This is not The Haters Club You're Looking For discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
I hate that the government is forcing vaccines on us!
date
newest »
newest »
Okay, the agar-bacteria-growing-medium does kinda gross me out. Baby oil, being one of those petroleum-derived things that would never be found in nature, seems appropriate but I can't really get behind it for that whole petroleum thing.Personally, I'd go back to jello (smells fruity!), or maybe olive oil (natural, and good for my skin). What about tea tree oil? Sorta medicinal (though not in a science-y way, I guess) yet not bad for me? Oh, crap, not locally sourced. Fair-trade-tea-tree-oil-not-so-much-wrestling-as-intellectually-debating?
Wait just a darn minute here...I think I've already won this one by default. Lynne just showed up, said science isn't science enough, then went away again. Sorry, boys, the medium is the message this time. The medium isn't jello. And the substance is factual, not baby oil. Maybe next time.
Um, so woot woot, wrestling in the tub of Fair-trade-tea-tree-oil coming right up. What? no takers?
shocker.
I'm a doctor, and I hate stupid, uninformed dimwits who don't get their children vaccinated. I really hate all the pseudoscientific CRAP out there making claims like "vaccines cause autism", and I really, really hate the semieducated fools who waste my time because they think 30 minutes on the internet qualifies them more than my 11 years of post-secondary education.
What about the doctors who are against vaccinations, who has as much education as you?
Weird. Wonder if he'll come back to back this up. It's disconcerting enough when your average 12 year-old wanders into a conversation like that, but to have a "doctor" so full of hate...*shivers* Patch Adams he is not.
Lisa, who is Lynne again? Was she ranting somewhere else pseudo-scientific recently?
Thimerosal is still in flu shots. I had to drive for an hour each way last fall to find a clinic that had thimerosol-free vaccine available for adults.
I hate how science has become the new religion. If spirituality is fallible becomes humans made it up then so is science for the same reason.
Nope, Patch Adams I am not. He's a clown, in case you didn't know. But then it appears based on your comments that some of you may be clowns as well.By the way, this IS the Hater's Club, unless I'm mistaken. Since you're all obviously members here, are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to hate anything because of my profession, but it's ok for the rest of you?
Emma, as for those doctors who are as educated as me and are against vaccinations- what doctors? I know hundreds of doctors, and I've never met one that was opposed to vaccination. Have you ever seen an infant have a respiratory arrest because of whooping cough? I have. Ever seen anyone with measles encephalitis? Know anyone who died of Hep B? I have. I've never seen smallpox though- guess why? (Incidentally, naturopaths, chiropractors and their ilk don't count, they're not really doctors.)
Donna, dealing with patients is part of my job; I do it every single day. Thanks for pointing out the incredibly obvious. But I'm allowed to hate having my time wasted, same as you. I just need to be tactful about it, except in a forum like this.
Rowena, continue to stay away from that deadly thiomersal- you might develop autism or a strange inclination to wear funny hats.
Carlie, science as "the new religion"? Even I won't touch that one.
Yup, new religion. You know how people hate on religious folks for looking down on "sinners" and burning people at the stake and stuff like that? Well, scientists (myself included) have frighteningly started to do the same, attempting to silence any dissent even from within our own ranks and making assumptions about people who disagree like they must be uneducated or whatever. And I shouldn't even say "started" since we've been doing it for a while. One example and there are PLENTY is the doctor who tried to convince everyone that ulcers were caused by H pylori and was dismissed and ignored until he finally inoculated himself to prove his point (The female scientist who refused her Nobel prize because of her mistreatment by fellow scientists and the delay of recognition of her contributions due perhaps to sexism, and the physicians who prevented African American patients from being treated for syphillis so they could study the symptom of the tertiary stage because I'm sure you want more proof!)If only we could admit that we don't understand everything and that we are fallible. But alas, we'd rather nurture our anger towards anyone who dares to contradict our dogma and dismiss them as "not really doctors". We use terms like "spontaneous remission" and "factitious disorder" to put a medical gloss over our own ignorance. But you know what, that's all part of being human and I don't fault you one bit.
And I just had to add that even lay people are becoming aware of some of the frauds that science perpetuates. One study "proves" that something is bad for you, then another "proves" that it is actually good. And if doctors know it all and are such good stewards of the population then why is it that we just recently started to focus on evidence-based medicine?
Hey Carlie, it's your rant and not mine. I stay away from discussions on religion.However, consider this about your H. pylori example for a moment. Warren & Marshall met initial skepticism and resistance (even some ridicule) but did prevail after only a few years by demonstrating through experimentation that they were correct.(i.e. by using scientific methods they were able to change accepted beliefs.) Name me one instance where this has occurred in the case of religion.
Religion is faith based, science is (or is supposed to be) evidence based. The failures you cite are human failures, not failings of science as a method or belief system. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
Dude, that's exactly my point. science is the study of our world by human beings so yes it is fallible because we are fallible. Science is not some abstract pure thing, it was created by us and it is done by us. And yes the H pylori guys eventually prevailed but not because of accepted scientific methods. Some still look down upon them and disapprove of the fact that they used their own bodies as experimental animals.I'll name you the instance your looking for, "world is round" guy was excommunicated (and killed?) for saying that but the catholic church now accepts that the world is round don't they now? And, they don't burn people at the stake anymore.
You haven't talked to anyone from the Flat Earth Society I take it?
Doesn't the fact that Galileo was excommunicated kind of strengthen Donster's point? The church didn't accept the scientific evidence until much, much later.
Oh wait Galileo was the "Earth goes around the sun guy." Who was the "world is round guy" you are referring to? Columbus? His story is a myth concocted by Washington Irving.
Donster was asking for an instance showing that religion changed views. I gave one, if timing was a factor then I'd like to bring up the point that the doctors who syphillized blacks have never admitted that they were wrong. And I don't recall from what I learned about the story that they were medically "excommunicated" either.
In fact, there is no right and worng in science because ethics is a human concoction but we all know the difference don't we. Just cause science hasn't proven right and wrong does not mean it's not real.and no Tesse I dunno any flat earth people. But I did see the video about the faked moon landing though.
The "world is round guy" was Galileo, except it's the earth orbits the sun, and it was Copernicus's theory, which Galileo supported. (You call yourself a scientist???) Galileo was ruined and forced to recant, not killed.And I asked for an example where religion changed accepted dogma "in only a few years". (see my post) It took the Vatican nearly 500 years to admit that Galileo was right, so I don't think that quite qualifies. In fact I would consider it an example to the contrary.
Just trying to interject a little levity.The Flat Earthers reject the notion that the world is round and have quite a bit of evidence to support their theory.
I'll go away now.
well they may be right cause the earth could be more elliptical or oblong or whatever but it's definitely not flat...have these people ever seen mountains?Yes I call myself a scientist and I'm happy for you that you've never misplaced a fact or forgotten a name (insert snicker here) but it is a human trait and we can't all be superhuman like you mr. so-called doctor who looks down on everybody from his high horse but ends up looking like a fool because he's so rude.
And sorry to have to educate you but knowing about what the catholic church did to Galileo is history not science. And I did insert a question mark on the killed comment. But, no matter what I say, you're still gonna be full of yourself cause you're not interested in debate or a decent conversation but in inflating your pompous balloon of an ego.
My Carlie, that was rude! I sincerely apologize for any offense I may have given.
Whatever.Isn't it time to take your Seroquel now?
You have no right changing my prescription over an internet connection without even so much as an auscultation. I could sue you for malpractice you know.YAY! Frontline is on!
No, actually, you could not. And I dare you to try taking his flippant internet remark to your pharmacy. Donster didn't prescribe a damn thing, just like I, as a psychologist, am not prescribing something if I suggest they take a flying fuck at a rolling whatever.Donster, I'm with you. Though we have to tolerate the stupid and difficult and try to educate them and even like them, that doesn't mean they're right.
And science is, and always has been, an accumulation of knowledge over time. Every single study out there that has results showing (call it "proof" in quotes if you want, but that's not what any author of an article would call it, and the scientific definition of proof is pretty rigorous, so that's just a straw-man argument) this or that will collect over time into a body of knowledge that will, by definition in science, show about five percent of studies to be false (the general expectation is that studies be able to demonstrate results with 95% certainty, so about 5% of studies will come to a false conclusion just by chance--that's how we deal with people being fallible in actual science, which Carlie probably ought to be familiar with, right? You've got a background in basic statistical certainty, and how even simple chance can lead to mistakes, which is why results are replicated many, many times? Right?).
For issues such as some purported link between thimerosol and autism, they can shout all they want about how science is just quote "proof" and not anything worth considerning, but their emotion and shouting isn't evidence at all. There are hundreds of studies out there, and for those that meet basic standards of scientific rigor, far less than 5% are indicating a link. Even in children. So basically it's less than chance (even if you drew out of a hat, you could draw that one out of a million, someone always does, you might win a jackpot, but a scientist who draws that rare number ends up with a chance population that just isn't like how it really is in nature).
With adults, the links between (excessive, far beyond what is in thimerosol, a preservative, added in small amounts to vaccines) lead and any health problems at all is pretty minimal. It's not great for your organs, but doesn't affect the brain or heart much at all. It really only affects growing organs, and adults really don't have growing organs. If, for example, you were growing a garden in lead-contaminated soil, and eating the vegetables, it might make you nauseous or affect your absorption of other minerals. Flu shot? Fat chance. (That's figurative, since only some minerals are fat-soluble...)
First off, Donster, come on, you know they're around. And a lot of this has nothing to do with science, face it, it's about ethics, and your personal experiences. And I'm very very confused now, Carlie what was the point again?
Emma, I assume you mean MD's who don't believe in vaccination. And no, I honestly have never met one that I can recall. They must be very few in Canada. I'm sure they do exist, of course, but then so do MD's practicing homeopathy and chelation. They're just uncommon and considered wingnuts by the rest of us. Vaccination is very, very much science based (with the recent exception of Gardisil, for which a body of supporting evidence of long term efficacy does not yet exist; large scale government funding is a political decision IMO). But then funding decisions are nearly always political rather than scientific aren't they?As for Carlie, I don't think she really has a point. If you read her posts from other threads as well as this one it's pretty clear that she's mentally ill.
"which is why results are replicated many, many times? "No dear, that's what they would like you to believe. I'm in research and no, replication of results is not done many many times. We're in the business of looking for new Unknown things and just take most other scientists at their word when they report results. The only time attempts at replication are made is when it's a big blockbuster discovery like say the human cloning experiment in China that turned out to be faked and we only knew this because someone from the lab came forward. It is actually a very big deal and we even have talked about it in class. We have found many instances where photos were duplicated and manipulated in published papers. Go ahead and pretend like we know everything and we don't cheat. But any lay person can search Nature and Science and see that fraud is a serious concern.
I am not saying it's all false and we're all unethical but I am not going to be like Lisa or Donster and act like there are no problems and talk down to people who don't trust the scientific community anymore.
And Emma, it's not that confusing. Once he started acting like a jerk, I just went off on one of our typical THC sidetracks.
And Lisa....please get off your high horse too. I'm more than willing to have a conversation with those who disagree with me if it's an intelligent informed conversation. But like I've said before, once people start going off on typos and resort to name calling, I know to gracefully bow out because it's difficult to have a decent conversation with people who just like to hear themselves speak. People like that NEVER concede points and reject any clear evidence of the erroneousness of their ideas. They ask for proof, you give it, and they go off on a mispelled name or some other vagary.But back to the point of "No, actually, you could not. And I dare you to try taking his flippant internet remark to your pharmacy." If you seriously could not discern that I was only being flippant and that the conversation had degenerated into nothingness from his first remark about psychiatric drugs, then you are, and I hate to say it because it sounds so much like name-calling, but perhaps if I refer to the action and not the person.......ok, not recognizing the flippancy of my statement is quite dunce-like.
The government is political, yes. But, a lot of this has to do with your personal beliefs, of course some of it has to do with the facts, but some of this has to do with your beliefs.
Typos aside (and, as I've already pointed out, I wasn't addressing things that were a slip of a finger, nor even modern shorthand, but simply a lack of knowledge), I haven't gotten anything like evidence. I don't want proof, because from a scientific standpoint, proof takes thousands of viewpoints. But I would like a handful of respectable, unbiased studies if you want me to take you seriously. I've provided that much.And yeah, of course I knew you were flippant, but to be flippant about your argument, I just expect you to have established it to a pretty solid degree already. All you've done is shout about how you don't like mine (for which I've provided some citations, and I'm willing to provide plenty more). So expect some eye-rolling.
respectable unbiased studies? uh huh.Items 1 - 20 of 133
1: Related Articles, LinksSiedlecki SL, Montague M, Schultz J.
Writing for publication: avoiding common ethical pitfalls.
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2008 Mar-Apr;35(2):147-50. Review.
Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?
J Med Ethics. 2008 Mar;34(3):214-21. Review.
PMID: 18316467
Dietary prevention of allergic diseases in infants and small children.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008 Feb;19(1):1-4. Review.
The problem of deception in embryonic stem cell research.
Cell Prolif. 2008 Feb;41 Suppl 1:65-70. Review.
PMID: 18181947 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]5: Related Articles, LinksVollmer WM.
Responsibilities of authorship.
Chest. 2007 Dec;132(6):2042-5. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 18079241 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]6: Related Articles, LinksLohsiriwat V, Lohsiriwat S.
Fraud and deceit in published medical research.
J Med Assoc Thai. 2007 Oct;90(10):2238-43. Review.
PMID: 18041448 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]7: Related Articles, LinksWalter G, Rey JM, Soh N, Bloch S.
Publishing ethics in child and adolescent psychiatry: essentials for authors and readers.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2008 Jan;17(1):149-63, x. Review.
PMID: 18036484 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]8: Related Articles, LinksMarcovitch H.
Misconduct by researchers and authors.
Gac Sanit. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(6):492-9. Review.
PMID: 18001665 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]9: Related Articles, LinksRamnarain N, Kirk P.
Fraud and deceit in medical research.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2007 Oct;68(10):543-6. Review.
PMID: 17974302 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]10: Related Articles, LinksKaraki H.
[Conflict of interest and misconduct in science]
Nippon Yakurigaku Zasshi. 2007 Oct;130(4):275-80. Review. Japanese. No abstract available.
PMID: 17938512 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]11: Related Articles, LinksWager E.
Ethical publishing: the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct.
Menopause Int. 2007 Sep;13(3):98-102. Review.
PMID: 17933094 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]12: Related Articles, LinksMoore N, Juillet Y, Bertoye PH; Round Table No 4, Giens XXII.
Integrity of scientific data: transparency of clinical trial data.
Therapie. 2007 May-Jun;62(3):203-9, 211-6. Epub 2007 Sep 6. Review. English, French.
PMID: 17803887 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]13: Related Articles, LinksAfifi M.
Honorary authorship: is it really an honour?
East Mediterr Health J. 2007 Mar-Apr;13(2):477-9. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 17684871 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]14: Related Articles, LinksLong T, Fallon D.
Ethics approval, guarantees of quality and the meddlesome editor.
J Clin Nurs. 2007 Aug;16(8):1398-404. Review.
PMID: 17655528 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]15: Related Articles, LinksKarch SB.
Peer review and the process of publishing of adverse drug event reports.
J Forensic Leg Med. 2007 Feb;14(2):79-84. Review.
PMID: 17654770 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]16: Related Articles, LinksGuardino SD, Daynard RA.
Tobacco industry lawyers as "disease vectors".
Tob Control. 2007 Aug;16(4):224-8. Review.
PMID: 17652236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]17: Related Articles, LinksTriggle CR, Triggle DJ.
What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"?
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3(1):39-53. Review.
PMID: 17583174 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]18: Related Articles, LinksCoultas D.
Ethical considerations in the interpretation and communication of clinical trial results.
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2007 May;4(2):194-8; discussion 198-9. Review.
PMID: 17494731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]19: Related Articles, LinksHall R, de Antueno C, Webber A; Canadian Research Ethics Board.
Publication bias in the medical literature: a review by a Canadian Research Ethics Board.
Can J Anaesth. 2007 May;54(5):380-8. Review.
PMID: 17470890 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]20: Related Articles, LinksAbbrecht P, Davidian N, Merrill S, Price AR.
The role of the office of research integrity in cancer clinical trials.
Cancer Treat Res. 2007;132:231-9. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 17305026 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
and mind you, that's only the latest 20 out of 133 reviews
There are 3507 articles total.
Sorry Carlie, you lose. Not a single one of your references has anything directly to do with the subject at hand: namely, vaccine effectiveness. They're mostly about fraud and ethics in science. Is there fraud in science? Of course there is! Why? Monetary gain, prestige, advancement of personal beliefs, etc. But that's a completely different topic than vaccines. I have yet to see anyone on this board deny that there's fraud in science. There's a good deal more fraud in religion, I have to say.I also have to agree with Lisa that you display a startling lack of knowledge for a so-called "scientist". Referring to Galileo as "the world is round guy" is not just forgetting somebody's name, it demonstrates real ignorance.
I didn't say anything about vaccine effectiveness...my comment was about science being the new religion and your attitude towards parents who (for the right even if misguided) reasons) oppose it. I was vaccinated, my daughter is vaccinated. I never said anything against vaccine effectiveness and your comment was not about it either but just spouting of hatred towards parents as if you care about their children more than they do.If that's the proof she was requesting, I have no idea where that came from because that is not what I was talking about. I said science is fallible and I assumed that's the proof she was asking for. And I only bring up the fallibility to note that it may be one reason why parents who chose not to vaccinate don't rely on the scientific community's total embrace of it.
And go ahead focus on "the world is round guy" word usage and completely ignore that you asked for something and it was given to you. And, where's your proof and your double blind studies proving that there's a good deal more fraud in religion?
It is so pathetic that you have a win or lose attitude towards disagreements....but then again, that just proves the point I made about little people like you. And what about your ignorance of the fact that knowledge about Galileo's excommunication is historical and not scientific? Disgusting!
You can be an ignoramus and call people names all you want but I probably got a higher MCAT score than you, went to a better rated medical school, have more publications, and best of all, I have a better attitude.
Darn!I'd decided to take my elders advice here and accept that "le mepris vaut mieux que la reponse".
But I will now.
Hey Emma....I'd thought the same as you did about Gardasil makers pushing for it to be required. I never would have needed such a vaccine. And most certainly 100% of the population does NOT need to be vacinated against STDs....just the people who know that they engage in risky behaviors. But if you think about it, since 1 in 7 women are raped (a statistic which is probably incorrect since many go unreported), it may just be a reasonable requirement after all.
I never get the flu shot (fear of needles unless there's pain relief at the end of one) and I've only had the flu once in my entire lifetime.
Gardasil is crap. I researched it, and its crap. Not a lot of testing has been done, not to mention the Vioxx thing with Merck.
Carlie, I was referring to Lisa's challenge (Message 45 on this thread) to a research-off.So... now you're not a scientist, but a physician? Which is it? Or is it both?
As for the Galileo thing, like I said, it's not really that small a deal. Claiming to be a scientist (or is it a physician?) while referring to Galileo as "the world is round guy" is analagous to claiming to be a priest while forgetting John's name and referring to him as "the guy who took off with Jesus's mom". It kind of suggests you don't know what you're talking about, you know?
So let's get it straight-I'm obnoxious because I have a win or lose attitude toward disagreements, and you're a better person than me because of your MCAT score and school??. (I don't even recall my MCAT score; I wrote it in 1987.) And you excellent school and accumulated wisdom have taught you that vaccinating your kids is wrong. Do I have it straight? Or did God just hand you that particular piece of knowledge from on high?
You know what I think Carlie? I don't think you're a scientist or a physician at all. You certainly don't have your basic facts straight (the cloning fraud was Korean, not Chinese, for example). I think you're a random internet nut who like to pretend she's someone else.
no matter how much testing is done, it still shouldn't be as required as polio vaccine or MMR.It's impossible to know how a drug or vaccine is gonna affect humans until you put it out there and monitor the people who take it. What scares me is how the drug companies just want to get things out there, make their billions, and then later worry about problems. Even if something is generally safe, we are so genetically varied that there will always be someone out there badly affected. We just have to learn to live with what makes the most good I guess.
You can see it like this, most people are not deathly allergic to bees. SO we can't just ask that all bees be killed just because some will die from a sting. I know lots of patients who swear by Vioxx and are very disappointed that it's been withdrawn.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Ball pit.
Uuugghhh.