Asperger and autoimmune reactions.

[IndigoSensor]

I have tried to cover the point about the research.....who funds the research?

You want unbiased research....where do you find that in a world dominated by the profit incentive?

No research is unbais. Humans are bias by nature. Further, until you are involved in research yourself, you can't really say with much athority how "bais" funding makes research. Myself, I work in research, I can say with a high conviction that it isn't nearly as bais as you assume it to be. Infact, it's actually pretty damn surprizing how unbais it really is. If you still don't agree, then as I said previously, there is absolutely no point in talking nor listening to you on this matter. The world isn't one giant conspiricy, and until you learn to accept that you will just spend your life being parinoid and in constant strain.

There has been a rise in autism yes? Something is causing it.....in time...I hope the truth will out (whatever that is)

And as of now, there is no credible evidence that supports this is what is promoting it.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I personally don't give a rat's ass what mental illness you have. If you live in society, you have the same responsibilities everyone else has. If you don't like it, you can stay home.

 

[muir]

We should aim to improve the general health of the population, with the best results possible for that population, overall.

Experience has shown the best way to achieve that result (as it concerns various virii, and a given population) is through vaccine-based immunization of that population, even with the knowledge some individuals may be negatively affected by the process.

Ok, like i have already said i am not arguing against a blanket ban. What i am arguing against is the medicalisation of all of humanities problems

His

 

[Kavalan]

I don't think you are an idiot. I think you fail to see what really makes the world go round.

You have called me a 'twit', a 'tin foil hat wearer' and a 'communist' and have tried to marshal my argument to make it look like i am arguing things that i am not. I have had to ask you to review my posts a number of times.

Perhaps you should 'calm down'

Indi covered it and all you ask are semantics as to who funds... You wont be happy either way so be quiet.

as for the anarcho communist comment:

I think the anarchists had some of the highest output. The reason for this is anarchists are getting the direct fruits of their labour and have a say over their work conditions, so the incentive is there to work hard. Capitalism dissincentivises people from working hard because they only get a cut of the profits (a wage). Usually in capitalism the employer pays the employee just enough that they don't quit and the employer works just hard enough that they don't get fired.....it

 

[muir]

No research is unbais. Humans are bias by nature. Further, until you are involved in research yourself, you can't really say with much athority how "bais" funding makes research. Myself, I work in research, I can say with a high conviction that it isn't nearly as bais as you assume it to be. Infact, it's actually pretty damn surprizing how unbais it really is. If you still don't agree, then as I said previously, there is absolutely no point in talking nor listening to you on this matter. The world isn't one giant conspiricy, and until you learn to accept that you will just spend your life being parinoid and in constant strain.



And as of now, there is no credible evidence that supports this is what is promoting it.

There are other considerations aside from what research is done. What research is made public and when i say public i don't just mean within the scientific community, i mean among the wider community (the bulk of voters and taxpayers)

The media is probably the biggest filter it has to pass through before it gets to joe bloggs on the street.

Also the timing of the story is important. I remember hearing of a politician describing some disaster as a 'good time to bury bad news'

After seeing the media circus surrounding the wakefield case, how many other health professionals do you think will want to come forward about anything relating to big pharma?

 

[aeon]

I have tried to cover the point about the research.....who funds the research?

For-profits, non-profits, academia, and more besides.

You want unbiased research....where do you find that in a world dominated by the profit incentive?

I never said I wanted unbiased research - that doesn

 

[aeon]

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

BMJ 2011; 342:c5347 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5347 (Published 5 January 2011)

Funding: Brian Deer

 

[muir]

What a shame i mentioned Dr Wakefield, it seems to have distracted some people from the point of the OP which was a questioning of the possible dangers of vaccines in general

I thought that I would say that i thought that Dr Wakefields concerns about possible links between a combined MMR vaccine and autism might have been validated somewhat by the chief of the CDC admitting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children who had a mitochondrial disorder, but some people seemed to think that this was a defence of his methods.

I should never have mentioned Wakefield because it has just lead to a massive distraction from the main issue which is the possiblity of harm by vaccines and also on the possibility that big pharma is trying to sell us (via the government) vaccines that we don't need.

We are seeing a large media campaign at the moment to create fear amongst the public about a supposed swine flu epidemic in order that the people will then go and get a swine flu jab. The UK government is now giving people jabs from last years flu stocks which they have been left with after the previous supposed epidemic never materialised.

Big pharma make a big sale to government via corrupt politicians and the money to pay for it comes from the public purse (taxpayers)...lovely little scam they have going on. There has been a story in the mainstream media in the UK recently concerning massive annual overspends by the NHS on supplies bought from big pharma....it seems the people in positions of authority are not getting us the best deal for our taxpayers money....well there's a surprise!

The old stocks of flu are arguably ineffective because there are now new strains of flu, but this fact seems to be ignored as some members of the public, who are buying into the government fear mongering, rush to get their shot.

The last time the US government tried this was in the 1970's, but the vaccination programme was halted after it was found that the vaccines were harming people.

There is currently a scandal over the links between the World Health Organisation and big pharma and the various flows of money going on.

The other point i made in my initial post was the fact that we are seeing a medicalisation of all of people's problems. My belief is that this serves two purposes. One is to generate massive profits for big pharma and the other is the use of drugs as a form of chemical cosh to control the people and suppress their natural anxieties.

There is widespread ignorance about the contents of vaccines and as i said in my initial post before the wakefield bun fight started, many people seem more concerned about what they put into their cars then about what they put into their bodies.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNQJIyOZqtA&feature=related"]YouTube - Cheerleader Drug Reps[/ame]

The missuse of the word 'socialism' there is a bit annoying, but then that happens all the time...it's a sort of Orwellian re-programming of the publics mind to associate different meanings to words.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHr90s4YeAA&feature=fvsr"]YouTube - WHO advisors paid by H1N1 vaccine makers profiting on fear?[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZFUq5hr7E"]YouTube - John Virapen on Big Pharma part 1 of 4[/ame]

 

[aeon]

I should never have mentioned Wakefield because...

...by doing so as part of your argument, your argument tends to lose credibility, even if there are things of value contained therein.

Peer-reviewed, experiment-derived data, produced from multiple, randomized, double-blind trials of sufficient sample-size, that suggest causality - where are they? :noidea:

Until they exist, you

 

[Oranguh]

This reminds me of.....

Welcome to the NHK. ( hehe~ which reminds me... What type would the protagonist be~ during the show they mention he's probably an Introverted feeler~ but yeaaa who knows)

I have this twin sister that gets all passionate when it comes to big corporate... uuh and evil government regula..... I've always found it hard to listen to the logic and reasoning because that wasn't what was being conveyed at all, no, all that I could feel was her passion. I wonder what it was that drove her to such devotion~

 

[muir]

...by doing so as part of your argument, your argument tends to lose credibility, even if there are things of value contained therein.

Peer-reviewed, experiment-derived data, produced from multiple, randomized, double-blind trials of sufficient sample-size, that suggest causality - where are they? :noidea:

You are failing to see how the whole capitalist machine works

The capitalists always rationalise their immorality by saying that the market decides, therefore its not their fault if people use their harmful products...that's BS; advertising, marketing, education and government influence decides...at what point does responsibility enter into it? They argue we should have personal responsibility but when they don't inform us how is that supposed to work in actuality?

Until they exist, you’re speculating, just like those who say there is no danger.

In fact, no one really knows the truth of it.


cheers,
Ian

No many people do know the truth

 

[muir]

This reminds me of.....

Welcome to the NHK. ( hehe~ which reminds me... What type would the protagonist be~ during the show they mention he's probably an Intorverted feeler~ but yeaaa who knows)

I have this twin sister that gets all passionate when it comes to big corporate... uuh and evil government regula..... I've always found it hard to listen to the logic and reasoning because that wasn't what was being conveyed at all, no, all that I could feel was her passion. I wonder what it was that drove her to such devotion~

The problem is not with people who are passionate about effecting positive change, the problem is in the number of people who don't engage their brains

 

[aeon]

You are failing to see how the whole capitalist machine works

I would appreciate being asked what I am doing first, before being told what I am doing.

That said, if you want to think that, go right ahead. Know however, that you

 

[Oranguh]

The problem is not with people who are passionate about effecting positive change, the problem is in the number of people who don't engage their brains

Very true That's why I was always skeptical over my sister's view. Although her arguments were perhaps probably well rounded I couldn't but help being skeptical due to the bias created by her fervor. To me her stance on the "Good vs Bad" was all that was influencing her reasoning. Perhaps if the subject at hand was a little less emotionally charged I would have been able to take her more seriously. But at that time all I could do was to believe that she was overly biased (and perhaps a bit paranoid). To me she was not engaging her brain but engaging her sense of juctice.

Oh and you should be carefull when you say things like "People don't engage their brains". It may sound as if you are overly presumptious on the given subject. If I want to convince people I definitely do not want to give out that vibe, on the contrary I try to at least seem* open and tolerant. *(hehehe but that's a mean thing to do)

 

[muir]

I would appreciate being asked what I am doing first, before being told what I am doing.

That said, if you want to think that, go right ahead. Know however, that you’re making a statement about an aspect my experience which you have no access to, or knowledge of.

Based on that demonstrated behavior, which suggests a thinking/cognitive style, the credibility of your argument is now even less from my view.



And their "truth" is based on what, exactly? :noidea:


cheers,
Ian

I understand how that looks. I will try and explain my position

At the moment we are looking at an issue through a metaphorical microscope. We are looking at a component part (ie big pharma) of a much larger whole. If we zoom out a bit and look at the whole itself, it can then give us insight into the component parts.

In the same way that scientists tell us that the same laws of physics exist in space, the same laws apply to the component parts as to the whole.

The whole i am talking about is the profit driven system which we use globally to allocate resources: capitalism

Some people might be a bit bored of me talking about capitalism, but i hope this post will shed some light on why i do talk about it a lot.

The system (capitalism) has a nature of its own. It is driven by the pursuit of profit and that prioritisation of profit over other things such as: people, animals, the environment or the truth has very real implications for all of us.

I can't present you with extensive pie charts or graphs to represent this so i will ask you to look around you. What are we seeing happening around us, both in front of us and further afield? We are seeing all sorts of problems. I trace all of these problems back to the system which gave birth to them.

You can pick pretty much any topic discussed on this forum and it can be related back to capitalism.

Capitalism shapes everything including us.

Someone might talk about an oil spill in the gulf of mexico....that can be related back to a system that prioritises profits above sustainablity or safety. Someone might talk about being depressed.....i would relate that back to the negative ways in which capitalism is shaping that persons reality.

Capitalism is not motivated by kindness, compassion, equality, respect or any other 'higher values'...it simply is not. The markets do not have an inbuilt capacity for any of these things....they are unfeeling and so therefore is capitalism.

So this story about vaccines....do i believe that the pharmaceutical companies have endevoured to provide us with the most safe and well researched product, brought through a compassionate desire to enrich our lives.....NO i think they are trying to turn a massive profit. I think in that race to turn a profit they may even resort to things which are either outright illegal or which are at least immoral by the standards of most people

Do i need to see a written study showing data gleaned from 50 years of painstaking research to tell me that the pharmaceutical companies are a bunch of heartless profit hunters? No i know it because i understand the forces which shape them.

Many people seem to think that the status quo is 'just the way things are'. But that is wrong. We influence our reality all the time.

I believe strongly that the current system is not the best way for humanity to allocate resources. Global wars, famines, environmental disaster, drug dependancy, economic upheaval etc are the pointers to that for me.

For as long as we are living under this profit obsessed system and all the ill effects it has for all of us i think it is important not to have any delusions about the nature of the system.

Many people do get complacent and then get stung by the system as we have seen in the latest economic crisis....these just keep coming under capitalism.

So a healthy level of scepticism is a good thing for a person to arm themselves with. Where does scepticism end and paranoia begin? What is quite disturbing is that the more information i learn the further that boundary is pushed.

There seems to be no limits to the cruelty or heartlessness of capitalism. You can talk about positive advances made under capitalism but these more likely come down to the 'higher values' you spoke of before, which i believe are a more natural part of human nature then the negative ones people must adopt to survive under a capitalist system.

I hope this goes some way to explaining my seeming inflexibilty over some issues. My view is that these things are all just the inevitable consequences of living under a system that puts profit first

 

[muir]

Very true That's why I was always skeptical over my sister's view. Although her arguments were perhaps probably well rounded I couldn't but help being skeptical due to the bias created by her fervor. To me her stance on the "Good vs Bad" was all that was influencing her reasoning. Perhaps if the subject at hand was a little less emotionally charged I would have been able to take her more seriously. But at that time all I could do was to believe that she was overly biased (and perhaps a bit paranoid). To me she was not engaging her brain but engaging her sense of juctice.

Oh and you should be carefull when you say things like "People don't engage their brains". It may sound as if you are overly presumptious on the given subject. If I want to convince people I definitely do not want to give out that vibe, on the contrary I try to at least seem* open and tolerant. *(hehehe but that's a mean thing to do)

Had you considered that 'good versus bad' might actually be a very good foundation to build a way of life upon?

If 'justice' was the primary motivator behind society then things would be radically different and radically fairer

You mention openness and tolerance, but you seem to be intolerant of your sisters argument because you don't like the way in which she presents it; are you being open minded with her?

It sounds to me like she has a well developed moral compass and perhaps you might in time realise that what is really important is the SUBSTANCE of what she is saying not the STYLE it is said in.

In time she might learn to moderate how she presents herself, but at the moment what is important is that she cares and that should be encouraged

 

[Capt Charisma]

Personally I agree with Muir but because I have actually physically myself dug up Immuni Booklets from 20 people ten of them had Aspergers (I do aswell) and well that combined with my usual distrust to anyone in power... well. fighting it out on a forum is going to achieve nothing, I know what I found myself.

To convince someone against their pre established beliefs you have to destroy their entire network, not just aim for your target you must aim for their supports. Make them doubt themselves is only the begining.

 

[Oranguh]

Had you considered that 'good versus bad' might actually be a very good foundation to build a way of life upon?
If 'justice' was the primary motivator behind society then things would be radically different and radically fairer
You mention openness and tolerance, but you seem to be intolerant of your sisters argument because you don't like the way in which she presents it; are you being open minded with her?
It sounds to me like she has a well developed moral compass and perhaps you might in time realise that what is really important is the SUBSTANCE of what she is saying not the STYLE it is said in.
In time she might learn to moderate how she presents herself, but at the moment what is important is that she cares and that should be encouraged

I think I'll have to disagree here.... Primarily because justice is subjective.

Our society, in my opinion, wouldn't be that different as it is now. I believe (or I am naaive enough to believe that) people generally do not act out of evil intentions. We all have our different versions of what is right. Let me give you some controversial examples.
Right winged government authorities generally believe that by reducing government interference regarding the economy it will make the country a better place. As is described by this article. (please note that this article is quite "left" and is therefore biased, but it does a good job at explaining the phenomenom) Left winged politicians believe somewhat the opposite, "welfare state", "healthcare", etc. They both view their actions as "Justice" and "good" but what they see as justice is radically different.

Members of the Westboro Baptist church also act out of their version of justice. Although to us it may only seem as spewing hatred and intolerance.... Their motives are, in my eyes, fueled by nothing short of justice and perhaps even love.

The same goes for most terrorist organizations. Suicide bombers, as well call them, but they call themselves martyrs. There is a world of difference between a terrorist and a martyr.

I feel I am in no position to judge whether their version of justice is right or not. But I feel everyone acts according to what they believe is the truth. I would find it despicable of myself to condemn their actions.

I seem to have brought some misunderstanding regarding the situation with my sister. True, I did not listen very well nor did I look at the information well. But I have to admit I wasn't really interested either. The possibility of bias didn't really help either.
I never mentioned that she was wrong or right, I only mentioned that her speech was guided by emotions, which usually leads to bias. Was I therefore Intolerant of her opinion? How do you even know I disliked her presentation? On the contrary I was very touched by her passion for doing what she believed was good. I only feared that her sense of justice would cloud her reasoning to an extent where she would seem radical and unreasonable.

To me the content isn't as important as the intentions behind them and she scored an A+ for her intentions.

"Logic" has been fallacious from the very moment humans came to know that term. I think I'll quote Indigosensor here "No research is unbiased. Humans are biased by nature." For these are wise words that I myself live by.

 

[muir]

I think I'll have to disagree here.... Primarily because justice is subjective.

Our society, in my opinion, wouldn't be that different as it is now. I believe (or I am naaive enough to believe that) people generally do not act out of evil intentions. We all have our different versions of what is right. Let me give you some controversial examples.

Justice grows out of empathy. Human beings are social animals and empathy is one of the building blocks of their cooperation. Capitalism usually relies on coercieon not on empathy. It puts competition up on a pedastal and discourages cooperation except under duress.

Most people have a pretty good grasp of what is wrong and what is right when they are not being mislead by capitalist media. They know inherently that some things are wrong. Therefore if you construct a society based on what people inherently feel is right then you will create a better world.

Right winged government authorities generally believe that by reducing government interference regarding the economy it will make the country a better place. As is described by this article. (please note that this article is quite "left" and is therefore biased, but it does a good job at explaining the phenomenom) Left winged politicians believe somewhat the opposite, "welfare state", "healthcare", etc. They both view their actions as "Justice" and "good" but what they see as justice is radically different.

Right winged government authorities do not believe that reducing government interference will make the country a better place....that is just the argument they present to the public to win over voters. They want it because they do not want any resistance to their own wealth accumulation. If they really wanted to do the best for society then they would share their ample personal wealth....but they don't. They might argue that their proposed political reforms are for the benefit of the people, but really they are playing a balancing act in which they try to stay on the back of the people without the people getting angry and throwing them off. (I will talk more about Fukeyama's article in my next post)

Members of the Westboro Baptist church also act out of their version of justice. Although to us it may only seem as spewing hatred and intolerance.... Their motives are, in my eyes, fueled by nothing short of justice and perhaps even love.

No they are fueled by indoctrination. Protestantism and capitalism have walked hand in hand. The whole: work hard, be thrifty protestant ethic is designed by the power elites to keep people behaving as good little citizens whilst the corrupt rich coin it in

The same goes for most terrorist organizations. Suicide bombers, as well call them, but they call themselves martyrs. There is a world of difference between a terrorist and a martyr.

Unlike justice which can be pegged to innate qualities such as empathy, the word 'terrorism' IS subjective.

If terrorism is causing terror, then only an insane person could argue against the fact that the industrialised countries have been the greatest terrorists in human history.....in terms of the sheer numbers of people who they have caused terror to. They didn't just industrialise production, they industrialised carnage as well

Terrorism is a word much missused, deliberately by western power elites to corrupt one of the most powerful tools available to the people which is WORDS

I feel I am in no position to judge whether their version of justice is right or not. But I feel everyone acts according to what they believe is the truth. I would find it despicable of myself to condemn their actions.

Under a capitalist system people are forced into acting in their own interests. Self interest and the pursuit of profit being the driving force behind capitalism....not the truth.

The truth as capitalists will tell us is that we are all inherently selfish, and that society should reflect what they like to call 'the law of the jungle'. They tell us that capitalism is the only way. Those lies and many more act together to create an overarching 'truth' which forms a prison for many peoples minds

I seem to have brought some misunderstanding regarding the situation with my sister. True, I did not listen very well nor did I look at the information well. But I have to admit I wasn't really interested either. The possibility of bias didn't really help either.
I never mentioned that she was wrong or right, I only mentioned that her speech was guided by emotions, which usually leads to bias.

And i never said that you said that she said that.

What i said was that a focus on 'good versus bad' ie morality based on what the majority of people see as being inherently fair is actually a good foundation to build a society upon.

Was I therefore Intolerant of her opinion? How do you even know I disliked her presentation?

You said very clearly that you did not take her seriously because you felt that she was too emotionally charged. This implies that you were not willing to be tolerant of her argument because you didn't like the way she was putting it across (ie with too much emotion)

On the contrary I was very touched by her passion for doing what she believed was good. I only feared that her sense of justice would cloud her reasoning to an extent where she would seem radical and unreasonable.

If you were touched then perhaps you should take her more seriously.

To me the content isn't as important as the intentions behind them and she scored an A+ for her intentions.

The content still remains important and if you want to learn by listening then the content can become more important than the intention.

"Logic" has been fallacious from the very moment humans came to know that term. I think I'll quote Indigosensor here "No research is unbiased. Humans are biased by nature." For these are wise words that I myself live by.

There are degrees of bias

 

[Oranguh]

egh whatever~ this was posted on slashdot yesterday btw

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full