Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Fans of Fox’s tin-foil hatter Glenn Beck discuss the Pittsburgh shooter Previous entry: Obama overseas: what a relief after Bush

How anti-vaccination hysteria is about sex, accidentally helping Big Pharma—-anything but science

It’s painful for me to write this, because I don’t like criticizing people I generally admire, but if I’m going to get on the right for sex-phobia and anti-science thinking, I have to do it for the left, too.  I hinted at my frustrations in my article about the reproductive health panel at WAM, but truth told, I was banging my head against my desk in frustration when a handful of anti-vaccination types absolutely destroyed any science-based, productive conversation by making the entire discussion about how Merck only invented Gardasil because they enjoy profiting off killing people.  It’s one of the most frustrating illogical habits of the left, to assume that because someone makes money at something, that action is almost surely immoral and probably actively evil.  You definitely get that every time someone tries to make a scandal out of the fact that liberal and feminist bloggers have advertisements, and you get it in the anti-vaccination hysteria.

Within the course of 10 minutes worth of questions, I heard every right wing myth about the HPV vaccination repackaged as an earnest feminist concern.  They didn’t test it at all!  With a side dose of acting like this is the first vaccination anyone ever invented, and this is a scary new technology. Truth is, they actually put it through the standard vaccination testing and approval process, and yes, they tested it on boys, too, so that right wing meme that’s seeped into liberal thinking is also what we liberals call “problematic”. The reason it was only approved for girls initially, I suspect, is that the FDA assumed it would be mandated like most childhood vaccinations are (because it’s no different than other childhood vaccinations, except for one thing—-what could that be?), and it was easier to sell it as a way to stop girls from getting cancer.  That was stupid, because if they’d done both genders right up front, they could have avoided even really dwelling on the fact that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, which could have prevented people from having “questions” they don’t have about other routine vaccinations.

Other myths that were trotted out: We don’t know enough about how it works.  (The same as other vaccines.)  It’s not a real contagious disease like airborne illnesses.  This one made me explode, because the implication is right out of Focus On Family’s propaganda on this vaccination—-the implication is that only sluts get HPV, and so you personally should have a right to opt out because you’re not a slut who gets STDs, and you resent being treated like a slut who gets STDs. I’m sure most feminists who trot this line out about how it’s not really a contagious disease would deny that there’s a bit of slut-shaming going on, but I fail to see what else it is.  Anyway, they’re wrong—-most of the women who nodded vigorously in the room when this was brought up probably already have had HPV, like most sexually active adults at some point in the lives, no matter how hard they try to keep their number low and respectable.  We are all sluts!  Truth is, most of us will have more than one partner in our lifetimes, and our partners will probably have more than one partner, so actually, HPV isn’t really different than an airborne illness at all.  After all, it’s only your slutty insistence on leaving the house and engaging with other people that makes you vulnerable to airborne illnesses.  You have the choice to be a shut-in.

I was disappointed to see a blogger I really admire engage some of these same myths about Gardasil, implying that the slickness of the Merck ads encouraging older women to get the vaccine is somehow evidence that the vaccine itself is questionable. She engaged in the same myths.  That it’s a “personal choice”, as if herd immunity isn’t a valid concern with HPV, which it is.  You bear some responsibility if you refuse to get the vaccine, get HPV, give it to a boyfriend, who then gives it to his next girlfriend, who then gets cervical cancer.  Sorry, but something to consider now that you have an option to avoid spreading this very common disease.  That the fact that Merck is making money automatically means that the vaccination is probably bad for you—-look, they make money on nearly every product they sell,* and most of us aren’t fearful about non-sexualized medications like cholesterol-lowering meds, insulin, painkillers they give you at the hospital, and a whole host of things that aren’t sexy enough to start a public panic.  That mandatory vaccinations is using women as “human guinea pigs”, which wrongly implies (yet again) that Merck didn’t put the vaccination through standardized vaccination testing.**  But I think what bothered me the most was this:

I’m not going to choose to get the HPV vaccine. Despite Gardasil’s almost frighteningly cute commercial, I’m perfectly happy with regularly scheduled pap smears to detect any risk for cervical cancer

Write this down and carry it with you as a reminder, especially every time you see Pink Ribbon campaign stuff: Cancer screening is not prevention.  I single out the Pink Ribbon campaigns, because they’ve been well-funded by companies who are suspected of putting out pollutants that could possibly be linked to breast cancer, so they have a strong interest in making people think that screening is prevention, as opposed to not being exposed to stuff that gives you cancer.  But screening is only prevention because it can prevent you from dying.  But if they find cervical cancer on your Pap smear, guess what?  You still have cancer, which you wouldn’t have had if you’d been vaccinated.  Since we all live in a first world country with regular access to medical care, most of us are unlikely to die of cervical cancer even if we get it.  But this isn’t true of women in developing countries, or sadly, poorer women right here at home, and this vaccine could do a world of good to keep them from dying.  Actual cancer prevention is things like not smoking, exercising, eating right, staying out of the sun without UV protection, and now, getting the HPV vaccine.

Pap smears do nothing to prevent you from getting cervical cancer if you have HPV, and even if you survive cervical cancer, I promise it’s not something you want to get.  Treatment usually involves removing your cervix and often your uterus, and then you’re probably looking at chemotherapy.  Regular Pap smears increase the chances that the treatment will be minimal, but it will still suck like nobody’s business. 

Obviously, most women aren’t going to get cervical cancer, even though most women will get HPV if not vaccinated.  So, it’s not a big deal, right?  Well, that depends on how lucky you are, it turns out.  Some people are super lucky, and HPV never manifests in genital warts and/or it clears up on its own and you never have to worry about.  And then there’s those of us who aren’t lucky, and I put myself in that category.  Turns out I have this weird genetic thing where my cervical cells are healthy but weird-shaped, and so I can’t get a clean Pap smear if there’s any HPV present.  (According to my doctor.)  That means that despite the fact that it’s highly unlikely that I’ve got cervical cancer, they have to watch me like a hawk to make sure nothing is going undetected.  Which means that, despite the fact that I’ve very squeamish and sensitive to pain in one particular area, I’ve had the pleasure of getting one cervical biopsy already and probably have more in my future.  Which is humiliating for me, because I get really nauseous from that specific pain, and it hurts my tender ego to have to lay down like a weenie for 20 minutes after the procedure to get my bearings.  A small deal compared to getting cancer, of course, but every time I think about it, I curse the fact that they developed this vaccination a decade too late, and I get upset with younger women who seem to think that it couldn’t happen to them.  Look, STDs are not a referendum on you as a moral person, and common ones that you’ll probably get despite safer sex practices like HPV are definitely not a referendum on you as a responsible person.  They’re germs, just like the ones you catch when you shake someone’s hand and, an hour later, rub your nose without washing your hands first.  The sooner people start to think like that, the better we as a society will be about squashing these diseases out of existence, because shame and unwillingness to admit that you’re at risk is why people spread them in the first place.  (Because they don’t get tested and get penicillin, because they don’t get vaccinated, because they have sex while infected while living in denial.) 

Believe me, I’m really sympathetic to the hostility to Big Pharma that gives liberals the space to embrace certain right wing memes about Gardasil, and to embrace anti-vaccination hysteria altogether.  Big Pharma does some really terrible things. But vaccinations aren’t really experimental treatments of the sort that are behind these horrible human rights abuses.  Even new vaccinations are basically developed using the same techniques that they have down to, pardon the pun, a science right now. 

When you attack vaccinations, you are really helping Big Pharma out.  First of all, you’re being an anti-science crank, and it allows Big Pharma to paint all critics as anti-science cranks, even though with legitimate concerns.  Second of all, you’re distracting people from the real issues.  The real issues are how they test experimental drugs (in some cases, like the link above), and how they spend their R&D money.  People who are freaking out about vaccinations are generally not the same people who are pointing out that drug companies spend all this money on developing mildly different kinds of erection drugs instead of spending that money researching new drugs that we really need, such as more vaccinations. And getting the spotlight off the real problems with drug companies is exactly what Big Pharma wants. 

*By the way, natural medicine fans who think that “alternative” medicines are a way to strike back at Big Pharma?  Odds are those supplements you’re taking are not only useless, but sold to you by a subsidiary of Big Pharma. 
**I do agree that forcing immigrant women to get the vaccination is stupid, especially since it’s not mandated for anyone else.  But mostly because of the cost, and because the sexual nature of it means you could be tripping up people’s religious superstitions. I don’t like that people take the sex-hating Sky Fairy so seriously, but giving them anti-STD drugs against their will isn’t the way to approach that problem.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:34 PM • (169) Comments

Excellent post. The other thing that stuck out to me about the blogger you quoted was the extroardinary privilege that blogger vomited all over the place. Sure, she can get a pap smear regularly, and even if her logic weren’t faulty about the difference between prevention and early detection, not every woman has that option. Way to just take a shit all over them. Plus there’s the whole problem of herd protection, as you mentioned; if not enough people get vaccinated, then the prevention doesn’t happen anyway..

I think the big thing this serves as an example of, though, is that dichotomous and short0sighted thinking is not just something that the political or religious right engages in. It might be slightly more harmful when it happens on the right, because there are more of them and they hold more political power inside their party, but we’ve got our own cranks too, and they can do plenty of damage given the chance.

Comment #1: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  04/05  at  02:06 PM

This is a great post. It’s vital to be aware that nonsense is nonsense, regardless of its ideological camouflage. Sometimes an error pops up on the Right, then gets adopted by the Left under different colors, and vice versa. A good example is the eugenics movement before 1945, which was supported by people on both sides of the Left-Right divide.

This post also points out one of the challenges we face in democracy. The modern world is based on science, which requires an emotion-free and objective methodology. When we discuss policy issues involving science, however, we enter the realm of emotions and psychological projection. This is especially the case when sex is involved. It’s not impossible to have rational civic discourse on science and public policy, but it involves a certain self-discipline usually missing from extreme partisanship. This is especially a problem when political dogmatism gets mixed up with religious doctrine, as we see with the so-called “Religious Right.”

Comment #2: Hamza al-Oaklandi  on  04/05  at  02:15 PM

I wish I had a cite for this-
I read somewhere that the reason they only recommend HPV vaccinations for girls is that they did a cost benefit analysis.  The HPV vaccine is an expensive vaccine.  They found that only vaccinating the female half of the population would significantly cut down on the incidence of HPV in the population.  Also vaccinating males had diminishing returns that did not justify the cost of the vaccine.  Personally, I favor vaccinating males as well, but in terms of public health and public health budgets, I understand the decision.

I’ve had genital warts.  It’s not fun to treat.  I had a stretch of time when I had irregular pap smears and had to go in for one twice a year to monitor the situation, and I’ve had those wonderful cervical biopsies.  This is something you want to avoid.  Yes, despite being very liberal when it comes to sex, I felt shame at having an STD.  I got over it.  Everyone else needs to get over it so we can make rational decisions for the next generations.

Comment #3: Isabella  on  04/05  at  02:20 PM

The leftist suspicion of the profit motive is especially annoying to those of us who are aware that virtually all Americans are either progressive Liberals or conservative Liberals, and the right (within reason) to pursue profit (although not to the exclusion of all other considerations) is a central tenet of Liberalism, one of the things that distinguishes it from Feudalism.

Comment #4: Dr. Psycho  on  04/05  at  02:25 PM

It’s especially funny that people criticize big pharma for making money off vaccines, when they are by far the least profitable and safest drugs they sell.

Comment #5: MaxPolun  on  04/05  at  02:25 PM

I did a presentation to some peer sex educators Friday, and they asked me if any mainstream feminists bought into the conservative hysteria over the “hook-up culture”.  And I joked, “I’m not naming any names….” and then thought better of it and said, basically no.  Which is true—-it’s a conservative thing.  But mostly there wasn’t time to warn the young’uns that feminists are part of this culture, too, and we’re influenced by negative attitudes about female sexuality.  I’ve definitely had problems talking about STDs with feminists, because the discourse is so loaded with judgment about your “number”.  These kids were refreshingly free of that hang-up, and I felt bad that they were going to be facing allies with these hang-ups.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  02:35 PM

And also that most people have more sex partners than they probably feel comfortable copping to.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  02:37 PM

The vaccine ought to be given to boys as well to be thorough—and some of them never sleep with girls!

Comment #8: TikiHead  on  04/05  at  02:43 PM

*By the way, natural medicine fans who think that “alternative” medicines are a way to strike back at Big Pharma?  Odds are those supplements you’re taking are not only useless, but sold to you by a subsidiary of Big Pharma.

And man, if you thought Coca-Cola and Poland Spring had figured out a way to make money off of water, wait until you see homeopathy.

Comment #9: Billingham  on  04/05  at  02:46 PM

Well, genital warts are no picnic for guys, regardless of sexual orientation.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  02:48 PM

This post is just very, very good.

I’m absolutely thrilled that my girls will have a chance to be protected from cervical cancer and genital warts.  So what if it doesn’t protect against 100% of HPVs?  80% is better than nothing, which is what they get if they aren’t vaccinated.

Fuck it, people.  We’re talking about CANCER.  Why is there any question about the need to prevent it?

Comment #11: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/05  at  02:57 PM

I wish I could afford to spend two month’s rent on this. Knowing how freaking common a disease it is, and that by golly I’m not in a low-risk demographic group, and that there is a preventative measure out there which I cannot afford to have is really freaking maddening.

Comment #12: purpleshoes  on  04/05  at  02:58 PM

Speaking as a connoisseur of pain, taking a twenty-minute lie-down after something as intrusive as a biopsy hardly makes you a weenie.

Vaccines and large-scale vaccination programs are as close to an unadulterated good as any human endeavor can be.  It’s been so successful that the hundreds of millions of people alive today and unscarred (by smallpox), unparalyzed (by polio), unsterilized (by mumps), able to breathe (thanks to not having had pertussis) forget that these things even existed, and were a huge threat to human life.  Vaccines are not without risks and not without side effects, but the diseases they prevent are so much worse one has to be willfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.

And this lesson is much better learned if the pupils have a background in basic biology, including evolution by natural selection of heritable traits.

Comment #13: kaninchen  on  04/05  at  03:00 PM

Also, as much as I hate Texas Governor Rick Perry (and dear frogs and fishes do I hate this guy, ‘specially right now with the “we don’t want your stinkin’ unemployment money” thing), he was dead right to try to make HPV vaccination mandatory for school children.  It wasn’t because he wanted to encourage sex among junior high student, but because making it mandatory also made it possible to use public funds to subsidize the (as noted, expensive) vaccine to children from poor families.  Thanks to the vast and ignorant public outcry against it, only the well-heeled or well-insured can afford it.

Isn’t slut-shaming awesome?

Comment #14: kaninchen  on  04/05  at  03:05 PM

It’s not a real contagious disease like airborne illnesses.

Oooookayyyyyyy… 

So we can only vaccinate people against diseases which are airborne? 

Right. 

Um.

So does this mean my doctor has takebacks on my polio, tetanus, hepatitis, and typhoid vacs?  Also, I hope none of these wackjobs ever have the misfortune of being bitten by a possibly rabid dog, because apparently rabies shots don’t really exist…

Comment #15: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  03:15 PM

Somehow, I’ve made it into my 30s without getting HPV (my OB actually tests for it as part of the Pap) and I really wish I could get Gardasil.  Alas, I am too old.  If I had a daughter, this would definitely be on my list of “necessary” vaccines.

Comment #16: history_mom  on  04/05  at  03:17 PM

Here in the UK we just lost a highly visible figure—Jade Goody died, aged 27, of cervical cancer.  Her life and struggle with the disease were very public, and my hope is that her illness will raise awareness enough to get parents and teens requesting the vaccine widely.

Comment #17: katieT  on  04/05  at  03:27 PM

Goody was first known as an abrasive figure, right?  I’m worried that might be used to imply that only bad women get HPV.  *sigh*

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  03:30 PM

the right (within reason) to pursue profit (although not to the exclusion of all other considerations) is a central tenet of Liberalism

But don’t tell that to any of the (MANY) strands of liberalism which are anti-capitalist…

Though I should of course stress that, as an anti-capitalist, I believe:

1. vaccines are still a virtually unqualified good.  Even if someone makes a buck.

2. whining about the nerve of specific individuals/groups of individuals to run a for-profit organization is a pretty severe misunderstanding of the anti-capitalist strains of most liberal political movements.  Socialism, anarchism, and other anti-capitalist progressive movements tend to look at capitalism on a systematic level rather than “wah! how dare you make money from x perfectly worthwhile endeavor?!” The goal is to eradicate the system of capital and its effects on humanity, NOT to bitch and moan about Merck or Google or AIG. (Well, moaning about AIG is sort of ok, for other reasons…)

Comment #19: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  03:32 PM

Great post, Amanda. It is very important to call out people whom we consider allies when they are full of shit.

Comment #20: PhysioProf  on  04/05  at  03:38 PM

I agree with you about the HPV vaccine - I’ve had it and I’ve encouraged all my friends to get it. I think it’s really important and I also feel frustrated by the people who denounce it utterly. Yet, I don’t think a healthy dose of skepticism is to be completely undermined. Being cautious about the product and raising questions about it - and about the motivations of Big Pharma are really important. There has been too long a history of issues related to women’s health going ignored and undiscussed and that it is now something that is prominent and garners focus is a good thing.

I do struggle with the fact that medications and/or vaccines I purchase profit companies that engage in activities I find abhorrent and I don’t think this is pig-headed or foolish or illogical of me to ask questions about motivations and effectiveness, nor do I think it buys into what Big Pharma wants. They want me to just take the vaccine and shut up. Instead I researched the vaccine beforehand and read stories of people who had been adversely affected by it, just so I at least had that information and knew what my choices were and what the potential risks were.

Based on what you’ve said I’m inclined think we disagree about a lot of things around, i guess, Capitalism. I do think that profiting from peoples health & well being is immoral. Pharmaceutical companies make money out of selling drugs that people need to live or to have a reasonable quality of life. They don’t ‘just’ break even, they make money out of people’s lives. I don’t see what isn’t immoral about that. Painting reasonable demands for information and questions around vaccinations aimed at women isn’t hysteria and the use of that particular word makes me really uncomfortable.

Comment #21: caitlinate  on  04/05  at  03:40 PM

Why do I think that people pushing HPV vaccine myths have very little personal experience with cancer?

Comment #22: Liz212  on  04/05  at  03:40 PM

My daughter will get Gardasil the day she’s old enough to get it, for the same reason she gets a flu vaccine every year, the same reason she got her DPT vaccine when she was an infant: THESE ARE PREVENTABLE DISEASES, AND I WOULD BE A TERRIBLE PARENT IF I LET HER GET THEM.

Sorry for shouting, but the antivaxxers don’t seem to be able to hear very well.

Do I worry that having my daughter vaccinated against HPV will make her a slutty slut? Well, I don’t care if she is, but even if I did, I’d worry about it as much as I worry that getting her DPT booster will lead to her jamming rusty nails into her hand.

Vaccines are one of the greatest gifts of modern medicine. They’ve literally added decades to the average lifespan. Unfortunately, too many people who have lived lives free of the fear of polio, measles, tetanus, and whooping cough are convinced that these diseases never really existed, and that the real enemy is the evil pharmaceutical companies who are getting rich off of vaccinating people.

Sorry. I’d much rather live in a world where choosing the wrong sexual partner doesn’t lead to my daughter’s getting cancer. If it profits Big Pharma a bit for my daughter not to get cancer? Good. They deserve it.

Comment #23: Jeff Fecke  on  04/05  at  03:40 PM

It’s not just that these cranks believe any for-profit industry is bad, because obviously naturopaths make a great deal of money. It’s that they literally believe there is a vast conspiracy of Western science and medicine that is keeping treatments like homeopathy from being recognized as legitimate. Big Pharma/Western scientists/The Five Jew Bankers don’t want us to know about the healing powers of crystals because then we’d all get healed super easy and wouldn’t pay doctors any money! They engage in an extreme form of relativism in which the scientific method is just another philosophy. They don’t understand (or believe) that the scientific method is used in medical research to determine whether a medicine or technique is significantly better than the placebo effect.

Interestingly enough, there is a similar conspiracy phenomenon that happens with agriculture. Just replace Big Pharma with Agri-Business.

Comment #24: Entomologista  on  04/05  at  03:40 PM

Being cautious about the product and raising questions about it - and about the motivations of Big Pharma are really important.

Sure.  On the other hand, it’s also important for your caution, skepticism, and question-raising to be based in reality.  Cherry-picking Gardasil to get worked up over out of all vaccines, or all recent medical advances, especially when there are heavy links to sexism and slut shaming in the choice of Gardasil as the object of your ire, is a bit sketchy.  Couching your caution in easily disproven lies is also maybe not such a great idea.

And, in re the concern about Big Pharma, the same is true.  There are a lot of reasons to be wary of the pharmaceutical industry (as for any big industry cornered by a few very large corporations).  Gardasil probably isn’t one of them, and certainly isn’t the most pertinent.  It just happens to play into our culture’s memes about sex and patriarchy.  Which is actively harmful because it discredits our cause and distracts from the lines of questioning we really should be focusing on.

If there are questions we should be raising about Gardasil, we might want to start with these: why isn’t it covered by so many insurance plans? why isn’t it mandatory? why isn’t it free?

Comment #25: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  03:50 PM

I’d worry about it as much as I worry that getting her DPT booster will lead to her jamming rusty nails into her hand.

This is a great analogy.  You’d never hear anyone but the nuttiest of the nutters suggest that the availability of tetanus shots encourages people to walk around barefoot willy-nilly and to seek out opportunities to step on rusty nails, or that it’s all a conspiracy of the barbed wire industry to avoid lawsuits.

Comment #26: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  03:55 PM

Amanda: It’s not just genital warts that guys have to worry about, either. HPV can cause anal cancer, which is no joke (well, maybe to Rush Limbaugh it’s a joke) and which is actually more prevalent among gay & bi men than cervical cancer is among women(*). During the wait for the approval of Gardasil, I was working at an HIV clinic… and every time they heard someone in the news saying that it made more sense to focus on young women, and that boys would benefit indirectly by herd immunity, all the doctors at the clinic would go “AARGH! Some of your boys are going to be gay.

(* Yeah, I know there are a few problems with the comparison in that statistic. It doesn’t take into account that there are gay & bi men who don’t go for the butt, and women who do. Still, it’s a lot of damn cancer either way.)

Comment #27: Hob  on  04/05  at  03:57 PM

Not to mention penile cancer, but that’s not as common.

Comment #28: Hob  on  04/05  at  03:58 PM

A very good friend of my mom’s and honorary extra grandparent to my kids died last year of cervical cancer.  It would have been really nice if there had been a vaccine for that when she was younger, because dying of cancer is a really sucky way to go and she was an absolutely wonderful woman.

I don’t have daughters, but my sons will be getting vaccinated against HPV as soon as they’re old enough for it too, even if I have to pay out of pocket to get it for them.  Because at some point in their lives they’ll be having sex with someone (and I really don’t care if they’re gay or not) and I don’t want them to get whatever kinds of cancer they’d be most at risk for, and I don’t want them to be passing any of this along to whatever partners they have.

Yeah, sure, vaccines have side effects and in some people those side effects will be very severe.  But that will be a very, very small percentage of the population, compared to the millions and millions of people saved by vaccines.

Comment #29: ks  on  04/05  at  04:08 PM

It’s especially funny that people criticize big pharma for making money off vaccines, when they are by far the least profitable and safest drugs they sell.

Especially when they threaten to stop producing all vaccines unless public health departments and the NIH mandate nationwide compulsory vaccination for a disease which does not scientifically merit such a mandate, but for which the vaccine will be highly profitable if they do.

In my mind, Big Pharma cut their own stupid throats and threw gasoline on the anti-vax fire with that ham-handed stupidity.  Sorry folks, but the epidemiology was simply NOT THERE for varicella.

Comment #30: Ms Kate  on  04/05  at  04:09 PM

Are there any reports from Britain on the Jade Goody front?  Has her untimely demise led to much consideration of the need for HPV vaccination?

If her story happened here, it would certainly be all about the slut shaming.

Comment #31: Ms Kate  on  04/05  at  04:14 PM

Interestingly enough, there is a similar conspiracy phenomenon that happens with agriculture. Just replace Big Pharma with Agri-Business.

I’d say that both impulses, at least in their more moderate and reasonable forms, are rooted in an anti-capitalist impulse.  But you’re right that for a lot of reasons it turns into tin-foil-hattism very quickly.

For instance a large part of the movements against agribusiness is that potentially dangerous* things are being done purely for profit motive, regardless of the long term safety or sustainability of the approach.  Also that agribusiness takes the means of food production away from the people and puts them strictly in the hands of just a few huge corporations which have very little accountability to anyone, and which even control government agricultural and food policies. 

Similarly, I think the underlying ideas behind the popularity of folk medicine is that these are remedies used for centuries, which in many cases grow wild or are easily cultivated and created by everyday people**.  Which is an attractive counter for the allopathic medical industry which one can see as concentrating on exclusive treatments that are unavailable to ordinary people without taking on massive costs (both the obvious financial ones as well as the larger sociocultural ones, like needing to stay in a shitty corporate job in order to have access to care at all). 

*things like a lack of biodiversity, or the emphasis on hybrid seeds which don’t remain true to type, which sound peachy now but are unsustainable and thus potentially disastrous.

**many of which have been adopted by allopathic medicine when they are proven to actually work.

Comment #32: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  04:26 PM

My daughter will get Gardasil the day she’s old enough to get it, for the same reason she gets a flu vaccine every year, the same reason she got her DPT vaccine when she was an infant: THESE ARE PREVENTABLE DISEASES, AND I WOULD BE A TERRIBLE PARENT IF I LET HER GET THEM.

I don’t have any kids, and I probably never will, but I just wanted to say HELLZ FUKIN YEAH.

This bizarre ongoing paranoia about vaccinations is driving me nuts.

Comment #33: Scott  on  04/05  at  04:29 PM

Well, genital warts are no picnic for guys, regardless of sexual orientation.

Nah, that’s too easy a straight line…

Comment #34: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/05  at  04:29 PM

During the wait for the approval of Gardasil, I was working at an HIV clinic… and every time they heard someone in the news saying that it made more sense to focus on young women, and that boys would benefit indirectly by herd immunity, all the doctors at the clinic would go “AARGH! Some of your boys are going to be gay.”

Exactly!  And at age 12, we really don’t know who they are (as if that should matter).  I would much like for my boys to get the HPV vaccine, even pay out of pocket, but the docs aren’t offering it yet because it is “untested” on boys.

Comment #35: Ms Kate  on  04/05  at  04:31 PM

I was banging my head against my desk in frustration when a handful of anti-vaccination types absolutely destroyed any science-based, productive conversation by making the entire discussion about how Merck only invented Gardasil because they enjoy profiting off killing people.  It’s one of the most frustrating illogical habits of the left, to assume that because someone makes money at something, that action is almost surely immoral and probably actively evil.

Thank you.  Truth be told, there are a lot of great scientists who work for large pharmaceutical companies.  Many of them (myself included) are actually progressives, too, surprise surprise!  We don’t actually sit around, twirl our mustaches and think about ingenious ways of killing people for profit.  Having said that, there are a lot (too numerous to mention) problems with Big Pharma which are indefensible.  But, they have the ability to do great science and produce some good drugs.*  Progressives sure do shoot themselves in the foot when they believe in Big Pharma’s science = profit = bad bad bad!  It’s not that simple.

*Mostly for affluent Westerners, but that’s a whole other issue…

Comment #36: Cat Ion  on  04/05  at  04:36 PM

eing cautious about the product and raising questions about it - and about the motivations of Big Pharma are really important.

That’s the sort of feel-good statement that bothers me, though.  “Raising questions” as an unquestionable good when the “questions” are just anti-science or paranoid is, as I said in the post, actually doing more harm than good.  If you raise questions without giving any critical analysis to your own questions—-if you think questions are good regardless of the content—-then you give the people you’re raising questions about a reason to discredit you if you ever do happen to have legitimate questions.

Comment #37: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  04:39 PM

I’ll also reiterate this point—-the questions that get asked are being selected not because they are the best questions, but because they’re the ones that prey most on people’s ill-formed anxieties about sexuality, especially female sexuality.  Yes, even feminists have these anxieties—-we live in the same culture, after all.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  04:42 PM

The coverage of Jade Goody has been pretty much exclusively positive.  In fact, the most negative thing I’ve heard said is people asking whether we really really needed to see all the details of the death of an ex-reality TV show “celebrity”.  That was me saying it - making a dig at celebrity culture, not Jade Goody herself.

The tabloids, who of course have been all over this, have been talking up how her very public death has caused a large increase in women going for smear tests, and has lead to a campaign to lower the age for the NHS screening programme (from 25 to 20 I think).  The HPV virus and vaccine has been pretty much absent from the coverage, but there hasn’t been any slut-shaming that I’ve seen.  Hopefully, the tabloids will follow this up by ceasing to give publicity to the tiny (like tiny tiny) Christian groups that have been going on about how the vaccine will encourage promiscuity.

Comment #39: Katherine  on  04/05  at  04:51 PM

there is a lot of emotion being expressed here that i do not think is helping the discussion.  i do not consider myself to be anti-science or helping Big Pharma, but i do have a natural caution when it comes to drug company breakthroughs.  I have read of diabetics who died from a drug that was a breakthrough.  i am witnessing Attorneys General suing drug manufacturers using RICO statutes regarding drugs marketed as breakthroughs for mental illness (and i think the one in Connecticut happens to involve Merck.)  I have heard of people developing diabetes, of men becoming impotent .... these drugs were fast tracked thru a FDA that not even the British Government is willing to trust anymore.

I spoke with my doctor as these patterns developed and voiced concerns about new drug developments and told her that i would prefer to take a conservative approach to the use of drugs and when possible to limit my exposure to drugs that are 7 years old (in the case of drugs being used with children, i added a year as that is the expiration date for patents) and they have have exhausted patent protections.  (I have noticed that the ‘recalls’ and ‘black box’ warnings always seem to be issued after the patents expire ...).  My doctor considers that wise and prudent.

The issue is not anti-capitalism, it is not hate of profit.  The issue is why should i assume that fraudulent behavior was limited to Wall Street .... particularly when the evidence is piling up pretty substantially that it is endemic throughout the corporate world.

When trust but verify doesn’t apply because there is no way to ‘verify’ .. .then wait and see is the only option i can turn to .. others may not be as cautious as i, but then my life experiences may lead me to a different conclusion than that of the poster. 

Conditions that cause death are equal in my mind.  I do not consider it useful or humane to try to sort them out as to which is worse than the other.  and much of the emotional language i see here seems to be trying to do just that.

It may simply reflect a difference in age .... death is far more abhorrent and triggers a lot of emotions in young people that fades as a person ages. 

And when the condition that leads to the death is paired up with sexual behavior ... then it’s very hard to remain detached.  Detachment is good.

Comment #40: cassie  on  04/05  at  05:04 PM

The Opoponax:

Similarly, I think the underlying ideas behind the popularity of folk medicine is that these are remedies used for centuries, which in many cases grow wild or are easily cultivated and created by everyday people**.  Which is an attractive counter for the allopathic medical industry which one can see as concentrating on exclusive treatments that are unavailable to ordinary people without taking on massive costs (both the obvious financial ones as well as the larger sociocultural ones, like needing to stay in a shitty corporate job in order to have access to care at all).

But of course, home-remedy folk medicines alluded to aren’t generally the ones being supported by the alt-medders.  It’s stuff you buy, as someone said above, from companies that are usually subsidiaries of Big Pharma companies.  And they enjoy equal or even greater profit margins, because if they’re dietary supplements, you don’t have to prove they’re effective or even safe.  No need for even a show trial.

Comment #41: oldfeminist  on  04/05  at  05:12 PM

JoAnne - yes, yes, and yes.  Though it’s still a hell of a lot cheaper to take a little St. John’s Wort than to get a prescription for antidepressants.  Whether or not the St. John’s Wort actually works or not being another question entirely.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  05:20 PM

Christian groups that have been going on about how the vaccine will encourage promiscuity.

Of course, before there were ways to prevent and cure STDs there was no “promiscuity”.  Oh no, nothing like that.  People didn’t contract and spread syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. or suffer the consequences of their youthful behavior or of their partner’s behavior either.

Didn’t HeLa, who died young of cervical cancer and left an immortal cell line of immeasurable value, have five kids, a husband, a family?  Thought so.

Comment #43: Ms Kate  on  04/05  at  06:00 PM

I spoke with my doctor as these patterns developed and voiced concerns about new drug developments and told her that i would prefer to take a conservative approach to the use of drugs and when possible to limit my exposure to drugs that are 7 years old (in the case of drugs being used with children, i added a year as that is the expiration date for patents) and they have have exhausted patent protections.  (I have noticed that the ‘recalls’ and ‘black box’ warnings always seem to be issued after the patents expire ...).  My doctor considers that wise and prudent.

Consider yourself privileged that you can take that approach.  Obviously neither you nor your children suffer from chronic disease that is currently not adequately treated, and continues to progress and cause damage to your body. 

Those of us in that situation read journal articles, watching new drugs move through the testing and approval process, waiting for the big breakthrough, hoping at long last for adequate pain management and control of the destructive forces within our bodies. 

It must be nice to sit back and judge Big Pharma from a position of health, rather than to desperately need their products in order to live a happy and functional life.

Comment #44: hydropsyche  on  04/05  at  06:10 PM

addendum: the physician i referenced in my earlier comment is trained in public health; i think the best course of action is to leave it up to the individual patient and physician; to be informed by all sides, etc.  Not all issues are clearly black and white as much as we’d love them to be so; you don’t have to insist on white to argue against black; there is grey is there not?  I don’t think the jury is in yet.  but it may be. 

I am a DES daughter.  My mother’s physician prescribed DES to her to try to help her avoid miscarriages.  She acted in good faith.  Decades later, DES went from a ‘wonderful’ drug to ‘oh, oh’ .. and worse yet, doctors had to decide what do we do with what we are seeing in the young daughters?  do we act aggressively or conservatively….  some doctors chose a course of action that was later proved to be the right one; others didn’t ....that’s life, isn’t it?  the ‘correct’ path is not marked for everything, even medicine which is science-based.  Should i say that the doctor who helped my mother have a child was wrong because the end result was i couldn’t have children myself and bear a higher risk of cervical cancer?  of course not.  but at least we have a world now where women can discuss it with their doctor, gain some information, be part of the process…. do you have any idea how many women were given DES and not even told what the drug was .. and how many of my friends were DES exposed and didn’t have a clue?  Who didn’t understand why they were barren, who didn’t understand why they got cancer? who had no idea why their young adult and teen sons got testicular cancer?

so, even tho my cancer risk is the same kind of cancer you are trying to prevent and its threat is probably more real for me than some of you, i can take still a very different position on this vaccine.  isn’t that what we want for each other?  even if it means making what seems to be a foolish choice and taking what seems from the outside to be a foolish position?

as to this? ” and most of us aren’t fearful about non-sexualized medications like cholesterol-lowering meds, insulin, painkillers they give you at the hospital, and a whole host of things that aren’t sexy enough to start a public panic. ” VIOXX, Avantia, Zyprexa, Oxycontin, Zoloft, the myth of the efficacy of SSRI’s, neurontin,  .. the relationship between SSRI’s and school shooters ... Abilify ..... public panic no.  sexy no.  but something to pay attention to re: pattern of corporate behavior and FDA and physician/researcher complicity? for me, yes. 

 

re:

Comment #45: cassie  on  04/05  at  06:15 PM

“about how Merck only invented Gardasil because they enjoy profiting off killing people.”

Yargh.

Okay, someone who actually has a career in Big Pharma weighing in here.

The motives of Big Pharma are the same as the motives of all other for-profit companies, which is to make money.  Not a mystery, nor a conspiracy, unless everyone who owns or works for a business for the cash compensation that they live off of is in on it.

HOWEVER…and I am speaking with some specific insider knowledge here…Merck knew perfectly well that, regardless of the profit potential of Gardasil, they would also be attacked like wounded deer by starving wolves in the public spotlight for daring to market Gardasil.  They were NOT, no indeed, taken by surprise by both the right wing slutwatch brigade nor the left-wing crunchy vaccines-are-evil brigade. 

They had, and have, lots and lots of other potentially massively profitable products in the pipeline, a good chunk of which promise to invoke practically no political controversy.  Profit without pain!!

They didn’t have to go ahead with Gardasil, not from a financial perspective nor any other.  They had a lot of internal discussions about the furor it would raise amongst the previously mentioned groups.  They actually went forward with it because they thought it was a worthy cause.

They’re not angels—oh hell no.  They wouldn’t have done it if Gardasil hadn’t also promised to be profitable, because money is the bottom line.  But there were and are a lot of other ways for them to make the same amount of $$$ without the moralistic controversy.  They accepted that because, as I said, they genuinely were also committed to the idea of eradicating the HPV virus.

Comment #46: Lisa KS  on  04/05  at  06:18 PM

hydropsyche:

“Consider yourself privileged that you can take that approach.  Obviously neither you nor your children suffer from chronic disease that is currently not adequately treated, and continues to progress and cause damage to your body.

Those of us in that situation read journal articles, watching new drugs move through the testing and approval process, waiting for the big breakthrough, hoping at long last for adequate pain management and control of the destructive forces within our bodies.

It must be nice to sit back and judge Big Pharma from a position of health, rather than to desperately need their products in order to live a happy and functional life.”

please do not assume anything about my current health situation, or imagine that i am not in the same category as you and it may be that i have been similarly situated far longer than you.  I have shared some, but not all.  i did not think it necessary.

Comment #47: cassie  on  04/05  at  06:21 PM

Just for completeness, I would like to point out that there are thousands of “New Age” parents who oppose any vaccination for any reason, even for diseases that wiped out or permanently damaged children, like DPT, polio, measles, mumps, etc. Sometimes the fear of autism is raised as a justification. As long as such parents are relatively few in number, their kids can ride free because they are surrounded by immunized kids, who cannot transmit diseases to them.

In terms of prophylactic measures: Before World War II, state legislatures required doctors to put silver nitrate eyedrops in all newborns, to prevent blindness caused by gonorrhea. Somehow, in a much more moralistic era than ours, legislatures were convinced that enough mothers had gonorrhea that they mandated this preventative measure for 100% of newborns. I wonder what persuasive techniques were used.

Comment #48: Hector B.  on  04/05  at  06:31 PM

The Opoponax: “Though it’s still a hell of a lot cheaper to take a little St. John’s Wort than to get a prescription for antidepressants.  Whether or not the St. John’s Wort actually works or not being another question entirely.”

Yes, good point.  If it’s cheaper but does nothing, then you’ve spent a little money for nothing rather than a lot of money for something.  If the something works, which it often doesn’t, or has side effects that are untenable for you. 

The St John’s Wort studies seemed uncertain last time I checked, but I haven’t been following them recently.

Some people do either grow their own St. John’s wort or wildcraft it (find it wild and use it).  Knowing how much you’re dosing yourself with would seem a valid concern here, as well as contaminaton in the case of wild plants. 

Wild-collected or free-collected plants are not uncommon in manufactured materials, though, so buying a pill is no guarantee of safety.  The building where I work is ringed with Gingko trees.  Every year, when they drop their fruits, a group of people come and collect them and sell them to alt-med pill makers.  This building is in the middle of the city!  Buses and other diesel vehicles pass by hundreds of times a day spewing particulate matter.  This and who knows what else is on those fruits (besides stink of course but that’s the nature of the things!).

Weren’t some manufacturers (German?) selling pills with some kind of measured content?

Comment #49: oldfeminist  on  04/05  at  06:32 PM

I wonder what persuasive techniques were used.

I would imagine that the legislation was written in such a way as to obscure the sexual connection.  I know I’ve read old-ish books that talk about the use of silver nitrate which manage never to mention just what it was for, exactly. 

I also imagine that in an era before NonStop Constant Media Outrage Overload, these measures were passed and enacted without the vast majority of people ever knowing about them, so the politicians didn’t have to worry about their constituents being all freaked about governmental acknowledgment that people have sex - even the more politically aware folks would just know about it as “this public health measure to prevent blindness in babies”.  The only people who needed to know the specifics would be public health officials and medical personnel who’d had substantial training to the effect that STD’s exist and need to be combatted.

Then again, have you seen some of those military VD films?

Comment #50: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  06:39 PM

Should i say that the doctor who helped my mother have a child was wrong because the end result was i couldn’t have children myself and bear a higher risk of cervical cancer?

This is, of course, the ironic part:  since cervical cancer is only caused by HPV, the drug your mother took actually put you in a position where you’re more likely than anyone here to have your life saved by Gardasil if you haven’t been infected with HPV yet.

Comment #51: Mnemosyne  on  04/05  at  06:43 PM

Then again, have you seen some of those military VD films?

I’ve mentioned this before, but I have an absolutely fascinating book by Kevin Brownlow called Behind the Mask of Innocence, which is all about “social problem” films made in the silent era.  Syphilis was a HUGE social problem, with thousands of babies being born with congenital syphilis every year and million of adults infected and spreading it all over the country.  It’s really interesting to read about the films that were made and the constraints of censorship under which they were made (less uniform than under the Production Code, but more frustrating since literally every city in every state had their own censorship board with its own standards).

Comment #52: Mnemosyne  on  04/05  at  06:51 PM

If it’s cheaper but does nothing, then you’ve spent a little money for nothing rather than a lot of money for something.

Then again, it probably also sucks to spend a lot of money on something like psychiatric care only to find out that nothing is changing for you.  Or go on antidepressants only to find out the side effects outweigh the benefits.

Note that I’m not advocating traditional medicine over the allopathic approach, I just understand why it is attractive sometimes even to very reasonable and scientifically-minded people.  It’s not all crystal woo. 

Personal example: I suffer from moderately intense Seasonal Affective Disorder just about every winter.  However, I can’t afford to take a field trip into the land of current allopathic treatments for SAD.  Especially with the prospect that they might not work or might have little or no impact on my actual quality of life.  So I take supplements and do what I can to manage my condition on my own.  If I read about an alternative treatment, I consider trying it if it seems rooted in actual science.  I’m not going to close off worthwhile approaches to my health because I’m afraid someone like Amanda is going to think it’s stupid hippy crap.

Comment #53: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  06:51 PM

I thought they didn’t test the HPV vaccine on males because HPV is harder to test for in males than in females.

Vaccines are among the cheapest forms of preventative medicine. But I still feel uncomfortable about the healthcare industry being an industry. Healthcare doesn’t have to be non-profit, but I don’t think it’s safe to have a handful companies holding our lives in the balance. It’s kinda creepy. That being said, I find it ridiculous that a vocal fraction of the left is against vaccines. If the right weren’t so anti-science itself, they could really jump on that and make us lefties out to be really out-of-touch.

Comment #54: Emily  on  04/05  at  06:52 PM

However, I can’t afford to take a field trip into the land of current allopathic treatments for SAD.

Ironically, the #1, doctor-recommended allopathic treatment for SAD?  A light box.  Most studies show they work better than drugs.

Comment #55: Mnemosyne  on  04/05  at  06:54 PM

I’ve looked into getting one of those, actually.  Every year I say I’m going to do it.  This was my big year of “I will make a concerted effort to get actual sun; also, Vitamin D!”  Results were mixed.  Next year might be my light box year.

Comment #56: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  06:58 PM

Outstanding post, Amanda! Anti-vaccine hysteria is not only baffling, but is leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases such as measles, whooping cough and meningitis. Equally baffling is the reluctance of too many in our news and entertainment media to takes sides in this debate. Just the other day Larry King hosted anti-vaccine cranks Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, who went on and on about how vaccines cause autism. Thank you for your due diligence and common sense. Please keep it up!

Comment #57: AutismNewsBeat  on  04/05  at  07:00 PM

St. John’s Wort may or may not be effective as a mood-lifter, but it has been proven to make the birth control pill less effective.  If you’re on the pill, do not take St. John’s Wort, unless you’re eager to get pregnant, which I’m guessing you’re not, since you’re on the pill.

Comment #58: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  07:19 PM

cassie, it’s really rich for someone who’s emotionally invested in an irrational paranoia to preach to the calm ones about “emotion”.  Sheesh.

Comment #59: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  07:20 PM

“I don’t like that people take the sex-hating Sky Fairy so seriously, but giving them anti-STD drugs against their will isn’t the way to approach that problem.”


shouldn’t this be true for everybody?


-non-anti-science crank (who gives the HPV shot all day long and would get it herself if in the age group and non-monogamous)  against medical fascism

Comment #60: martha  on  04/05  at  07:23 PM

This non-debate wouldn’t even be possible if we didn’t have the big lie of perfect independence floating around in our culture. To even imply that we might have a social responsibilit towards one another that necessitates vaccination would get you accused of socialism. As if a single human being gets through even a day without the support of another. If we had the independence myth busted, sure the slut-shaming crowd would still froth, but they really couldn’t get much traction in any other groups.

Comment #61: No One of Consequence  on  04/05  at  07:27 PM

I’ve looked into getting one of those, actually.  Every year I say I’m going to do it.  This was my big year of “I will make a concerted effort to get actual sun; also, Vitamin D!” Results were mixed.  Next year might be my light box year.

I’d really recommend it! I’ve got SAD (with a little depression, anxiety, and OCD thrown in there for shits and giggles) and I can absolutely tell a difference when I do or don’t get enough full-spectrum light. A research lab where my friend works apparently got full full-spectrum lighting installed recently, and she told me that all the other scientists and lab folks will wander by and just sort of bask at the doorway ever now and then. ^^

Back on topic… so slutty women deserve to be punished with babies and cancer, but people still object to drawing any parallels between the two things? </snark>

Comment #62: Bagelsan  on  04/05  at  07:29 PM

Just like with more mainstream Big Pharma/Western Medicine treatments, traditional medicines still need to be looked at closely in terms of drug interactions and whether they are the right treatment for a particular individual.

Comment #63: The Opoponax  on  04/05  at  07:29 PM

The thing is, Martha, that mandatory vaccinations often make the drug cheaper and easier for people to get, so you have to weigh that (plus the herd immunity concerns) against other factors.  But I do think that a lot of people who are okay with most mandatory vaccinations would get into a pure panic over HPV, because the shot implies that you are a sexual person, and that makes Jesus cry.  That you are a sexual person whether you get the shot or not is irrelevant—-people are remarkably good at deluding themselves into thinking the sex they get doesn’t count, but if they had to take medical steps in reaction to that, they’d freak out at the implications.  If your church is reinforcing the message that only dirty whores need this kind of protection, you’re even more likely to freak out.  I think if people could be rational about this, mandates wouldn’t be such a big deal.

Comment #64: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  07:32 PM

Risk perception is so damn skewed for people… Go put your kids in the car and take ‘em for a 5 min drive over to the doctor and get them vaccinated. Guess which half of those instructions just put them at a *much* higher risk of death? Or hell, stay home, and be at risk for the huge number of fatalities that result from kids playing in the backyard. 9.9 Or maybe you should just bubble wrap them, and put them in an airtight container away from all human contact (bonus: they can’t have sex this way either, and will be safe from HPV! Score!*)

*alternative bonus: now your unvaccinated children can’t give anyone else’s kids all their nasty diseases. That’s called a win-win…

Comment #65: Bagelsan  on  04/05  at  07:35 PM

Unfortunately, there’s so many potential drug interactions that it’s hard to do that, especially with supplements.  They only discovered the St. John’s Wort thing because doctors started to notice an uptick in pregnancies with women on the pill who said they were using it.  Then they researched it, and yeah, even if you’re lucky enough not to get pregnant using it, it causes all sorts of bleeding issues.  I think it interferes with how you metabolize it.

Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/05  at  07:44 PM

a few things -

1.  Gardasil *was* tested on males for immunogenicity (but not efficacy initially).  And that was because they picked CIN as their efficacy outcome.  Yes, I’ve read the clinical trials.

2.  HPV is not only transmitted sexually.  Can we all just remember this?  Slut-shaming is not even applicable here.

3.  Pap smears are a lot more invasive than a few shots in the arm.  Think about the big picture kids.

Comment #67: laurylen  on  04/05  at  07:45 PM

and you didn’t hear it from me, but there will be a mega-vaccine that protects against all (or most) of the HPV viruses in the next 10 yrs.

Comment #68: laurylen  on  04/05  at  07:47 PM

Or maybe you should just bubble wrap them, and put them in an airtight container away from all human contact (bonus: they can’t have sex this way either, and will be safe from HPV! Score!*)

Have you ever seen that frickin’ commercial for a meningitis vaccine (I think it’s Menactra, but I can’t remember)?  Seriously, the entire commercial signals, “Any one of your child’s friends could be carrying a deadly disease!  Your child could die at any second because s/he has friends!”  It’s sick.

Comment #69: Mnemosyne  on  04/05  at  07:55 PM

Amanda,
A rare post that I actually, largely, agree with.  Re: St. Johns wort, it affects the metabolism of a lot of drugs, including anti-rejection drugs and when taken with many prescription antidepressants results in a significant possibility of causing seritonin syndrome, which can be very serious.  Until the supplements are FDA regulated for purity, safety, and effectiveness, I always counsel patients to avoid them

Comment #70: tomonthebay  on  04/05  at  07:58 PM

I’m actually aware of the connection between mandates and getting it paid for by the state currently (for minors), but why do we all have to accept this as the only unalterable possibility (here’s where I get accused of not being realistic, even with the first African-American democratic president currently in office)  Why not expand access in other ways? I completely agree with you that the fervor related to HPV is out of proportion compared to other vaccines for some people (sky fairy types in particular) due to the s-e-x connection. I still will always choose education, advocacy and voluntary access over mandates.  People can be smarter and more rational than you think. That’s all.

Comment #71: martha  on  04/05  at  08:15 PM

There’s more to the Jane Goody story than the media here and there have even wanted to explore.  I’ve seen some instances of using her case to attack socialized medicine (she’s English! and her teeth probably weren’t great either!,) mention in People Magazine about her brave fight to live (gag!,) suggestions that she was an evil bitch who deserved to die (note to self: avoid reality television,) and a whole lot of other things.  But the truth is, she was someone who didn’t take care of a medical condition.  And now she’s dead.

http://scienceblogs.com/culturedish/2009/02/a_nation_obsessed_with_jade_go.php

The lesson that should be learned: don’t ignore problems.

Comment #72: 3letterjon  on  04/05  at  08:23 PM

I work in an oncology clinic so I see people struggle with with cervical and anal cancer which is often the result of HPV infection. I can’t stress how important it is to fight both the right wing sex punishers, and the left wing purveyors of new age woo.

Thanks for posting on this Amanda.  PZ Meyers and Phil Plait have also been fighting the anti-vaxxers, so good for them too.

Comment #73: pablo  on  04/05  at  08:31 PM

Ms Kate: Sorry folks, but the epidemiology was simply NOT THERE for varicella.

So, I’m not insane? This is the only vaccine I opted out of for the kid, because all the studies I have seen just indicate it’s more problematic than miracle.  This is what I see:

- the studies out there indicate that the vaccine has a much, much higher chance of decreasing immunity over time than actual exposure to the disease, and it is a disease which is much more a serious risk at an older age than younger

- the decrease of varicella in common circulation is leading to ill effects in the older population (an explosion in the number of shingles cases, because regular exposure to varicella kept immunity “primed”)

- the increase in possibility that even those of us who have had varicella itself may require vaccination against it in the future, as our exposure decreases and our immunity “expires”

But unfortunately I live in a state where, while there are exemptions you can file at school age, those exemptions do not exist for daycare/preschool age. Our current daycare did not press the issue, but the kid was still “legal” (under 24 months) at their last licensing renewal and the licensing is for 3 years. We want to move him to Montessori, and I suspect I am going to have to have him vaccinated if he doesn’t come down with it before August.  And the third point above just makes me throw up my hands—it doesn’t seem that herd immunity is actually ever going to work for varicella, anyhow, and even if the kid GETS it, chances are he’s going to have to be vaccinated at some point in his life anyhow.

Comment #74: hp  on  04/05  at  09:14 PM

I think it interferes with how you metabolize it.


Very much so:

Pharmacokinetic interactions

St John’s wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions mainly through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A4, but also CYP2C9. This results in the increased metabolism of those drugs, resulting in decreased concentration and clinical effect. The principal constituent thought to be responsible is hyperforin.

St Johns’ wort probably shouldn’t be taken with anything stronger than aspirin, YMMV.

Comment #75: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  04/05  at  09:20 PM

We cannot consider anti-vaxers (and their fellow anti-science travelers like the alternative medicine community, the hard greens, and the New Agers) to be part of us. They may agree with us on some critical issues, but I think it’s important to realize that in the grand scheme of things, the anti-science squad is working against us just as surely as the wingnuts. Kick them to the curb if they won’t listen to the evidence.

Comment #76: BrianX  on  04/05  at  09:22 PM

But I do think that a lot of people who are okay with most mandatory vaccinations would get into a pure panic over HPV, because the shot implies that you are a sexual person, and that makes Jesus cry.

Or it implies that your 12 or 13 year old daughter is or soon will be a sexual person and that makes daddies cry.

Great post.

Here’s another; it’s a highly informative and well-written survey of all the diseases eliminated by vaccination in the 20th century and their horrible effects that are now virtually unknown in the developed world.  It’s also a great primer on immunology and its history.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010978.html#010978

Here’s something that gets me about the idea of vaccination as corporate conspiracy: if one assumes that long-term profitability is the only goal of Big Pharma, even to the exclusion of public health, then the anti-vaccination movement itself would serve their interests.

Which is more potentially profitable:
1.  Recommending as standard procedure that all women get annual or semi-annual screening for life and selling chemo- or radiation therapy (and the drugs that go with that) to the many who do get cervical cancer, followed by continued screening for life and possible treatment for recurrences, all the while maintaining cervical cancer as a fact of modern life.

2.  Eliminating cervical cancer through once-in-a-lifetime vaccination for all.

Seems to me Big Pharma missed out on some great profits by eliminating all those potentially profitable diseases.

Comment #77: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/05  at  09:33 PM

Seems to me Big Pharma missed out on some great profits by eliminating all those potentially profitable diseases.

Some people (gah!  I just did the Fox News ‘some people’ but I’m too lazy to do my interweb research tonight) suggest that Big Pharma does do this with some chronic and highly profitable conditions, like diabetes, by focusing all their research efforts on therapies to manage the condition, not drugs to flat-out cure it.  It’s plausible enough, but then again, this research is fucking expensive, and it’s usually far easier to improve something you know works than invent something completely new.  Takes less time, too.  I’m not defending Merck, god knows they are difficult as all hell to deal with, and I don’t even deal with pharmaceuticals(they have their fingers in so many pies).  But it is true that most people have no inkling of the incredible amounts of time and money that this kind of research takes.  Unfortunately, science ain’t cheap, especially the bits of it that we stick in people’s bodies.

Comment #78: Kyso K  on  04/05  at  09:58 PM

I was silver nitrated in 1969. And Gardisil is a great idea. Cost/benefit analysis may show it’s a better bet for girls, but at least some boys should get it too. Not only would this reduce transmission among gay men, vaccinating at least some males would be a wild card that further increased herd immunity.

Imagine a future where a fairly common cancer becomes rare.

And Opponax. DIY light therapy for SAD is pretty cheap. Get a couple of shop lights ($13) and put in one tube with a color temperature less than 5500K ($13) and one ZooMed repti-sun UVB light ($40). Stay under these lights during all your predawn household activities. Heat your house enough that that you can get the UVB on your skin. There are little UVB compacts that you could use at work. UVB lights can be found anyplace that sells reptiles and the low K tubes are available anyplace that sells aquarium fish.

Comment #79: Bacopa  on  04/05  at  10:07 PM

Fellow SAD sufferers, google for the “LEVITY” study.  It’s a SAD protocol that has worked fairly well for me, and doesn’t require any prescriptions.  I don’t think it is effective as moving somewhere with actual sunlight in the wintertime, but I did feel much more functional when I kept up on the extra vitamins and outdoor walks.

Comment #80: RP  on  04/05  at  10:15 PM

Mnemosyne: re my risk i don’t think that is really true.  doctors do not agree with you on that point as far as i know.  DES is a separate risk.  and as we DES exposed women are aging we are at risk for uterine and breast cancer as well….

the larger point is medicine is still an art, not a science, and that people who have diseases are often placed in a position where everyone is flipping coins on what to do.

further, i lost a close friend to cervical cancer a few years ago.  I can tell you it wasn’t DES or HPV that killed her—it was lack of access to early diagnosis and treatment due to NO INSURANCE and INADEQUATE WAGES.  The last i heard the survival rate for cervical cancer is 80% with regular screenings.  I couldn’t get her to get to a doctor until she was Stage IV.

Comment #81: cassie  on  04/05  at  10:33 PM

Amanda: if my public health degreed physician and the Attorney General of Connecticut and the British Government do not trust FDA approval ... or the truthfulness of drug companies, are you saying they are being emotional and paranoid.  That my friend is rich.

What is so threatening to you about someone not seeing things the way you do?  are you gonna take away my liberal card?  cause i’ve paid my dues for it long ago.  In case you haven’t noticed it is possible for individual lefties and individual righties to come to agreement on some things.  and your post made it obvious to me that i have probably done more reading about the current state of R&D;in drug companies than you have.  I don’t need to be fueled by repressive, anti-science, anti-sexual liberation attitudes to be concerned about the proliferation of vaccines in the R&D;and marketing branches of Big Pharma.  If you haven’t noticed, they do focus on profit.  that is their mandate as corporations.  That means that R&D;is devoted to areas that will attract the most business ... which the blogger you referred to spoke of….orphan drugs?  they don’t do those.

And i seem to remember reading that there is some suspicion among researchers that the multiple and repeated injection of a wide variety of vaccines could be impacting the immune system….and if you may have noticed immune system disorders are reaching epidemic proportions.

Sad that you choose to diss someone and make it personal.  I read your posts because i generally see you not play that game.  it’s child’s play.  it’s not useful.  anyone can do it.  so why don’t you give it up?

Comment #82: cassie  on  04/05  at  10:42 PM

I can tell you it wasn’t DES or HPV that killed her

I’m pretty sure that HPV was a proximate cause of her death, in legal terms.  Was it inevitable that she’d die after she got HPV?  No.  But it’s a but-for factor. 

medicine is still an art, not a science

Science does not equal “always going to work”.  Science is the messy, often fatal process of throwing solutions up against a problem and seeing what works, what doesn’t, and what causes even worse problems.  Every time we take a pill or a shot or consent to surgery we’re continuing a scientific experiment.  The problem with some drugs, such as DES, is that the group of guinea pigs includes generations into the future.

Of course, I haven’t been royally screwed over by Big Pharma in the way that DES daughters (and granddaughters, and grandsons) have been - to tell you the truth, Big Pharma makes it possible for me to work without falling into despair and to plan my future without having to worry about unexpected pregnancy.

Comment #83: Maureen  on  04/05  at  11:01 PM

my youngest sister (the one who refuses to use condoms, because she’s stupid) got HPV. and *SHE* was given Gardasil for free because of it.
but I, i cannot get Gardasil. because i am 32.
but they are also trying to make it a requirement for immigration (as Amanda notes) - even women too old to get it otherwise? WTF???

Comment #84: denelian  on  04/05  at  11:05 PM

Hey BrianX, fuck you.  I mean that. 

Anti-science is one thing, but none of the groups you describe are necessarily that, often are not, and at any rate are very much more the political allies of liberals and leftists.  They’re not “working against us just as surely as the wingnuts.”  You’re an fool if you think that, but maybe you’re just exaggerating your position out of anger at the anti-vax assholes. 

I get annoyed at people who don’t think and I oppose such when they interfere with public policy to the public’s detriment as with the anti-vax crowd, but none of the types you describe are actively working against your, or our, interests like the Christian Right and the economic royalists do.

(I’m assuming from your comment that you consider yourself one of “us,” the Pandagon regulars, whose politics are left-leaning liberal, feminist, humanist, secular, etc.  I’ll give benefit of doubt as to being a deliberately divisive troll.)

First, lots of people become “hard greens,” (I assume you mean radical environmentalists) precisely because they do understand the sciences behind it, including wildlife biology, climatology, epidemiology, organic chemistry.  I got a bit involved with such groups as Greenpeace and EarthFirst back in the day because I’d taken classes in biology and ecology.  With new science awareness, I went from seeing pollution that I’d thought of as an sad but necessary reality of modern life to seeing it as an immediate threat to public health, biodiversity, and even the continued existence of human life, all for the sake of short-term greed, and it pissed me off.  How many wildlife biologists do you think exist who aren’t at least sympathetic to the “hard greens” if not actual Greens themselves?  Are they anti-science?

New-Ageism (a term so broad, poorly defined it’s meaningless) is just a form of religious practice and therefore politically neutral per se; the New Age people I’ve known have been either lefties, anarchists, and occasionally libertarian, but mostly apolitical and rarely conservative. 

And just wtf is a “New Ager” anyway?  I do yoga, my mother does astrology, both of us are atheists.  Is any particular non-scientific practice associated with ancient traditions for the purpose of feeling good sufficient to render us anti-science New Agers?

If so, and that makes us all your political enemy rather than your ally, that’s your problem and your doing.  I’m a lifelong dem and was active for Obama in ‘08.  That and some phone banking for other dems, reading and commenting on blogs, and rare petitioning is the sum total of my political activity.  That compares to, say, the right-wing eliminationists who want liberals SHOT how exactly?

Just how the hell does it make me worthy of being kicked to the curb, let alone conflated with people who would, say, put another Bush in office, gut environmental regulations, bust unions and put all workers into debt servitude, blame everything on the gayswomenimmigrantsblacksjewswhoever, or who actively work towards making the US some blend of laissez-faire privatized feudal economy and christianist theocracy?

There’s a difference between strongly advocating in favor of science-based policy and demonizing as enemies anyone who practices anything that isn’t established science yet.  You cross the line from being pro-science to being anti-liberal when you espouse bigotry.

The “alternative medicine community” is another overly broad term and includes, yes, actual scientists and doctors; it’s not just the anti-vax people.  Not everything is in fact best treated or prevented with a patented pill, and yes, Big Pharma does and has long engendered legitimate gripes against it, sufficient for some to be cautious about the industry that tells us constantly to “ask your doctor about…” every newly-developed and heavily marketed product.  Alternative medicine includes simply reducing the likelihood of illness through healthy living and seeking out remedies known to be effective. 

As Opop said, it’s not all crystal woo.  Don’t conflate alt med with New Ageism if you can’t sufficiently define either to correctly identify allies from enemies.

As Amanda pointed out, among the many problems with the anti-vax anti-sciencism is that it serves to discredit anyone with legitimate complaints about standardized conventional corporate for-profit health care.  Suddenly anyone with a gripe is “anti-science” and should be shunned.  Your comment is a perfect example of how that works, whether you meant it to or not.

Comment #85: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/05  at  11:09 PM

also:
i am on a fair number of meds, meds that i have to have just to be able to get off of my bed (literally) one of those drugs is fentanyl. its an opiate, it comes in a patch that you ear for 2-3 days so you alays have the same dose (no ups and downs)
it costs $650 a month.
but i have a patient assistance program for THAT. that is free for me.
i also take oxycodone, halcyon, zanaflex and phengrin (the phenegrin is because everything else makes me throw up)
thatsover $250 a month, and is all out-of-pocket right now, because i have crappy insurance (only pays $1250 a year, and it goes by school year, so i have Rx coverage from September through about January)
i actually pay MORE for my meds than i pay for my portion of the rent (lots of roommates)

these are all OLD drugs (exept the fentanyl). there is NO reason for them to cost that much. for GENERICS.

Comment #86: denelian  on  04/05  at  11:11 PM

RobW:

You can say whatever you want, but your all-or-nothing attitude brands you as precisely the sort of person we on the left do not need. I am not a bigot for insisting that policies we advocate have to have solid empirical proof, and I am not a bigot for insisting that people who want people to be open-minded be open-minded enough themselves to admit they might be wrong.

Simple rule: if it worked, it wouldn’t be “alternative”. The people you defend are a drain on the left’s credibility and serve only to make the rest of us look like gullible morons.

Comment #87: BrianX  on  04/05  at  11:30 PM

Oh, and I don’t want your sort shot, RobW. I just want you ignored.

Comment #88: BrianX  on  04/05  at  11:34 PM

Or better, converted to the cause of “prove it or lose it”. But if that doesn’t work, ignored.

Comment #89: BrianX  on  04/06  at  12:00 AM

How the hell can you be an atheist while doing astrology?

Comment #90: Billingham  on  04/06  at  12:07 AM

It’s plausible enough, but then again, this research is fucking expensive, and it’s usually far easier to improve something you know works than invent something completely new.

That’s why when really awesome new stuff like the HPV vaccination comes down the pike, it’s often because a lot of the initial research was government-funded.

Comment #91: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/06  at  12:36 AM

Who’s doing astrology?  Technically, you could not believe in a god or gods but still in fate, though obviously only through strong hostility to reality.

Comment #92: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/06  at  12:41 AM

I do agree that forcing immigrant women to get the vaccination is stupid, especially since it’s not mandated for anyone else.

Weird vaccinations are part of the green card process. Some of the mandated jabs are ones that doctors in Foreign never administer, but got added to the law/regulations and no-one bothered to update them, because fuck it, immigrants can’t vote. (The immigration medical is basically obsessed with STDs.)

On the other hand, I have expat friends with kids who have objected not to the types of vaccination, but the schedule: American doctors want to stick a lot of vaccines in small people over a relatively short timeframe.

Comment #93: pseudonymous in nc  on  04/06  at  01:05 AM

Amanda: precisely my point, about any of the above points.

Comment #94: BrianX  on  04/06  at  01:05 AM

You can say whatever you want, but your all-or-nothing attitude brands you as precisely the sort of person we on the left do not need. I am not a bigot for insisting that policies we advocate have to have solid empirical proof,

You might be an idiot without reading comprehension, though.

RobW is correct that empirical science is on the side of the “hard greens.” I’m not one of them, and I have a hard time imagining how I, we, will have to alter our lives to make civilization sustainable. We are on the road to certain catastrophe right now, and if we do not show down and make some turns, we are fucked, fucked, a thousand times fucked.

RobW is correct that some of what falls under “New Age” classifications—inconsistent though those classifications are—is benign or even useful. Yoga is stretching and exercise. Of course it’s going to have positive effects on the body, including the nervous system.

You are the one with the “all or nothing attitude.” You are the one saying that anyone who thinks this, that, or the other, is the enemy of the left.

Comment #95: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:00 AM

oops. show down = slow down

Comment #96: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:01 AM

I have questions about Gardasil if anyone can help. I don’t have health insurance. How much does it cost? Does it cost more for men (probably a stupid question, but that’s okay)? Is it true they just will not let you have the vaccine if you are too old? I am 29. But since I love the cock, I think I’m one of the men who could definitely use inoculation.

Comment #97: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:09 AM

asdf:

Maybe I’m misusing terminology, but when I think “Hard green” I think of people such as ELF, ALF, PeTA, and the like that have let their ideology get ahead of the science. I do not consider things such as “Silent Spring” or the current body of research on global warming to fall into that category. And yes, I do think they are the enemy, because as I said, like it or not the right wing lumps us all together and uses their stupidity and extreme emotional approach as examples to embarass us all.

No quarter. Follow the evidence or you’re not with us.

Comment #98: BrianX  on  04/06  at  02:13 AM

The leftist suspicion of the profit motive is especially annoying to those of us who are aware that virtually all Americans are either progressive Liberals or conservative Liberals, and the right (within reason) to pursue profit (although not to the exclusion of all other considerations) is a central tenet of Liberalism, one of the things that distinguishes it from Feudalism.

There’s a lot of conflation going on here. Suspicion of an individual’s or a group’s profit motive is not the same as a political stance that all profit is unrightful or illegitimate.

Suspicion of profit is an ancient ape tradition, whether genetic or social. What is that other ape trying to take from you? Is he or she trying to manipulate you out of your food or status? This suspicion serves us well. What is that televangelist trying to offer you in return for your money, is it worth it? Has this car salesperson inflated the profit margin so much that you could haggle a couple thousand dollars off and everyone would still feel satisfied?

We are suspicious of profit because it is so often used to hurt people. It would be dangerous to abandon this suspicion.

Comment #99: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:21 AM

asdf:

At the same time, it would be foolish to consider suspicion of profit as proof of anything. It’s a tool for evaluating evidence; it is not evidence in and of itself. That confusion is what led to the long-discredited belief that microwaves, power lines, and cell phones cause cancer—writer Paul Brodeur started not with the science but with cui bono?, and wound up created a meme that has lasted over thirty years but has been discredited by every study that has ever been done on the subject.

Comment #100: BrianX  on  04/06  at  02:25 AM

You can say whatever you want, but your all-or-nothing attitude brands you as precisely the sort of person we on the left do not need.

Quoted for irony.

You are the one who considers people who disagree with you on some things but generally agree and share your short and long term goals to be exactly the same as those who oppose you in every way and despise everything you stand for and insist that anyone who thinks or acts unconventionally are to be shunned because they make your group look bad.  And I’m the one with an “all or nothing attitude?” 

Fool, I’m just the guy pointing out that it’s actually a lot more complicated than that.

I am not a bigot for insisting that policies we advocate have to have solid empirical proof,

Right, that’s not why you’re a bigot.  See, that’s not what you said.  If it were all you said, we’d have no argument.  What you said was this:

We cannot consider anti-vaxers (and their fellow anti-science travelers like the alternative medicine community, the hard greens, and the New Agers) to be part of us. They may agree with us on some critical issues, but I think it’s important to realize that in the grand scheme of things, the anti-science squad is working against us just as surely as the wingnuts. Kick them to the curb if they won’t listen to the evidence.

You lumped together groups that are hugely diverse among themselves and from each other as if they were all one entity, the “anti-science squad.”  You further accuse them all of being anti-science fellow travelers with the anti-vaxers.  You declare them all alike to be not “part of us.” Without defining just who “us” is, by the way. 

Taken together, these acts do in fact make you a bigot: treating a wide variety of people as essentially all the same, and to be the same as another group altogether, and different from “us.”  They are Others.  There are no differences among them, no common ground between us and them, they are the same as our enemy.  They should be shunned.  That’s bigotry.  Admit it, apologize for it or not, but let’s move on.

You go further and assert that they are all, again without any distinction among them because you’ve already denied that there is any, “working against us just as surely as the wingnuts.”  You provide absolutely nothing to back up that assertion, but you do provide the rest of evidence that you can’t tell the difference between a wide range of allies who generally are on your side and people who actually oppose you, despise you and everything you stand for.

Your whole comment was wrong on too many levels too ignore: I disputed the idea that any of these groups are inherently or necessarily anti-science, and I gave specific examples in each case.  I also pointed out that you were being unfair: by conflating those specific groups whom I argued, and gave personal examples, are not generally anti-science with another specific group that is, that was bigotry.

Here’s the basic logical error of your first comment: it’s self-contradictory:

</i>They may agree with us on some critical issues, but I think it’s important to realize that in the grand scheme of things, the anti-science squad is working against us just as surely as the wingnuts.</i>

Huh?  If they agree with us on some critical issues, then in the grand scheme, they are NOT working against us just as surely as as the wingnuts.  Because the wingnuts agree with us on nothing.

But hey, you’re all about evidence, logic, and reason, right?  Yet in that one comment all you offered were unsubstantiated accusation, guilt by false association, argument by assertion, and a blatant logical error.  Each of which I pointed out and refuted with examples. And you were insulting about it to boot, hence the hostile tone of my first reply.

Comment #101: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  02:32 AM

Maybe I’m misusing terminology, but when I think “Hard green”

Perhaps we both are. Google identifies “hard green” as a right wing anti-environmental movement.

I think of people such as ELF, ALF, PeTA, and the like that have let their ideology get ahead of the science.

PETA has been known to abuse science. Animal rights is not a “green” movement of any sort. It’s classical liberalism extended to nonhumans. ALF and ELF, as far as I know, do not do science or call upon it for justification. They are making tactical decisions from ethical premises. Questions of “is it wrong to kill a cow” are not addressed by science, any more than “is it wrong to kill a human.” Science is not philosophy or ethics.

Now, there can be empirical questions like “given the assumption that it is wrong to destroy a forest, is it effective to destroy property in pursuit of an anti-forestry movement?” It may be that ELF is empirically wrong in their tactics. However, I’m quite sure that there are no peer reviewed studies on that question yet.

Comment #102: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:32 AM

At the same time, it would be foolish to consider suspicion of profit as proof of anything.

I didn’t say otherwise. There’s no such thing as proof, except in formal systems like mathematics.

Comment #103: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:34 AM

I am not a bigot for insisting that people who want people to be open-minded be open-minded enough themselves to admit they might be wrong.

More irony.  Tell you what: I’ll freely admit that there is no scientific basis for either my yoga practice or my mother’s astrology.  They are just something I do for exercise and health and my mother does as a symbolic system for helping her think about people, events, and relationships.  No scientific basis whatsoever for either: we do what we do because we enjoy ancient traditions.  They’re fun.

I’ve pointed out several flaws in your reasoning in your first comment and in your rebuttal.  Will you now admit the possibility that it’s you who are wrong?  Are you open-minded enough?

Simple rule: if it worked, it wouldn’t be “alternative”.
Must be nice to simply make up your own definitions for words.  Makes arguments easier, but it doesn’t make them true.  “Alternative” is simply “other than the conventional.”  And what exactly is “it” in that sentence?  ALL alternative medicine?  Are you suggesting there is no place for herbal medicine, despite the vast array of pharmaceuticals derived from plants?  No place for midwives or duallas?  Go ahead and make that assertion on a feminist site, I dare you.  Is chiropracty included in your idea of alternative medicine?  Is a cancer patient who smokes or eats cannabis to alleviate nausea and stimulate appetite a freak to be shunned, but ok if they take the THC in pill form?

The people you defend are a drain on the left’s credibility and serve only to make the rest of us look like gullibe morons.

The people I defend are the normal everyday folks who in some way act outside what you consider to be the mainstream: people who care deeply about the environment enough to be radical and active about it, people who drink chamomile and slippery elm tea rather than Nyquil or Robitussin, people who engage in ancient traditions for reasons that don’t necessarily have anything to do with spirituality and in ways other than praying to jebus. 

Not just your dismissal, but your demonization of them all as an “anti-science squad” no different from the anti-vaxers and an embarrassment to be shunned if not active enemies does far more damage to your own credibility than such people do to the left’s.

Anyway, just who do you think “the left” is, anyway?  Do you even realize that the unconventional and nonconformative have been mostly on the left since there ever was such a thing as right-left divide? 

If that’s a problem for you, the problem is yours and not theirs.  Maybe you’re on the wrong side.  If you’re not, then lighten up, remember tolerance is a liberal value, and learn how to tell your allies from your enemies.  Start by shutting up and listening when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Oh, and I don’t want your sort shot, RobW. I just want you ignored.

Again, you didn’t read, or you didn’t understand, what I wrote.  I said it was the WINGNUTS, that is, the far right who actually do oppose liberals on every issue, who want, not just you or I, but all liberals, shot.  That’s a bit of an exaggeration if applied to ALL wingnuts, but a perusal of any Freeper thread reveals that it’s not too far out of the mainstream for their side.  There’s a lot of violent fantasy that you just don’t see much of on this side of the divide. 

That’s why your conflation of New Agers, et al, with such people is just so bizarre.  One group wants to work with you towards common goals, despite some basically irrelevant disagreements- and I’m not including the anti-vaxers- and the other group wants you marginalized at best and outright eliminated at worst.  Do you get that yet?

Anyway, if you want me ignored, then ignore me.  You have neither the ability nor the right to prevent me from speaking my mind, including calling you out for being flat wrong.  Think you’re not wrong?  Refute me.  Or ignore me.  I don’t care.

Or better, converted to the cause of “prove it or lose it”. But if that doesn’t work, ignored.

I proved you wrong.  You lose.  Now I’ll ignore you. 

Unless of course you’re open-minded enough to admit you were wrong.  I won’t even ask for an apology, hell, I’ll retract my own insults if you can admit even the possibility for your own error.  If you can’t do that, I guess my “fuck you” still stands.

Comment #104: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  02:35 AM

RobW:

You sound like a commenter on a Martin Gardner book who looks at it and says “Well, he was right on in all the chapters except the one about my favorite kook.” You’ve proven nothing except that you want some kind of special pleading for certain kinds of non-evidential thinking. That makes you our enemy whether you want to admit it or not.

And no, I don’t have the ability to prevent you from speaking your mind, nor should I. But I believe your ideas are misguided, your best “arguments” are insults and special pleadings, and you lost the argument the moment you started it. This is why I think you should be ignored.

Comment #105: BrianX  on  04/06  at  02:44 AM

The motives of Big Pharma are the same as the motives of all other for-profit companies, which is to make money.  Not a mystery, nor a conspiracy, unless everyone who owns or works for a business for the cash compensation that they live off of is in on it.

This is worth saying, because it’s foolish to see the pharmaceutical industry as categorically different from the shipping industry or the pornography industry or whatever.

But can I remove “or who works for”—since workers are coerced in the position of working somewhere or not eating—and say that everyone who owns any of these businesses is effectively in conspiracy? And that, as boards are run by stockholders not stakeholders, they do not answer to democratic processes, and they hide their internal affairs from public scrutiny, so they are operating in mystery?

They wouldn’t have done it if Gardasil hadn’t also promised to be profitable, because money is the bottom line.

What is that if not conspiracy? There will be other drugs which could help humanity, but which will not be released if they cannot be made profitable. Nationalization of the pharmaceutical industry could change that, but corporations have a legally-enforceable duty to their shareholders to maximize returns.

I don’t want to say that because conspiracies exist, the people involved in them are incapable of ever doing the right thing. That overlooks the complexity of human motivations. I see that Merck made the better choice by releasing Gardasil. But just because they can do good does not make them not a conspiracy.

Comment #106: asdf  on  04/06  at  02:53 AM

What is that if not conspiracy?

Running a business where you choose to develop some products over others is a de facto conspiracy?  Seriously?

Comment #107: Mnemosyne  on  04/06  at  02:58 AM

asdf:

That’s a very good argument in favor of such things as what Brazil did with HIV drugs a decade or so ago, blatantly violating the patents in order to get the meds to other people, as well as a strong argument for operational transparency, at least in publicly traded companies.

As for “conspiracy”, I guess it depends on whether you consider the word to refer to an explicit criminal activity or not. But that will be a consideration whenever you’re dealing with for-profit entities, especially in an economy such as ours where the governmental authorities shy away from regulation because someone is convinced that will cut into profit.

Comment #108: BrianX  on  04/06  at  02:59 AM

You’ve proven nothing except that you want some kind of special pleading for certain kinds of non-evidential thinking. That makes you our enemy whether you want to admit it or not.

Brian, empiricism does not touch all things. There is no amount of evidence that will establish it’s wrong to kill a person. There is no amount of evidence that will establish it’s wrong to destroy the planet.

Certain things RobW has offered are empirical. Yoga is exercise, and exercise is healthful. The counterargument would actually be the extraordinary claim.

And other things, like his mother enjoying astrology, just cannot reasonably be argued as work of “the enemy.” The astrology industry is a predatory sham, but private practice of astrology is morally neutral.

Comment #109: asdf  on  04/06  at  03:01 AM

Running a business where you choose to develop some products over others is a de facto conspiracy?  Seriously?

Oh, I guess that depends on what Brian said. I don’t think of “conspiracy” as necessarily illegal. An illegal conspiracy is one that is not particularly effective yet. The effective ones get themselves legalized.

Comment #110: asdf  on  04/06  at  03:03 AM

Frankly, RobW, don’t stand opposed to something that a lot of us take quite seriously - an evidence-based approach to dealing with the universe around us - and then try to tell us what a great ally you are.

Chet, please point to where in my comments I’ve stood so opposed.  I’m in fact all about the evidence-based approach, especially in matters of public policy.  I’m an atheist, a student of history and poli-sci and formerly a student of natural sciences.  I’m a leftist.  I’m a Democrat.  What I oppose is narrow-mindedness that permits BrianX to decide who gets to belong to what side of the political spectrum: The Left is a big tent.  I understand that and accept it.  He doesn’t.

“Alternative medicine” means seeking out remedies that nobody knows if they’re effective or not,

Ok, I’ll buy that.

because the philosophy of alternative medicine rejects scientific inquiry and analysis as the only means by which to determine the efficacy of treatments.

But not that.  What exactly are we defining as alternative medicine?  I’m thinking mainly of herbal medicine, but also exercise and diet regimens.  People find what works for them through trial and error after inquiry of others’ experiences.  How is that not scientific?  Herbal medicine particularly is based on centuries of practice and experimentation.  By, you know, doctors.  Including in recent centuries.  Merck and Pfizer didn’t exactly materialize at the dawn of the Enlightenment.

That the existing regulatory regime does not encourage, for one thing, standardization of formulas or even testing for efficacy, and therefore makes either prescription or self-medication problemetic is a whole other ball of wax- one might consider it a form of regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry.  But of course that would make me a crazy crank if I brought up that possibility, right?

I don’t believe that there is any cause so noble that fools won’t rally to it,

Damn right.

so I’m not as opposed to your presence in the “progressive” camp as Brian is.

Gee thanks.  Good thing it’s not your camp, nor his.  It’s ours.

But I have no more love for you and your sort than he does; you make the rest of us look like idiots.

So who asked for your love, anyway?  And what is my “sort?”  Are you going to lump me in with the anti-vaxers too because I used to raise money for Greenpeace or something like that?

I do?  How, exactly?  By not hating people who do weird things for their own reasons?  By giving a shit about air, water, wildlife?  By pointing out flaws in the thinking of a particular jerk?  By respecting the necessary tolerance for diversity of thought for any successful political movement, especially one that, you know, celebrates diversity.

Amanda: please see my reply to BX regarding the way my mother views her astrology practice.  I don’t bother with it myself.

Hasn’t this blog had a few long, long, threads regarding the potential allies for leftist and humanist goals among the religious?  It really wasn’t my intention to go down that road yet again.  I get that as a philosophical matter, we can have serious reservations about people whose fundamental view of the world varies so greatly from ours.  But as a practical political matter, there are and have always been, significant overlaps in terms of goals.  I’m in favor of a pragmatic alliance with whatever group can help us get progressive changes going.  That includes crunchy pagans, libertion theology catholics, christian left, buddhists, wiccans, whatever.

Yes, I agree that they’re all basically wrong to whatever degree any of them may reject a science based approach to the world.  I also dispute that many of them really do reject it.  Even fundies go to doctors when they’re sick.  Ok, except the Jehovah’s Witnesses and a few others.

Comment #111: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  03:05 AM

But I believe your ideas are misguided, your best “arguments” are insults and special pleadings, and you lost the argument the moment you started it. This is why I think you should be ignored.

So, you can point to the flaws in my argument, yes? 

No?  Oh, right.  Just assert that I’m wrong.  And assert that I should be ignored even as you respond with nothing.

Comment #112: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  03:08 AM

asdf:

It is possibly true that empiricism does not touch all things. However, a very good case can be made that anything that is not empirical doesn’t matter, as it can’t be measured or meaningfully observed. As for astrology being the enemy, I completely disagree. It is irrational by its very nature and can lead people to take actions that are nonsensical or harmful if they choose to believe in it.

If you think I’m being hyperbolic about calling people who hold such beliefs enemies, I suggest you look at whatstheharm.net or the Skeptic’s Dictionary—these things are often more dangerous than even people who put no stock in them realize.

Comment #113: BrianX  on  04/06  at  03:11 AM

RobW:

There is no point in refuting your arguments. As I said, they essentially come down to special pleading and abuse of the concept of tolerance.

Comment #114: BrianX  on  04/06  at  03:12 AM

It is possibly true that empiricism does not touch all things. However, a very good case can be made that anything that is not empirical doesn’t matter, as it can’t be measured or meaningfully observed.

Make that case then. I do not think a very good case can be made that ethics can be fully rooted in empiricism—I have tried—or that ethics don’t matter.

In my experience, actions can be measured for their service to given values, but those values cannot be justified without certain non-empirical appeals, like “I desire to avoid pain, therefore it is wrong to harm me.” This value can be justified by comparing it to competing claims, as for the rightness of harming me, but the instruments of this measurement are all thought experiments, grounded in empathy.

As for astrology being the enemy, I completely disagree. It is irrational by its very nature and can lead people to take actions that are nonsensical or harmful if they choose to believe in it.

It can do all that. And yet, this same truth applies to every religion ever, including our progressive religious humanist allies. Are they too our enemies? They have potential for danger, but so does anyone.

I would rather say that religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress; religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.

Comment #115: asdf  on  04/06  at  03:24 AM

asdf:

Ethics? Okay. The ethical thing to do is that which is of the greatest benefit to all affected. This is based on the idea that H. sapiens as a species is an inherently social animal, so benefit is measured in terms of factors such as increased group cohesion and survival fitness of individual members. Granted there are complicating factors—the fact that humans are social but not colonial like insects, for example, and the inevitable fact that sometimes what is good for one is not good for another, so the whole question is somewhat soft-sciency. However, it’s not unreasonable to begin a study of ethics based on what can be observed and quantified about human nature. (And who is to say that empathy is non-empirical? It seems fair to say that empathy is a trait that would be highly selected for among social animals, especially the more intelligent ones near or at the top of the food chain. A weak member of the group who can solve problems that no one else can is still a productive, even valued, member.) Overall, empiricism is more powerful a tool than you think, and reaches much deeper than just scientific observation.

As for progressive religious humanists… it seems to me that most such people are humanist in spite of religion, or have chosen to believe in faith variants that encourage humanism. I don’t think religion is in general a terribly productive way to spend one’s brainpower, but a great many churches also serve a function as communities. While I find conservative faiths to be disgusting, most liberal believers tend not to let their faiths prevent them from doing what I think most people here would agree as right. (Much as I’m not that happy about it, liberal churches do provide community foci that most nonbelievers simply don’t have.) In the grand scheme of things, liberal faiths are qualitatively different from conservative faiths because they prefer to let people be themselves and make their own choices in life, and qualitatively different from things like astrology and alternative medicine because they’re benign at worst and openly supportive of constructive change at best, as opposed to being potentially dangerous distractions. (Mind you, many conservative faiths have liberal believers who espouse all the values I mention above. Having been one (Roman Catholic till age 26), I can say from personal experience that such people hold their views in spite of their faiths.)

Comment #116: BrianX  on  04/06  at  03:42 AM

Pt II

The back and forth on this blog reminds me at least that there are more types of good people who disagree about more types of things… but we get so mad about it!  There is a lot of demonization going on here, and a lot of way oversimplification and some non-logical thinking.  I’m going to try not to fall into a similar trap myself.

I am “left-leaning liberal, feminist, humanist, secular, etc.”  I am scientific:  My graduate education was paid for with a National Science Foundation fellowship.  I am intelligent.  I use homeopathy, herbs, and allopathic remedies, when they seem to work.  And I seriously take issue and umbrage at many of the assumptions by most of the people who have posted here.  So we’re all different.

I don’t particularly love anti-humanist capitalism, that is, I don’t trust the profit motive not to be a problem.  Thus I don’t automatically trust what a profit-motive medical system brings me.  However, I don’t automatically assume it’s wrong, either.  I know that there are good people working in pharmaceutical companies.  I also know that both politics and economics (greed) can render the work of good people less good than those good people might want. 

‘Alternative’ therapies are in this context considered ‘alternative’ for a couple of not so great reasons.  First of all, alternative to what?  The whole idea of a whole category of anything as ‘alternative’ shows a bias towards whatever is NOT being considered—by the speaker, or definer—to be ‘alternative.’  Take the title “alternative media.”  Those words seriously imply that what we read in the Kos or Huff Post (or whatever you like best) isn’t the real thing.  There is the ‘real’ media and the ‘alternative’ one.  This does those of us I consider to be in the right media ballpark, a great disservice. 

So the first problem with ‘alternative’ medicine is, who decides what is ‘the real thing’ and what is ‘alternative’, or, other?  Conventional Western** medicine does.  Western medicine is being accepted as ‘the real thing’  here.  Is the rest of the world and the rest of history so ignorant and unobserving that they simply never figured out that nothing ever worked that wasn’t built in a Western laboratory? Thus it is not correct to suggest that ‘alternative’ medicine means what doesn’t work.  ‘Alternative’ medicine is what has not been officially determined by Western medical practitioners to be effective, but for many, many different reasons.  First, bias.  Western cultural bias.  Second, what was tested.  Who decided what got tested.  Profit motive comes in clearly here.  Drug research costs a lot.  On the one hand, just because Big Pharm makes money doesn’t mean it isn’t good. But on the other, just because it is effective doesn’t mean the Western medical establishment or Big Pharm is going to champion it.  There is simply no money in proving that things work which no one can make a profit off of.  If you think about it, isn’t it a little weird that so many of these cures had to be chemically created in a laboratory—that there just so happens not to exist in nature any sensible ways to combat those ills which nature gives us?  So what is chosen to be tested already creates a huge bias. Also, not everything is testable in a laboratory setting.  So please don’t knock homeopathy as a science.  What is being marketed as homeopathy today also isn’t much like the actual science of homeopathy.  But be that as you will—and Western science hasn’t found an explanation for homeopathy yet—how can you knock herbal remedies just like that?  Anyway.

2 B continued (didn’t fit)...

Comment #117: Natasha  on  04/06  at  03:54 AM

Pt II (didn’t fit)

What is needed here is not generalization and vitriol but rational and critical thinking.  Contrary to many comments here, it is not irrational to doubt Big Pharm, the profit motive, or Capitalism.  It is not irrational to have questions—yes, questions!—about what you are being handed.  It is not irrational to think politics may not make everything the way it should be.  It is not irrational to worry about side effects- of anything.  It is not irrational to be convinced of the vital importance of the Gardasil vaccine, but it is also not irrational to not be convinced. 

And it is not irrational to be “anti-vax”—at least, depending on how that is defined. I don’t, ipso facto, trust vaccines.  I don’t distrust them either.  I am aware of a long history of vaccines eradicating disease.  I am also aware that *things change.*  50 years ago, the blatant greed and rampant, inhuman corruption within so many institutions which was given very fertile ground in the last 8 years—would not have been thinkable.  50 years ago (approximately) pharmaceutical drugs weren’t marketed directly to patients, and most doctors didn’t get hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal and illegal kickbacks from the makers of the drugs they prescribed.  Now politics and marketing and greed all come into the drug mix. 

Because I have done some research into the politics of vaccines, I know some things that would have some people crying ‘tinfoil hats’ if I tried to explain them in a sentence or two.  So let me just point to one example.  Tamiflu.  Whatever you might believe about the possibility of ‘bird flu,’  the fact is that this ‘vaccine’ was developed for something that doesn’t exist yet.  Moreover, it has never been tested as a vaccine—would be hard to do so!—but also, the only people who were given it who were ill, died. But the world is told it has to stock up on this. In case of a pandemic which has ‘statistically’ been predicted (note anything unscientific about that?!). Next we learn that the stockpiles that we had went bad after a year and we had to buy even more. That cost a lot. At the same time there was much talk about making that vaccine mandatory.  Then you have it in Canada popping up—with lots of people getting sick from it.  Now it’s become a non-issue in public discourse.  So the questions come.  Who benefited financially from all the sale of the vaccine?  Who made that happen—who marketed it to the world?  Who paid for it?  What political climate fostered the situation?  Who benefited politically (Politics of fear, anyone?)? Who didn’t tell us it would all go bad in a year and how were they allowed to get away with that?  What went wrong—or what went right?  For whom?

When I heard about side effects from Gardasil, I asked myself similar questions about who would not only financially but also politically and socially benefit from a mandatory Gardasil vaccine, and who would suffer.  I’m not going to answer those questions.  But I hope the majority of those reading this will at least agree now that it is quite rational to ask them. 

Natasha


** ‘Western’ ironically or tellingly being its own biased idea—since no one part of the globe is farther west than any other!**

Comment #118: Natasha  on  04/06  at  03:55 AM

1) If a small business makes a profit, are they part of the conspiracy theory?

2) “I’m not going to close off worthwhile approaches to my health because I’m afraid someone like Amanda is going to think it’s stupid hippy crap.” Fair. But you just closed off psychiatry. Which to some people is quite necessary. I’m talking cognitive behavioural therapy, which is proven to be extremely helpful to people who grew up with severe childhood trauma.

Comment #119: RacyT  on  04/06  at  04:07 AM

Just for the Hell of it,

“The ethical thing to do is that which is of the greatest benefit to all affected.”

Who decided that?  Is that provable?  Does everyone agree with that?  If not, who decides who is right?

Comment #120: Natasha  on  04/06  at  04:08 AM

Natasha:

You’re waaaaay off in pomo land, with a hefty dose of conspiratorial thinking. (Ask me sometime what I think of postmodernism, but not here; it’s off topic.) First off, homeopathy has repeatedly proven to be no more than a placebo, with no proposed mechanism of action and no evidence that it even does anything. If you can be a scientist and a sincere user of homeopathy, I would be highly suspect of your work, wondering what kind of hidden biases are in your data. Second, I don’t really understand how someone trained in the sciences can treat empirical thinking and the scientific method, the single most powerful tools humanity has ever created to eliminate bias in thinking, and treat them as “Western”, when the same principles apply in every culture on Earth. (I’m also going to go ahead and point out that you obviously aren’t as well-informed as you think you are if you think Tamiflu is a vaccine and not an antiviral drug.)

Comment #121: BrianX  on  04/06  at  04:12 AM

Natasha:

It’s a point entirely dependent on the nature of the species. Humans have always tended to gravitate towards communities, from the extremely ad hoc (a hunting party or a pickup basketball game) to the highly organized (a city or nation). Yes, there are loners, but they’re outliers; the overwhelming circumstantial evidence is that humans prefer company to isolation. Both innate and learned behavior will tend to select in favor of people and attitudes which increase the overall cohesion and survival of a community; a code of ethics based on empirical observation would be a conscious codification of the attitudes and principles that work best towards that end.

Comment #122: BrianX  on  04/06  at  04:20 AM

This is based on the idea that H. sapiens as a species is an inherently social animal, so benefit is measured in terms of factors such as increased group cohesion and survival fitness of individual members.

You just bonked into the is/ought problem. That we tend to be social is not to say that being social is a good thing.

And who is to say that empathy is non-empirical? It seems fair to say that empathy is a trait that would be highly selected for among social animals, especially the more intelligent ones near or at the top of the food chain. A weak member of the group who can solve problems that no one else can is still a productive, even valued, member.

I was talking about the subjective experience of empathy; that’s the vector by which I ask you to care about what happens to me. But again, is/ought problem. That we can empathize with each other is not to say that empathy is a good thing.

You’re just asserting “productive” and “intelligent” and “social” and “selected for” as good in themselves; the last of these should obviously be the most problematic. By evolution we have been selected for a propensity for violence, overreaction, rage.

Overall, empiricism is more powerful a tool than you think,

Please do me the favor of refraining from telling me what I think.

As for progressive religious humanists… it seems to me that most such people are humanist in spite of religion, or have chosen to believe in faith variants that encourage humanism.

I won’t necessarily disagree, but many of them do not see it this way, and it is their own experience of religion which they will defend. Many see their religion as having brought them to their values.

and qualitatively different from things like astrology and alternative medicine because they’re benign at worst and openly supportive of constructive change at best, as opposed to being potentially dangerous distractions.

How is astrology more dangerous than a belief in a soul? A person who sincerely believe that she will survive her own death may be motivated to put her life at unnecessary risk.

How about those progressive religious believers who practice radical pacifism? They let themselves be killed, arguably doing no good to anyone. And they do not take up arms when their comrades are being attacked, as in the early 1900s labor battles.

I see here counterevidence to the claim that progressive religions are not dangerous. Nevertheless they are our allies. Astrologers are no worse.

Comment #123: asdf  on  04/06  at  04:25 AM

Tamiflu.  Whatever you might believe about the possibility of ‘bird flu,’ the fact is that this ‘vaccine’ was developed for something that doesn’t exist yet.

The fuck are you talking about? This is highly concentrated bullshit.

Tamiflu is an antiviral. It’s not a vaccine. And it works on regular flu. Not just bird flu. And bird flu does exist already. H5N1 is not a figment of your imagination.

Comment #124: asdf  on  04/06  at  04:34 AM

“First off, homeopathy has repeatedly proven to be no more than a placebo, with no proposed mechanism of action and no evidence that it even does anything.”

Hmm, you are aware that the placebo effect can be real and, y’know, effective?  It says very important things about the power of one’s mental state over physical state.  It hasn’t had nearly enough research done into it because of course it would make no money for everyone.  But saying that something is “no more than a placebo” ignores this very important fact.

I’ll state for the record that I think homeopathy clearly has no logical basis and is no better than a sugar pill.  But if a nice chat with someone sympathetic to how you are feeling and a sugar pill makes you feel better, then it worked, depending on the nature of your illness.

Comment #125: Katherine  on  04/06  at  05:55 AM

(Ok, stepped out to have a beer or four… corner bar had some punk bands playing, one awful and one pretty good…  So, where were we?)

so benefit is measured in terms of factors such as increased group cohesion

...therefore the needless demonization of political allies who hold different worldviews is of no benefit.  And social good is served by tolerance of differences for the goal of accomplishing common goals.  Which is what I was saying in the first place.

Look, we’re talking past each other.  You now want to argue philosophy, but you started with a political statement I took to be based on the here-and-now real world of politics and movements- basically you declared anyone who doesn’t think exactly like you do to be unworthy of participation in your leftist movement- which is a political judgement and a condescending one at that, but it’s not a philosophical statement.

I hereby withdraw the insulting words like “jerk” “bigotry” and of course, “fuck you.”  Despite your inability to lose your own condescending judgementalism, I’ll keep it respectful from here.

(And my apologies to our Pandagonian hosts for the derailment.)

As far as real-world political goals as well as the philosophical means by which we’ve reached our political positions, you and I clearly have way more in common than not.  Including the assumption of superiority of the empirical approach to viewing the universe and the supremecy of science as the basis for public policy.  So this argument is basically pointless and needlessly hostile at any rate. 

I apologize for my own hostile tone, with the caveat that it was a reaction to the unwarranted hostility in your first comment. 

I still hold to my arguments.  You say they are wrong.  Special case pleading and the abuse of the concept of tolerance.

Please, for my betterment and for the edification of anyone else reading, explain why my arguments are wrong.  I don’t understand your objections to them, other than reaction to hostility, because you’ve refused to state them.

I have an open mind, and would seriously like to know where the flaws lie. 

How do I abuse the concept of tolerance?  By pointing out that it is neither fair nor correct to accuse such a wide swath of people of being anti-science or by stating that a political movement as broadly defined as “The Left” requires tolerance for the allies within the movement who differ from us?  Please explain how a political movement can function otherwise or for that matter name a single successful political movement anytime or anywhere where this wasn’t the case.

Pleading a special case?  I never said anyone deserves any special privilege.  I said it was a bad idea to alienate political allies.  I also stated that, in my experience, the people you lump in with anti-vaxers aren’t actually anti-science as you claim and to whatever degree some may be, it does no harm.  However, it does do harm to group every one of them together and declare them all your enemies, at least if you hope to actually get anything progressive done.

By citing personal experience?  Didn’t you do just that when you claimed your experience of Catholicism convinced you that religious humanists got there in spite of their religion?  Do you think your experience is universal?  It’s not, not of religion generally nor even of Catholicism.  But so what if it isn’t?  We all form our worldviews based on our personal experiences in the world.  Your own comment contains assertions of opinion as fact based on your own experience with disclaimers like, “it seems to me,” and, “I don’t think…”

As for progressive religious humanists… it seems to me that most such people are humanist in spite of religion, or have chosen to believe in faith variants that encourage humanism. I don’t think religion is in general a terribly productive way to spend one’s brainpower, but a great many churches also serve a function as communities.

Fair enough.  I agree with your opinion here, other than the “in spite of…” part.  I also recognize that these are opinions and not empirical truth.

(I agree with Natasha that many of our religious allies come to a prohumanist position because of their religion and not in spite of it- liberation theology is but one example.  Nor is this new; read about Fra Bartolomeo de Las Casas and the Vallodolid Debate of 1550.  Definitely liberal and humanist, the “Defender of the Indians” reached his position through his experience of religion and its application and its misuse in the New World.)

Comment #126: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  06:54 AM

Interesting that you’re willing to present actual arguments, just not to me.  Because I was hostile?  Re-read your own first comment and try to understand why that was so.  Sorry for the hostility.  Now, what exactly did I argue that was wrong, hostility aside?  Your refusal to refute me isn’t convincing me, it has the opposite effect.  You want to change minds, right?  That is the goal of political discourse.  You have to show people they’re wrong, you can’t just tell them so.  So, change my mind.

I’m going to guess that you’re not particularly effective in convincing religious believers, radical environmentalists, or practitioners of alternative medicine that they wrong; you just assert it and insult them, right?  Then sit back and marvel that they don’t listen to you?

Our real difference here, emotional reactions aside, is simply one of political strategy.  You seem to think it’s a good idea to alienate our political allies, and that regardless of the consequences there can be no tolerance of people who believe in things that aren’t true.  I don’t.  It’s not that I agree with them nor do I disagree that belief in falsehoods is basically bad.  I just don’t see the political gain to be had.  Speaking again from personal experience, I came to atheism because a few folks convinced me with logical arguments made in good faith and with a respectful tone.  I had resisted atheism for years precisely because of a few particularly insulting and condescending remarks from people who argued as you did.

Group cohesion for the accomplishment of our shared goals for social good requires mutual respect.  That doesn’t mean you should tolerate anti-science, it means you recognize who is or isn’t actually anti-science.  If they are, to what degree are they and how best do you convince them otherwise, and how do you distinguish those who are convincable from those who aren’t.  You can’t accomplish any of that by refusing to recognize those distinctions and treating all with contempt. 

Stand up for science, sure.  Point out that wrong-headed beliefs have no place in public policy decisions, absolutely.  Demonize people who share your goals but not your worldview, no. 

You can be a purist, but you can’t then expect to get anything accomplished in the political sphere.  This is not to say your, or our, philosophy is wrong, nor is it special pleading to acknowlege the reality of movement politics requiring coalitions of people who agree with our goals but came to that agreement through another route. 

Like I said above, we’re talking past each other.  You’re arguing philosophy, I’m arguing politics.

Or I was.  It’s almost 3 am out here in the high desert and I’m going to bed now.  Buenas noches.

Comment #127: Chocolate Covered Cotton  on  04/06  at  06:55 AM

Me:  The motives of Big Pharma are the same as the motives of all other for-profit companies, which is to make money.  Not a mystery, nor a conspiracy, unless everyone who owns or works for a business for the cash compensation that they live off of is in on it.

asdf: This is worth saying, because it’s foolish to see the pharmaceutical industry as categorically different from the shipping industry or the pornography industry or whatever.

But can I remove “or who works for”—since workers are coerced in the position of working somewhere or not eating—

You really can’t, because a big part of the decisionmaking process about which drugs to pursue and which drugs not to is made by paid staff—middle-management level.  Science-based companies are perhaps different than other companies in this way.  Also, biotech companies are different from more traditional companies in that the only people in the company who don’t own tens of thousands of shares in the company are temps and contractors—the lowest-level manufacturing techs and facilities staff, for instance, especially if they’ve been around for a decade or more, own surprisingly large chunks of company stock, obtained upon both hire and during each annual review.  (An excuse for their historically sub-market salary offers, partly, in my opinion.  But also a big benefit in working for biodrug companies.)

Me:They wouldn’t have done it if Gardasil hadn’t also promised to be profitable, because money is the bottom line.

asdf: What is that if not conspiracy? There will be other drugs which could help humanity, but which will not be released if they cannot be made profitable.

Okay, I really think we need to look up the definition of “conspiracy” here:  “joining in an act to do a wrongful thing.”  I don’t think choosing some drugs over others for development is a “wrongful” thing.  You can’t develop every drug that could possibly ever exist in any kind of non-infinite time frame; you have to use somecriteria.  Cost does have to be part of that criteria, because resources to do anything must come from somewhere else.  What criteria for triaging development—again, there must be some criteria, because all things can’t be done simultaneously—would you suggest be used?

Comment #128: Lisa KS  on  04/06  at  09:52 AM

The other thing that justifies mandates, Martha, is the people with the objection to vaccinations inflict their bullshit on innocent people.  Most anti-vac people are themselves enjoying the benefits of not getting the measles, mumps, etc., but they expose their children to make some sort of point about the health care system.  That point appears to be that they are insulted by the health care system and its implication that you need anything but yuppie mother love to make a child healthy.

Comment #129: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/06  at  10:48 AM

Interesting that you’re willing to present actual arguments, just not to me.

That’s because you’re a jerk and a poopyhead. Asdf may be completely off in the weeds, but he’s not being a schmuck about it.

Comment #130: BrianX  on  04/06  at  11:05 AM

things like a lack of biodiversity, or the emphasis on hybrid seeds which don’t remain true to type, which sound peachy now but are unsustainable and thus potentially disastrous.

Ok, this is offtopic, and I apologize. But I have to clarify why this is so. Maize has a quality known as heterosis. This means that the hybrids drastically out-yield inbred lines. For a lot of crops and/or livestock inbred lines are desired because it decreases heterozygosity (and increases the likelihood of being homozygous for the desired traits). But in maize hybrids are basically a necessity. Incidentally, I just learned this today in population genetics class.

Comment #131: Entomologista  on  04/06  at  11:21 AM

You can’t develop every drug that could possibly ever exist in any kind of non-infinite time frame; you have to use some criteria.

But you can release into the public domain all the research and patents on compounds that don’t go further into development.

Comment #132: asdf  on  04/06  at  11:26 AM

I don’t need to be fueled by repressive, anti-science, anti-sexual liberation attitudes to be concerned about the proliferation of vaccines in the R&D;and marketing branches of Big Pharma.

Somebody is one Brady short of a bunch.

Comment #133: Entomologista  on  04/06  at  11:37 AM

Asdf may be completely off in the weeds, but he’s not being a schmuck about it.

Most people hold a plethora of beliefs without evidence, and many of these are potentially dangerous, including much of progressive Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism, our usual allies. We just do not have the luxury of declaring that all leftists be empiricists.

Present me with the dilemma—assuming it’s not a false dilemma, which I believe it is—of siding with RobW or you, and I will choose RobW’s big tent. I’m even willing to be a schmuck about it. Progressives as a whole are a politically effective bloc, but empiricists are not, and empiricists are not even a vanguard.

Comment #134: asdf  on  04/06  at  11:38 AM

Progressives as a whole are a politically effective bloc, but empiricists are not, and empiricists are not even a vanguard.

This is true, but we see that as a problem that needs to be addressed.  Mostly by convincing our fellow lefties that empiricism is the only way to deal with reality.

Re: ethical systems using empiricism: that’s a joke, right?  Modern liberalism (as in post-60s) in its rigorous political system version is fleshed out, in its entirety, by John Rawls (see Political Liberalism, the 90s update of said, or Justice As Fairness for a shorter version), who relied heavily on empiricism.  Further, every ethical system must be dealt with not only in theory, but in practice, and measuring how well something affects the real world requires, gasp!, empiricism.

Comment #135: themann1086  on  04/06  at  12:19 PM

Ok, there’s some terminology some are using here that is starting to get annoying.  The medicine used by most people in this country is called “evidence-based medicine”.  It’s not “traditional” medicine:  that would be leeches and the 4 humors and the like.  It’s not “allopathy”:  allopathy is the based on the belief “dislike cures like”, which is just as a preposterous and non-supported assertion as “like cures like”.  Calling EBM allopathy is just a homeopath’s way of drawing a false equivalence between EBM and homeopathy.  And it’s not “Western”:  there’s nothing particularly cultural about empiricism, and EBM has been adopted by quite a lot of non-Western cultures.

Comment #136: John Cain  on  04/06  at  12:21 PM

My graduate education was paid for with a National Science Foundation fellowship.

A surprising number of scientists are prone to magical thinking outside the lab. Just look at that douche Francis Collins.

So the first problem with ‘alternative’ medicine is, who decides what is ‘the real thing’ and what is ‘alternative’, or, other?

How do we know what medicine works? Obviously scientists just pick shit out of a fucking hat. This is really an epic fail for somebody who claims to work in the sciences.

So please don’t knock homeopathy as a science.  What is being marketed as homeopathy today also isn’t much like the actual science of homeopathy.

Oh, really? Let me give you a visual on how dilute homeopathic solutions are. Imagine taking a single grain of rice and crushing it up. Now dilute that crushed-up grain of rice in a volume of water the size of the solar system. Diseases are not caused by perturbations of your vital force. Also, “like cures like” is a crappy rule - belladonna is not medicine.

Comment #137: Entomologista  on  04/06  at  12:25 PM

themann1086:

This is true, but we see that as a problem that needs to be addressed.  Mostly by convincing our fellow lefties that empiricism is the only way to deal with reality.

Thank you. I knew I wasn’t the only person here who thought this.

Re: ethical systems using empiricism: that’s a joke, right?  Modern liberalism (as in post-60s) in its rigorous political system version is fleshed out, in its entirety, by John Rawls (see Political Liberalism, the 90s update of said, or Justice As Fairness for a shorter version), who relied heavily on empiricism.  Further, every ethical system must be dealt with not only in theory, but in practice, and measuring how well something affects the real world requires, gasp!, empiricism.

Exactly. I have a feeling that this was starting to veer into “how do you quantify love?” territory, and the problem with such things is not that they can’t be done, but that a lot of people don’t pay attention when they are done.

entomologista:

Ok, this is offtopic, and I apologize. But I have to clarify why this is so. Maize has a quality known as heterosis. This means that the hybrids drastically out-yield inbred lines. For a lot of crops and/or livestock inbred lines are desired because it decreases heterozygosity (and increases the likelihood of being homozygous for the desired traits). But in maize hybrids are basically a necessity. Incidentally, I just learned this today in population genetics class.

Exactly, and I wish more people realized this. I have a (very) small business selling heirloom tomato seedlings, so you would think I would be on the side of the sustainability folks, right? Well, I am, to a certain extent, but mainly because I believe that both open-pollinated and hybrid plants have a strong place in modern agriculture. The heirloom plants need to be kept around because they provide both variety and genetic diversity, but when you get right down to the need to feed people, nothing produces like a hybrid.

belladonna is not medicine.

Heh. Bad example.

asdf:

I’m even willing to be a schmuck about it.

Well, you haven’t been so far, so that would be a shame. But themann1086 is right—the general lack of political power of empiricism isn’t a feature, it’s a bug. A big, ugly, system-crashing one.

Comment #138: BrianX  on  04/06  at  12:53 PM

Let me give you a visual on how dilute homeopathic solutions are. Imagine taking a single grain of rice and crushing it up. Now dilute that crushed-up grain of rice in a volume of water the size of the solar system.

It’s worse than that. The more dilute it gets, the stronger of a medicine it is supposed to be.

What happens if you drop one of those in the drain in Montreal? And it gets mixed up into the St.Lawrence River, and by extension all of the Atlantic?

Is homeopathy the greatest threat to the environment EVER? I think it is! raspberry

Comment #139: BlackBloc  on  04/06  at  01:18 PM

Did you hear there was a death from homeopathic care?

Someone drank a glass of water and died from an overdose.

Comment #140: BrianX  on  04/06  at  01:29 PM

“The motives of Big Pharma are the same as the motives of all other for-profit companies, which is to make money.  Not a mystery, nor a conspiracy, unless everyone who owns or works for a business for the cash compensation that they live off of is in on it.”

This is true, but even if they were nonprofit, if they don’t make at least some money on at least some of their drugs, then there won’t be any company and there won’t be any new drugs.

In addition, for disorders in which not many people are affected, it’s hard to get people to test the new drugs (partly due to having only a few affected people in any geographic area). If the pharma company can’t get the FDA mandated testing done, they can’t get the drug to the people who need it, not to mention that they can’t replace the money they spent developing the compound.

I work for a group which is researching treatments for a genetic disorder in which many of those affected die in their 20s and 30s (50 years ago, most died in infancy); it’s not that common, but we have a charitable foundation with scientific oversight which funds research centers in hospitals, partly to encourage people with the disorder to participate in research, and partly to allow the centers to have dedicated research personnel. The scientific committee also works with big (and small) pharma to develop new and better treatments, including better treatment delivery (since some of the current therapies take 20-30 minutes; imagine doing 2-3 of those twice a day).

Pharma companies are not perfect. Neither are researchers. Most of us, though, have our patients’ best interests in mind while we participate in the medication development process. News stories tend to dwell on the bad stuff. You don’t hear about the good stuff (such as my patients enjoying 30 more years of life than they would have if they’d been born 50 years ago).

Comment #141: Alix  on  04/06  at  01:30 PM

I’ll state for the record that I think homeopathy clearly has no logical basis and is no better than a sugar pill.  But if a nice chat with someone sympathetic to how you are feeling and a sugar pill makes you feel better, then it worked, depending on the nature of your illness.

That little “depending on the nature of your illness” slides right over the problem.

If you have a chronic, untreatable condition, and a placebo makes you feel a bit better? Wonderful.  If the placebo “stops working”, and you start taking more of it trying to recapture your original “success”? Much less wonderful. If you have a treatable cancer, and someone is offering you a sugar pill as an alternative to chemo? Really, profoundly, not wonderful.

But not that.  What exactly are we defining as alternative medicine?  I’m thinking mainly of herbal medicine, but also exercise and diet regimens.  People find what works for them through trial and error after inquiry of others’ experiences.  How is that not scientific?  Herbal medicine particularly is based on centuries of practice and experimentation.  By, you know, doctors.  Including in recent centuries.  Merck and Pfizer didn’t exactly materialize at the dawn of the Enlightenment.

Without a double blind, it’s impossible to tease out confirmation bias. Researchers and patients both want treatments to work. The average herbal treatment (assuming it does nothing) will make you feel better for awhile. Then it will “wear off.” The danger is that you’ll assume that it was the herb that worked the first time, and start taking increasing doses trying to recapture the initial “win.” If you’re really unlucky, you’ll wind up with side effects from the herb without ever having an actual effect to justify them.

Comment #142: Llelldorin  on  04/06  at  01:46 PM

All of this back-and-forth over homeopathy and just what constitutes “alternative medicine” and who is or is not progressive enough to be in the movement is giving me a headache.

I’m heading to CVS to look for some “Head-On.”  I hear you’re supposed to smear it on a hammer, then whack yourself in the forehead.

Comment #143: liberalrob  on  04/06  at  02:08 PM

...that there just so happens not to exist in nature any sensible ways to combat those ills which nature gives us?

I’m sorry, but real quick here… it’s called your IMMUNE SYSTEM. And it’s (for the most part) AWESOME.

Whew. Better.

Assholes like the people in Greenpeace and PETA will never be allies to me. Some of them want to put a bullet in researchers just as much as the most rabidly right-wing fundie does (albeit for different reasons.) And the anti-science/alt-medicine bunch aren’t any better; they don’t want to shoot anybody but they have no problem letting people die slowly and painfully of untreated illnesses just to stroke their own delusions.

Comment #144: Bagelsan  on  04/06  at  02:27 PM

Also, not everything is testable in a laboratory setting. So please don’t knock homeopathy as a science.  What is being marketed as homeopathy today also isn’t much like the actual science of homeopathy.  But be that as you will—and Western science hasn’t found an explanation for homeopathy yet—how can you knock herbal remedies just like that?  Anyway.

...can I get that hammer from you when you’re done, liberalrob? I have some brain cells that need a mercy kill.

Comment #145: Bagelsan  on  04/06  at  02:35 PM

You know, funny thing, I was munching on some almonds before I left the house. Almonds are, if you want to look at homeopathy on its own terms, essentially homeopathic cyanide. And yet here I am.

Natasha:

Also, not everything is testable in a laboratory setting.

We’ve already been over this. If it can’t be tested or even unambiguously observed, it may as well not exist.

So please don’t knock homeopathy as a science.  What is being marketed as homeopathy today also isn’t much like the actual science of homeopathy. But be that as you will—and Western science hasn’t found an explanation for homeopathy yet—how can you knock herbal remedies just like that?  Anyway.

Homeopathy is not science. Even when Hahnemann first created it, it was a fairly outlandish and decidedly magical hypothesis whose only benefit is that it was less toxic than nightshade or opium and less dangerous than bloodletting or purging. As for explanations for homeopathy, no reputable study has even shown that there’s a meaningful effect; it’s all wishful thinking, i.e. placebo effect. Finally, yes, I can knock herbal remedies. As someone pointed out upthread, herbology is the retarded twin of pharmacology, and I do mean that literally; herbology as a “science” is pointlessly and proudly Luddite and hopelessly trapped in the past, and the herbal remedy industry is a thoroughgoing scam worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Comment #146: BrianX  on  04/06  at  03:19 PM

themann1086  on  04/06  at  11:19 AM
Modern liberalism (as in post-60s) in its rigorous political system version is fleshed out, in its entirety, by John Rawls (see Political Liberalism, the 90s update of said, or Justice As Fairness for a shorter version), who relied heavily on empiricism.  Further, every ethical system must be dealt with not only in theory, but in practice, and measuring how well something affects the real world requires, gasp!, empiricism.

Rawls was not successful in making the leap from the physical world of is to the metaphysical world of should. Just throwing his name out there doesn’t mean that empiricism offers a justification for ethics. It’s the complete opposite. Once one has a system of ethics, one can determine, with rational thought, how that system of ethics applies to onesself.

I suspect many of you are confusing problems. A progressive who happens to be an astrologist isn’t even close to being an issue. I don’t care if that person is wrong: I care if he’s wrong about stuff that affects me.

The most dangerous rightwingers are complete empiricists. A psychopath can easily have a completely and utterly rational view of reality and come, again rationally, to the conclusion that his anti-social behavior, being pleasureable, is therefore good.

Chet  on  04/06  at  12:36 PM
But when it comes to the issue of the danger of superstitious, errant belief, guess who gets the moderate’s knife in the back? The atheist, every time.

Assuming that an empiricist is by definition free of dangerous delusion is a dangerous delusion. I have had the misfortune to meet athiests who happened to be bigots. His views were staunchly opposed by religious persons I knew—who were not offended by his athiesm. So, anymore bullshit generalizations you’d like to throw out there?

Chet  on  04/06  at  12:48 PM
But what an incredibly flimsy basis on which to be a humanist!

Seeing as how that there’s really not any purely rational justification for humanism, the religious are in good company. One way or another, support for “humanism” or any sort of ethics will have to make the leap that any person of faith makes. Just because you hold to a secular faith doesn’t mean it’s not a faith.

Having read the Bible, I’m very much aware that every progressive religious “moderate” is just one Bible study away from fundamentalism (because the Christian Bible is a Bible of fundamentalism in its most plain, least torturous reading.)

What complete bullshit. If you read the Bible, you wasted your time. This is fucking idiocy. Fundamentalism in all religions uncannily creates doctrine that happens to get the rocks off of whoever’s espousing it at the time. It is a completely selfish endeavour and it will happily contradict any and all text its parent faith happens to rely on. If a Protestant preacher were to repeat parts of the New Testament concerning treatment of the poor and giving away one’s money, verbatim, to an upscale, affluent, white congregation and make that his sermon, he could be well on his way to being kicked out. If he crafts a pro-war speech and literally misquotes Jesus to do it, more often than not you couldn’t count the amens. Regardless of what one things of religion, the idea that fundamentalism within Christianity is a literal, textual reading of the Bible is so fucking incompetent that I honestly would hope that anyone spouting such idiocy is simply lying when they say the read the Bible. If you took religion from a fundie, he or she would just come up with another excuse to be a complete asshole. We’ve seen it before.

Bagelsan  on  04/06  at  01:27 PM
Assholes like the people in Greenpeace and PETA will never be allies to me.

Now, Greenpeace, while consisting of many a wackjob asshole, will occasionally do something useful to someone that no one should like. Not enough to be unreservedly happy about the organization, but still . . . Meanwhile, PETA literally exists only to make its members feel good about themselves and will happily espouse bigotry—as in racism—in its PR campaigns. Oh, and PETA hurts and kills animals whenever it suits them.

That tiny caveat aside, I can agree with Bagelsan’s sentiment.

Comment #147: No One of Consequence  on  04/06  at  03:34 PM

Having read the Bible, I’m very much aware that every progressive religious “moderate” is just one Bible study away from fundamentalism (because the Christian Bible is a Bible of fundamentalism in its most plain, least torturous reading.)

That’s a very simplistic reading of a complex document created by dozens of authors. The Jews have never accepted everything in the Bible at face value; that’s why the Talmud exists. The truth be told, it’s very easy within a historical context to see the Deuteronomic code as an attempt to create a beginning to a rule of law within a highly stratified society, and the statements of Jesus (a Jew, but an outsider from the multicultural Galilee, not the more homogeneous Judea) as an attempt to eliminate mindless legalism and promote peace and goodness for their own sake.

Fundamentalist reading only comes into play when the book is divorced from its historical context (given the Dark Ages, probably an unfortunate inevitability); rather than a commentary on its own time, the Bible became a template for a certain ideal, never mind that the ancient Middle Eastern template had long been marginalized and was pretty much destroyed by the onslaught of Christianity and Islam. I mean, fundamentalist readings are hardly limited to the Bible—the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, The Wealth of Nations, and the Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book have all been treated that way, to the extent where some creationists (to give an example) can’t quite comprehend that Darwin’s The Origin of Species isn’t required reading for an evolutionary biologist. The sensible approach to the Bible is the same as any other work—understand its context, take what’s good, leave the rest. But it’s not the Bible itself but religion that militates against that.

Comment #148: BrianX  on  04/06  at  04:03 PM

mildly related onion fun:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/renowned_hoo_ha_doctor_wins_nobel

Comment #149: Stephanie  on  04/06  at  04:27 PM

No One Of Consequence:  “A progressive who happens to be an astrologist isn’t even close to being an issue. I don’t care if that person is wrong: I care if he’s wrong about stuff that affects me.”

What if the Moon’s position in a square to his native Saturn makes it a bad idea for him to help you tomorrow, the day you need help?

Like religion, astrology tends to make people think (a) there is a supernatural system that they can (b) game somehow, by committing irrational acts.  You can’t predict when these acts will affect you, but chances are, they will.

Comment #150: oldfeminist  on  04/06  at  04:44 PM

JoAnne  on  04/06  at  03:44 PM
Like religion, astrology tends to make people think (a) there is a supernatural system that they can (b) game somehow, by committing irrational acts.  You can’t predict when these acts will affect you, but chances are, they will.

You “prove” too much. By your logic, I should trust no one with a predisposition to act against my interests. Therefore, if I were a person of color, I should distrust white people since, having a privilege I lack that only exists while I am denied it, they may well be acting against my interests. You have committed the fallacy Dick Cheney committed when he claimed that if there is a 2% chance of being attacked by The Bad Guys it justifies every fucking evil thing he intends to do.

By the way, white people have been proven far more dangerous than astrologists, white or otherwise.

You cannot treat every single set of erroneous viewpoints as equally dangerous. Everyone on Earth is wrong about something, and is definately wrong about something significant. Does that justify complete paranoia?

Chet  on  04/06  at  04:18 PM
Oh, right, stupid. That must be why Ted Haggard’s church preached the acceptability - even the obligation - of smoking meth and giving blowjobs to male hookers in the stationary closet.

So let’s ignore the psychological rush granted from indulging in the forbidden, the notion of privilege to break taboos that authorities grant for themselves, and so on, and then spout whatever bullshit happens to cross our minds! Bullshit analysis FTW!

If you can’t even begin to dissect fundamentalism, which is a pretty obvious problem, you sure as hell have no business trying to justify ethics from a naturalist position—oh, wait, you didn’t even try, so that’s just as well.

Thank god that there are plenty of progressives that actually understand why fundamentalism is so dangerous. Of course, by the logic posited on this blog by some, I’d have to reject the other group of progressives who have no fucking clue exactly why fundamentalism is bad, because, to hear it here, if you’re wrong about reality on one point, you are completely untrustworthy and a danger to all that is good and just.

Comment #151: No One of Consequence  on  04/06  at  05:32 PM

The most dangerous rightwingers are complete empiricists. A psychopath can easily have a completely and utterly rational view of reality and come, again rationally, to the conclusion that his anti-social behavior, being pleasureable, is therefore good.

I don’t agree with either one of those points. First, authoritarians in general will often use the appearance of empirical thought as a bludgeon to keep people in line; just because, say, the Bell Curve guys *say* their data is empirical doesn’t mean a) that it is or b) that even if it is that they aren’t lying with statistics. Your second case is only partially rational—while the conclusion may follow from said sociopath’s premises, it’s hard to argue that the premises themselves are in any meaningful way correct, since they assume (despite outside evidence to the contrary, which a sociopath may be inclined to ignore) that all humans are solitary animals like this particular hypothetical one. (That, I think, is what makes Dexter such a popular show—though the lead character is a sociopath and a serial killer, he kills all the “right” people, and is sufficiently self-aware that he can function in a more-or-less normal pattern despite his alien thought patterns.)

Comment #152: BrianX  on  04/06  at  06:04 PM

First, authoritarians in general will often use the appearance of empirical thought as a bludgeon to keep people in line. . .

The point was missed here. The point is that an unethical empiricist—unethical by my (and probably your) standards—is possible, and that many are in government across the planet. If the authoritarian in your example is an empiricist, he is very aware that the Bell Curve is wrong, and he happily backs it because it furthers his interest. That is a logical policy given his priorities. Do not conflate ethical with empircal—they have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

. . . while the conclusion may follow from said sociopath’s premises, it’s hard to argue that the premises themselves are in any meaningful way correct, since they assume . . . that all humans are solitary animals like this particular hypothetical one.

That is not the notion involved. Whether or not humans are solitary animals is irrelevant. Most psychopaths are above-average intelligence and know full well that humans are social animals. Perhaps you mistake the term “anti-social”: when a person commits an anti-social act, he is not ignoring the fact that people are social creatures, he is attacking said society. The point is that the psycopath’s solipsism is a completely rational viewpoint backed by empirical evidence. Naturalism or empiricism can teach you how to capture a psychopath, but it cannot create the ethical system that makes him bad for his actions.

Comment #153: No One of Consequence  on  04/06  at  06:25 PM

This is true, but we see that as a problem that needs to be addressed.  Mostly by convincing our fellow lefties that empiricism is the only way to deal with reality.

themann1086, I agree with you. The link I provided in my Marx quote says as much, and I provided it because it tracks my own beliefs very closely.

And convincing our fellow lefties is very, very different than BrianX declaring that those other lefties are “the enemy,” not good allies, not good lefties, “not with us.”

I thought the plan was supposed to be revolution first, then purges! Not purges first. BrianX has the gulag cart before the emaciated horse. smile

Comment #154: asdf  on  04/06  at  06:29 PM

Modern liberalism (as in post-60s) in its rigorous political system version is fleshed out, in its entirety, by John Rawls (see Political Liberalism, the 90s update of said, or Justice As Fairness for a shorter version), who relied heavily on empiricism.

And if he succeeded, then you can explain how he dealt with the specific questions I raised, instead of just tossing a book title at me.

Further, every ethical system must be dealt with not only in theory, but in practice, and measuring how well something affects the real world requires, gasp!, empiricism.

This is a particularly insulting gasp, since you just summarized what I said in my last paragraph of this comment, and then acted like I should be surprised by my own ideas. Read me before you patronize me.

I have a feeling that this was starting to veer into “how do you quantify love?” territory,

You really don’t understand the issue, do you? You can measure love, by imaging brain states and sampling hormones while people experience what they call love.

What techniques do you use to empirically measure ethical or moral right and wrong? How do you define what you’re looking for, and then how do you know that was the correct definition?

Comment #155: asdf  on  04/06  at  06:44 PM

The most dangerous rightwingers are complete empiricists. A psychopath can easily have a completely and utterly rational view of reality and come, again rationally, to the conclusion that his anti-social behavior, being pleasureable, is therefore good.

Grover Norquist!

Comment #156: asdf  on  04/06  at  06:53 PM

Said ‘Gasp!’ was intended more for others in the thread, but I do apologize for misreading you.

I would forward Ebon’s excellent write-up here as a good discussion on arriving at an ethical system via empiricism; here’s a little tease: “In this section of this essay, I propose importing this view [Karl Popper’s] of the scientific method into the moral sphere. Doing so will assist in the solution of a difficult dilemma in the field of moral philosophy, namely the problem of how to derive prescriptive statements from descriptive ones; in other words, how to jump from “is” to “ought”.”

Comment #157: themann1086  on  04/06  at  07:03 PM

Naturalism or empiricism can teach you how to capture a psychopath, but it cannot create the ethical system that makes him bad for his actions.

I think I have to part ways with you there. We can make an ethical system without calling upon supernatural premises. We just can’t empirically demonstrate that our ethical system is the right one to have made. Instead we have to appeal to other people’s empathy to ask them to agree, and/or establish policing systems for those who refuse. But that’s still naturalism.

Comment #158: asdf  on  04/06  at  07:06 PM

I’ll check it out, themann1086.

Comment #159: asdf  on  04/06  at  07:08 PM

asdf  on  04/06  at  06:06 PM
We can make an ethical system without calling upon supernatural premises. We just can’t empirically demonstrate that our ethical system is the right one to have made.

So who cares if you make it?

Look, I think you may have inadvertently moved the goalposts here, or maybe I’m misreading something you said above (there’s a lot of thread to go through). I’m not saying you can’t come up with a peachy-keen ethical system you feel is right. But you have absolutely no more justification for it than there is for the ethical system of a sedate Buddhist or a screaming nutbar convinced that he has to arm himself in the struggle against the Reptoid Masters.

And even you would have to admit that, for all its flaws, the Reptoid dude’s system would be more fun.

I am not saying that empiricism isn’t a good thing: quite the opposite. But when you even begin to imply that you can prove an ethical system as being meaningful using such methods, you defeat empiricism itself. Hell, the notion that you can disprove that of another is also erroneous. That’s just the limits of the system.

Chet  on  04/06  at  07:47 PM
Haggard preached against homosexuality and drug use so that when he did do those things, they were even more fun? I don’t know how to respond to a claim so stupid.

Then stop making stupid-ass claims. Look at that sentence you just wrote. It is an obvious strawman. Did you so tire of saying dumbass things that you now want to force someone else to say them? You don’t know how to respond—true—so you refuse to respond to what I actually wrote.

There’s (still!) a pair of smoking holes in downtown Manhattan that testify to the danger of fundamentalism, so that’s not a difficult concept to grapple with.

At least one of the hijackers was secularist, so swing and a miss there. Fundamentalism had more to do with the politics and warfare that led to the retaliation than the retaliation itself.

And moderate Christians are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding why fundamentalism is so dangerous, because the obvious explanation is the one they can’t face: true religious faith mandates the commission of acts without regard for their temporal consequences.

How fucking unbelievably stupid. You’re seriously claiming that every single faith ever believed requires its practitioners to ignore causality? So you jump from your assertion that fundamentalism is the TRUE reading of the Bible without a shred of evidence and with mountains of evidence against it and jump to a claim that implies that all honest religious people are so disjointed from reality they cannot operate at all. This is shockingly stupid.

But every now and then some moderate decides to crack open his Bible for basically the first time, and either a fundamentalist or an atheist is born.

Since it’s clear that you don’t know what a “fundamentalist” is, it’s no stretch to conclude that you don’t know what a “moderate” is. Fundamentalism doesn’t have an opposite within the religion it happens to be parasitically attached to; it doesn’t have a “moderate” counter-viewpoint, anymore than an identity thief has the person whose identity he stole as a counter-viewpoint.

Comment #160: No One of Consequence  on  04/06  at  10:28 PM

I haven’t read all 100+ comments, but I would like to point out one thing:

Getting vaccinated for the commonest cancer-causing HPV types DOES NOT prevent ALL cervical cancer in the US population - the Gardasil vaccine targets the HPV types collectively causing 70% or so of cervical cancer, but does not cover the many HPV types making up the other 30%.

You still have to get a Pap smear, even if you have been vaccinated. **Your cancer risk is not zero.**

70% reduction in cancer incidence would be a great triumph, and I am all for the utility of the vaccine in the appropriate population. I wish to point out that too many people misunderstand the vaccine - they are used to vaccines against single entities such as chicken pox, polio, etc., and are likely to think that they are 100% covered against HPVs. I am also a little concerned that some people would decide that their risk of STDs in general is low enough after vaccination to be too complacent to use condoms. HIV is still out there.

Comment #161: NancyP  on  04/06  at  11:19 PM

So who cares if you make it? Look, I think you may have inadvertently moved the goalposts here, or maybe I’m misreading something you said above (there’s a lot of thread to go through).

Well I hope you just misread me. I was saying from the beginning that empiricism cannot establish ethics. My reason for saying that was that we end up presuming the validity of certain values, like “I desire to avoid pain, therefore it is wrong to harm me.”

In my experience, naturalistic value systems become codified by recognizing shared values. I value freedom, you value freedom, we decide we’re all better off by establishing certain freedoms as legal rights. If we disagree, we try to persuade each other. If we disagree irreconcilably, the side who rallies less support seeks to persuade the more powerful to at least tolerate their differences, else the more powerful uses force to coerce compliance.

So, who cares about an ethical system without some supernatural basis? People who value a stable society. Most people.

Comment #162: asdf  on  04/06  at  11:37 PM

JoAnne:

Like religion, astrology tends to make people think (a) there is a supernatural system that they can (b) game somehow, by committing irrational acts.  You can’t predict when these acts will affect you, but chances are, they will.

No One Of Consequence:

You “prove” too much. By your logic, I should trust no one with a predisposition to act against my interests. Therefore, if I were a person of color, I should distrust white people since, having a privilege I lack that only exists while I am denied it, they may well be acting against my interests.

First true thing you seem to have said in this thread.

You have committed the fallacy Dick Cheney committed when he claimed that if there is a 2% chance of being attacked by The Bad Guys it justifies every fucking evil thing he intends to do.

What evil was I doing?  I was making a statement about how someone’s being an astrologist can affect my life if I trust myself to them.  I didn’t say they are such a risk that it would justify every evil fucking thing I or Dick Cheney can think of.

By the way, white people have been proven far more dangerous than astrologists, white or otherwise.

And now you demolish your own argument, admitting that white people are dangerous when just a few sentences ago you were mocking me because my reasoning would suggest nonwhites might wish to use caution in dealing with whites.

You cannot treat every single set of erroneous viewpoints as equally dangerous.

Sigh.  I haven’t.  I said they’re based in the same magical thinking and can have similar results.  Someone who’s got a lot of power and is an astrologist could well fuck me up badly if he decides that the true sweet nature of Venus is honored only if women are taken down a peg.

Everyone on Earth is wrong about something, and is definately wrong about something significant. Does that justify complete paranoia?

You have turned my “astrologists can harm us too” into “let’s kill all the astrologists.”  I’m not sure I’m the one with the paranoia.

Comment #163: oldfeminist  on  04/07  at  12:26 AM

First true thing you seem to have said in this thread.

So I guess the stuff I said about our culture having a problem with vaccination was untrue and this vaccination stuff is, indeed, a socialist plot. JoAnne is, at least, consistent with generalizations: she is consistently wrong.

What evil was I doing?  I was making a statement about how someone’s being an astrologist can affect my life if I trust myself to them.

And that statement is wrong. You trust astrologists on the road every single day. Their erroneous conception of the universe may, by your logic, cause them to run you down (since you have strongly implied that an imperfect worldview in an individual means that they are capable of anything). Again, these generalizations are silly.

And now you demolish your own argument, admitting that white people are dangerous when just a few sentences ago you were mocking me because my reasoning would suggest nonwhites might wish to use caution in dealing with whites.

WTF? I did not provide any evidence to show that each and every white person in existence is a threat to me and everything I hold dear, which would be the only reason to treat the entire class of people with fear and loathing. And, no, not “caution.” You weren’t talkning about “caution” a second ago. You were implying that astrologists (among others) were about a threat to an entire political movement. That was way past “caution.”

And the generalization STILL fails, since the mere existence of privilege does not mean that the privilege will be used maliciously in each given context. If the example I gave was “correct,” instead of merely demolishing your argument, then the Civil Rights Movement wouldn’t have been filled with whites attempting to undue the white supremacist system, and certainly none of them would have been killed in the process.

You cannot treat every single set of erroneous viewpoints as equally dangerous.
Sigh.  I haven’t.  I said they’re based in the same magical thinking and can have similar results.

Which is the same way of treating them as equally dangerous. If you honestly think that an 80-year-old pacifistic Buddhist, devout all her life, scarred from nonviolent resistance protest and a head chock-full of mysticism, can come to the same violent conclusions as a secularist white supremacist who believes that his superiority is “self-evident” and has loads of conspiracy theory nonsense to justify his upcoming gunbattles—seriously, this level of foolishness is hard to comprehend. Check the news. Hell, read this site. People’s behavior determined by more than your own favorite little bête noire.

You have turned my “astrologists can harm us too” into “let’s kill all the astrologists.” I’m not sure I’m the one with the paranoia.

You basically have no problem with everyone on Earth being problematic—whether or not we have to kill everyone on Earth isn’t the issue. The problem is your logic is so incredibly damn bad that it damns everyone on Earth. We won’t get more absurd by coming up with “solutions” to the magical problems that exist in your head.

Comment #164: No One of Consequence  on  04/07  at  02:43 AM

This is a great article and I will be e-mailing it to many anti-vaccination friends.
It’s a continuous source of frustration to me how so many basically good people work against the good of society based on scaremongering without warrant.
The Big Pharma argument is regularly dragged out, even though the situation is different on this side of the pond.
The sad thing is that without vaccination people suffered so much misery. We don’t realise how much better we have it over our grandparents. As has been pointed out, it is one of the safest medical interventions we have.

Comment #165: Childe O' Grace  on  04/07  at  06:59 AM

No One Of Consequence:  “You were implying that astrologists (among others) were about a threat to an entire political movement.”

You were inferring that.  All the rest of your arguments with me seem based on an exaggeration of what I actually said. 

“You basically have no problem with everyone on Earth being problematic.”

Correct.  Everyone on earth is problematic.  I didn’t say they were equally problematic, nor do I believe they are.  No matter how many times you want to infer this from what I said.  They’re obviously not.

“f you honestly think that an 80-year-old pacifistic Buddhist, devout all her life, scarred from nonviolent resistance protest and a head chock-full of mysticism, can come to the same violent conclusions as a secularist white supremacist who believes that his superiority is “self-evident” and has loads of conspiracy theory nonsense to justify his upcoming gunbattles—seriously, this level of foolishness is hard to comprehend.”

It sure is.  If I wrote that I’d wonder what I’d been on.  But I didn’t.

So, aside from calling your mother Hitler, how can Straw JoAnne help you get to the end of your rant?

Comment #166: oldfeminist  on  04/07  at  06:08 PM

JoAnne, would you agree with me that progressive religionists are no less potentially dangerous than astrologers?

And how often do we actually see either of these groups making that potential danger actual?

So does the potential danger in either group mean they should be the enemy of the left, as BrianX says?

Comment #167: asdf  on  04/07  at  10:41 PM

Good article, Amanda. Western medicine doesn’t always get it right (!), but vaccination is, I believe, its greatest triumph. Ironically, its very success is why the anti-vaxers are able to exist—vaccinations have been so efficient at reducing the incidence of these diseases that they have forgotten just how devastating these diseases can be. I think the article that RobW linked to serves as an excellent reminder. so thanks, RobW.

Comment #168: maatnofret  on  04/08  at  01:18 PM

Arrived here via Bad Astronomy…

Once you look into the NNT/QALY numbers for it, there are serious questions about the cost effectiveness of HPV vaccinations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121928503311259059.html

I say this not as an anti-vaxer crank or a right-wing bigot, but as someone who sincerely wants to see cost-effective public medicine.  The cost to prevent a case of cervical cancer with this vaccine approaches half a million dollars.  Saying “It doesn’t matter if it costs a squillion dollars if it prevents a single death” is hogwash when everyone knows we could eradicate malaria ten times over with a squillion dollars.  If you want to pay for it yourself, great!  Go bonkers!  But it’s not clear that it’s something public health should pay for.

Merck is not on the side of morality here.  If good comes from their work, it is incidental to profits.

Also, there should be a law against drug advertising.

Comment #169: sisu  on  04/09  at  12:17 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.