…and this is a 
There was another Republican debate (I skipped it; there are limits to the horrors I can endure), and apparently, many people think Michele Bachmann trumped Rick Perry by jumping on his 'liberal' endorsement of using the HPV vaccine to prevent cancers in women. Bachmann ranted about the federal government forcing innocent little girls to get mental retardation injections, and the teabaggers loved it. They loved it almost as much as they loved Rick Perry's record of executions.
Orac rips her apart. It's great fun, and informative, too.
As I've pointed out time and time again, Gardasil is incredibly safe by any measure. Also by any measure, it's been very heavily tested and monitored. Of course, there is no evidence at all that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation. I've also pointed out how the vast majority of the reports of adverse reactions after the HPV vaccine made to the VAERS database were almost certainly not due to Gardasil and have castigated Medscape, of all publications, for buying into anti-vaccine myths about Gardasil. Meanwhile the American Academy of Pediatrics immediately issued a press release to correct Michelle Bachmann's false statements about Gardasil. What Bachmann is peddling is pure pseudoscience. I suppose I shouldn't be in the least bit surprised, given how gullible she is when it comes to science in general and how much she allows ideology to trump science.
Once again, the Republicans step forward as the anti-human, anti-science, anti-health party.
(Also on FtB)
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/OAIpF9cvt9XLHQMzb.YN12qpCcu9#b16af
|
September 14, 2011 11:18 AM
The excoration of Bachmann is just, but note that what is being 'jumped on' is not an endorsement of the vaccine, but rather a compulsory law forcing all young girls to get a vaccine produced only by a single company with contributions to Perry's organizations in excess of half a million dollars.
Posted by: GodSmakkd
|
September 14, 2011 11:38 AM
"but note that what is being 'jumped on' is not an endorsement of the vaccine, but rather a compulsory law forcing all young girls to get a vaccine"
Actually, no.
Note that Bachmann's real problem is
that "..the federal government (is) forcing innocent little girls to get mental retardation injections".
Other people might be suspicious of the profit motive behind the vaccine, but this financial aspect does not call into question the vaccine's utility.
Whereas this freak of putrid mis-education and tacky religious isolationism (Bachmann) actually claims the federal government wants to force young girls to become mentally retarded.
The mentally retarded were born with these conditions. What is Bachmann's excuse? She was born with a perfectly formed brain, and all the education the richest country in the 20th/21st century has to offer has not prevented her sounding like the intellectual equivalent of a dripping sphincter.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
September 14, 2011 12:40 PM
This is why every decent human being in this country should vote for Obama, and for Democrats at every level of the underticket, in 2012. It doesn't matter how disappointed you are in Obama, nor how (relatively) sane some of the other Republican candidates (e.g., Huntsman, Romney) may seem: What matters is that the Republican Party is committed to a deeply anti-humanistic agenda, and we simply can't stand — the world can't stand — even a brief time with them in total control of the U.S. Government. And make no mistake: There is no electoral scenario in which a Huntsman or Romney wins the White House that doesn't also include radical right-wing control of both houses of Congress.
Think back on the two Republican debates over the last couple weeks: The candidates are frightening enough... but what's truly frightening, and a true threat to our future, is the audiences. Regardless of what the candidates think, do we really want leaders whose constituents are committed to an ideology no more humane or compassionate than "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"? I sure don't.
Posted by: OleanderTea
|
September 14, 2011 12:52 PM
I was going to make a crack about how a vaccine that could induce stupidity would create the perfect Tea Party member, but then realized that you'd need to add a healthy dollop of fear and xenophobia to the vaccine. THEN we need to be afraid.
Posted by: Raenelle
|
September 14, 2011 1:01 PM
You forgot anti-sex and anti-gender equality. Both those are pretty firmly rooted in the 19th-century patriarchism so near and dear to the Gilded Age cheerleaders known as Republicans.
Posted by: pdsanders65
|
September 14, 2011 1:54 PM
Please, Michele, Pray away the stupid!
Posted by: fred c dobbs
|
September 14, 2011 2:56 PM
sadly, perhaps it is time to let the inmates run the asylum. it is obvious reform cannot come from within so let's lose wwIII and get it over with. after appropriate war crimes trials and executions, maybe we can rejoin the world as did germany and japan.
Posted by: Foggg
|
September 14, 2011 2:57 PM
PZ didn't mention the howls of glee from the Teabagger audience at the thought of someone without government health assistance dying -- because they were too lazy, stupid, etc to have their own private health insurance. That'll teach the freeloaders.
Ron Paul was a favorite of theirs.
Posted by: Kay Shawn
|
September 14, 2011 2:59 PM
I know this is a science blog, but don't forget political science: Perry is entangled with Merck.
Posted by: Luke Scientiae
|
September 14, 2011 3:00 PM
Michelle Bachmann is a disgrace. How could anyone imagine her (or Perry, or Ron Paul, or Santorum) marshalling any sensible education or research funding policy, let alone responding to climate change or the threat of a global pandemic?
For those interested, I have compiled a list of EVERY Republican 2012 candidate and what they think of two key science issues that test their relationship with reality: climate change and evolution. I hope it will prove useful:
http://www.lukesci.com/2011/09/06/all-of-the-2012-republican-candidates-on-climate-and-evolution/
Posted by: Holytape
|
September 14, 2011 3:01 PM
As much as a hate Bachmann, and as much as her stupidity is going to drag us back into the dark ages, I have am very concerned with what Perry did.
The problem is that Perry, signed a law forcing people to use a product and while receiving large amounts of money from the producer, and not disclosing the money. Luckily in this case, the product has health benefits and probably will save women from getting cancer. The next time this happens, I am not sure if the outcome will be so beneficial.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 14, 2011 3:23 PM
This is true of the majority of Teabaggers.
Posted by: Quantumburrito
|
September 14, 2011 3:45 PM
-Once again, the Republicans step forward as the anti-human, anti-science, anti-health party.
Not to mention anti-brain.
Posted by: RichVR
|
September 14, 2011 4:05 PM
I turned it off after the cheering for letting someone without health insurance drop dead.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SgxGvJQ2jolodhXvwPz_wgGCr3Tp0g--#8b6f2
|
September 14, 2011 4:35 PM
(John B Hodges here)-
This will sound like a joke. But I'm asking everyone to consider it seriously.
Suppose that lots of us on the left half of the political spectrum pulled together an independent campaign, not connected to the Democratic Party. We set up an organization, raise money, recruit volunteers, print buttons and bumper stickers and lawn signs and all that, organize rallies and marches, spend money on media ads if we get enough to do that. With this theme:
RE-ELECT OBAMA: THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
A button or sticker: HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
some signs: OBAMA: HE'LL SLOW THE DECLINE
ENERGY POLICY: NOT QUITE AS HOT WITH OBAMA
CIVIL LIBERTIES: LESS LAWLESS GOVERNMENT WITH OBAMA
NO NUTS! NO NUTS!
VERY SLOW WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WARS
And so forth. Loudly and proudly giving faint praise to the Democrats and the Obama administration, and urging everyone to get out and vote for them, because the alternative is worse.
The best part (or maybe the worst) is that no one will be sure if we are sincere. This is, after all, the exact argument that we have heard many times before, FROM people in the Democratic Party, meant seriously. However disappointed we may be with Obama and the Democrats, we must support them, because we have no alternative. Third-party bids are both useless and harmful. Primary challenges are almost as bad because if unsuccessful they weaken the centrist candidate, and if successful they put someone in the ballot who will lose the general election.
The only strange thing about this campaign would be that, though everyone has heard this argument before, and may even have made it before, always meant seriously, no one has ever said it loudly and proudly. Perhaps if we do it, it will shame the Democrats into having more spine.
Posted by: Vicar of Art on Earth
|
September 14, 2011 4:45 PM
I can't remember whose study and I remember the Federal Government under Bush kind of hid it,but does anyone remember the study that showed a high incidence of Autisum in mothers living close to freeways.
Does any know if pre natal exsposure to petrochemical residue impact births?
Posted by: etherraichu
|
September 14, 2011 4:49 PM
Myers and other commentors correctly describe the major stupidity in this odd behavior. But I think somethings been left out: She is completely insane.
How is the government forcing anyone to do anything? It isnt. No one's going to tie you down and force it on you if you say "no." Thats not legal. At all.
And you can opt out of it with zero penalty. And even if you havent filled out the silly card, they still wont give you a vaccine by force.
I have been asking a question for the last decade or so. I have yet to receive a real answer. So I will ask it again:
The republicans want US military superiority and often domination, right? Right. Undeniably so. But they hate science. They say as much, undeniably so.
Our military uses advanced computers, satellites, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon proof bunkers, supersonic jets, ICBMs...aircraft carriers and submarines can have nuclear reactors.
All those things the republicans love. All those things didnt manifest out of THIN AIR! Where do they think they came from, joe the atom smasher?
So, my question: How can those two VERY conflicting things be active in the rightwingers thoughts simultaneously? Every word contradicts every other word on every level.
They speak in nothings.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
September 14, 2011 5:15 PM
fred c dobbs (@7):
Did I miss a smiley there? You can't seriously believe it's a rational course of action to surrender the U.S. to the crazy right, with our fingers crossed that things'll get better once the rubble settles, can you? It's well and good to suggest that individuals might need to "hit rock bottom" before things start getting better, but when what's "hitting rock bottom" is the most influential nation on the planet (for good or, more often lately, ill), you'd be well advised to remember that that "rock bottom" probably involves many, many millions of innocent lives ruined and lost. There is simply no way to morally justify a "what the hell; let it burn" approach.
Yahoomess B. Hodges (@15):
See also my comments to dobbs above.
Also, bite me.
I am just sick to frackin' death of smug bastards who imagine they have more "spine" than people like Obama or my (Democratic) congressman. You want to see policies farther to the left? Do something about the right-wingers in Congress, and the (sometimes literally) bloodthirsty mob that supports them. As Congress is currently constituted, the moldering corpse of Karl F. Marx himself couldn't govern any farther to the left than Obama has.
In any society of any appreciable diversity — which is to say, any society large enough to need a government in the first place — some degree of compromise will always be required to get anything done. Whingeing about that amounts to whingeing about democracy itself. But good government requires honest, rational actors on both sides of the table, and right now we don't have that. You're not going to make the situation better by trashing the side that is rational!!!!!
You don't move society to the left by getting rid of the (not quite good enough) left; you move society to the left by getting rid of the crazy right. There is no strategy other than full-throated support of Democrats in 2012 that has any chance of moving our polity even a nanometer to the left, and no scenario in which a Republican victory in the presidential race would be anything other than a disaster for progressives, both here and around the world.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 14, 2011 6:34 PM
The excoration of Bachmann is just, but note that what is being 'jumped on' is not an endorsement of the vaccine, but rather a compulsory law forcing all young girls to get a vaccine produced only by a single company with contributions to Perry's organizations in excess of half a million dollars.
Oh, shut up.
Get on his case for it, but ultimately, Perry's policy on this is a good thing.
I live across the street from two schools, and I get to see their signs every summer, making it perfectly clear that if you don't have vaccinations, you can't go to school. This has been the policy in Texas for a long time. You can opt out, just request the form to do so. There's rarely any questioning of it.
Since vaccinations are already required, and most parents don't opt out, what's the difference why he added another vaccination to an already long list?
I hate Perry as much as anyone, but it's useless to argue about why he has kids getting vaccinated. Nothing will get done to him for the kickbacks, so we might as well be grateful that he did something that happened to be good for those he got for a change.
Unless you want more kids running around unvaccinated?
Posted by: Erwin Alber
|
September 14, 2011 7:10 PM
As far as I am concerned:
It is vaccination that is pure pseudoscience.
Vaccines have never prevented anything, apart from health, sanity and common sense.
Vaccination is a dangerous fraud and an organised criminal enterprise dressed up as disease prevention and backed up by junk science.
Vaccination must stop. The soooner the world is again vaccine-free, the better off we'll all be, except of course the idiots and the criminals who profit from this ugly and brutal racket.
Posted by: fred c dobbs
|
September 14, 2011 7:35 PM
bill dauphin (#18)
voting doesn't work and they have all the guns. the right can't wait for a north american pinochet to throw us all in the sea. we are out of options. change will come from the outside or change will not come at all.
Posted by: ike.solem
|
September 14, 2011 7:38 PM
In a recent survey, pharmaceutical company scientists ranked lowest on the scale of public trust in their claims.
Unfortunately, there's good reasons for this - look at Vioxx and Celebrex and all the problems with that general class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
I'd be less concerned about the vaccine's safety than I would about its efficacy - there are quite a few variants of HPV out there, and only a small subset appear to fall into the antigen group that this vaccine protects against.
An equally bad outcome would be for girls who've taken the vaccine to believe they could then engage in unprotected sex without having to worry about contracting HPV.
However, the other standard scheduled vaccinations on the CDC list should not be neglected, although I also have doubts about the meningitis vaccine's efficacy.
All in all, we probably shouldn't allow private profit-minded corporations into the vaccine field - they're not looking at public health and efficacy, they're looking at their bottom line, and they have a bad history of fudging data in order to inflate that factor.
Posted by: linda77
|
September 14, 2011 7:40 PM
Kudo's Michele Bachmann...
And for the rest of you that think its fine to inject such things as mercury, formaldahyde, anti-freeze, etc..etc.. directly into your blood stream, Sounds like you been doing it awhile and you already have brain damage (mental retardation).... so your words make perfect sense to you and all the rest with the same damage.. Or, you work for Big Pharma..
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 14, 2011 8:02 PM
In any society of any appreciable diversity — which is to say, any society large enough to need a government in the first place — some degree of compromise will always be required to get anything done.
Except that Obama and the latest version of the Democratic Party think that compromise isn't meeting halfway, but giving the Republicans what they want, and then some, and then some more, when the Republicans ask for even more.
That's not compromise. That's pusillanimity.
There is no strategy other than full-throated support of Democrats in 2012 that has any chance of moving our polity even a nanometer to the left
You may recall that we tried supporting the Democrats. We had the White House and good majorities (not great, but good) in both houses of Congress, as recently as 2010. A lot of us worked damned hard for that.
How did that work out? Well, I'll tell you:
The Democrats were too weak and spineless and too beholden to the same interests as the Republicans to get much of anything done, they compromised themselves into getting Republicans--disgraced beyond all recognition--back into the driver's seat, and we're not one jot better off.
You know, maybe Democrats need to learn something from the Republicans: Don't run from your base, because it's a lot easier to have a solid base of 30% and then need only 20% plus 1 to win an election. The Democrats stupidly run from their even larger base, alienating them entirely, and then try to win 50% + 1 instead. That's just stupid.
Posted by: ike.solem
|
September 14, 2011 8:05 PM
Well, linda77 please recall that the whole issue of putting organic mercury compounds in vaccines was a cost-cutting move by major pharmaceutical companies who wanted a multi-dose bottle of vaccine with a long shelf life, rather than single-use shots prepared on demand.
That's the *only* reason thimerosol (releases ethylmercury on injection) was ever used.
However, a far more important route of exposure to mercury is due to coal-fired power plant emissions and subsequent concentration through the food web. This latter issue is harder for lawyers to get a settlement out of, so they instead focused on the vaccination-neurological damage link. Organic mercury is of course a potent neurotoxin.
Today, organic mercury compounds are no longer used in vaccines as preservatives - it was an idiotic and reckless thing to do, by any measure.
Vaccination however was introduced by Pasteur c. 1880s and while there are risks of systemic negative reactions, it sure beat dying of smallpox and other common infectious diseases of the era. If those disease were still prevalent and killing tens of thousands of people per year, the anti-vaccination movement would not exist. However, what the pro-vaccination folks are concerned about is a resurgence of such infectious diseases (not smallpox, but measles, diptheria, etc.) if vaccination is eliminated.
There are plenty of hysterics on both sides.
As far as the SCIENCE of HPV vaccines, there are real issues here about whether the program is wise or not, though I doubt Bachmann grasps them. Here, try the Lancet instead, Feb 2010:
"Human papillomavirus vaccine prevents infection by two major oncogenic types of the virus. Continued screening is needed in vaccinated women to prevent cancers caused by high-risk types not included in the vaccine. An exaggerated sense of protection from the vaccine could lead to a decline in the rate of screening among vaccinated women, which in principle could lead to an increase in the incidence of cervical cancer."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309910700049
That's what I meant about the efficacy issue.
I find the level of scientific discourse in the blogosphere on this issue to be depressingly low, by the way. And no, I'd never trust anything Merck said about their products without independent confirmation, anymore than I'd trust the tobacco-financed cancer science crowd.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 14, 2011 9:09 PM
Actually you didn't. Because the system is broken and inherently unfair, a Senate majority is only good if it is filibuster proof.
And that is precisely what you need in 2012. You need a House majority, the White House, and a filibuster proof Senate majority, all for one progressive party. The Democrats are the only feasible short-term choice. Backing any other option is the same as backing Republican rule.
And because it is the Democrats and not a true progressive party, you'll also need a filibuster capable Progressive Caucus within the Democratic party in the Senate. And you better make sure that progressive caucus is internally rock solid in terms of unity.
Then the first thing you do with that super majority is change the rules of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster, (or, if you prefer to be devious, make that the last thing you do just before the next election), so you won't ever need such a difficult to obtain super-majority ever again.
Your only other choices are 1. to give up on American democracy entirely and back a coup by a progressive strongman, 2. Get together a blue-state coalition and secede from the Union, or 3. Move to another country.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
September 15, 2011 12:03 AM
I haven't been ignoring people; I've been out for dinner with my daughter.
I should simply QFT Amphiox (@26), but...
dobbs:
This is cynical and false, but even if it were true, it wouldn't constitute an argument in favor of any voting strategy other than voting for Democrats.
Aquaria:
One fuck of a lot better than any alternative we could've plausibly hoped for in 2008. Ask a gay soldier[1]. Ask me about my daughter's health insurance. Ask all 300+ million of us who didn't live (or, in many cases, die) through a Second Great Depression. And on and on.
The disappointments are easy to point to; the successes — esp. those that come in the form of awful shit that didn't happen are harder to see... but that doesn't mean they're not there.
The 2012 alternatives to Democrats are apocalyptically horrible; unless you embrace the abyss, you have only one rational choice.
[1] I know, I know: The move to end DADT didn't come soon enough, and didn't progress quickly enough once it began. But you tell me who would've (or could've) done it better sooner.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
September 15, 2011 1:24 AM
Erwin Alber @ 20
Why are you showing off your ignorance without any trace of shame? Why are you trying to spread anti-science, especially on this blog? Do you really think we will fall for your bizarre lies? To other people, your ideas may prove fatal, if they believe you. Why do you want that to happen?
Posted by: Militant Agnostic
|
September 15, 2011 2:16 AM
ike.solen
Ethyl mercury (unlike methyl mercury) is rapidly eliminated from the body and the amount in vaccines was miniscule. You are totally ignorant about chemistry.
The smallpox vaccination was tested by Edward Jenner in the 1790s and cowpox infection to prevent smallpox had already been used 20 years earlier by an English farmer. A science blog is not an advisable place to parade your ignorance.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 15, 2011 2:24 AM
And because it is the Democrats and not a true progressive party, you'll also need a filibuster capable Progressive Caucus within the Democratic party in the Senate. And you better make sure that progressive caucus is internally rock solid in terms of unity.
ah, dreams.
I once had those.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 15, 2011 2:26 AM
cost-cutting move by major pharmaceutical companies who wanted a multi-dose bottle of vaccine with a long shelf life, rather than single-use shots prepared on demand.
actually, I don't think it was the companies that pushed for that. they got more money out of single dose sales (still do).
the people that pushed for it were hospitals and school administrators, who wanted to be able THEMSELVES to distribute the vaccines more cheaply.
I'm curious as to whether there actually is anything accurate in your post now...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 15, 2011 2:43 AM
However, a far more important route of exposure to mercury is due to coal-fired power plant emissions and subsequent concentration through the food web.
true, human activity contributes 50-70% of the mercury in the environment globally (EPA Office of Air Quality and Standards Report to Congress, 1997), and it is one type of toxin that tends to bioaccumulate.
This latter issue is harder for lawyers to get a settlement out of, so they instead focused on the vaccination-neurological damage link.
while there is probably some contributions from the seemier side of the law industry, this is not what originally prompted people to study a potential link.
thing is, those studies were done, and rather conclusively showed there to be no significant side effects to using thimerosol as a preservative, long before the lawyers got involved.
Today, organic mercury compounds are no longer used in vaccines as preservatives - it was an idiotic and reckless thing to do, by any measure.
again, no it wasn't. there has never been any studies showing that thimerosol as a preservative had any negative side effects, period.
the only reason it had stopped being used as a preservative was because of negative public reaction, IOW, marketing.
If those disease were still prevalent and killing tens of thousands of people per year, the anti-vaccination movement would not exist.
not true. Those diseases are back now BECAUSE of people like antivaxxers, and they ARE killing thousands of people each year.
There is a web page that actually has been documenting the number of deaths directly attributable to the antivaxxer campaigns over the last 10 years or so.
ah, here tis:
http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
It uses data direct from the Centers For Disease Control And Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, so you can take it up with them if you don't like what you see.
still, point is, thousands ARE dying from this madness, and yet still, antivaxxers are so detached from reality it doesn't affect their position one whit.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 15, 2011 2:46 AM
An exaggerated sense of protection from the vaccine could lead to a decline in the rate of screening among vaccinated women, which in principle could lead to an increase in the incidence of cervical cancer."
THAT'S what you label as "real issues here about whether the program is wise or not"?
pathetic.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 15, 2011 3:08 AM
thousands ARE dying from this madness
or you can put it as tens of thousands are getting sick from it.
whatever works.
Posted by: Todd W.
|
September 15, 2011 6:49 AM
@ike.solem
Not true. As long as there have been vaccinations, there have been anti-vaccination sentiments. Even in the middle of an outbreak, there are plenty of people who would still eschew vaccines and call them evil. For an example and some history, pick up Michael Willrich's "Pox: An American History."
And what Militant Agnostic and Ichthyic said.
Posted by: Grahame
|
September 15, 2011 8:57 AM
Bachmann and other fools like her are worried because they believe the HPV vaccine will "encourage promiscuity". Assuming for a minute that this is true (and it ain't), what is the problem with promiscuity? The problem is the consequences that ensue from it - sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies. Medical prophylactics like the vaccine, and proper sex education about contraception will reduce these consequences.
If the HPV vaccine and education about contraception will lead to increased promiscuity, then a corollary of this claim is that the lack of an HPV vaccine and a lack of contraception education will lead to a reduction in promiscuity. In other words they are prepared to let these threats hang over the heads of people in order to reduce promiscuity.
In other words... they are not worried about the consequences of promiscuity, they are worried about promiscuity itself. Not only are they ignorant, they are immoral.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
September 15, 2011 9:34 AM
To anyone who thinks my comments yesterday were just words, or who thinks "voting doesn't work," or who thinks any talk of moving the country to the left is just dreaming, I offer a challenge:
I've just listened to the podcast of last night's Rachel Maddow Show, in which Rachel interviewed Elizabeth Warren, who has just formally announced that she's running for the U.S. Senate against former underwear model and current Wall Street lapdog Scott Brown.
Even if the presidential race goes our way, Democrats have a big hill to climb in 2012, especially in the Senate, where (IIRC) they have to defend about three times as many seats as the Repubs. Elizabeth Warren is a true progressive, and a specialist in an area — financial reform — that is of vital importance to forging a more progressive future. She's running to reclaim a long-time Democratic seat that was lost not because Scott Brown is a person of any particular quality, but because Martha Coakley was a lackluster candidate who ran a complacent, disorganized campaign.
So here's my challenge: All of you who want to see both a more progressive society and a more progressive Democratic party, go to Warren's website and donate (if you can) or sign up to volunteer. Many of us live within a reasonable drive of MA; if you fall into that category, I challenge you to spend at least one day knocking on doors (or otherwise helping with field operations). If MA is out of reach, these days most campaigns have arrangements for out-of-state supporters to make canvassing phone calls or participate in e-mail trees.
I spent one day in MA volunteering for the Coakley campaign... it wasn't enough, and you can bet I'll do more for Warren (in addition to working hard here in CT to replace retiring former DINO Joe LIEberman with a true progressive senator).
I know political activism isn't everybody's "thing," and we all work to make the world better in our own ways... but I don't want to listen to people talking about "the system doesn't work" unless they're working in the system.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage
|
September 15, 2011 9:45 AM
Grahame:
No, if you want to understand Bachmann, et al., on this issue, you must remember how they "think" about it: The problem with promiscuity is burning in eternal hellfire for your unrepented sins. Sexually transmitted disease is trivial... every bit as trivial as sexual pleasure, and every bit as trivial as anything to do with "the flesh" in this mutable, temporal, intrinsically corrupted physical world. The only thing that counts is the will of Dog.
Rational argument based on relative outcomes is entirely lost on these people; it behooves us to remember that.
Posted by: Brother Bill
|
September 15, 2011 9:45 AM
Michelle failed to mention that this unknown woman was actually Joe the Plumber dressed in drag.
Posted by: begoniabuzzkill
|
September 15, 2011 11:34 AM
"Once again, the Republicans step forward as the anti-human, anti-science, anti-health party."
translated: The Pro-Lifeless Party
Posted by: Grahame
|
September 15, 2011 12:31 PM
@#38
Bill, I know, I know. It just amazes me that any moral position that takes no account of the actual consequences of the examined action can claim to be moral.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 2:26 PM
Only if the decline in screening was so great that the incidence of missed cervical cancer actually exceeds the protection afforded by the vaccine itself.
And that is not very likely at all. If the vaccination was close to universal, that would actually require close to everyone receiving the vaccine ALL deciding not to get screening.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 2:32 PM
Organic mercury compounds were used before, at the time, and after they were used in vaccines, in far greater concentrations, in bog standard non-prescription over the counter topical antiseptics, with basically no notable ill-effects on the population at large.
It's the dose that makes the poison. Name any toxin you can think of that you think might be in a vaccine in a trace amount, and I can tell you that a trace amount of the same thing will be in your next breath of air, next glass of water, and next mouthful of food.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
September 15, 2011 2:35 PM
This is the basic principle of triage. Sometimes you simply don't have any ideal choices. Sometimes all choices are flawed and bad.
You choose the least bad choice, or the choice that delays/prevents the most bad possibility for the longest possible time. And then, when the initial crisis is past, you work to make better options become available for the future.
That means voting Democrat in 2012. Ideally, you want a total democrat landslide, as big as possible, to discredit the apocalyptic republican alternative for as long into the future as possible.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/WdXLf9R.qsnr0oziNzdeBeOYAFyo#55f2e
|
September 15, 2011 3:38 PM
Let's say a vaccine DID cause retardation. If you vaccinate someone at 12, how many years does it take before the kid's parents and teachers notice that her mental development isn't keeping pace with that of her peers?
My Daughter barely grunted at me between the ages of 12 and 16. I can't prove she wasn't retarded by the Gardasil, AP scores and kicking ass at Portal notwithstanding.
Posted by: dma
|
September 15, 2011 8:22 PM
Just saw a piece on HPV on nightly news. It appears this vaccine also prevents oral cancers that affect both men and women. So, not only young girls but young boys should (according to this piece) receive the vaccine. If it's true that the vaccine protects the precious male half of society then I predict opposition to its use will wither away.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 16, 2011 2:16 PM
Frankly, I love that. It would drag the Overton Window a little bit leftwards.
Three words:
Smallpox.
Polio.
Liar.
Ha! In those times, Jehovah's Witlesses openly claimed that vaccination "does not prevent smallpox"!
Ooh, how wise you are to assume there must be exactly two sides and the truth must lie exactly in the middle!!!1! How wise to distance yourself from the mythical extremists that somehow must exist on both sides!!!1!
You're stupid.
Except smallpox.
<sing>
Jesus gives the children acne.
AIDS and leprosy galore.
Germs and worms of every kind.
Things to make the children blind.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.
Scientists and unbelievers
wiped the pox right off the earth.
Jesus still gives gifts to kids,
broken nose and burnt eyelids.
But he cannot give them smallpox anymore.
</sing>
Source: somewhere on Pharyngula on or before Oct. 18th, 2009.
Then the paper asks the question of whether it really would lead to such an increase.
And then it answers that question with a resounding no.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 16, 2011 6:23 PM
Jehovah's Witlesses
Strangely, I think the first time I saw that was at the Landover Baptist satire site.
Posted by: Carbon Based Life Form
|
September 18, 2011 10:19 AM
Erwin Alber, are you for real? Vaccines are proven to prevent diseases. Smallpox has been eradicated. In 1950, there were 58,000 cases of polio in the U.S. alone; in 2009 there were 1,606 in the entire world, all in Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since 2000, there have been three reported cases of diphtheria in the U.S. All of this is due to vaccination.
Posted by: apokryltaros
|
September 18, 2011 11:22 AM
In Nigeria, the reason behind the resurgence of polio is because local imams were preaching that the polio vaccines were really an evil plot by evil Westerns to sterilize the precious Muslim children. To clarify, due to the prevalence of diphtheria vaccine, the number of cases of diphtheria in the US since 2000 has been 3. In contrast, after the break up of the Soviet Union in the 1980's, when people stopped taking once-mandatory diphtheria vaccines, cases of diphtheria skyrocketed from 2,000 cases to 200,000 cases, with at least 5,000 fatalities.