No Andrew Wakefield Ha. Wakefield finally gets all the respect he’s due. Which is none.
ht: Kavin Senapathy:
“Disgraced former gastroenterologist and researcher Andrew Wakefield, known for a fraudulent 1998 paper linking the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism, directs the movie” [Vaxxed]
After initially inviting a showing of the anti-vax propaganda, Robert de Niro and the Tribeca Film Festival team decided to drop the quacks from the schedule.
Not surprisingly, Wakefield – whose livelihood depends solely on speaking fees and book sales to the anti-vax community – is quick to whine about “totalitarian censorship”. He cries, “We were denied due process”.
As Senapathy responds:
“Due process? Due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution only apply when government is involved. This isn’t a court of law, and Andrew Wakefield doesn’t deserve such considerations for his anti-vaccine propaganda film. He doesn’t deserve a platform to spread anti-vaccine disinformation, after widespread panic in the wake of his fraudulent paper led to a sharp drop in vaccination rates and thousands of preventable deaths and counting from vaccine preventable disease.
In the meantime, there have been a whopping zero casesof autism caused by vaccines.”
Due process ought to mean that Wakefield is in jail, convicted of multiple counts of manslaughter for the deaths resulting from the nonsense he has been peddling.
Vaccines are harmless and not the source of problems.
Easily people could think so. I avoid a flu shot because I saw my dad have a bad reaction to it as I see it. Yet my mom recently had one and is okay.
If this guy thinks they are bad then punishing him is wrong. Its just an error. I don’t know if people died from his work yet it shows someone must do better to make the case for vaccine safety.
People are always taught to be suspicious of big drug companies. I hear it always in the media.
Its a world of accusation about secret motivations.
The autism thing would of failed if more accurately it was seen for what it is.
Just in a spectrum of interference with the triggering mechanism for the memory.
Nothing else. Unlikely anything like vacs could do the interference.
This is all is based on rejecting seeing the soul as the actual place of human thought and so only leaving the memory in the material world.
Well, yeah.
Actually I have an idea, but I’d have to be god, or the magic equivalent of sufficiently-advanced technology. How about stripping his immune system of all vaccine-induced antibodies (which, I assume, he has thanks to the fact that his parents were more compassionate and careful than he tells new parents to be) then exposing him to children known to be sick with measles, mumps, chicken pox … To allow him bodily autonomy, which I believe is a good thing, give him the free choice of a lifetime in solitary confinement, or a few months simple (usually) non-fatal illnesses.
I must be in a good mood tonight, because my usual reaction to anti-vaxxers is that they ought to be preemptively executed for threatening the lives and health of children, plus any people who have compromised immune systems or other reasons why they cannot be vaccinated even though they wish to be.
Even if we have to excuse the average anti-vaxxer on the grounds of sheer stupidity, there ought to be a legal, physical, punishment for the fraud leaders like Wakefield. Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Donald Trump should all be sent to a desert island somewhere – hopefully somewhere with lots of mosquitoes – for their self-serving political statements pandering to the anti-vax loonies And fuck Bill Maher for being the “progressive” counterpart to those backward douchebags.
Thanks for the comment, Robert.
Try an experiment next flu season. Since your mom has gotten flu shots and been fine, and since you probably take after your mom as much as you take after your dad, you should try getting a flu shot and see if you turn out fine just like your mom.
You can alternate years and keep track of the results. All for science!
Caused ructions in our house. My wife (influenced in part by her conspiracy-oriented vegan pal) would not allow our youngest daughter to be vaccinated with MMR, despite having a decent science background. I guess I could have got it done in secret (as she once made plans to get our kids baptised in secret!).
Still, it was done eventually (and my eldest daughter got herself baptised!).
eta – I was surprised to see Wakefield turned up on the “Conspirasea-Cruise”.
crap! that was real?
I’m vaccinated every month for about 40 allergens — two shots, one in each arm, about 20 substances in each injection.
I got flu, tetanus, and pneumonia shots recently.
So that’s about 12×40 = 480+ immunological doses of vaccine substances I get a year.
The one time I missed a flu vaccine was due to simply forgetting, I was hit with one of the worst bouts of flu.
Autism is highly correlated to fever! A mother getting a fever due to flu or whatever is more likely to have kids with autism.
Sal needs a vaccination vaccine.
I know that this is off topic for the OP, but completely on topic for the title of the OP.
Mapou has been banned from UD. First Joe (who isn’t Frankie) and then Virgil (who is also not Frankie) and now Mapou. This will leave a vacuum at UD that can only be filled by Frankie.
OK. I realize that this may be guano, but the devil made me do it.
I guess I’m not trying hard enough. Once again, time for me to up my game!
I don’t know the raw data. Yet the mother being affected is not the same thing as the kid . So a fever could go from the mother, yet not giving her autism, but affect the baby in the womb. Just a general hit. Many kids get retarded from mothers having physical accidents while pregnant.
So easily autism is not from fever but from damage to the triggering mechanism for memory. The mothers flu just causes chaos in the child. Its not the flu itself.
hotshoe,
out of curiosity, since you are obviously a supporter on no-gods involved, naturally occurring, non-teleological step-wise change in organisms….
why would you be interested in interfering with natural evolutionary processes? if a child does not have the genetic make-up that will allow it to overcome a particular disease, why would you advocate that humans interfer with a billion year old naturally occuring process of elimination of weaker offspring?
this is not a trick question. i would really like to understand what appears to be a contradiction in your (pl) reasoning process. on the one hand you support the notion that evolution weeds out weaker offspring through the filter of natural selection, but on the other hand appear to wish to interfere with that same process when it comes to human offspring.
why the double standard? should not human offspring be subject to the same natural evolutionary processes that other organisms are subject to?
why are we artificially preserving human offspring that would otherwise not make it in the real world?
And if someone drops something valuable, why would you interfere with the age-old law of gravity to try to catch it before it breaks?
You seem to think there’s no possible difference between understanding and recognizing how things work, and seeing some good reason to disapprove of it. Those who spend their lives trying to eradicate diseases can recognize that they are battling against evolution, without the need to misunderstand evolution.
A fellow by name of Charles Darwin had something to say regarding the very question Steve just asked:
As well as being an example of the naturalistic fallacy—deriving an “ought” (i.e., we should just let the ‘weak’ die, already) from an “is” (i.e., the observed fact that living things do change in accordance with the theory of evolution)—Steve’s question also can be viewed as being built on the implicit premise that lack of god-belief is, in some way or other, a serious impediment to possessing morals and ethics. Given the phenomenon of sincerely devout Believers who manage to commit all manner of acts which their own Beliefs clearly identify as immoral, one could argue that the presence of god-belief is, in at least some people at some times, a serious impediment to possessing morals and ethics.
Oh, hell. That’s got to take some prize for the dumbest question on this site — and considering the competition around here for dumb questions, that’s saying a lot.
You don’t really deserve any answer, but I’m going to give you a couple questions, and maybe if you ask yer mates you’ll figure out an answer.
When your clan mastered fire, did you advocate that humans interfer with a billion year old naturally occuring process of elimination of weaker offspring by keeping them warm instead of having them freeze to death because they hadn’t evolved thicker fur?
When your clan mastered flint knapping, did you advocate that humans interfer with a billion year old naturally occuring process of elimination of weaker offspring by killing for meat instead of making them starve because they hadn’t evolved stronger claws?
Well, my clan advocated for “interfering” with evolution and that’s why we’re the winners we are now.
Yes, possibly reading too much implication in Steve’s comment, but I see the usual theist slander that non-theists/evolutionists/materialists must be heartless and immoral. Because there’s only one possible meaning to life if evolution is true: dog eat dog. Bring your appetite and your naturally evolved sharp teeth!!
Mung,
So ‘they’ would have us believe … http://www.divinetravels.com/ConspiraSeaCruise2016.html
Steve,
Why do you have this habit of saying “your (pl)” even when talking to one individual?
It must be already April Fool’s day in some parts of the world.
It is something of an own goal for a theist to invoke the naturalistic fallacy in this way: “Medical treatment interferes with evolution and is therefore wrong”. For atheists (and deists) there is no cross-talk between is and ought, but theists have to believe that misfortunes are God’s Will, like the Kentucky grandmother who viewed the shooting death of her 2-yo granddaughter at the hands of the 5-yo brother thus “It was God’s will. It was her time to go, I guess”.
Presumably:
“Medical treatment interferes with God’s Will and is therefore wrong”.
Why is it that only the Christian Scientists abide by this?
On the subject o april fools:
It’s a terrific joke that the designer righteously made malaria parasites and eyeworms, but his human creatures defy the will of the designer by attempting to cure afflicted children.
Well, most do. The followers of Mary Baker Eddy appear to submit to the will of the designer.
Why do atheists use contraception? Why do they boil suspect water? Why do they wear clothes? Why don’t they leave their kids out at night? Why … ?
Hold their breath when they’re under water?
Why would atheists have domesticated dogs and cats whose evolution was “interfered with,” instead of wolves, and wild cats that would scratch their eyes out?
Of course the idea is that “Darwinism” must be preferred by atheists like some religion, hence, why don’t they follow it religiously?
Why don’t IDists/creationists bother to learn something other than self-serving propaganda?
Glen Davidson
That’s why we’re here!
I guess that was
n’tobvious.Glen Davidson
With toxic religion like that, too bad it wasn’t Grandma who got shot instead of the innocent toddler. I have no respect for the idea that she’s consoling herself – and her family/listeners – as best she can in the face of personal tragedy. By saying “it’ was god’s will” she is teaching toxic-level passivity and stupidity in the face of avoidable/fixable human mistakes. Nothing she could do will bring back the dead child, but she could be – if she were a better, not religion-weakened person – advocating for human responsibility. She’s in a position to advocate that her grandchild’s parents be charged with negligent homicide for giving the kindergartner a gun to play with. If she worked on it, some other parents in the future might be spared a similar tragedy. But no, it’s not any human fault, nothing to be done about it nor learned from it.
Just like there was nothing to be done about millions of measles deaths. God’s will, ya know. No holding the human parents responsible for vaccinating their children. It’s defying the will of god to have invented vaccines in the first place!
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/0001/11/30/gun-rights-advocate-shot-4-year-old-son/1887205
Doesn’t have anything to do with God’s Will per se, but the irony broke my meter.
Sure fits with the thread theme of “couldn’t happen to a more deserving …”
I guess I’m glad for the kid’s sake that he won’t have to live with the guilt of killing his gun-crazy mom.
Unfortunately, the maximum charge she faces for her criminally-stupid life choice is a misdemeanor “allowing a minor access to a firearm”.
There’s no indication that her child(ren) will be removed from her custody for their own safety.
Oh hell hotshoe, why don’t you just own up to the gargantuan contradictions that reside in your tortucan mind?
We needed fire at the beginning to keep the species alive when we were thousands, not billions.
we are now 7 billion strong and committing suicide by killing the planet. What the fuck is the evolutionary advantage now for morals and ethics?
THAT’S the fucking point.
Yeah, you don’t need sorry ass gods for morals and ethics. Neither does evolution.
Your faux outrage is noted and chucked with the rest of your nonsense.
Sure thing, sweetie!
Have a nice day!