Donate bitcoins to Adam Curry and help get a DSC episode dedicated to bitcoin.

[MoonShadow]

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.

Unless your children are part of the first wave of infectees.

An astronomical unlikelyhood.  I don't live near a border, an international airport, or even an ocean.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

If the vaccine truly was of questionable benefit, I would not disagree with you.

Apparently you would.

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.

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 shouldn't need to follow any step by step explaination, it's self-evident to anyone that doesn't have your cognative dissonnance.

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.

There it is again.

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.

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.

[1714967934]

1714967934

[Anonymous]

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

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. ?

[Anonymous]

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.

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"

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

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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.

[jon_smark]

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

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:

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?

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.

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

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.

[MoonShadow]

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

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

This is more fun.

[jon_smark]

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.

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.

This is more fun.

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?

[MoonShadow]

This is more fun.

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". 

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

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?

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

[Anonymous]

I guess the science is in   

[Longmarch]

And my kids have had MMR. >snip<a; for it's neither as effective as was claimed nor as safe as believed.  It's price is much lower now though.

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.

[Longmarch]

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.

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?

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

[MoonShadow]

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.

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?

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

Sometimes it's hard to tel...

[gigitrix]

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...

[Dusty]

I have a scientific and sceptical outlook on the world

In the developing world there have been outbreaks of measles and pertussis because parents are not vaccinating their kids as they should.

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

[Dusty]

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

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.

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

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?

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).

We live in the US, which means that our children benefit from the 'herd immunity' effect

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.