Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
The United Methodist Church has just allowed its member to deliver unto them a hunk of burning stupid. Some misguided souls have looked upon vaccines and have found them wanting. Let us examine for ourselves this misguided petition (which passed 58 to 0). (I'll skip the theological justifications given---they are irrelevant, unless the Bible says, "thou shalt not preserve vaccines with thimerosal.")
Whereas, Thimerosal (synonyms include: Thiomseral, Merthiolate, Thimerasol) is a severely toxic, antiquated, organic mercury compound (approximately 50% mercury by weight) that has been added to some vaccines and pharmaceutical products since the 1930s,
OK, we've been over this...thimerosal is not "severely toxic", and was safely used in vaccines for decades until it was removed from most of them a number of years ago.
Whereas, numerous peer-reviewed scientific/medical studies published over many decades, at least since the 1930s, have recommended removing or restricting the use of Thimerasol in medicinal products, and have demonstrated its significant toxicity,
Time to update your references. This issue has been thoroughly studied, and no link between thimerasol-containing vaccine and ill-health has been found.
Whereas, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended, in 1982, that Thimerosal be banned from topical over-the-counter products, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and United States Public Health Service called for its removal from all vaccines in July of 1999, as did the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2001This was done as a precaution pending data. The data are in. They're safe. Meanwhile, it's moot, as only the flu vaccine still has the darn stuff.
You know what? I can't keep going. This God-damned document produced by the Church is a travesty. It will put children at risk, and we all know that Jesus loves the little children. I know there are Methodist doctors out there. Lots of them. Perhaps they could maybe drop a line to the Church letting them know what asses they are making of themselves?
Comments
I'm sure the church will listen to a theistic satanist like you and take you advise under consideration.
Posted by: Chuck | April 30, 2008 12:55 PM
I'm sooo proud to be a UMC member today... :(
Posted by: IanR | April 30, 2008 12:55 PM
Theistic satanist? WTF??
I'm sure PalMD has been called a great number of names, but theistic satanist... that one should go on a plaque somewhere.
Can I be a theistic satanist? Wouldn't that be a great name for a band? "PalMD and the Theistic Satanists"! I used to play bass in high school!
Posted by: LanceR | April 30, 2008 1:04 PM
I think I'm still a UMC member too, IanR. Even though I'd rather knife myself than be involved in the church, I always felt that Methodism was a fairly liberal, sane denomination. Sadface.
Posted by: gir | April 30, 2008 1:09 PM
The data is in.
[pedant] The data are in. Data = plural. Datum = singular. [/pedant]
;)
Posted by: factician | April 30, 2008 1:20 PM
Perhaps IanR and gir, you two could email and/or call the Powers That Be within the UMC? If you don't attempt to illuminate the darkness, it remains opaque.
Posted by: TWalker | April 30, 2008 1:21 PM
"PalMD and the Theistic Satanists"
Pal,
You should copyright that before it gets stolen.
Posted by: Chuck | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM
Thanks, factician. That's not one of my many usual errors.
As to my theistic satanism, I think Chuck was making a joke...I'm actually starting to understand his sense of humor.
In a serious vein, though, let us remember that there are no atheist satanists. In fact, vast majority of people who believe in satan are very religious. Hmm..
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 30, 2008 1:59 PM
Almost verbatim from Wacky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism
Posted by: Chuck | April 30, 2008 2:07 PM
To recap:
Kathleen Seidel was subject to a harassing subpoena, issued by Clifford Shoemaker (see denialism, April 3, 2008).
The plaintiff in the suit for which the subpoena was issued is the Rev. Lisa Sykes, a United Methodist Church minister.
Seidel wrote about Sykes' efforts to have the UMC pass such a resolution on April 17 2007 and again on May 15 2007.
Here's Seidel's summary of the Sykes suit and activism
But the UMC resolution is still burning stupid.
Posted by: Liz Ditz | April 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Every time I think Seidel can't possibly impress me any more, she does it again. She's incredible.
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 30, 2008 3:01 PM
As far as I can tell, it still is.
See this from the church's point of view. They're not scientists. They care about kids' health. The General Conference gets a draft resolution which they assume isn't full of half-truths with a few outright untruths thrown in for good measure. What do you expect them to do? Nothing?
(Incidentally, according to the link, the vote wasn't unanimous, which makes me wonder how the discussion went.)
This isn't Church vs Science. It's One Clergyperson vs Science, and the clergyperson in question has managed to pull an unsuspecting and well-meaning church conference into it. The right thing to do is for an Appropriate Medical Authority to write them a letter setting the record straight.
Posted by: Pseudonym | April 30, 2008 11:45 PM
I think several well-written letters from doctors who are church members could go a long way.
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 8:02 AM
What I meant when I said "take you advice under consideration" is that they will determine if you are a member of the church and if you are not, promptly shred the letter.
Posted by: Chuck | May 1, 2008 9:49 AM
I'm actually not so cynical re UMC. They don't have a reputation for insanity. I wouldn't be surprised if they reacted positively to this.
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 11:46 AM
No Church is perfect or has a responsibility to respond to individuals who are not member or the US government. Religious exemption exists for a reason.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 12:23 PM
Huh?
Posted by: PalMD![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 1, 2008 6:06 PM