Sunday, June 28, 2015

Jeff Sachs Goes There: Anti-Vaxxers Go To Jail

Don’t Pass Go, And Don’t Collect $200




Given the dominance and confluence of the Warfare Thesis, its resulting scientism, and evolution’s apparently unceasing thirst for control over people, I kick myself for not predicting Jeff Sachs’ latest we-would-laugh-except-this-is-real threat that parents who do not vaccinate their children are committing a crime [1:50]. It is not enough that this past week the California legislature passed a new law that prohibits parents, who avoid the risk of vaccination, from sending their children to the public schools while nonetheless taxing those same parents to pay for the public school system which they are not allowed to use. These parents are a small minority and so are an easy target. But if Sachs has his way, unfair taxation will be the least of these parents’ concerns as they will be convicted as criminals for their choice to protect their children. Undoubtedly the state would also take their children from them.

Given the strong language from global warming (AGW) advocates about how those who don’t agree with them should be incarcerated, Sachs’ move is not too surprising. Please see this post , where I concluded that this vigilante justice could jump to other issues:

What we are seeing are classic defamation tactics. Evolution’s Warfare Thesis has lit all kinds of fires and emotions are running high. With evolution there is no law, just narrative. Today it focuses on climate, but it could jump to any number of issues.

According to Sachs, vaccination should be one of those issues. That fits nicely into the nineteenth century, mythical Warfare Thesis which was erected by evolutionists to protect their theory. One of the many targets of the Warfare Thesis were those anti-vaccination rascals. To this day evolutionists rally around vaccinations as another support for their scientism.

The fact is that vaccinations have done a world of good and there are plenty of reasons to vaccinate, but they also carry low-probability risk. Those are generalizations and the details are different for each vaccine and each patient.

The bottom line is that vaccinations often present a classic risk-reward tradeoff. They provide helpful protections, but they can present a very low risk of both short-term and long-term illness and death. Recently more than two dozen children in Mexico were hospitalized and two died after receiving vaccines. Authorities halted vaccinations temporarily. Tragedy has also struck in this country, such as in the case of Lorrin Kain, popularized in a recent book, who eventually died from her vaccination injuries. Even the official vaccine court acknowledged the vaccine injury, though the reparations were not nearly adequate.

For most people the risks are tolerably low, and the tradeoff favors the vaccination. But this isn’t a scientific analysis. Not only are the exact probabilities unknown (mostly because the Warfare Thesis has served to cloud and corrupt the science of properly evaluating the vaccine risk), but even if they were known, the risk-reward tradeoff cannot be set to a formula. It is a choice each parent must make for each vaccine, in consultation with their doctor.

None of this is controversial, yet evolutionary thinking demands a very different approach. It demands that while parents must have the choice to kill their unborn child, they ought not have the choice to make the vaccine risk-reward decision. What about the risk? Evolutionists deny the risk because, after all, correlation does not imply causation.

When I explained this evolutionists attacked me with their usual demagoguery. One evolutionist explained the problem is that I don’t accept the basic principles of science because, after all, unlike him I am skeptical that the species arose naturalistically:

The fact that the author of this post is a dedicated anti-evolutionist for whom no amount of evidence is enough to make him even question his convictions, and who has now apparently become an anti-vaxer is not surprising: if you don't accept the basic principles of science, then any application of science to human welfare is, by foregone conclusion, definitely negative

Note the dismissive language. Doubting that the species arose naturalistically makes me a “dedicated anti-evolutionist for whom no amount of evidence is enough” who does not “accept the basic principles of science.” And pointing out that the benefits of vaccines are accompanied by risks makes me “an anti-vaxer.” It’s all Warfare Thesis.

Another evolutionist attacked my post, making the absurd suggestion that the Lorrin Kain’s injuries may have been a mere coincidence, and threatening that he had “Saved and tweeted [the post] for posterity.”

It is disappointing that rational discussion is not possible, but this is the environment that the Warfare Thesis has created. The above Jeff Sachs video in which he calls for the criminalization of parents choosing not to vaccinate, for example, appears at Business Insider under the heading: “Watch Jeff Sachs destroy the anti-vaccine movement in under two minutes.” It is all about attacking the “deniers.” Meanwhile unlikely hypotheses are insisted to be fact, and anyone who doesn’t go along will incur their wrath, and maybe their indictments.

15 comments:

  1. CH: "It demands that while parents must have the choice to kill their unborn child, they ought not have the choice to make the vaccine risk-reward decision. "

    J: A rational person can only marvel at the utter arbitrariness of their ethical code. Talking about an ethical theory that has to treat ubiquitous numbers of non-intuitive (if not counter-intuitive) putative obligations as axioms! By contrast, the natural law ethical approach derives almost all obligations from a very small number of axioms. Of course it has the distinct disadvantage (to the ruthless, i.e.) of grounding no discernible right to lie, kill, and despoil with impunity in as many instances as do the more arbitrary approaches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff:

      A rational person can only marvel at the utter arbitrariness of their ethical code.

      Yes, arbitrariness and worse.

      Delete
    2. Search (using quotes) - "Ryan Mojabi" OR "Hannah Poling" OR "Bailey Banks" & USCFC (i.e. - "Bailey Banks" USCFC ) ---
      Search (using quotes) - "Mary Holland" EBCALA ----
      Search (using quotes) - "Bernadine Healy" "proper studies"

      Then read the references that you find... all of them.

      You will find that it was proved many years ago that vaccines cause some autism.

      But which kids are injured by live vaccines?
      Just read the MMR package insert -
      https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
      You will find the greatest danger is for kids who have genetic or acquired immune problems.

      Drugs are the greatest risk when getting a live vaccine. The MMR package insert warns not to get MMR is you are using corticosteroids.
      For kids the most common drugs used, Flonase (4 yo and up) and Nasonex (2yo and up), are the worst. Both are corticosteroids, which suppresses our immune systems.

      Both Flonase and Nasonex package inserts warn not to come into contact with measles while using them, and to contact a doctor immediately if you do.
      This means you cannot get an MMR shot while using these drugs.
      If you do, the MMR package insert states you risk "MIBE [autoimmune brain damage], pneumonitis or death..."

      Here are more side effects of MMR - ALL NERVOUS SYSTEM EFFECTS -
      "Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile
      convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia."

      Those are just the brain injuries and nervous system injuries proved to be caused by MMR. Wild measles can also cause those injuries.

      Hannah Poling, Ryan Mojabi and Bailey Banks are three kids who were compensated for vaccine-caused brain injuries. All three were normal BEFORE vaccines injured their brains, now all three have symptoms that put them on the 2013 DSM-5 autistic spectrum of disorders.
      Mary Holland and her team from EBCALA reviewed the records of 1,000 kids who were compensated for vaccine-caused brain injuries. 83 of them were diagnosed with autism AFTER vaccines injured their brains.

      Vaccines have been proved to cause regressive autism. But it is still a small percentage of kids affected, less than 1%.
      We need to publicly admit this, and stop lying about it just to protect drug industry profits that should be paying for these injuries and deaths.

      As always,
      For the protection of children,
      In the interests of truth and science,
      Michael Polidori

      Delete
  2. For most people the risks are tolerably low, and the tradeoff favors the vaccination. But this isn’t a scientific analysis. .... It is a choice each parent must make for each vaccine, in consultation with their doctor.

    So maybe for each vaccines parents could go through the whole vaccine litterature with their doctors, analyse the whole-genome sequencing of their child and select which vaccines would be adequate ?

    That's not realistic. You said it yourself, the reward of vaccines outbalance the risks. So then, why would you let children go unvaccinated ? It destroy the purpose of vaccination since you need the heard immunity to make vaccination really efficient.

    I'm disapointed of your anti vaxxer stance.

    Maybe your next post will be about chemtrails ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The reward of vaccines outbalances the risks"?
      Not to the child or adult that is injured or killed by live vaccines!

      You admit that some kids cannot be vaccinated, but how do you know which ones?
      Merck states in the MMR package insert that they have evidence that MMR causes DIABETES!!!
      But Merck doesn't list any risk factors, ways to tell if your child may be one of those who may develop diabetes from a vaccine.

      The MMR package insert has 11 pages of warnings, precautions and contraindications (reasons not to vaccinate).
      Have you ever read it?

      Merck states the effectiveness of the mumps portion of the MMR has been as low as 65% in some studies... that isn't effective at all.

      You should read the prescribing information about vaccines before you encourage parents to blindly vaccinate "because the rewards outbalances the risks".

      As Always,
      For the protection of children,
      In the interests of truth and science,
      Michael Polidori

      Delete
  3. Yes, there are risks to vaccines, as there is with everything you put in your mouth and every time you cross the street.

    Protecting the child is only one reason for vaccines. Protecting the community is the other. It can be argued that a parent should decide what risks their children should be exposed to, but the same parent has no right increasing the risk to others. There are some children who cannot have vaccines (very young and immune deficient). By not vaccinating your child you put them at higher risk. That is why non vaccinated kids are not allowed to attend public schools.

    When I was a kid our parents understood this. They would even intentionally expose there kids to chicken pox because the symptoms are much worse as you get older. The risk of doing that far outweighs the risks of vaccines, even though the risk was much lower.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm disapointed of your anti vaxxer stance.

    It's an anti-science stance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm disapointed of your anti vaxxer stance.

    It's an anti-science stance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's an anti-science stance.

      Why is that true?

      Delete
  6. Why does anything I post appear in duplicate?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pedant:
    Why does anything I post appear in duplicate?


    Design, after all.
    " There is no science behind spontaneous origins, rather it is mandated by our convictions about what a good god would and would not do. "

    ReplyDelete
  8. This criminalization of choice is ironic. Or is it, since we don't have any. This is totally idiotic in the infectious disease sense because of "herd immunity". 5% won't bring down the system. This is definitely a war.

    ReplyDelete