Bitcoin Forum

Adam wrote this blog post today and mentioned it on sundays noagenda show http://blog.curry.com/stories/2011/05/09/bitcoinGoodAsGold.html (http://blog.curry.com/stories/2011/05/09/bitcoinGoodAsGold.html)

His bitcoin address is in the article. I think it deserves a few bitcoins.



I am sending 33 btc to kick it off.  Want to help get a daily source code dedicated to bitcoin ?




P.S. redirected http://www.noagendamarket.com (http://www.noagendamarket.com)

Though Curry may indeed bring much welcome publicity to Bitcoin, I cannot agree with your statement that he deserves our donations.  I was once swindled into listening to his "No Agenda" podcast, and Oh. My. Goodness.  The guy is borderline schizophrenic with his crazy conspiracy theories.  Moreover, I have never seen anyone so proud about spouting their ignorance to the world.  And I'm not talking about harmless stuff, either.  He went on rants against vaccines and the science of anthropogenic global warming. In the developing world there have been outbreaks of measles and pertussis because parents are not vaccinating their kids as they should.  Children have died, for goodness sake!  And don't even get me started on the wacky global warming denialism...

Anyway, for the reasons above I most certainly won't be donating any money to the likes of Adam Curry.

Children die from cars. Every day. Every day. Every day. Every day. Don't use that scare mongering, save the children BS. Or, if you actually believe that things that kill children are bad then spout it consistently at least.

I haven't listened to this guy. But maybe if he did a bitcoin episode...

Talk about completely missing the point.  Stating that Curry's tirades against vaccines are part of a science denialism movement which has already caused the needless deaths of children is not scaremongering or engaging in frivolous "will-someone-think-of-the-children" arguments.  The expression scaremongering implies a certain degree of exaggeration and of drumming up innate fears for ideological purposes.  It is a fact that a decrease in vaccination rates in western countries has already lead to an increase in the incidence of diseases like measles and pertussis, and actual deaths have already been reported.  How does pointing out this fact can possibly be construed as scaremongering?

Moreover, you are making an unreasonable demand in stating that anyone who wishes to criticise factor X1 because X1 causes Y must also in the same message criticise factors X2, X3, X4, ..., Xn which also cause Y.  If one were to apply that standard consistently, then any message in this forum would have to consist of several chapters with appendices and an index at the end.


Then I suggest you actually listen to his show at least once before you start suggesting that people give him donations.  This, by the way, is an advice that extends beyond this debacle about Mr Curry.  By donating to someone you are endorsing and enabling them.  It is therefore an ethical imperative for that donation to be an informed act, won't you agree?

Dude, now you'll certainly be crucified by the Glen Becks of this forum!

You joke, but even though I do love the technology behind Bitcoin, one of the few things that still has me a little on the fence about its future prospects is precisely the feeling that this community is dominated by kooks.

I will concede that early adopters of any disruptive technology are likely to be people on the fringes, which increases the odds they will also be kooks.  However, I reject the proposition that Bitcoin implies kookiness.

I certainly do not count myself as a crank. I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. I have a scientific and sceptical outlook on the world, which also shapes my views on economics.  And guess what, this has resulted in me gravitating towards Keynesianism as the economics theory that is most consistent with empirical observations of economic history and what we know about human nature.  And yes, I do cringe every time the "hive mind" in this forum spouts market-fundamentalism or Austrian mentality.  It may seem paradoxical, but that is precisely why I still hang around here and continue to support Bitcoin.  The concept is too important to let it die because the crackpots took over.

Hey, Keynesianism is great - it works very well for centrally controlling a large population via the monetary system. Until it collapses, anyway.

Everyone considers themselves to be the rational moderate.

Children have died because of taking vaccines, which is why not all of them are given to children in developed nations anymore.  Polio is a great example, the illness is deadly, if you get it.  But the vaccine is potentially deadly, again if you get it.  The idea of vaccinating everyone is to wipe out an illness from the face of the Earth so that no more children have to risk death or injury from the vaccine, but most illnesses cannot be wiped out so simply.  My father was messed up by the polio vaccine, and he was an adult at the time.  But back then, nobody really told the parents the real risks of giving their children the vaccines.  Now this is more widely known, and some parents refuse to give their children risky, or any, vaccines.  My own children have only had about half of the "reccommended" set for school children, because they are homeschooled and I can do as I want.  My wife and I choose between them based on the risks of real harm if infected times the odds of actual infection in the modern world and weigh that against the odds of a particular vaccine causing harm.  We live in the US, which means that our children benefit from the 'herd immunity' effect from being in a city wherein most of the other children are vaccinated, and therefore there is no infection vector that could likely reach them anyway.  The public school kids bear the risks, while my kids benefit.  It's not fair, but that's life.

Fair point.


I wasn't really saying people should pay him. I was saying I wasn't likely to pay him until after he did a bitcoin show.

I do agree and I don't donate to people who I have fundamental disagreements with. Informed/uninformed is a false dichotomy. You never have all the information and you rarely have none.  When I tip a programmer I just assume he's not a white supremacist negro murderer. I don't think I have an obligation to find out for sure, playing the odds is fine in my ethics handbook.

I feel the exact same way you do!

It is true we all have our biases and an over-inflated sense of self-worth.  However, it would also be a mistake to assume the relativist position that therefore we are all equally skewed.  Different people occupy different positions in the rational-irrational spectrum.  Furthermore, our innate biases only reaffirm the need for a method of understanding the world based on empirical observation and logic.  This method goes by the name of Science.  Hence -- and going back to the original topic of this discussion -- why I strongly discourage donations to people like Adam Curry who wallow in their ignorance and disdain of the scientific consensus.

I have no idea who Adam Curry is, but if you think that there is anything close to a scientific consensus on the climate, you're deluded.

Ha! Not me. I'm an occasionally rational extremist!

We are all denialists now.  :)

Its all moot because it looks like he raised the 100 btc he was wanting to do an episode of the daily source code.

Dont conflate people who listen to different opinions on things with 'kooks'. Pointing out things such as tsa workers not being allowed to wear radiation badges while operating body scanners at the airport does bring up questions as to why. The mass media manipulation that they expose is also a valuable thing.

At least the guys are listener supported unlike pbs who claim to be while taking advertising dollars hand over fist. They dont take corporate "sponsorship" or advertising. Using bitcoin to support less of that is something worthwhile.

 I hear someone support "global warming " and they seem like a religious convert. I guess it depends which side of the fence you stand on.

Personally I support vaccines for certain diseases such as polio,measles and whooping cough however what curry is ranting about is the way they bring out vaccines for idiotic things such as smoking. You know that they have made vaccine manufacturers immune from legal responsibility dont you ?

This means you only have to classify something as a "vaccine" and you are in the clear as a drug company from responsibility for harming people. That is incredibly wrong in my book because if you injure someone you should not be protected from making them whole.

No, I'm not!

If you use bitcoin you are ...you deny the banksters their ounce of blood.

Bitcoin doesnt care who uses it. Crackpots or not. Thats why we like it.

So...we give him free money........and he'll promote the currency so he can make more money?  Come on -_-

Thank you creighto for so succinctly illustrating the kooky worldview I was talking about.  But next time try not to be so obvious, or people may suspect you're on my payroll...

I suspect you may be getting your information concerning climate change from denialist sources, hence your statement rejecting the scientific consensus.  But guess what, among climatologists there is near complete consensus that the globe is warming up (I'm talking about figures in the vicinity of 99%), and as the latest IPCC report shows, the error bars suggest human responsibility with about 90% confidence.

I know you are likely to invoke some conspiracy theory as a response.  That's always the last refuge of the kooks.

Now now, lay off the ad hominem attacks.

Why even bother debating the cause of global warming? Better to hedge your bets than sit around pointing blame.

Vaccination does have some risks, but the benefits are so overwhelming that any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them.

And it's also true that not all of them are given to children anymore.  One notable example is smallpox: there's no need to vaccinate against it anymore because the vaccination campaigns of the 20th century were so overwhelmingly successful that the disease was eradicated from the face of the earth!  Think about this: one the biggest killers in human history goes "poof" thanks to vaccines.  Want a better argument in favour of vaccination?


I hope you realise the enormity of what you are confessing to.  And pardon me if I'll sound condescending, but your actions show the lack of basic moral behaviour that I would expect from a 5 year-old, not from an adult.

Have you considered what would happen to the herd immunity if all parents did as you do?  You are basically freeloading on top of the herd immunity created by parents who have acted more responsibly -- you do realise this, don't you?

Moreover, I suspect you may even be putting your kids (or future grandkids) at a higher risk than what you are realising.  What if one of those diseases they're not vaccinated against makes a comeback? Or suppose your children's children get infected with a disease like pertussis because your children pass it on to them? (I'm only using pertussis as an example -- I don't know which were your actual choices concerning vaccination).


So you're pretty much confessing to willingly freeloading to the disadvantage of your society.  What a fine example!

First, what the fuck is "consensus"? I don't remember that word from science class. Is consensus like the last step of the scientific method?

Secondly, "the globe is warming up" != "humans are contributing to global warming" != "humans are a main cause of global warming" != "government regulation is the solution to global warming"

You just contradicted your first paragraph with the second.

Yes, it's a true "Tragedy of the Commons" situation.  Those other parents aren't acting more responsibly, they are largely compelled to vaccinate their children because they send them to government schools.  The first responsibility of the parent is to the child, if the conditions of the modern world make the risks of the vaccine equal to that of the benefits, it's irresponsible to give it to one's children.
That was considered, and if any of these diseases start to make a comeback, odds are very high that we would have time to return to the pediatritian and take care of it.  They have had all of the low risk vaccines, it's a risk/reward calculation which is different for a child growing up in the modern world wherein most communicable childhood diseases have been supressed or eradicated.
 They hav also had all of the diseases that have high long term risks.  When I was a child, my mon intentionally expossed my and my sister to chicken pox, because it's less life threatening to a child than an adult.  My children have had all of those vaccines.

Yes, Thank you!  It's good to see that you acknowledge that a parent's first responsibility is to his own children.   8)

I didn't mention my own position.  There is no such thing as consensus in science, there are respected PhD's in Physics that still doubt that the Big Bang Theory is an accurate discription of the early universe.  There may be a majority of climatologists who agree that the climate is warming up, but it's provablely not a consensus.  And even then, they don't agree on the root causes of the climate change.  Solar cycle theory is still a significant minority position among meterologists and climitologists that can fit the data as well as human causes do.  i'm not a master of this field, and I would wager that neither are you, but I would hazard the guess that human activities do play a contributing factor.  The question is, how much of one?  I think that it's a bit rediculous for us to assume that human activities have a significant role in climate change based on 120 years of records, particularly considering the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is today or is likely to get in 100 yeras.

Very few areas in science can advance based solely on deductive reasoning.  Often you must rely on triangulation in logic space, or have to contend with error bars so large that multiple competing hypotheses cannot be discarded.  Nevertheless, as those error bars get smaller, a consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus) among the experts tends to form.  This is also the case for global warming.  It is in fact very interesting to study the evolution of the IPCC reports through the years: though the first reports only suggested that humans may be involved, as time passed on and more data was collected, those error bars got smaller and the consensus slowly gravitated towards its present position that human beings are most likely to be the main culprit.


I agree, and you will note that I was always very careful in never conflating any of the issues above.

There is in fact such a thing as the Scientific consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus).  Moreover, I suspect you may be confusing the meaning of the word consensus as it is used in the context of science versus its use in everyday life.  Saying that there is a scientific consensus about position X does not mean that a full 100% of practitioners support X without any doubts about the certainty of X.

About the concrete examples you mentioned, it would be a mistake to lump them all together in the same sack:

• Most physicists take the Big Bang model as the best current description of the early universe.  However, it is also part of the "consensus" that many aspects of the Big Bang theory are not particularly solid.  Therefore, the "consensus" is that physicists would not be completely surprised if the Big Bang theory were to suffer a significant change.
  
• Concerning climate change, the overwhelming consensus is that it is a real phenomenon.  As to the causes, the consensus is that human beings are most likely to be the main culprits, but the error bars and our understanding of certain phenomena do not allow us to make a categorical affirmation that we are certainly fully responsible.  You see, it is perfectly okay for a consensus opinion to say "we are about 90% sure".
  

Smallpox is a horrible, deadly disease.  There were certain (tiny) risks associated with the vaccine, but the disease was so widespread and deadly that the benefits of the vaccine far outweighted the risks.  The vaccination campaign was so successful that the disease was eradicated.  Since the smallpox virus became extinct in the wild and was never coming back¹, it was no longer necessary to vaccinate children against it, which is why it's no longer done.

How is the paragraph above a contradiction?  Please explain your reasoning step by step, as I'm curious to see what sort of cognitive mechanisms are responsible for your conclusion.

¹Excluding some bio-weapon scenarios using preserved samples of the virus.  But let's not get into that...

It's notable that you chose the IPCC reports to make this point, particularly since the vast majority of scientists that contribute to the IPCC reports are not meterologists nor climatologists, and those that are work directly or indirectly for government agencies, not as scientists in research.  Using the IPCC as evidence for anything displays either an immediate political bias or an inforgivable ignorance to the politics that contribute towards the IPCC.  A couple of years ago, a climatologist had to sue the IPCC for falsely claiming that said climatologist had reviewed and/or contributed to one such report and upon pointing out the "error" the IPCC refused to remove said climatologists name from supporting documents and website pages.  Before it was over, there were over 60 scientists who discovered that their professional reputations were being falsely claimed by the IPCC.

In short, the IPCC is not a credible source of scientific information, either for or against the debate about climate change.  It is only a political action committee cloaked in a false shroud of impartial scientific retoric.

You used the example of a high risk vaccine being used to eradicate a higher risk disease from nature, and the subsequent removal of that vaccine from use; as the support for the ongoing use of moderate risk vaccines intended to prevent moderate risk childhood diseases that have already been (statisticly & effectively) eradicated from the society that my children live in.  I shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.

"Statistically and effectively eradicating" a disease is a long way from making it extinct.  Rubella, pertussis, mumps etc. are more than "moderately" dangerous.  The vaccines for these diseases are less than "moderately" dangerous. 

Vaccines are a miracle of human ingenuity.  The Unibomber was a terrorist.  Can't we all just get along?

Oh, also, I've always had this hunch that the anti-vaccine movement and global-warming denialism were part of the global banking elite's world population control program.   Crazy weather and widespread epidemics could kill off a nice percentage of the little people while the multibillionaires sip human growth hormone in their air-conditioned bunkers.

Come on sheeple, wake up.

 

I suspect you've got it backward. "Global climate change" overreaction benefits the elite. Not to mention, "denialism" is not the same as demanding trustworthy research.

And my kids have had MMR.  Again, it was a cost/benefit analysis.  If you stop and look at the list of vaccines that many public school districts require, you'll notice that many of those are on there for historical reasons or political ones.  Some of them are very expensive, and must be paid for by your medical insurance plan; and then the vaccine company will "donate" those same vaccines to the public clinic in the city so that those who couldn't afford it anyway don't bring attention to the fact that the company is making a fortune for a vaccine with debatable benefits for the public.  A perfect example of this kind of boondoggle is Gardasil, the HPC vaccine.  It's relatively new, comes with very real risks and very real benefits; but then it only protects against the eight most common forms of this disease, all of which are sexually trasmitted diseases.  If it were simply reccommended for teenagers, I'd say it was a great thing.  But it's required for public schooled girls as young as eight years old in some districts.  Why, exactly?  Does the public school system have a free love clinic for eight year olds?  When this first came out, my daughter was seven and it is "approved" for as young as six.  Our pediatritian, at her checkup, asked us if we wanted to consider it for our daughter.  He explained it all to us, and then admitted that his clinic gets a kickback for every one they administer.  I think he already knew that he had better come clean with his homeschooled clients, at least.  I thought, new vaccine therefore not much data outside of the lab on it's effects when combined with other drugs or conditions; daughter is homeschooled and years from puberty, and is devout Christian to boot; costs $80 per dose.  "I think I'll wait a few years and see how things work out, or at least for the price to drop."  Turns out to have been a good idea; for it's neither as effective as was claimed nor as safe as believed.  It's price is much lower now though.
I agree, but they are just another tool.  Choose wisely, they aren't magic.
The Unibomber was a disgruntled INTP with an ax to grind against former coworkers.  I'm also an INTP, and you shouldn't meddle in the affairs of INTP's; for we are (usually) subtle and quick to anger.
 
Is this your first time on the Internet?

Quick question, concerning your population reduction theory.

If the super rich are out to kill off the "little people" then who will buy the crap they sell in order to pay for the air-conditioned bunkers?  And concerning the bunkers, are they there to protect the super rich from the remnant?

And for the record, I'm not anti-vaccine.  I'm anti-blindly-accept-the-opinions-of-your-betters-crap.

As Longmarch already pointed out, none of the diseases you've failed to vaccinate your children against have been irrevocably eradicated.  They may not be widespread in your particular community in this particular point in time, but they may stage a comeback at any point, particularly if there are many complacent parents like you.

Look, I'm not even making a subtle point here.  There's a world of difference between a disease which has been thoroughly extinguished worldwide like smallpox, and diseases like measles which nowadays are less common in industrialised nations but which are still endemic in poor countries and could therefore come back to byte us in the ass.  Why on earth are you having such difficulties understanding this point?


Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Creighto's position appears carefully considered, whereas yours appears to be blind acceptance.

So, no.

And I would have plenty of warning in order to get my kids vaccinated if that were to occur, but the most likely cause of such a thing would be a mutation that renders the current vaccine ineffective anyway.  How would getting a vaccine of questionable benefit help my children, here and now?  And calling me complacent implies that I'm doing this out of laziness.  The lazy method would be to just get all of the vaccines that are recommended and not worry about the details.

Not really.  My kids have had MMR, but lets use that as an example.  Measles can be fatal, but isn't likely to be fatal without a compromised immune system.  Measles is pain and suffering, but the vaccine can cause permanent nerve system damage if you turn out to be the unlucky one.  I live in a city that hasn't seen an actual case of measles (discounting the cases that are systomatic responses to the vaccine itself) since 1995.  Tell me how it's better for my child for me to risk a one in 50,000,000 chance that the vaccine will cause paralysis (or other less significant complications) when the odds of just being exposed to that same disease in this city is one in 50,000 or better, and the odds of lifelong effects from the infection itself (with access to 1st world medical care) are longer than with the vaccine?  I admit, getting the vaccine would be cheaper for me, and likely far less painful for my child, than for my child to get infected and be treated to a two week hospital stay.

I understand the point, it's just not an absolute.  At least I'm not competing with children in third world nations for those same vaccines.  You do know that, by not participating, I make those same vaccines cheaper for people who live in places where these diseases are still common, right?  Why do you hate brown people?

There it is again.

Unless your children are part of the first wave of infectees.  And you are also assuming that vaccines will be easily available in circumstances where there's a fulminant rise in the incidence of a disease.  As to the mutation issue, it depends a lot on the pathogen.  The flu virus is notoriously slippery, but that's not the case for other diseases.  Moreover, a vaccine may still offer partial protection against a mutated pathogen.  And partial protection is better than no protection at all!


If the vaccine truly was of questionable benefit, I would not disagree with you.  However, I suspect you may be categorising as of "questionable benefit" vaccines which the science-based medical consensus agrees are worth the risks.  And note that I am not saying that there is always unanimous agreement between this consensus and the vaccines which may be recommended by your local authorities.  The latter may be influenced by non-medical interests.


Listen, this back and forth game of more-logical-than-thou began when you accused me of contradicting myself in two statements I made. I have carefully explained why there is no contradiction in my statements. Therefore, and for the sake of closure, I suggest you either retract your accusation or proceed to explain step-by-step how those two statements of mine are in contradiction.  In cases like these I always suggest people draw a logical flowchart pinpointing the exact spot where a logical fallacy took place.  If you really think you are right, would you be so kind as to enlighten us all as to where the flaw in my reasoning lies?  Thank you.

An astronomical unlikelyhood.  I don't live near a border, an international airport, or even an ocean.
I don't assume this to be so, but I do consider it likely.  If a new form of often fatal childhood disease were to be found in Kenya, and spreads to other nations before a vaccine could be developed, do you think that Kenyan children are going to be vaccinated before American, British and German children? Again, reality isn't fair, but it is reality.
You assume this to be true, and it likely is, but you can't know to what degree it would be true in advance.  No one can.
Apparently you would.
I'm the parent.  The one persson most directly responsible for my child's well being.  How I define the benefits are not really relevent, because I'm "the Decider".

I made a small attempt, but as expected, you were unable to process it.

EDIT:  You neglected to explain why you want brown people to pay more for vaccines.

I donated 8000 coins for the weusecoins video. How is promoting bitcoin on a podcast heard by over 300 000 people weekly a different animal. ?

Consensus is when 51% of the population vote on stealing from the other 49%.  :)

Are they the same climatologists who claimed in the 70's that we were about to enter an ice age ? Are they the same climatologists who are proven liars from the east anglia climate school who fudged reports because the actual data didnt support their world view thus making the whole ipcc report invalid ?
 Look up the "medieval warm period " for instance which shows much higher temperatures than today ,yet these same scientists removed it from all their data models because it didnt fit their theories. Here is a tip from the obvious report- the sun goes through stages causing the earth to heat up or cool down. Humans dont do shit to the climate. You think  the light shines out of humanities asshole and causes all known problems in the world.

The only thing these people have are theories. Consensus is a buzzword used by bullshit artists.

Well, indulge me in a more comprehensive attempt.  Think of it as education.

However, before you do, I would like to remind you and everyone who may not have followed the whole thread about those two paragraphs in contention.  Basically, I made the two following assertions:


You then stated that the second paragraph contradicted the first, which triggered the current flamewar.  Therefore, to settle this once and for all, I most kindly invite you to point out how exactly does that second paragraph contradict the first.  This invitation, by the way, extends to anyone else who may share your opinion that I engaged in a contradiction.  And I'm not being facetious.  If I did contradict myself, I would very much like to know how exactly that happened.  I take my cognitive hygiene seriously.

Mind you, we may be having a flamewar based on a simple misinterpretation.  I may not have made my position sufficiently clear, or you may have misunderstood what I said.  In any case, it behooves us both to clear up the confusion.


If you are able to produce a quote of me stating that I would "want brown people to pay more for vaccines" (sic) I would be happy to accommodate your request.  If you cannot, then stop trolling and learn to argue like a grown-up.

In the second paragraph you use an actual example of the cost/benefit analysis of widespread use of a vaccine that moved dramaticly from positive to zero as an example of "any reasonable cost/benefit analysis will favour giving them to all the kids who can have them".  It should be obvious that the cost/benefit analysis of continuing a vaccination program beyond the eradication of said disease from nature does not favor (Can't you English spell English right?) giving it to all the kids who can have them.

My own cost/benefit (risk/benefit, really) analysis isn't nearly as clear cut, admittedly, but it's no less real.

This is more fun.

Ah, I see where the confusion comes from.  In the first sentence, I was referring to vaccinations which have a supra-unitary benefit/cost ratio.  It's true this was only implied on my part, but I thought it was clear enough -- after all, why would a reasonable person recommend something with an infra-unitary benefit/cost ratio?  However, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, I am talking about the set of all vaccines.  I should have made this distinction clearer.  I thought it was implied by the overall tone, but of course how the recipient parses the tone is skewed by their attitude towards the source.  And since we were engaged in a confrontational exchange, it's very likely that your parsing algorithm was way out of phase with mine.


If by "more fun" you mean that using trolling techniques means that your opinion is less likely to be taken seriously and you yourself are likely to be perceived as an asshole, then sure, call it "fun".  Personally, I think polite and structured conversation is more likely to sway people in your favour.  Isn't there a saying that you catch more flies with honey?

Yes, that it what I call fun.  What did you think that debating with unknown persons over a public Internet forum was about?

Probably, but sometimes just annoying the "Spock" in the room is the fun part.

I guess the science is in   :P

That's all fair enough.  The only assertion I would make is that there is vocal, absolutist anti-vaccine movement that spreads hysteria and misinformation.  We could do without these people's input, really.  If you want to question what you're paying money to inject into your child's body, I'd say you're entitled to that.  But when the rhetoric gets to levels such as Jenny McCarthy and Adam Curry take it, encouraging parents to not vaccinate their children against dangerous, highly communicable childhood diseases, I think it's any thinking person's duty to speak up and say no, that's not right.  Not to mention that their rhetoric fogs out any truly rational discussion about the issue, such as whether 8-year-olds ought to be required to have an HPV vaccination.

I'm sure you know that I was being sarcastic.

Sometimes it's hard to tel...

This thread reminds me why I stopped listening to that show. No Agenda is 5% genius, right on the money intellectual scepticism and debate that engages the listener and generally makes you think. The other 95% is pure tinfoil-hattery that basically invalidates the good stuff: juvenile "what if" theories that can be debunked by 14 year olds with google. It's a real shame, as I'm a huge fan of Dvorak...

Well, then please give me proof the the outbreaks of measles was due to the lack of vaccines and not other things as, e.g., lack of good nutrition or unappropriate igiene.

As another example, it's been usually said that smallpox has been eradicated thanks to the vaccines, but where are the scientific studies to support this claim?
I've searched for them everywhere: there are NO scientific studies supporting that (false) statement.

On the contrary there are a ton of studies supporting the exact opposite.

I've written an essay on the subject, kindly translated to English by a friend that knows the language better than me:
http://ilporticodipinto.it/content/immunisations-eradication-smallpox

I'm eager to know all the scientific counter arguments you are able to provide on the subject, thanks.

Dusty

P.S.: If some native English wants to help in ameliorating the text in the article I would be delighted

Haha, I replied too fast, I still had not read the best part :D

Fine, where are the scientific studies supporting this claim?
On the contrary there are tons of clues leading to the exact opposite claim.

You made my day: please give a proof that smallpox was eradicated thanks to vaccines.

I gave you some evidence on the contrary (including the admission by WHO), and a lot of clues that maybe the smallpox was eradicated despite vaccinations...

Also, following your reasoning that we should stop vaccinating children for eradicated diseases, please explain me why in developed nations children still get shots for polio or diphteria (eradicated since tens of years almost everywhere).

The "herd immunity effect" is just a theory, and an unproved one.
Actually, there are some cases that proves that this theory is wrong.
I don't have the links handy, but I can dig them out if you are interested, but I bet you don't, since you think to think scientifically while you are acting like a religious.