Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Investigating Self-Boosting Vaccines

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the i-remember-this-zombie-flick dept.

Medicine 218

An anonymous reader writes "Vaccines, contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, are some of the most effective tools in modern medicine. For some diseases, a single shot is all it takes for lifetime immunity. Others, though, require booster shots, to remind your immune system exactly what it should prepare to fight. Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health, and the herd immunity concept as well. Scientists are now looking into 'self-boosting' vaccines in order to fix that problem. Some viruses are capable of remaining in the body for a person's entire lifetime. If researchers can figure out a way to safely harness these, it may be possible to add genes that would create proteins to train the immune system against not just one, but multiple other viruses (abstract). This is a difficult problem to solve; changing the way we do vaccinations will itself have consequences for herd immunity. It also hinges on finding a virus that can survive the immune system without having uncomfortable flare-ups from time to time."

cancel ×

218 comments

What's going on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085595)

It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.

Re:What's going on? (1, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085689)

It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.

I think there was a holiday in the US a few days ago for some reason and I suspect they are still recovering from it so there just isn't much of interest happening over there.

Re:What's going on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085705)

But the Aussie 'editors' usually spam the fuck out of Slashdot with shitty non stories over the weekend, and I'd have thought they'd be going overtime this particular weekend.

Re:What's going on? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086133)

It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.

Au

Why not take it one step further? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085621)

Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".

Re:Why not take it one step further? (5, Funny)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085679)

This is Timmy's mother, Timmy won't be able to come to school today because he's feeling well and the other parents are afraid that his general well being will cause autism in the other children.

Re:Why not take it one step further? (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085693)

Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".

Something readily transmissible? Make sure you use something that isn't likely to mutate... I propose influenza, rhinovirus, or coronovirus. What could possibly go wrong? ;)

Re:Why not take it one step further? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085981)

Well according to the user bmo who has posted a huge amount of post in this topic you should just trust the scientists and ignore that there is any possibility of things going wrong. If you don't you are anti-science.

So genetically modify a virus, (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085629)

use it to fight disease and work for us, not against us... where have I heard that before?

Oh that's right, just before 90% of human race died, and 6% turned into zombies that ate the rest... except for Will Smith of course.

Re:So genetically modify a virus, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085667)

You mean Human species.

Re:So genetically modify a virus, (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085685)

You mean Human species.

Yep. That's what's wrong with what he said...

paid4ads by Merck an insult to slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086363)

1 : Paid advertisement:^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAn anonymous reader writes

2: Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health, and the herd immunity concept as well.

The entire article is just Merck propaganda to peddle their toxic crap. "Failure to get our shots will kill you!".
Bullshit. Even better: "Not getting your shorts threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a
blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you
wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??

This article is an insult to the slashdot community.

The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0, Troll)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085635)

"...contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, " Any article that begins with a put-down of a generalized segment of the population in my opinion is already tainted with bias. I'll look elsewhere for reliable information, thanks.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085723)

Anti-vaxxers are anti-science and kill kids.

People like former Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy have blood on their hands.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085745)

Just because someone expresses doubt about a scientific claim doesn't mean they are anti-science. Stop playing Bush, this is not an "either you are with us or against us" life we live.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085757)

You, and others, don't get it.

The doubt is unfounded. There is *no* science to back up the claim that thimerosol or vaccines cause autism.

When the Netherlands, and I believe Denmark banned Thimerosol, the supposed trigger of autism caused by vaccinations, did the incidence of autism fall?

No.

The claim that thimerosol and vaccines cause autism has been proven wrong empirically because of this, and the people who continue to push this dangerous meme kill kids.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085771)

I completely get it. There are people who simply do not believe a specific claim of science. They were convinced of the counter claims the same way 90% of the people are convinced of the scientific claims, someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter. Very few people have the resources or skills to replicate the vast majority of scientific discoveries so until they see it in use or have it explained to them by some authority in the matter, they have to trust someone. That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim. They could very well believe and understand all the other science claims out there.

Like I said, stop playing Bush, it's not a with us or against us situation.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085777)

>That does not make them anti-science, it makes them skeptical about a claim.

When you take Jenny McCarthy's claim over a doctor's claim, you are anti-science.

There is being skeptical, and then there is just plain nuts.

Jenny McCarthy kills kids.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085829)

so anyone who believe Jenny McCarthy automagically disbelieves everything else with science? They are actively working to thwart science, how does this work for you in this imaginary world?

False dichotomy (2)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085871)

But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.

So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.

If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.

In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.

Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.

Re:False dichotomy (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086031)

But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.

So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.

I agree, but does that make you anti meat? No it does not. I'm not saying these people aren't idiots, I'm saying don't be an idiot trying to point them out.

In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.

They are no more anti-science as you would be anti-meat or anti-butchering in your butcher example above.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (2)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085889)

You don't have to hate all science to be anti-science anymore than you have to be against women's suffrage to be sexist. When you reject science when it disagrees with what you really wish to be true, you're anti-science. Either you accept the outcome of the scientific method or you don't.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086019)

lol.. No, science covers a lot of stuff and to be anti-science you have to be against all science.

Here, lets break it down for you.

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word.

Anti: A person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.

When you put them together, you get A person apposed to the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural word. Now is that true of the people you claim are anti-science? I think not.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (2)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086033)

Your username is apt. You may attempt to redefine what antiscience means just by saying what the individual components mean and you can pretend that other people care about your definition, too. But that's not how English works and nobody gives a shit what your definition of the word is if it doesn't match with how it's used. I think this thread is basically over. I'll go argue with someone smarter.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086071)

Actually, you probably should have looked up what the definition of antiscience was before you tried to redefine it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience [wikipedia.org]

You see, there is already a defined term and it is the same as combining two words together as the term is.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086145)

The article also goes on to list many examples of anti-science. While not calling out anti-vaxxers explicitly, it does list some very similar antiscience beliefs:

Primary among the latter are the polemics about embryonic stem cell research, evolutionary theory[21] and modern cosmology teaching in high schools, contraception, and environmental issues related to global warming[22][23] and energy crisis.

Again, it's how people use the term - i.e. to reject well established scientific knowledge. You are welcome to believe what you want about the term, but at this point, I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse now that you have been informed what people really mean by it when they use it.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086227)

Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science. It is Wikipedia after all. I wouldn't have listed it if it wasn't the only thing in the Google search that didn't require combining anti- and science in the literal sense that you already rejected. But as it turns out, it does the same and has done so since 2006 or so.

And to be clear, opinions are not to mean there is no scientific backing or the rejection of science pertaining to them, it's just that their opinions are swayed by what they see as more important. It's not a rejection of science but an acceptance or denial to do anything about it based on something they deem more important. Could you imagine the state of science if no one was ever skeptical of the science put in front of them and never redid the testing or validated the numbers or whatever to see if it was accurate.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086325)

Yeah, those you listed are basically opinions and not really anti-science or science.

These are opinions that are in direct conflict with well established scientific knowledge and they aren't antiscience? Um, right. The article makes clear that polemics such as the anti-vaxxer crap count as antiscience. As a description of what antiscience is, it's the closest I've seen to what they mean and what others mean by it, and what I mean when I use the term. I frankly don't care if you define the term some other way. It's what the article means, it's what I mean, people generally understand it, and that's all that matters.

It's not a rejection of science

Of course it's a rejection of science. A small piece of it, but it is a rejection nonetheless.

but an acceptance or denial to do anything about it based on something they deem more important

One might argue that if they deem this so important, they might bother to try to figure out what the facts are.

Could you imagine the state of science if no one was ever skeptical of the science put in front of them and never redid the testing or validated the numbers or whatever to see if it was accurate.

That's one of the stranger things you've said. In what world does science lack skepticism? Skepticism is built into science. The entire scientific method is about attempting to disprove things. You never prove anything in science - you just fail to disprove it. All knowledge is provisional. If you want to be educated, read some Carl Sagan. He goes on about the two-pronged approach of openness and skepticism needed to be a good scientist. You need openness to generate and consider novel hypotheses, but then you need skepticism to design good experiments to test them. Scientists generally aren't the kinds of people who need to be reminded to be skeptics.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085859)

saying that 'jenny mccarthy kills kids' is about as fallacious as it gets. she has no control over anyones' kids. their parents do. the choice lies with them, not her, and choosing to give or not give their kids a particular vaccine does not automatically mean death. You're no more rational than many of the people you accuse..

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085875)

People who deliberately spread misinformation so that kids die of whooping cough, measels, and other preventable diseases do kill kids as surely as holding a gun and pulling the trigger.

Because they do it not out of concern for children, but because of money, and backing away from fraud exposes the fraud. So they continue.

If you feel that this is out of line, feel free to foe me.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085897)

the blame chain game always ends the same way: tyranny. maybe you're from a country that doesn't respect free speech because it doesn't understand the difference between speech and action?

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (2)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085905)

What in the fuck does free speech have anything to do with this?

Jenny McCarthy is free to say whatever damn-fool thing she wants to say, but just because she's free to do so doesn't mean she isn't responsible for the bullshit that comes out of her mouth. There are people dying because of what these loons are saying, and they are responsible for that. You morons who dredge up free speech at the drop of a hat really generally mean "consequence-free speech." There's no right to that and there never will be. You get to live with the consequences of the things you say.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085939)

well because people who think like you do are often the ones demanding that the law should force artificial 'responsibility' for speech instead of holding the people who took the action accountable instead. speech is just words. Action is different. jenny mccarthy doesn't kill kids with her words. guardians not giving some kids vaccines may cause some to die. Then again, giving them half baked vaccines shoved out the door by big pharma can also kill. If you want to blame mccarthy for it, then you also have to blame the relevant state agencies and big pharma.

it's not that people don't trust science, it's that they don't trust the motivations of the people practicing it. In this case I can't blame them because the relevant parties at the top have clear track records of not giving a fuck about the well being of us peons at the bottom.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085961)

I suggest that the next time you get sick, that you definitely don't see a doctor, because big pharma is obviously out to get you.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086085)

I suggest you quit misrepresenting what people say to you. It makes you come across as arrogant and stupid as jenny mccarthy.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086139)

I don't care what you think. You are a conspiracy nutbar.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085979)

well because people who think like you do are often the ones demanding that the law should force artificial 'responsibility' for speech instead of holding the people who took the action accountable instead.

Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".

speech is just words. Action is different. jenny mccarthy doesn't kill kids with her words.

She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible for lying to people and misleading them.

guardians not giving some kids vaccines may cause some to die. Then again, giving them half baked vaccines shoved out the door by big pharma can also kill. If you want to blame mccarthy for it, then you also have to blame the relevant state agencies and big pharma.

Again, what in the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the current vaccines. They work and complaining about "big pharma" is just so much bullshit. Or did you have some actual scientific data behind your paranoia?

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086063)

Speak for your own bloody self. I think people who think like I do are called "adults".

Adults don't resort to calling people names because they can't make a case for their position.

She sure as hell is responsible. Maybe not as responsible as the parents who refuse to vaccinate, but she's still responsible for lying to people and misleading them.

No, she isn't. I agree, she's stupid and useless, but she isn't responsible for the choices of others just as others aren't responsible for her stupid choices. We are our own volition and agency. Just because some asshole says something doesn't mean you rush to comply without thinking about it.

Again, what in the fuck are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the current vaccines. They work and complaining about "big pharma" is just so much bullshit. Or did you have some actual scientific data behind your paranoia?

I never said vaccines don't work. They do work, most of the time. Do you have any idea how much bullshit the FDA lets slide because of politics, ineptitude, or lack of resources? I never said I was anti vaccine, but these days, the technology exists to abuse them, which changes things drastically. There is also huge incentive to push stuff out the door before it's ready.

They aren't abused yet, but they will be soon. It's too easy a vector with today's advances in micro sized technology. The track records of those at the top speak volumes about their lack of interest in our interests. Because of this, you wouldn't let someone in the industry or government pull a driveby on your computer, would you? So why would you trust them with your body just because of some spooky language you heard from them on tv?

There are two camps I'm referring to here: the group that irrationally thinks they cause all sorts of maladies, and the group who knows they work but also understands there's good reason to distrust the motivations of those at the top.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086093)

Adults don't resort to calling people names because they can't make a case for their position.

Which position do you claim is unjustified? And what names have I called you, exactly?

No, she isn't. I agree, she's stupid and useless

Let me ask you something. If you think what you say is so unimportant, why is free speech so important to protect? Either speech is important or it's not. You can't have it both ways. This is where the childishness comes in. You want to be able to say what you want and not have to worry about the consequences. Adults take responsibility for their actions, including their own words. People who don't take responsibility for their actions are children.

In fact, this is getting absurd. It is obvious to all but the most idiotic that speech has implications and you are responsible for it. The law recognizes this. There are libel laws precisely because speech can be damaging and because you are responsible for what you say. The people who spread misinformation about vaccines are responsible for the results of spreading that misinformation. If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

I never said vaccines don't work. They do work, most of the time.

You called them half-assed. What does that mean, exactly, if it you say they work? Make up your bloody mind.

They aren't abused yet, but they will be soon. It's too easy a vector with today's advances in micro sized technology.

More unjustified bullshit. If you pull any more of this shit out of your ass, you're going to be a qualified proctologist.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085935)

Does that apply to everyone? Like the CDC, that tries to create fear of death over the mild childhood illness of chicken pox to push a vaccine that their own data shows increases the risk from the disease? And that they list making money as a primary reason to get the vaccine?

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085929)

To invoke Godwin: And Hitler was a nice, children-loving vegetarian and a strong anti-smoker who never harmed a single person in his life. Even though he had a bit of a racist streak. I have heard he was a really, really nice guy. He can't be held responsible for what others did.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (2)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085909)

someone told them who appeared to be authoritative in the matter

Yeah, really authorative. A Model who's claim to fame is that she managed to make Jim Carrey say "I do".

it's not a with us or against us situation

That's not it. The problem is that this nude models statements have caused the lives of more than one thousand children is the problem. That many, many more now have disabilities and brain damage because of her. Her statements and those of the fraud she uses as justification have been proven wrong. Still she keeps pushing the issue, thereby killing more children. Not only is she killing children whose parents refuse the vaccine, but by punching holes in the herd protection, she is also killing children who for other reasons can not have these vaccines (allergies etc).

The Jesus anti-science crowd holds back the education of a portion of the population. That's bad. This anti-science crowd, lead by this particular nude model, is killing children. That's pretty serious as fringe nutters go.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085967)

lol.. the Jesus anti-science crowd. That's cute. are you bigoted all by yourself or is there some course we can attend to be just like you?

I don't personally care if people are killing children or not. Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant. Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is. The wording "anti-science" is nothing but a fallacy so people can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes..

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086155)

No, I am not at all bigoted. There is a Jesus-believing anti-science crowd out there. Pointing it out doesn't make you any more bigoted than saying there are African Americans out there.

Claiming they are anti-science because they do not trust or believe a claim is ignorant

Sorry, the only person showing any kind of ignorance here is you.

Vaccines or the beginning of the universe is not all that science is

Scientific method is rather simple. It is a way of thinking. That way of thinking basically has a set of rather simple steps that you have to follow in order to be scientific. There are things like a hypothesis, a theory, conjecture, testing etc. As an example, outside of a very specific part of science, scientists never prove anything. That is not part of scientific methodology (with the exception of Maths). This methodology is science. Rejecting it out of hand is anti-scientific. The Anti-vaxxers reject scientific methodology out of hand. The young earthers do to. As do the Intelligent Design people in all their variations. The summarily and utterly reject everything about scientific methodology. They have varying reasons for rejecting it, but they reject it fully.

That is anti-science.

Now go find a adult that can explain to you what scientific method is.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (4, Insightful)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085921)

Really? your argument is OMG YOU KILL KIDS by not swallowing everybit of information from the government as fact? and you get MOD POINTS?! this is slashdot, please stop that. Here we say 'there has been no known study proving a direct link between thimerosol and autism"

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085759)

They didn't just express doubt and they definitely didn't express *reasonable* doubt.

Campaigning against a major health advance on the basis of unreasonable doubts is anti-science. There is no reasonable doubt that vaccines are extremely effective, but many people in the "anti-vax" movement claim otherwise anyway on the basis of nothing substantive. It's hard to imagine something more anti-science than that.

And yes, this is one of the few cases where you are with us or against us. Because part of the point of vaccinations is herd immunity. If you campaign against it, you are quite literally against it.

You can certainly express some legitimate doubts about some actual vaccines.

That said, I think the line was unnecessary. It can provoke either unhelpful "fuck those guys" responses, or irrelevant tempest-in-a-teapot arguments like this one which are irrelevant to the article at hand (we can go ahead and assume that actual anti-vaxxers aren't going to be convinced by the glib dismissal).

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085803)

This is not an anti-science situation. You cannot possibly claim that these people reject evolution, electrons, chemicals, or anything else that is covered by science. You can say they are anti vaccine, anti-something specific, but not anti-science with any confidence at all.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085839)

We know that vaccines work.

They have worked ever since Jenner did his smallpox vaccine.

The science is indisputable.

I suggest you go to an anti-vaccine website and look around. Just pick one, and then go to a few more. It's not just anti-vaccine stuff.

Anti-vaxxers as a whole are anti-science.

And not only that, they are dangerous. They kill kids.

http://genome.fieldofscience.com/2012/07/anti-vaccination-propagandists-help.html [fieldofscience.com]

--
BMO

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085881)

lol.. If you say so. I'm not going to argue something as simple as vaccines are not the entirety of science. If you don't get it, then you are anti-intellect. See what I did there, I created the same ad hominem that you are perpetuating by claiming you refute intelligence because you are ignorant of the fact that vaccines are not all of science.

We can play this game all day long. In the end neither of us would be correct in those claims. Anti-vaccine is not anti-science, it is anti-vaccine.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085885)

>Anti-vaccine is not anti-science,

Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.

Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.

You seem especially butthurt about this.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085911)

no, you are taking a false dichotomy and labeling anyone who disagrees as 'butthurt.' It's you who's butthurt apparently about jenny mccarthy. I agree, she's worthless and stupid, but that doesn't explain your stupidity.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085945)

Jenny McCarthy is only one of many. I'm using her as an example.

For instance, read this article in Forbes about a *nobel laureat* who has gone off the deep end.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/05/27/nobel-laureate-joins-anti-vaccination-crowd-at-autism-one/ [forbes.com]

Well, apparently Montagnier has gone off the deep end into pseudoscience himself. He claims that his new group, Chronimed, has discovered in autistic children

        âoeDNA sequences that emit, in certain conditions, electromagnetic waves. The analysis by molecular biology techniques allows us to identify these electromagnetic waves as coming from ⦠bacterial species.â

What the heck? In what seems to be a desperate effort to stay relevant, Montagnier is promoting wild theories with little scientific basis, and now he is taking advantage of vulnerable parents (see his appeal here) to push a therapy of long-term antibiotic treatment for autistic children.

This is truly a wacky theory. Montagnier hasnâ(TM)t been able to publish this in a proper journal, for a very good reason: itâ(TM)s nonsense. He claims that quantum field theory â" an area of physics in which he has no qualifications â" explains how electromagnetic waves emanating from DNA can explain not only autism, but also Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease, Parkinsonâ(TM)s disease, multiple sclerosis, Lyme disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Montagnier makes these claims and more in a self-published paper that he posted on arXiv.

It's not a false dichotomy. The anti-vaccine movement is unscientific and anti-science. It rejects biology.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086081)

Their position may be unscientific, but that's not the reason to distrust the status quo. It's not the vaccines themselves, it's the motivations of those distributing them. The FDA is far from a perfect entity, and they let all kinds of stupid shit slide for political, social, and economic reasons. There are plenty of recalls for deadly toxins that were sold as cures on record. I would not be first in line to take version 1.0 of any vaccine offered. There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as well even from well established vaccines, esp the 'live virus' ones.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086121)

> There IS a health risk factor to be concerned about as well even from well established vaccines, esp the 'live virus' ones.

There are two polio vaccines, a killed virus, and a live vaccine. If you got a shot, it was the killed virus. If you got an eyedropper in the mouth, it was the live weakened virus.

Show me a single peer reviewed paper showing how the live polio virus has risk factors besides allergy.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086125)

I left out a word.

I said: "how the live polio virus"

Should say "how the live polio virus vaccine"

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086001)

Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.

Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.

umm... No. perhaps the problem actually is your ignorance. Immunology deals with the entire immune system and the immune system of everything. People like McCarthy claim that the vaccines do harm and cause autism in children not that they aren't effective at preventing whatever disease we don't get commonly now.. Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter because she is no anti immunology. Your statement is a flat out ad hominem and incorrect.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086025)

> Whether that is true or not, that vaccines cause damage in children, it doesn't matter

I said this before, and it has proven true again.

Your name fits you.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086037)

lol.. why do you try to get into arguments you cannot win then cry and try to insult people for? Things in this world are not just because you say so. There are meanings to words and definitions that make communication productive. You should try following them.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

mellyra (2676159) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086365)

>Anti-vaccine is not anti-science,

Immunology is a science. If you are anti-vaccine, you have to discount all of immunology as a science. Disclaiming the fact that vaccines work is as bad as disclaiming gravity.

Anti-vaccine, at its core, is anti-science. It is not ad-hominem.

You seem especially butthurt about this.

-- BMO

Despite what you might believe (parts of) Economics are a science, too - and the equation is pretty easy:

Vaccinations have a cost to the individual being vaccinated (such as health risks, effort, ...), a benefit to the individual being vaccinated and a benefit to everyone around the individual being vaccinated.
The last part is important - in a world where everyone but one person is vaccinated the benefit of that person receiving a vaccination, too, would be absolutely negligible (as the disease would - in the absence of other carriers such as animals - be extinct) and for that individual the cost of getting a vaccination would almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

In a society where the vast majority of the population is vaccinated each individual would be better off getting no vaccination (as the risk of contracting the disease becomes much lower than the risk of side-effects from the vaccination). The anti-vaccine crowd is just doing what is individually rational for them.

The problem is of course that if more than a handful of people do what is rational for them, the majority of the population will soon no longer be vaccinated and the risk of disease will soon start to eclipse the risk of side-effects (making vaccination the individually rational choice).

Maybe you don't like this fluctuation, maybe you would like to extinguish the disease altogether (which would require you to maintain very high vaccination rates for a long time) - in that case the government has to step in and make vaccinations compulsory (with the knowledge that this solution may be for the greater good but is not pareto optimal as some will be affected by unnecessary side effects).

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085907)

with your style of reasoning, EVERYONE kills kids.. you know what? YOU kill kids too, every time you buy food to eat, you condemn some starving kid in ethiopia to starvation.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085953)

So, the anti evolution guys are not anti-science if they believe in electrons and chemicals? Then there are not anti-science people left in the world. Moron.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085971)

Well, you tell me. Is science more then evolution? Or is it only evolution? Anti-science by definition would be against science and that is not that case at all with the vast majority of these people.

If you want to call someone a moron, perhaps you can explain why science is only evolution or vaccines?

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086013)

Your argument has devolved into an argument about semantics.

You have lost.

If you are anti-evolution, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-cosomology, you are anti-science.
If you are anti-medicine, you are anti-science.

Because each of these positions means that you have to reject the fundamental basis of science - hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing the results experimentation with your hypothesis and reality.

Anti-vaxxer "logic" is much like the "logic" of a religionist. Circular, with no testing and no comparison with reality. Much like your arguments here.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086055)

My argument was always semantics. They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science. I have lost nothing and your admission here proves my point. science is not one or two things.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086079)

>My argument was always semantics.

Then you're a moron.

>They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science.

Science is more than just a subject. It is an outlook. It is a way of life. A bush hunter, who reads tracks and spoor is more of a scientist than any of these anti-vaxxers, because he observes the environment and tests his hypothesese by being either successful or not successful.

To disbelieve the mountains of tested evidence in favor of some quack celebrity's opinion means that you do not believe in the scientific method. You do not believe in the fact that things can be tested and conclusions drawn. It is *anti-science.*

So anyway, I'm done. You go back on ignore.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086161)

Science is more than just a subject. It is an outlook. It is a way of life. A bush hunter, who reads tracks and spoor is more of a scientist than any of these anti-vaxxers, because he observes the environment and tests his hypothesese by being either successful or not successful.

lol.. You wish it was close to a bush hunter reading tracks. You are over romanticizing the entire concept.

So here is some facts you are ignoring. I did a couple checks on the people you claim are antiscience. First, they do not claim vaccine do no good or dispute the evidence on them, they claim that they can cause harm to children and one person claims they harmed their kid. This is not even antiscience in the least because they aren't arguing against science, just that the damage potential or perceived is more important then the benefits.

So you have completely lost there without even getting into the definition of anti-science. Face it, they are not antiscience in the definition or the practice- they are antivaccine

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086123)

They are not anti-science because they disagree with one or two things in science

This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely. The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields, but they do in fact reject the methodology entirely. There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry". Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't. The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.

Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086193)

This is not semantics. This is ignorance. Yours. They do not disagree with one or two things in science, they reject scientific methodology entirely.

So they reject evolution, chemistry, electronics and everything else in science? Or are you making shit up?

The absurdity is that they only apply the rejection to a select set of scientific fields,

Actually, from what I have been able to gain from them, they only apply it to a portion of the field. They aren't claiming vaccinations to not work, they are claiming they do harm to children and are putting the well being of their children above the good vaccines could do.

There is no such things as "I accept the methodology as it applies to sub-atomic physics but reject it as it applies to organic chemistry".

Really? So someone who rejects quarks cannot accept evolution or molecular bonds? Interesting how you put it. Because that seems to be completely different then what I can find on these things. You are delusional and attempting to apply a term that doesn't fit because you think it is somehow derogatory to them. Instead, it makes you look like an idiot.

Accepting scientific methodology is a binary thing, either you do or you don't.

No it is not. There is no- you have to support X if you support Y in science. The entire scientific principle is built around this ability.

The anti-vxxers and the intelligent designers reject scientific methodology as such, but they argue their rejection from different view points.

No they do not. They reject certain products of scientific methodology- not the science or process itself.

Your next task is to find out what "scientific methodology" actually entails. You seem not to know.

Well, I could play you and just start making things up to fit my little world because I said so even though reality, definitions, and everything else contradicts it. I know what "scientific methodology" actually entails and it precisely because of this I can confidently say you are completely wrong.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085811)

well the 'pro-science' crowd misrepresents the issues as well. it's not that the 'anti-science' crowd distrusts science, they distrust the motivations of the people using the science. That I can understand. It seems like any good thing these days comes with a boatload of do-not-want 'features' designed to make it easier for the providers to use it as a vector for consumer hostile activities. This is especially true when it's difficult to understand technology where the details are naturally obfuscated from most people who lack understanding and equipment to analyze them.

While I'm not anti vaccine in principle, lets just say I'm not going to be the first one to rush out and get the latest version 1.0 vaccines pushed by medical corporations and politicians with clear track records of not giving a fuck about my well being. Just like with nutrition, I want to know for sure what the fuck I'm putting in my body before I do it.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085915)

Of course you EVERY-vaxxers are just as bad. The chicken pox vaccine is a good example. The CDC gives enough data to show that not only is the disease not a serious health risk, but getting the vaccine can increase the risks from the disease 10 fold. Even so, the EVERY-vaxxers will cry 'murder' if someone chooses to get life long immunity.

No such thing as 'vaccination'... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086307)

Jenner was a fraudster. Nobody, NOBODY, has refuted Dr. Hadwen's talks on 'vaccination'. Why is that?

http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html [whale.to]

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (4, Insightful)

dark_requiem (806308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085733)

I find it interesting that this was modded flamebait. It's a valid point. Whatever your opinion on the subject, rhetorical hyperbole serves only to inflame those who already disagree to disagree more. If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments. If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks, that will just entrench them in their position further. And who knows, do YOU have any research to support the idea that there is no benefit to, say, a more gradual vaccination schedule for infants? Has the issue been researched to a significant degree? I don't know of any studies on that specific subject (and note the difference between "I don't know" and "there are none"), so I couldn't counter the suggestion that it might be beneficial. If you disagree, back it up with the science, or you're no better than the "anti-science" crowd you claim to oppose. Blindly accepting "prevailing wisdom" without the knowledge to support it is every bit as "anti-science" as blindly accepting niche wisdom without the knowledge to support it. You look at the evidence available to you and form a conclusion, you don't just say "most scientists support idea A, so anyone who supports idea B is a fool." That helps no one and makes you look a fool.

And, for what it's worth, I was torn between posting a response to the fact this was modded flamebait, or modding it up. I chose the former.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085747)

>It's a valid point.

No it isn't. Anti-vaxxers do not have science on their side. All the science is against them.

To call them anything but anti-science is whitewashing the situation.

> If you disagree with the anti-vax crowd, offer reasoned counterpoints to their arguments.

Ever since former Dr. Wakefield's fraudulent study, for which the Lancet retracted and he lost his license, any and all reasoned arguments hae fallen on deaf ears.

>If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,

But they are. It's like arguing with creationists.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

dark_requiem (806308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085783)

It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd. You're saying "this is what I believe", rather than "this is what I know". For the layperson (regarding any subject matter), there is much in common between faith in religion, and faith in science. Either way, you're generally accepting conclusions reached by others regarding a subject about which you have very little knowledge. You have to, as stated, examine the evidence available to you, and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. If you blindly accept what you saw on CNN, or read in a Slashdot summary, without further examination of the subject, you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.

And, seriously, the "falling on deaf ears" argument is a complete copout. I, for example, was raised catholic. Believed in creationism and the existence of god because that was how I was raised. Then I got a little older, started thinking for myself, examined the evidence, and concluded otherwise. If you write off an entire group of people because you disagree with them and think they're fools, hunkering down in your bunker with the others who agree with you, then nothing will ever change. I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085855)

>It seems you missed the overall point here, which was "Cite your source, or shut up". We likely share a similar opinion on this particular subject. However, if you can't cite a valid source, if you can't point out solid, peer-reviewed research, then you're essentially acting on faith, just like the creationists, just like the anti-vax crowd.

You missed the point in that the anti-vaccine crowd has *no* peer reviewed study that says vaccines cause autism, and the one that was, was retracted, and Andrew Wakefield lost his license due to fraud.

> I realize, probably better than most, how frustrating it is to have the same argument time and time again, with so little success swaying the opinions of others, but if you just say "screw it, they're all morons", then you're just helping history to repeat itself.

No, they need to be riduculed and made embarrassed, because of the hundreds of thousands of studies on how and why vaccines work, they can't be arsed to read a single one of them. They are kooks, and the way you deal with kooks is to riducule and ostracize them until they come around.

> you're no better than the anti-science fundamentalists.

Might I direct you to the nearest university library and fuck off.

--
BMO

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086127)

(Posting as AC since I modded.)

Your position is not tenable. That a bunch of dimwitted trolls are fantasizing that their world view might hold water in no way mandates that anyone should credit their idiotic claims with more time than is needed to dismiss them as sensationalist hogwash.

The burden of proof lies on whoever makes the crazy claim; not the other way around. If I can explain lightning without Zeus, the burden of proof of Zeus lies on you; not me. The same holds for the sensationalist nutjobs who assert that vaccines are actually dangerous because they cause autism. The burden is on them to show me proof that it causes anecdotal cases of autism at all; and even if so, that it's not a risk worth taking.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085841)

re:
>"If you just write them off as a bunch of idiotic kooks,"
.
"But they are. It's like arguing with creationists."
.
Yep, it's as bad as trying to argue with the anti-fluoride idiot brigades which keep popping up over and over and over. Example, even the additional fluoride for La Jolla didn't start until 2011, and if you read the comment at the end of the article, you'll see someone calling it "poisoning":
http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/01/31/city-set-to-start-fluoridation-on-tuesday/ [lajollalight.com]
.
One place in florida voted fluoride out of its water in 2011, and the commissioners who voted to remove fluoride were all voted out and fluoridation is being considered again. There is no need to treat these anti-medicine and anti-science point of view people with kid gloves: they need to be respectfully told just how wrong they are.
http://www.infowars.com/the-coming-re-fluoridation-of-pinellas-county/
Pinellas commission sets vote on restoring fluoride to drinking water:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/pinellas-commission-sets-next-tuesday-for-fluoride-vote/1262454 [tampabay.com]

Opinion is anti-science. (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085815)

"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.

Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".

As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to the child for having to go to the doctor and get injected.

Meanwhile in my lifetime alone, the number of elements in the vaccination schedule (counting by number of protiens and adjunctavants) has _fallen_ by two full orders of magnitued. So there are more shots that contain fewer protiens by hundreds of times.

Deciding to take your child and make it an experimental subset of _one_ in an uncontrolled setting with no oversight is (wait for it) _unscientific_, again by defintion. It just makes you feel special because you bought into the bullshit. It makes you feel like you found "a middle ground"... But settling for a middle ground is not good nor scientific. It's blatant feel-good bull crap.

Calling "beleiving a hundred years of research" "blindly following" isn't intellectually honest.

What we are saying is that NO _SCIENTISTS_ SUPPORT B, and every SCIENTIFIC STUDY says B IS WRONG, which makes supporters of B fools if they think "science" is a good thing.

The burden of proof is on the descenters, and most desenters I have heard don't know the difference between "an adverse reaction" and "an adverse report", and will say that these three cases of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ANECDOTES are "proof" that the fully natural process of vaccination (it was discovered not invented) that has been done _BILLIONS_ of times in the last fifty years, were all happy accidental success stories that these three actors can prove wrong because its what they truely feel AS ACTORS...

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086111)

Blindly accepting "prevailing wisdom" without the knowledge to support it is every bit as "anti-science" as blindly accepting niche wisdom without the knowledge to support it. You look at the evidence available to you and form a conclusion, you don't just say "most scientists support idea A, so anyone who supports idea B is a fool." That helps no one and makes you look a fool.

This is backwards. I'll let you figure out on your own why believing a consensus of scientists is better than believing a small group of non-professionals given that you must accept 99% of what you know blindly. I don't verify all the physics and testing that goes into creating an airplane before I risk flying in one. Neither do you. We do not look at the evidence available to us because that would take longer than a human lifetime. What would you think of a person jumping in front of you at the airport saying that flying is GOING TO KILL YOU and that the only save way to travel is to WALK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD? You DO NOT HAVE all the evidence to refute that, you must depend on what other people are telling you, yet you are going to think that this person is a fool. The idea that that makes you anti-science and a fool yourself is ridiculous.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

Burpmaster (598437) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085755)

"...contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, " Any article that begins with a put-down of a generalized segment of the population in my opinion is already tainted with bias. I'll look elsewhere for reliable information, thanks.

The article is "tained with bias", but only because just calling them anti-science is too damn generous. They're an anti-science child-killing cult. Just because someone has an extremely negative opinion of X doesn't automatically mean they're biased. You need to educate [wikipedia.org] yourself [whatstheharm.net] on the matter before you can make the judgement. You might find the opinion is deserved.

Anti-Science is exactly the right term (2)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085779)

The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.

The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"

The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"

Put simply, you yourself know personally, or know of _billions_ _of_ _poeple_ who were vaccinated and sufferend no ill effects. If even a tiny fraction of what was said against vaccination were true, someone would have had to hide a chain of fifty million body bags and about 100 million "vaccine injuries" or whatever. It just _didn't_ happen.

The classic "I'll just go elsewhere for reliable informaton" is classic avoidance. You prove the "anti science" part true right there.

You don't have to be "unbiased" if the facts are already biased. You don't have to service the stupid, you just have to keep them and their kids away from yours so your's dont suffer from their stupidity. There is no honor or reason to treat one persons stupidity as "just as valid" as everbody elses' reasoned fact.

I've heard of all those "proud parents of unvaccinated children", well "pride goeth before distruction"... We are just trying to keep that distruciton at bey for as long as possible.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (1)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085883)

Any article that begins with a put-down of a generalized segment of the population in my opinion is already tainted with bias. I'll look elsewhere for reliable information, thanks.

This will almost certainly fall on deaf ears, but here goes, anyway.

Just because people hold opposing opinions does not give them the right to respect for those opinions. Both sides of a debate don't deserve equal airtime, equal attention, or equal consideration. Sometimes people are just wrong. And it's OK to call them on it.

The anti-vax crowd are nuts. We know this. They are wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong and we can be as sure of that as we are that gravity works, that things are made of atoms, or anything else. Arguing that they might have a point, or that acknowledging the truth is somehow biased is idiotic.

It's not biased to teach evolution to the exclusion of creationism, it's not biased to say that homeopathy is a sham, it's not biased to say that global warming is real, and it's certainly not biased to call people on their anti-science bullshit when they say that vaccines cause autism.

Re:The "anti-science" crowd? Seriously?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086077)

You've got it backwards. I always find it useful to rewrite these kinds of things in terms of Santa Claus: "...contrary to opinions from the believing-in-Santa crowd". At this point you can tell what the actual issue with this statement is. Anyone who isn't an idiot already knows that Santa Claus does not exist. Pissing those adults off who insist on Santa existing just doesn't matter. It's certainly not something that will cause a reasonable person to "look elsewhere for reliable information". The real problem is that the jab at those people is completely irrelevant and stupid - we already know those people are idiots, so why are you bringing them up at all? Why would we care enough about those people to mention them? So you are correct that this should not have been in there, but not for the reason that you give.

The "bias" you are revolted by is simply the bias of thinking that Science is a good way to go about knowing things. If that makes you go elsewhere then I think that nothing of value was lost.

Dangerous road ahead (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085761)

I'm pro-vaccine, but engineering a virus to live in your system for an extended period of time (up to the life of the carrier) is scary in a number of ways.

Others have mentioned the possibility of a mutation taking the previously harmless virus into harmful territory, which is bad enough, but remember this virus has been engineered to survive in your hostile immune system, so if it does mutate, good luck in getting rid of it afterward.

Less obviously, if it survives in your body indefinitely and activates your immune system, it's not clear what the long-term effects of that would be. How much energy would your body expend pumping out antibodies? Would that distract it from fighting other diseases? Can your immune system become fatigued? Studies show people with poor dental hygine are more succeptible to heart disease, and the reason given for this is that the immune system is busy fighting the bacteria in your mouth which makes it less able to take care of the internal stuff.

Regular vaccines are in your body for a couple days, tops, and generally only given while you are already in good health. Even in the unlikely event that the vaccine temporarily weakened your immune system enough that you catch another disease, the trade-off is good because the vaccine is generally preventing something much worse.

One of these vaccines would put constant stress on your immune system. Is that ok? It's really hard to say.

Chickenpox and shingles already does this. (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085805)

Re: virus living in your system for a long period of time: Chickenpox [wikipedia.org] already does this. Chickenpox is caused by the Varicella zoster virus [wikipedia.org] . After the initial infection, the virus lays dormant in the nervous system of the human infected, and then can flare up in the adult as Herpes zoster [wikipedia.org] also known as Shingles because it can appear on the skin in a shingle like shape because of the spreading pattern of the nerve level which is infected by the virus (dermatome).
.
I didn't RTFA to see whether it's modified chickenpox that they are proposing to use for this.

Which is proof that this may _not_ be a good idea. (4, Insightful)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085843)

Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.

So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.

And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.

So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.

We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.

Re:Chickenpox and shingles already does this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086269)

I currently know this to my cost. I'm recovering from a nasty bout of Shingles at the moment.
The virus (unmodified) can even withstand my body having chemo as part of my treatment for leukaemia. Hardy thing this chicken pox viurs. I had the pox aged 6. I'm now 59.
If they can harness the bit of the virus that keeps it in the body (still there even after all the blood transfusions I had) then great.

misconception ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085789)

I though the reason why we had to vaccinate each year, was because the virus had mutated in that time, making the vaccine ineffective.
So I understand now, it's actually the body that forgets how to fight it, and so it needs to be reminded every year.

Still confused, so if someone could clear it up, I would welcome it.

Re:misconception ? (2)

Tontoman (737489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085995)

Some types of viruses, like AIDS and flu, mutate more rapidly because of their mechanism of making DNA from RNA which is error-prone. http://www.virology.ws/2009/05/10/the-error-prone-ways-of-rna-synthesis/ [virology.ws] Other viruses are more stable may benefit from the idea in TFA. However, to me it seems dangerous to engineer viruses just reduce the number of required booster shots.

The NIH says the theory of vaccination is WRONG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085847)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22386268

No, it doesn't. (-1, Troll)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085861)

Parent is a cunt that can't read.

No They Don't you Anonymous Creten (2)

IBitOBear (410965) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085887)

That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.

That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.

It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".

It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.

Short sight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085851)

I believe the global vaccination programs are kind of vendor lock-in for human race. Without vaccinations we will be vulnerable because natural selection is disrupted.

Is there any study which tries to foresee the effect of this kind of global treatment on all people in long period of time?
This just can not have any good effect. I'm not against medicine and saving people lives but sometimes science is just playing too much in the realm where they should not touch anything! We are now in lost position because scientists already started putting their hands into it. Now it is only a matter of 100 or 200 years to realize all the disaster they did - but it will be too late...

A person might get sick! (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085865)

Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health

I like.

Love the anti-science crowd BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42085903)

Cause I would just love to get treated for something serious by doctors 100 years back. Get a limb sawn off or perhaps a few leeches to suck the evil spirits out of me! Yes, we are far beyond those days, but while I sit here and watch all these commercials about lawsuits for this drug or that drug. Or how about the new drugs with a laundry list of warnings about my liver. Lets face it... vaccines may be our best bet against virus X, but removing choice from the patient... um, no. It is good to see technology progress on this front, but to make light of the distrust some have of medicine ignores history.

Fact, 100 years from now, at best, doctors will think what we used was innovative. At worst, "leech kin technology". Still, they would likely have strong reservations against using said vaccine against virus X (even if it was killed off 50 years ago). Don't make light of those who are distrusting of new medical technology. There are far too many "oops" drugs and remedies to make such a stance appropriate.

Instead of flaming war between pro and antivacc (2)

haruvatu (1005347) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085943)

How many of you had taken all vaccine shots "offered" and " ordered" by the state? Are you plethora of health? Do you belive so strongly in vaccine industry so that you would risk your child with it? Or will you demand independent (if that is still possible) evaluation of results of the new vaccines? Instead of flaming war between pro and anti vaccination ,there should be logical view of the stands. I am pro science, also I do not beleive in truthfullnes of "scientific" results offered by the vaccine industry. And since there are no independent studies ( untainted by donations or personal contact with the industry) I stay by "do not harm" doctrine. Obviously you do not know all the efects of "modern" vaccine ofered on the market, so "do no harm" principle should point "take no vaccine if not urgently needed" direction. I would like to see if the owners and board of directors of the vaccine industry take all the vaccines they sell , also does their children take all those offered vaccines. I would also like to see do the doctors that preach vaccination take the doctrine and offer public data about vaccination of their children and family. Without that , vaccines are just a product that sells good in time of public fear, but it won't give you a more healty life othervise.

Re:Instead of flaming war between pro and antivacc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086147)

Well said. I hate the way this argument has become a pro/anti science question. Science is about scepticism. Questioning models and offering an alternative hypothesis.
Me, I'm very sceptical. If I have to put my faith in anything, then evolution beats a man made vaccine most of the time. Vaccines are a tool to fight disease that should be used with discrimination.
If we look at the triple vaccine, when I grew up in the 60's in Europe it was common to get measles. People weren't afraid of it and medical textbooks of the time referred to it as a mild infection. Of course there were complications - usually secondary infections which were treatable with good nursing and hospitalisation if (rarely) necessary. The lethal form of measles infection SSPE where it infects the brain is so rare that that the exact rate is uncertain.
Mumps was an unpleasant and uncomfortable part of childhood for people of my generation. It wasn't dangerous unless caught later in life where it could cause - very rarely - infertility in boys. Again, good nursing limited the occurrence and severity of secondary infections. Infection led to lifelong immunity. There have been reports of mumps being caught by vaccinated individuals, usually in late adolescence/early adulthood. Exactly the time when it could cause most harm.
Rubella can be so mild as to go unnoticed. It is included in the MMR because of the risks caused by infection if pregnant. Wouldn't it be much better for the population to be exposed to wild rubella and develop guaranteed lifelong immunity and for the testing and limited vaccination of 14 year old girls to catch those who haven't been infected?
But back in the 50's and 60's it was usual for there to be one parent at home to nurse the infected children. They didn't need to take the 2 weeks off work, which would now be financially difficult for both the individual, the business and the state (in those countries with a social welfare program). There was a report from one country (Norway I think, but I don't have the reference) that said that the main motivation for a general vaccination program is financial - to keep the parents working. I find it hard to see a medical reason in the general healthy population to vaccinate against these diseases.

A testimonial (1)

Turminder Xuss (2726733) | about a year and a half ago | (#42085959)

The technique of introducing rogue DNA/RNA engineered to periodically re-activate has been shown to be safe or my name's not Dr. Henry Jeckyll.

Boosting allergies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42086175)

And what if things go wrong, and the immune system is somehow directed into boosting an allergy reaction instead? I'm sure this is just another genius plan where nothing can go wrong.

Probably not a good idea (2)

3seas (184403) | about a year and a half ago | (#42086271)

for those who have bad reactions to a given vaccine it could mean death or a lifetime of ongoing issues.

only those in denial won't accept the fact there are exceptions and why most all medical treatments come with warnings.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...