“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

The ethical difference between the provax and the antivax is

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, May 04, 2010

apparently... that the antivaccine rarely admit their own mistakes, whereas provaccine people value truth very highly, and always admit their mistakes and move on. Apparently, I have failed in an ethical challenge, because a vaccine defender, is trying to make out that in this post I'm saying that all the influenza formulations are just seasonal ones with the H1N1 added into it.  Given that most of you have me on RSS and regularly receive what I write, and know what I've said in the past, I'll let you be the judge as to whether that's what I think, or said. The contact us form received just before lunch today (from someone who has never read here before, according to my burearat tracker) which said:

your too many vaccines got picked up by Huffington-Post. It is wrong. The seasonal vaccine is a trivalent vaccine. As in 3 strains. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/pbs-frontline-show-about_b_554691.html?show_comment_id=46212602#comment_46212602

" I replied saying:

Dear Sheldon,

In the article the only vaccine I said had four, was the MMRV vaccine.

I am perfectly well aware of the number of antigens in all three influenza vaccines down here.

Please read before you criticize.

He replied to me as follows:

Nice try, but no cigar.
1. Title of Article
2. Example of MMR to MMRV
3. Secondly,
4. Added to vaccine.

This isn't a big deal, but you can't admit that at the very least you were not clear. That's sad.

Congratulations on strengthening the following generalization:.

Between those who advocate vaccines and those who oppose them, I have noticed an ethical difference. Those who advocate vaccines are pretty quick to admit error. Those who oppose vaccines rarely admit error.

I think the difference is where we come from. Those who advocate vaccinations come out of the scientific method way of thinking or in my case and others such as Dr. Steve Novella, from the skeptical and critical thinking method. Philosophically, we value the truth very, very highly. So when we make an error, we tend to feel that we should admit it and move on. We do this even if it may not be politically wise at the moment.

Those who oppose vaccination tend to reject the scientific method. They are more concerned with feelings and whiat they believe to be true. They may also believe so strongly in the ends, that means matter less to them.

I hope you do better on your next ethical challenge.

sheldon101
Toronto

Since the pdfs for all of the flu vaccine have been on this site since 4th April, 2010, would I not know that all three formulations are trivalent?

So this guy, who apart from being sheldon, goes by the appropriate email handle of Wawa Wawa, says,

you can't admit that at the very least you were not clear

Actually I was perfectly clear. 

H1N1 was added into the vaccine as per here 

Professor Bishop said the Panvax vaccine - the swine flu jab - was "safe", but said the combined flu shot had been suspended for young children as a "precautionary measure" pending investigation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which approved its use last month.

Panvax was tested on 400 children before its release last year, but the combined shot was not subjected to any clinical trials.

The Panvax antigen used had a separate trial of 400 children as a separate formulation, and even in that trial they knew it had problems. How on earth did they think it wouldn't cause problems when added to the other two?

 To me, it doesn't ACTUALLY matter HOW MANY ANTIGENS a vaccine has.  That was not the focus of my discussion.  If a vaccine  results in - as Professor Petrovsky says:  

"an experiment he carried out indicates that large amounts of viral genetic residue created by the vaccine's manufacture were overloading infants' immune systems.

The experiment left him in "absolutely no doubt" that high levels of the residue in the form of RNA (the viruses' genetic blueprint) were the cause."

 What I wanted to contrast was that it was FOUR vaccines in the MMRV, which caused trouble and contrast that with Paul Offit's 100,000. Why did I not mention "three"? First, I assume that people who read here, also click on my links, and know that the vaccine at question had three antigens.  And perhaps further study might show the culprit to be the H1N1 used in all CSL formulations. Which would make the culprit ONE vaccine, right?

But actually, you are right in one aspect Sheldon, I should have rubbed it in really hard, by saying that "you don't need four vaccine to cause trouble, when three, or even one, will do."  Just for you, I should have been really precise.   

Would you then have wanted to discuss the science at Huffpost Sheldon?

Or is your game a serial one of trying to score cyber points eveyrwhere, (including Facebook), by talking about how "ethical" the provaccine "you" are, and how "unethical" I am?

If I had REALLY made a mistake, and apologised and changed it (which I've done in the past), what then would YOU have done?  Gone running back to Dr Offit, Orac and Novella, and written another of your smarmy posts somewhere, with snide remarks and gleeful rubbing hands, about how you'd set another one of those idiots straight?

 

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share