a couple of years behind to allow for printing, any earth-shattering discoveries in the medical field (of which there are really very few, science generally builds slowly on existing knowledge) could and would be covered, regardless of whether it is in any official text. My sister, who happens to be in her 4th year of medical school, tells me that they don't even use the recommended textbooks because of this problem, and that the study materials used are printed weekly with any changes in data accounted for. Anti-vax lunacy is wrong, not because anyone says so, but because mountains of evidence say so. "Alternative medicine" is nonsense because it is unsupported by any robust data, not because any MD says so. The point of Prometheus' post is that it *does* require some level of training and expertise to understand the data that exists. A person with training and expertise can also choose to ignore that data (that's where quacks are born). Dr. Gorski, in separate post that I commented on yesterday, summed this principle up perfectly: "Being “smart” isn’t what matters. “Common sense” isn’t what matters. Understanding and accepting the scientific method and how science works does."

Rick Manwiller - Rather than specifics (into which I WILL get eventually, because I want your take on them) let me just say I have seen the scientific community manipulate it's minions too many times in order to buck up a status quo or old boy network. I don't believe this is done as much for political purposes as it is financial/corporate alliances.
Anyone who doesn't see the stranglehold that Big Pharma has on the medical profession is either partially blind or simply on the dole from them to some degree, and is being duly compensated for their lack of "vision."
There are myriads of examples, but only a few in the medical industry itself upon which I'm that well versed.

Rick Manwiller - I also have a problem with bad technique. Sometimes we rant against a concept using the same concept. You are, for example, railing against absolutism with your own absolutism. These "non degreed" people are convinced that they are right, and you are equally convinced they are all wrong. Maybe neither side has it all figured out, but to assume that the most in-place, heavily funded, status-quo network does is not my idea of a good approach.
There is a lot of bad science these days, in which desired conclusions are sought, and data is collected and recollected, twisted and manipulated until the data supports the desired result. It's 1984 sometimes, where you keep adding 2+2 until it no longer equals 4, but 5. Because WE NEED 5.
You would argue that this is precisely what the "independent" guys are doing, but I'm telling you - it's done in the mainstream as well, and to much greater effect.
With all we know about disease in this age, the only people who should be in treatment are those in the ER or the terminal facility. We spend WAY too much on treating symptoms instead of preventing disease - with things like proper diet, lifestyle, etc. More people know which allergy med they want to take (because the commercial has cool graphics) than know that the govt's suggested "food pyramid" is a load of sugar-loaded bullshit. No one should be ingesting the amount of carbs or even the dairy they're being told to eat. "Eat more whole grains" is the official mantra, and now Type II diabetes is essentially exploding. They can't even call it Adult Onset anymore, because 9 year old kids are getting it. But keep eating those hi-carb, glutenous grains kids, and corn syrupy vegetable oils and globs of casein-laced dairy that our bodies were never designed to metabolize properly.
To totally discount independent sources such as internet researchers simply because their opinions or findings are in contrast to "peer reviewed science" is folly. We need all the angles we can get these days, because NO ONE has all the answers. Or at least, answers that will hold up forever.
Let's forget 'political correctness' and start shooting for CORRECTNESS.

Jayson Leary - Zack, is NOT railing against absolutism, Mr.Manwiller .

He is railing against superstitious disregard for the scientific method, by the ANTI-vaccination crowd.

Absolutism is NEVER the problem .

Rick Manwiller - I'm not referencing the group in question, I haven't seen their material at all. I don't support anyone without investigating their means, methods and conclusions. I'm simply saying that 'questioning authority' is something we ALL need to do. And simply implying that someone with a medical degree has superior knowledge over an indy researcher, is dangerous. ( See: Galileo v The Church.)
That prescient point, in addition to the amount of influence Big Pharma has over medicine, is enough to give anyone a reasonable amount of pause to discount findings that don't jibe with "conventional medical science."
Yes, we're all aware of how well George W Bush's mainstream opinions convinced us that "science is under attack." A lot of conventions are often attacked by designated idiots, because it gets the masses in the corner of the attackee, whether it be right or wrong. It's called a psy-op, and it's used heavily in both politics and business... and medicine is most certainly a business.
I was taught in high school that medicine is the only entity that works towards it's own eradication. That doesn't work in the business model - you can't work towards a diminishing bottom line - therefore corruption and manipulation of the truth is almost inevitable. And if that corrupted entity is not regularly challenged by outside sources, you may as well flush it's integrity down the toilet.
That's all I'm saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wviiFzzPiro

Jayson Leary - Yes, but questioning authority , sir, is NOT antithetical to absolutism .

For example , that the axioms and precepts of Euclidean geometry are absolute and NOT relative to mere opinion , is NOT because someone of renown and and prestige like Euclid said or wrote so, but because they can be demonstrated by anyone when they use the requisite methods . For someone to claim that they are merely relative to opinion just because someone might want to disagree with them and merely *prefer* to think that they are malleable and relative to mere opinion , is wrong ...and it is not wrong due to any challenge of authority , for the person who claims that they are relative are *not* challenging authority ...they are challenging the laws of meaning itself and the way to make a metanarrative about meaning .

I'm all for challenging authority. Authority oftentimes becomes a sort of mystification .

Yet absolutism is NOT opposed to challenging authority. It is opposed , however, to goofy equivocal and pell mell thinking such as lateral thinking / "thinking outside the box" and other skewed , trendy poppycock .

Granted Euclidean geometry is deductive and medical science is largely inductive , and so Euclidean geometry ultimately has more epistemic absoluteness (NOT that the two are in opposition; they are certainly not) .

However, within the field of inductive inquiry, it makes far more sense to go with noted , demonstrative precedent for what works well (as vaccines tend to do) rather than go with the sort of media driven , kitschy "thinking outside the box" / pop reality and cheap appeals to common sense , which the crowd that claims vaccines cause autism relies on , which is not only far from having any deductive warrant, but lacks inductive warrant as well .

So called shades of grey are never any substitute for accuracy and truth .

And contrary to popular opinion, there are NOT two or more valid sides to every issue .

Rick Manwiller - Geometry is a finite science. I doubt heavily that we'll discover a new number someday, between 6 and 7. : )
Medicine is an ongoing science. What I'm trying to drive home here is that with all the billion spent on pills and treatment, there is an overwhelming incentive amongst anyone of even marginally decreased ethics or morality to fudge data, taint research, skew findings. That in itself does not mean it's being done, of course. All it means is, if it's NOT being done, it is in direct opposition to human nature as well as the business model.
Any physician who cures a patient of a disease gets a warm thank you from the patient and their family. He also gets a dose of decreased revenue for his pharma supplier, and if that happens again and again, he loses his standing as a pill pusher... and he goes on less junkets, less golf outings, less conventions in Hawaii.
Once again, that doesn't mean physicians do not want to cure their patients. I'm sure most do and would. But the medical industry, IMHO, is one of the most primed for corruption - and not because it's members are not ethical, because it's OWNERS - Big Pharma - are not, and they've proven not to be time and time again. And why should they be ethical - the revenue available from preventative medicine and practice is a drop in the bucket compared to treatment. $70 a year was the last figure I saw for pharmaceuticals in the US for 1 year. It's not Euclidean geometry, it's very simple math.
Vaccines come from big pharma - and if there ARE inherent, decisive dangers from these vaccines, you can bet that there will be a conscious effort to downplay them, to paint them as extremist whacko, goofy, kitschy poppycock (to use your preferred terms of endearment). And btw, if I was given a promo budget by Eli Lilly to help promote that scenario, I would make sure that there are major websites questioning vaccines that are as whacky and goofy as possible. As I have said before, if you want to sell someone a lie, just have someone they mistrust or hate tell them the truth. It's called perception management, and a big part of questioning authority (one thing we seem to agree upon) is making sure we know how authority sells it's bullshit.

Rick Manwiller - Oops... that was supposed to be $70 billion a year. Not $70. Only a shlub like me would be unethical for $70 a year. : )

Zachariah Wasson - I just have a moment to comment, but I feel it must be said that if these internet "researchers" would produce some actual research, rather than opinions and post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions, I would *love* to see that data. Rick, the topics you are bringing up are really several disparate issues, which makes it difficult to bring focus to the conversation. For example, the unethical business practices of some pharmaceutical companies does not mean there is any value to "alternative medicine". To suggest otherwise is to create a false dilemma. Another important point made in Dr. Gorski's post (which I also highlighted yesterday, and should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to discuss this topic) is that the U.S. is not the only country in the world. When results have been replicated and verified by hundreds of labs worldwide; some independent, some corporate, some governmental agencies, then to ignore those results on the grounds that some guy with a website who lacks any educational background in the field or in statistical or data analysis has an "alternative analysis" is pure fallacy. The notion that physicians don't practice preventative medicine, don't focus on proper diet & exercise and healthy lifestyles as a means to health is the greatest lie of the CAM movement. The suggestion that they focus more intently on it, the suggestion that pharmaceutical companies should not advertise prescription meds, and the recommendation that people ought to educate themselves about eating better food (for example) are all 100% valid and fantastic ideas, but they are also completely separate issues. And please give better proof against the data than simply using the "pharma shill gambit".

Zachariah Wasson - 6.5

Zachariah Wasson - One last thought. I can't do this without winding up with a wall of text; apologies. Take a look at the numbers for the unregulated supplement industry (which I call Big Suppla), which seems to be such a darling of CAM proponents. Or check out what people are forking over for chiropractors, acupuncturists, Reiki practitioners, organic food, psychics, and other such horseshit and, while it doesn't approach what we spend on health care (which is too damned much, but also a separate issue) it is a bigger waste because it has no useful, demonstrable results.

Rick Manwiller - I'm simply trying to take a defensive position for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to independent researchers.
Zach - I read the linked article, and I have to agree basically with what he's saying. There are too many people with a search engine and too much spare time who think they have all the answers. I think that is a product of the times as much as anything, in that we now live in a sound byte age, where people get their news and opinions on commercial breaks from prime time TV shows.
I'll give a specific example of what I'm on about - the medical profession (and their media promo guys) are the ones drumming into everyone's heads the difference between 'good' cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol. If 'college knowledge' is so infallible, why are they professing this obviously wrong info? Cholesterol is cholesterol, there is only one kind. (I mean, besides the obvious fact that it sells cholesterol lowering drugs for Big Pharma - complete with disclaimers that they probably won't work.)
Kind of like there's 'good terrorism and bad terrorism'. (Oh wait, our govt tells us that too - Israel does the 'good' terrorism. Now I remember.) : )
Another sore subject is the widely accepted "fact" that saturated fat leads to clogged arteries - "artery clogging saturated fat" is almost one word now, and it's far from correct. The latest cutting edge research now shows that excessively high blood sugar is FAR more dangerous. Yet, authority pummels us with fat phobia, tells us to "eat more whole grain" and now Type II diabetes is such an explosion that it can't even be called Adult Onset anymore, because 9 year old kids are getting it. Not an effective result, unless you happen to work in the treatment/medication industry, then it's "mission accomplished".
These blatant misdirections are what damages some of the profession's credibility with many people, and causes some to look into what else might be incorrectly passing for medical truth.
I'm not saying my past 7 years of independent research is necessarily spot on either, but I have called a few physicians on a lot of their wrong info, and have had it corroborated. And just because I don't have peer reviewed studies doesn't mean I'm wrong, either.

Rick Manwiller - Zach - agree also about what you call Big Suppla. I've never been about TAKING things to FIX conditions. I think the most important thing people can do is realized that DIET plays WAY more of a role in health than most of us imagine. GIGO, just like computer data.
My major complaint with many physicians is that they are mostly into masking symptoms, not preventing problems. And that's not always a deliberate act, IMO. From personal experience, I've seen that many don't have the time to take the kind of personal interest in their patients, and simply feed of the "details girl" - the one who interviews you as you sit with your butt hanging out of the paper gown. Then the doc comes in, checks what she wrote down, and throws a pill at you to see if your symptoms go away. If that fails, try another pill. Go down the line until SOMETHING he's being compensated to push across his desk makes you feel better.
I made a drastic diet change 2.5 years ago, and I cannot believe the difference - I stopped eating dairy, wheat, corn and soy - the 4 major food allergens/heavy glues. (Not totally, our food distribution system won't allow it unless you're wealthy). I literally feel 10-15 years younger. When I told him about this, my Dr. dismissed my concerns about these items, and discounted that this diet change caused the wellness, yet I had the clinical proof from my own experience. Now there's a guy with a degree, who - IMO - doesn't know what he's talking about, at least in that area. And it's a big friggin' area.
I won't condemn the whole industry over this 1 man's ineptitude and blindness to reality - but let's not condemn independent medical research either, just because there are some fruitcakes going too far the other direction. There are happy mediums everywhere - but we love our vitriolic, 2-sided, my way or the highway debates these days, don't we?
I'd like to see the govt stop pushing it's stupid food pyramind, and stop asking if you "Got Milk?" and suggesting we eat 300 carbs a day of their wonderful "whole grain." To be honest, I'd eat Paleolithic, if I could afford it. But few can, and most have no clue what it's about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCFZoqmKf5M

Jayson Leary - MR MANWIILLER POSTED :Geometry is a finite science. I doubt heavily that we'll discover a new number someday, between 6 and 7. : )
Medicine is an ongoing science.

RESPONSE: The argument I presented was not intended primarily as a jeremiad against all alternative medicine , but more of a polemic against relativism . When you, sir , disparaged absolutism , I had to post some polemical comments... for relativism / postmodernism /sellout thinking, is insidious in *far more* ways than are involved in the nonalternative vs alternative medicine debate .

Like Zack , I do maintain that the ANTI-vaccination movement is goofy tripe (especially that which alleges some alleged connection between vaccine and autism), yet I do not hold all alternative medicine to necessarily be in disrepute . Some herbal medicine , I maintain has merit . (I myself , for example, have found ginger root capsules to be a far better and less probelematic remedy for nausea / indigestion than commericial products like Mylanta, Maalox,Emetrol, Pepto Bismal and the rest ).

As for the statement about different sciences . One key epistemological distinction that should not be glossed over , is that geometry is a *deductive* and, hence, more certain sort of science , different from the natural sciences like medicine which are* inductive* . One point of order .

As for the matter of possible vested interests being involved with doctors and putative liasons with the pharmaceutical industry, that is worth investigating and considering . Nonetheless, that does not mean that the notions of some "thinker outside the box" who proposes some sort of touchy feely alternative to vaccination is somehow prooven right by default .

Again, proponents of alternative medicine ought to present the case for what they advocate in a linear manner, not by appeals to "thinking outside the box " squish.

Jayson Leary - check out what people are forking over for chiropractors, acupuncturists, Reiki practitioners, organic food, ... See Morepsychics, and other such horseshit .

Organic food should not be included in the litany of those items deemed horsehit . Chiropracty, homeopathic medicine , chakra therapy is horseshit . Organic food is just good old fashioned food grown without the goofy additives .

Recombinate bovine growth hormone , for example, does NOT improve the milk that cows have been prepared to give ...and that is a colssal understatement !

Recombinant bovine growth hormone is an abomination of the corporate creeps at Monsanto, who are catering to a mass man society and heck bent on getting the cows to fit the paradigm of mass man /mass consumption , high yield / low quality society even if they have to jam the square pegs into the proverbial round holes.

Rick Manwiller - JL, I relieved to see you're not into bashing herbal meds. You might want to Google "Codex Alimentarius." It's a global protocol we are being asked to sign on to (not unlike Kyoto) that is calling for (amongst other insidious legislation) the classification of ALL herbal and holistic cures as TOXINS, that require a medical prescription for sale or dispersal.
This is Big Pharma's way of cutting into the market that herbals are taking away from them. And trust me, if herbal cures weren't working, they'd have no interest in squashing them or controlling their sales.
Btw, another provision called for in Codex is that by Dec 2011, all dairy cows on the planet be injected with Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone, as if we don't get enough injected crap in our food supply as it is. Right now, it's estimated that 20% of dairy cows reject this hormone, and it causes mastitis, and roughtly 11-15% of our milk has significant amounts of pus from the infections. Got pus?
I'm bringing these items up because one way big pharma is minimizing these concerns about Codex is to label ANYONE on the other side as goofy purveyors of hysterical poopycock.

Jayson Leary - Yes, I know about mastritis and what it does to the cows. There ought to be a second Nuremburg Trial for those yuppie slimebags at Monsanto . Good Heavens , they not only want to peddle that trash but make it mandatory !. Could you sir post a hyperlink here (if Zack is comfortable with that) or in a private message to any petition I could put my name to , so I could just link to it. If I look for it on google I might get lost in a long trail , and I'm not very computer saavy .

I'd be much obliged , sir .

Rick Manwiller - Uh... poppycock. Poopycock is something else. (Okay, so I type too fast.)

Jayson Leary - Well rgardless of how one spells that word , please , sir, get me a hyperlink to a petition one can sign against Monsanto !

Rick Manwiller - I haven't seen a petition yet, but I can give you a link to a speech about Codex. One problem is, we live these days in a whirlwind of disinformation - you have to separate the wheat from the chaff, the bullshit from the info. There are people on the 'net dispersing bullshit along with good info - this allows those who recognize the bullshit to dismiss ALL of the info. Cognitive dissonance, if you will, is en effective weapon. It precludes thoughtful inspection, and masks your ability to see reality. Some of the people 'warning' about Codex turn out to be spewing other hysterically awful info, which makes concerns about Codex look unwarranted.
There's a particular speech by a woman who's name escapes me. I have the speech saved locally, but it seems to have disappeared from YouTube. In the meantime, here's a link about Codex.
http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/un-to-cause-3-billion-deaths-as...

Rick Manwiller - Aha! It's been reposted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_isdBSrBihk

Jayson Leary - Thank you Mr.Manwiller .

Monsanto is the vomit of humanity. Of course yuppies as a group are the vomit of humanity ...

There SHOULD be a petition drive started . And it is important that good causes like stopping that agenda of Monsanto does NOT get infiltrated by the kitschy Nostradamus type and other kitschy types .

Ironic , since the mass culture that gives us culinary trash like bovine growth hormone, also gives us credulous, pop media led types like the Nostradamus types and the like ...