Why listening to Oprah is dangerous

[Prime32]

And crude oil does... despite being entirely natural and unprocessed.

Not as much as man-made chemicals or constructs (see factories, nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants) do. Crude oil could never cause a disaster like Chernobyl for example.

Well, the sun will eventually expand and kill us all... It already gives people cancer, and would do more if not for the Earth's ozone layer and magnetic field shielding us from some of the radiation. Nuclear power plants are an imitation of processes in nature. It just so happens that letting one go into meltdown and transform into a miniature sun is bad.

I don't assume something like that. Don't try to fit me into the "Appeal to nature" fallacy as my views on that subject aren't simply black and white. Being natural isn't automatically beneficial and being synthetic isn't automatically maleficent. I'm just saying that due to the fact that we are natural beings (the fact that we've forgot it and act hostile to nature is another issue) natural products are more likely to affect us better than synthetic ones.

There is no reason to assume that.

Besides, humans are manmade. I could just as easily suggest that this makes manmade things healthier for us.

[Zeke]

To kind of reconnenct to the topic. No Connection between vaccination and autism has been proven. Many studies have suggested that it is unlikely that there is one. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the measles and rubella are very harmfull.

My point is that listening to celebriities on these matters can be dangerous, do the research, come to your own conclusions. I like Penn and Teller and their stance on skepticisim, I don't really listen to them, I'll listen to Phill Platt, or Michael Shermer, but again only if there seems to be a firm foundation of evidence for their claims.

[CountArioch]

Zeke, that won't work.  Nuntius wants us to prove that there is no link to autism.  Which means, the fact that there isn't any evidence to back him up is meaningless.  He's a crank, listening to him is a waste of time an energy.  Although I bet he can teach us how to make cool tin foil hats.

EDIT:  Also, I must comment on something:  It boggles my mind that someone can actually think that a vaccine makes viruses and bacteria mutate, but allowing them to replicate in a living being and killing them in the process somehow prevents them from mutating.  That statement somehow manages to vastly overestimate AND underestimate what a prokaryotic organism is capable of.  Mutation doesn't really happen "on purpose", and having a bacteria or virus replicate in a living vector is a sure-fire way to get literally trillions of mutant strains in each and every infection.

But everyone who disagrees with Nuntius is in the pocket of drug companies.  Every scientist and teacher on the planet are in on it, and it takes some paranoid delusional on the internet spouting nonsense that he himself doesn't really understand to correct us all. 

[PhaedrusXY]

Nuntius wants us to prove that there is no link to autism.

Which is of course logically impossible. You can't prove a negative. You can show that something is statistically improbable, but can never prove conclusively that there is no connection at all. (You can of course prove beyond reasonable doubt, but not everyone is reasonable. That's the main problem. ).

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the measles and rubella are very harmfull.  

[spoiler][/spoiler]


I appreciate the original link. When our son was born, I spent quite a bit of time reading up on all this stuff myself. My conclusion is that there is no way in hell that the current vaccines could cause autism, at least not through the mechanisms suggested, and that this entire thing was likely just ignorant fear-mongering. As already stated, practically none of the current vaccines contain any mercury, nor have they for over 10 years now. Yet the incidence of Autism is still increasing. So clearly mercury in vaccines is not to blame for this trend.

My wife however is still very skeptical about vaccines, probably because of exactly the kind of ignorant celebrity hogwash described in this thread and on the link in the OP, and I have to regularly re-convince her that we should vaccinate our son, pretty much every time a new batch of vaccines is prescribed by his doctor. 

[Zeke]

I don't think there's anything wrong with checking out every possible solution when you have a loved one with a serious medical problem which is not entirely understood. My mom has MS and I put my skepticism on hold when she tries some stuff, because hey, it might work. The vaccine thing however, is scary and dangerous to everyone.

[PhaedrusXY]

It boggles my mind that someone can actually think that a vaccine makes viruses and bacteria mutate, but allowing them to replicate in a living being and killing them in the process somehow prevents them from mutating.  That statement somehow manages to vastly overestimate AND underestimate what a prokaryotic organism is capable of.  Mutation doesn't really happen "on purpose", and having a bacteria or virus replicate in a living vector is a sure-fire way to get literally trillions of mutant strains in each and every infection.

Of course to get "evolution", you also need selective pressure, not just lots and lots of random mutations. Infectious agents do "evolve" to get around the protection offered by vaccines, as that protection acts as a selective pressure. They will do so much more effectively if they have a large population of unvaccinated hosts to crank out random mutations in, though.

Other species can act as reservoirs to produce these variations, also, like when the influenza virus replicates in hordes of pigs, birds, etc, and eventually comes up with new variants to bypass the protection offered by last year's vaccine. That doesn't mean we should stop vaccinating people, though, especially for things that don't have large non-human reservoirs to replicate in (like the polio virus). Those can be effectively eliminated entirely via vaccination campaigns, like Smallpox.

But everyone who disagrees with Nuntius is in the pocket of drug companies.  Every scientist and teacher on the planet are in on it, and it takes some paranoid delusional on the internet spouting nonsense that he himself doesn't really understand to correct us all. 

I had a Great Aunt who thought that men had never walked on the Moon, and that the entire thing was a hoax concocted by the government.  

[Zeke]

I would just like to remind everyone on the thread to stay away from the namecalling, there's a little bit of it popping up and I would like people to stick to the issues

[PhaedrusXY]

I would just like to remind everyone on the thread to stay away from the namecalling, there's a little bit of it popping up and I would like people to stick to the issues

You're a poopy-head. 

[CountArioch]

Zeke, I will leave the thread to comply with your request, this being your board and all.  I literally cannot argue against Nuntius' opinions in a rational way, doing so would indicate what he said needs to be respected.

[Solo]

FDR = Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Kaelik]

1) Why the hell is it bad to inject dead viruses in people but good to infect them with live viruses?

Not as much as man-made chemicals or constructs (see factories, nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants) do. Crude oil could never cause a disaster like Chernobyl for example.

2) HAHAHAHA! You are a nature fag fool. A single Crude oil spill in the ocean is millions of times more destructive than Chernobyl. Nuclear Power plants emit less radiation than comparable energy generated by burning oil. Oil also releases many evil chemicals into the air. Booga Booga.

3) Nature is deadly evil and destructive. Infant mortality in the ancient awesome times of yor where we lived in "nature" instead of in evil cities was greater than 50%, compared to the .7% we now have. Nature isn't better. Natural chemicals aren't better. Natural chemicals are proportionally worse, because cocaine and opium are bad pain killers with many negative consequences, and evil manufactured synthetic ones are better pain killers with basically no side effects at all, and reduced severity of negative primary effects.

[Zeke]

again, watch the name calling, make your point and move on.

[Solo]

Not as much as man-made chemicals or constructs (see factories, nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants) do. Crude oil could never cause a disaster like Chernobyl for example.

The Spanish Influenza killed more people than WW1, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire combined.

[Nuntius Mortis]

My point is that listening to celebriities on these matters can be dangerous, do the research, come to your own conclusions

Of course is dangerous to listen to celebrities. Celebrities are nothing more than simple humans. As humans they have opinions. Some of them right, other are wrong. In any case, you shouldn't let others shape your opinions. I never disagreed with that, Zeke.

[Meg]

The ONLY reason autism has raised significantly is because they redefined it a while back.  People who would not have been considered autistic twenty years ago are now suddenly impaired.

Actually not true.  I've taken quite a few special ed classes and this comes up frequently.  We are getting better at diagnosing, absolutely, and a lot of children are being diagnosed semi-unjustly.  The whole "autism spectrum" runs quite the gammet and some versions are fairly undistinguisable from others' bad behavior.

However, even accounting for all of the increased diagnoses, the rate is still rising.  It is nowhere near the "1 in 125" or whatever those commercials show, but it is much higher than even before we diagnosed it correctly.

Everything is on the rise- ADD, autism, Celiac's disease, etc.  Looking for why should be a high priority, though my guess is that it is mostly pollutants in our air and food that we can't solve easily.  But to make ridiculous claims and have no evidence to back it up (Jenny) is so harmful to finding actual solutions and it pisses me off.  

I love the website Zeke.  Jenny McCarthy is using fear tactics and radical notions to spread her word, why not use the same to get out that she *gasp* might be wrong?

[PhoenixInferno]

It's the tyranny of t3h hawt at work!

[Nuntius Mortis]

Zeke, that won't work.  Nuntius wants us to prove that there is no link to autism.  Which means, the fact that there isn't any evidence to back him up is meaningless.  He's a crank, listening to him is a waste of time an energy.  Although I bet he can teach us how to make cool tin foil hats.

No, I don't want you to prove that there is no link to autism. Don't pretend to know what I want. I merely try to show you that the subjects that are still debatable are never black or white. A lot of opinions exist about them so saying that anyone who disagrees with you deserves to be shot means that you would have to kill a lot of people.

About the crank thingy though, I don't think that I've ever lost my temper in this thread or any other for that matter.

[PhaedrusXY]

Celiac's disease, etc.  

Caelic has a disease named after him? Wow.

[Nuntius Mortis]

The Spanish Influenza killed more people than WW1, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire combined.

The Spanish Influenza would be far less deadly if the WW1 never took place. It's still more deadly than Chernobyl but the WW1 affected it a lot.

1) Why the hell is it bad to inject dead viruses in people but good to infect them with live viruses?

When did I said that it's good to infect people with live viruses?

2) HAHAHAHA! You are a nature fag fool. A single Crude oil spill in the ocean is millions of times more destructive than Chernobyl. Nuclear Power plants emit less radiation than comparable energy generated by burning oil. Oil also releases many evil chemicals into the air. Booga Booga.

Have you seen the effects of Chernobyl? Do you know how many lives have been lost due to that blast?

3) Nature is deadly evil and destructive. Infant mortality in the ancient awesome times of yor where we lived in "nature" instead of in evil cities was greater than 50%, compared to the .7% we now have. Nature isn't better. Natural chemicals aren't better. Natural chemicals are proportionally worse, because cocaine and opium are bad pain killers with many negative consequences, and evil manufactured synthetic ones are better pain killers with basically no side effects at all, and reduced severity of negative primary effects.

Whatever, Kaelik. I rest my case. We're clearly on a different page here.

[Kaelik]

Not as much as man-made chemicals or constructs (see factories, nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants) do. Crude oil could never cause a disaster like Chernobyl for example.

The Spanish Influenza killed more people than WW1, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire combined.

Well including Three Mile Island is a joke to inflate the list of incidences, since of course there were zero fatalities.

When did I said that it's good to infect people with live viruses?

You don't get to just tell the viruses not to infect people. When you stop giving people Tetanus vaccinations, Tetanus still exists and still infects you when you step on a rusty nail.

Have you seen the effects of Chernobyl? Do you know how many lives have been lost due to that blast?

You mean 56 confirmed deaths including cancer since the accident? Or the 4000 possible future deaths from cancer that Russia claims may occur over the net 50 years with no evidence? Or some other ludicrous number by someone who doesn't have any more information than the UN report did, that concluded there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed and was confirmed again in 2006?

But whatever, let's assume the Russians are absolutely right despite unwillingness to release evidence and then add Every single other reactor problem in the last 60 years: Now we have 4056 deaths, because of course Chernobyl is the only source of Nuclear Power related fatalities ever.

Let's compare that to 36,000 flu deaths each year. You tell me which of these is more dangerous.

3) Nature is deadly evil and destructive. Infant mortality in the ancient awesome times of yor where we lived in "nature" instead of in evil cities was greater than 50%, compared to the .7% we now have. Nature isn't better. Natural chemicals aren't better. Natural chemicals are proportionally worse, because cocaine and opium are bad pain killers with many negative consequences, and evil manufactured synthetic ones are better pain killers with basically no side effects at all, and reduced severity of negative primary effects.

Whatever, Kaelik. I rest my case. We're clearly on a different page here.

Yes, I am on a page where people not dieing is a good thing, where chemicals that don't kill you because they were designed not to kill you are better than ones that often do.

You are on a page where your reverence for nature is more important than millions of lives saved every year by vaccines or synthetic chemicals or food produced by farming methods invented that use highly artificial systems to produce more food in the United States than the entire world could manage using "natural" means.