Affectations of the Anti-Science New Bourgeois

[nfotxn]

Life is so easy for us these days that we have idiots who doubt the efficacy of childhood immunization.

The husband of a long time family friend went on at length about how he "never gets immunized for anything" because of some crack-pot theory that immunization causes health problems.

This whole line is so off the tracks that you have to begin tangentially opposed to the crack-pot theory and explain medicine from the very beginning.

Fact is that the biggest threat to your health is being alive. As soon as you're born you start dying, as they say. It's just we've had it so well for so long that we forget there are preventable diseases all around us.

I wonder if he'll doubt the efficacy of the interferon he'll need when he gets hepatitis from a nasty restaurant in his hip Toronto suburb? Or spread the endemic flu to the immuno-compromised or elderly people who will likely die as a result?

The best way to keep everyone healthy is risk mitigation. For a group of people who are likely to spend money on products and services that are ethical and fair trade it's sort of mind blowing that they don't understand the concept of their health is an important part of dealing with communicable disease.

But yes, it's all about you. Immunization causes like allergies and stuff, man! I've got some bee pollen you can take instead...

Let them eat vegan cake.

I find it shocking how similarly righteous and ignorant both the religious fundamentalists and the affected hip bohemian urban organic types can be. And even worse yet, lament the lost faith in progress our sad strange future has provided for a lot of people.

Comments

[f8n-begorra.livejournal.com]

I'm no longer shocked, but cynical. These people are rediculous.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess I am past the point of shock as well. I wanna educate people, but it's so hopeless. We're all so crusty these days.

[f8n-begorra.livejournal.com]

And, Happy Thanksgiving!

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

And a very happy Columbus Day to you too!

[abearius.livejournal.com]

That's Indigenous People's Day you imperialist!

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Well we still have the Queen on our money...

[abearius.livejournal.com]

You have Elton John on your money?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Yes, but he is looking kinda old on the newer bills.

[abearius.livejournal.com]

People in this culture don't know what unchecked microbial activity looks like. We rarely get malaria, the bloody flux or pneumonia. We're so healthy that people are starting to forget what smallpox and polio did to people. When people say things like that someone you know (me) suggests that they volunteer with a program in a clinic in equatorial Africa. They will leave the Continent loving (a) modern medicine and (b) Gabonese Jazz.

Health

[philalex.livejournal.com]

Every hour wounds.

The last one kills.

Flu shots start in a few weeks.

[bikerbearmark.livejournal.com]

>And even worse yet, lament the lost faith in progress our sad strange future has provided for a lot of people.

How about you, Brodie? Has our sad strange present caused you to lose faith in progress?

[tecknow.livejournal.com]

When discussing socialized medicine, I often hear the negative argument that health care is expensive because it is abused. "If people only went to the emergency room when it was a real emergency, or called on charities when it was really important" they say, "health care would be less expensive and existing charitable organizations could easily cover everyone's needs."

People who make this argument are often honestly unaware that throughout history diseases today seen as trivial have been leading killers. The idea that someone might have ever died from a 'minor' bacterial infection (strep comes to mind) is lost on them.

I too have experienced moments of despair (or at least extreme cynicism) trying to explain that it is only the success of modern medicine that allows people the belief that there's such a thing as a 'minor' illness, that your health is dependant on the health of those around you, and that the longer people wait for a 'real emergency' the worse off we all are.

[mondragon.livejournal.com]

I'm frustrated in the same way - I had someone once tell me that getting immunity to Hep A from getting sick with it was better, more natural, and less hard on the body than getting immunity from a vaccination.

It's one thing when you know you understand things because they're had and you're smarter than most people. It's another thing when even someone with a moderate-to-low average intelligence level should be able to get it and they don't.

[cmhcub4u.livejournal.com]

Well I happen to be someone of high intelligence, and I do think that there is more to being imunized than one thinks. Did you know that mercury is used as a preservative in some immunizations?

I am not gung-ho, anti immunization, however I do try to be wary of allopathic medicine. Science and medicine have come around at an astonishing rate over the past century, but so much so that doctors and scientists are themselves often forgetting where medicine came from. I have met FAR too many doctors that want to give you a pill or shot to get you out of there. I want to know what is going on with my body, and I want my doctors to explain it in detail. I want to know about all options, not just the one they reccomend.

There are polenty of scientific studies coming out on "non traditional" medicine that are proving that they are in fact based in truth.

I just prefer to not take a doctor's word as truth, and educate myself with as many different options as I can.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

You brought up the thimerosal argument first - I'll leave that to you.


One of the "problems" of immunization is the usual problem of the universal pallative. Sure, it works on 90%+ of the people. Some people *will* react poorly to immunizations. They'll even tell you this if you're paying attention. A very insignificant minority will die due to allergic reactions to an immunization.

Maybe it comes down to a social argument. If getting immunized prevents you from becoming part of the problem, is it your responsibility to be immunized?

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I know that products that are derived from mercury were used in the preservation of Thimerosol. Which is presently being mitigated in court. I also know that the connection between the Autism alleged caused by Thimerosol is not the easiest thing to prove. And that the lawyers persuing this case are not exactly of outstanding moral fibre.

As for being wary of allopathic medicine I would suppose that's prudent given that your federal drug regulatory body is essentially an adjunct of the pharamceutical industry. However I don't think it's logical to assume that if one thing is incorrectly regulated that the opposing form therefore is. Nor is it prudent as a highly intelligent person to assume that all studies are accurate, properly interpretted or anything less than a steaming pile of statistical turd. Especially when there is a multi-million (billion?) dollar industry that is willing to sell you $20 bottles of placebos funding said studies.

This comes down to the issue of trust. And whether it's about trusting your GP or establishing online networks of information and sources you can trust you have to establish these networks. What gets me is that a lot of naturopathic and homeopathic medince's appeal is through exploiting these bonds of trust without being made to show the goods like allopathic medicine is required to by law.

[trailtramp.livejournal.com]

It seems like a fairly simple choice to me. Take the risk of ingesting a small amount of mercury (which I will most likely ingest from food/water anyway given our current environmental non-policy), or risk dying of a preventable disease and spreading it to my loved ones.

[goldibehr.livejournal.com]

Life is so easy for us these days that we have idiots who doubt the efficacy of childhood immunization.

That's a great sentence, which really captures the cause and the effect.

I'll bet their tune changes real quick if some virulent plague sweeps through their local population. Of course, then it'll be all about the "incompetent government failing to protect the citizens."

Friend of Margi...

[ubbaken.livejournal.com]

Hello, I hope you don't mind me stopping by to comment here. I always like a good discussion, and this is an area I have much familiarity with (medicine in general).

My personal belief is that no one should be immunized. Species need population checks and guards, and communicable diseases are a perfect way to do that. By immunizing ourselves against such things, we are eliminating a barrier to population growth, which further allows our species to spread. If our genotype allowed us immunity to such things, then great. Otherwise, we're tuning out vital information. I think it's similar to the idea of taking an advil or tylenol for pain - it numbs the actual sensation of the pain, but does nothing for the reason the pain occurs in the first place.

Humans themselves are a disease now. None of these issues would be a problem if we were within natural limits of our species.

Re: Friend of Margi...

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Our genotype is capable of immunity, that's why vaccines work. We're not talking about taking foreign substances that do the work in our bodies. Vaccines generate a response that is a totally natural function of the immune system.

I think your perspective comes from somebody who's never experienced early childhood disease and the carnage they wreck. Which is my point exactly, we think what we have is no good. We haven't ever had to live with out. With all due respect I think your perspective is nothing but ignorant.

Re: Friend of Margi...

[ubbaken.livejournal.com]

I am not having argument with the effectiveness or function of vaccine, but the reason we use them.

I have genetic disorders which have manifested in other members of my family, like Thalassemia, poly-cystic kidneys, and a blood disorder which causes BP to spike under certain stressors. My family was born in Trinidad, and did not have a fridge, tv, or appliance until after the 70's when they moved here. They've seen the results of polio, flu, and other diseases preventable by vaccine.

I should clarify just a bit more on what I meant in terms of genetic immunity. Immunity should be developed through experience, not a needle shot. Here is why - A vaccine is many times less traumatic than the disease it conferes resistance to. When exposed to vaccines, most people are able to develop the resistance for the disease.

What I meant was that only those that survive the full-blown disease are those that really have the natural ability to combat the disease. Their genetics are stronger on that front, in that specific case and their immune systems are more robust as a whole. Those that don't survive are weeded out and the species as a whole progresses physically.

Jesse Malone Re: Friend of Margi...

[(Anonymous)]

That statement has what I'll call my "Eugenics alarm bell" ringing. I understand your argument, and you may in fact to correct. Widespread vaccination may in fact be weakening the innate immunity of our species. Nevertheless the cat is out of the bag. Immunization is here, and to withhold vaccinations from those who would not survive without them is an enormous ethical problem. I would call it a form of eugenics.

I also think it is possible to see vaccinations as just another result of an ongoing natural process. One aspect that is unique to human evolution is culture and its impact on our biology. Vaccinations are a very recent development of human bio-cultural evolution. Human culture, which is a product of evolution, allowed us to develop and distribute vaccinations in response to infectious disease. But before that, cultural adaptations such as agriculture and the growth of cities put humans in unnaturally close contact with animals, and with each other. These factors made infectious disease a far greater risk than it had been in earlier hunter-gatherer societies. The flu is a perfect example. The flu was not a human disease until we started domesticating birds. Vaccines therefore are simply another cultural adaptation in response to the biological effects of a previous cultural adaptation.

Human culture and biology impact each other, and I believe that at this point human evolution is driven far more by culture than genetics. Since culture is a product of our biological evolution, I don't think this is at all unnatural, though it is certainly a unique feature of our species. Human cultural and biological evolution are inseparable. This being true, perhaps it would be unnatural to withhold vaccines. To do so would expose people to the biological stresses created by human bio-cultural evolution without the aid of adaptations to those stresses. Overpopulation is yet another hurdle our bio-cultural evolution has brought about, and it may well be our end, but I don't think Eugenics(be it passive or not) can be the solution. The ethical dilemma is far too great.

I think, to consider human biological evolution alone is not enough. Culture has far too much to do with our evolution to be ignored. To strive to improve the "strength" of our genome is to ignore the great importance of human cultural evolution. Though it may not be strengthening our species genetically, culture has certainly resulted in a far "stronger" species than biology alone could have produced. It is highly unlikely that biological processes alone could ever have eradicated a disease like smallpox. The trade off is of course that we are increasingly dependent on our cultural adaptations in order to survive. Still, It would be immoral to try to change the direction of our biological evolution by deciding that "weak" individuals are unfit to exist.

Humanity has obviously not yet reached its natural limits. On the other hand we are stretching the planet to very near to its natural limits. The best we can do is continue to adapt to our adaptations to live within the limits of our environment.


P.S.

Hey Brodie. I haven't seen you in about a thousand years, but I thoroughly enjoy your blog. You are one of the most intelligent, articulate, and honest people I know.

Re: Jesse Malone Re: Friend of Margi...

[ubbaken.livejournal.com]

Evolution in it's strict sense is only biological, calling it cultural shadows the fact that we are in essence weaker biologically.

As for the eugenics argument, I understand that, but here is the viewpoint I am coming from:
There is a privledge system to the vaccine. The flu shot is one instance where it is free in some instances, but there is a cost associated with them. Taken on a global scale, who gets immunized? Mostly affluent westerners. So the problem is then the opposite of what you bring to light. We are not harming those who are succeptible to such diseases by not vaccinating them, we are privledging those few who have access (financially, socially, etc). Your sentiment would be valid if we could immunize 100% of the people, globally, otherwise it is just another way the west is promoting themselves above the rest of the world. We are not deciding that 'weak' individuals are unfit, nature is deciding that outside our influence by testing us with disease.

As for culture being unique, I think that is a falsehood. Other animals have play rituals and dialogues just the same as we do. In that sense, they also have a culture.

But, my main conclusion is that vaccinations weaken us physically, which it seems you agree with, even if tenuously. From there, I just belive that since culture is not one homogenous entity, the fact that we have different cultures, hints at the fact that basing such a remedy on culture is unethical and alienating to other cultures that exist.