Giant's Causeway visitor centre controversy

[Eamonnca1]

You are the one taking issue with the creationist dogma?
Perhaps you have a clearer understanding of how the human species develops, how natural immunity/adaptability to environment develops over the generations and Darwinism, but somehow I doubt it.  I recommend you read Evolution & Healing – The Science of Darwinian Medicine  Dr.Randolph Nesse and  Dr.George Williams.
Perhaps you have a perspective on the historical radical decline of  the death rates and notification of diseases like measles since 1910, long before vaccines were introduced, but I also doubt that. Meticulous historical records are kept in the archives in England.  Recorded in Thomas McKeown's "The Role of Medicine"
- Mortality rates from infectious disease from 1850's.
  Perhaps you simply believe that measles vaccination creation is responsible for the decline in incidents of measles when all known historical records  show how the human species adapts to this disease since records began in 1850 and record radical declines since 1910.

Before you call me an idiot you would be advised to get better acquainted with the subject of Darwinism, especially if you are taking issue with the creationist dogma.

1 - Creationism, unlike the scientific consensus on vaccinations ('dogma' as you put it), is based on the creation myths of middle eastern bronze age goat herders who treated women like property and thought the earth was flat. The scientific consensus on vaccination is based on rigorous research, evidence, and the views of qualified people who know what they're talking about.  Vaccinations prevent diseases. Fact.

2 - If you're using your own children as an experiment in 'darwinism' then you're playing eugenics with your own family.  You want the fit to survive and the weak to perish even if it means risking the health of your own children?  Maybe 'eejit' was too generous a word.  If they have poor eyesight are you going to let them go through life unable to see because you think the invention of glasses has weakened the gene pool?  If they somehow acquire diabetes are you going to deprive them of insulin and let nature take its course?

[J70]

Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.

[Hardy]

Exactly. That was the (obscure) point of my little parable.

[Main Street]

Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.

That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck?  Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied -  hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.

You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see  where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.  Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising  from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.

[Billys Boots]

The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising  from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.

Interesting point; my own opinion on vaccination (and acquired immunity) is also that it is contrary to Darwinism in that they (vaccines) are essentially commercial tools with no aim other than (commercial) profit, leaving aside the 'history' of allopathic sciences, the fraud, poor formulation, pitiful testing regimes and bad quasi-science associated with that discipline. 

How did the Giant's Causeway lead us here?

[Hardy]

"An acquired natural immunity is passed on to the next generation". Yes, but only by those who survive. The casualties of your experiment in natural selection won't be too impressed that you passed up the chance to save them in the interest of a next generation that won't exist because ... well you get my point. Or am I missing yours?

[Evil Genius]

Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.

That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck?  Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied -  hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.

You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see  where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.  Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising  from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.

Not a lot of time just now, but couldn't let the above garbage pass (esp bold)


(From the World Health Organisation)
Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2010, there were 139 300 measles deaths globally – nearly 380 deaths every day or 15 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2010 worldwide.
In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 – mostly children under the age of five.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. From 2001 to 2011 more than one billion children aged 9 months to 14 years who live in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease. Global measles deaths have decreased by 74% from 535 300 in 2000 to 139 300 in 2010.

Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of five, or adults over the age of 20. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the benefit of providing universal access to measles and rubella-containing vaccines. Globally, an estimated 535 300 children died of measles in 2000. By 2010, the global push to improve vaccine coverage resulted in a 74% reduction in deaths. These efforts, supported by the Measles & Rubella Initiative (MR Initiative), contributed 23% of the overall decline in under-five deaths between 1990 and 2008 and are driving progress towards meeting MDG4.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/


P.S. Any comment on the inefficiency of Mass Vaccination as a means of controlling this?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

Or this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11542653

[ONeill]

Survival of the fittest in Monaghan.

[Imposerous]

Assuming there are unbroken lines of Jewish lineage where for thousands of years circumcision has been performed, are Jewish males showing signs of adapting to the fact that they no longer need their foreskins?
 

[Eamonnca1]

For his next trick he's going to let his children die of smallpox because he doesn't want to taint the gene pool with artificial solutions like vaccinations.

[Main Street]

"An acquired natural immunity is passed on to the next generation". Yes, but only by those who survive. The casualties of your experiment in natural selection won't be too impressed that you passed up the chance to save them in the interest of a next generation that won't exist because ... well you get my point. Or am I missing yours?

I think you are missing my point.
Naturally living is better than dying    
But it helps to understand how the human species has adapted to the scourge of disease down through the ages. It's also worth considering the conditions  hygene nutrition, war, famine, drought, city slums etc that those  people lived under.
There are plenty of interventions that can be done by a person to keep alive, fit and healthy while at the same time an immune system can prosper and evolve.
The point I make is simple enough, within Darwinian science and theory is the observation of how an individual evolves within a species.
Without going into those details, this science and theory has been important for Western civilisation. I make a distinction because in Eastern philosophy these teachings are well established in ancient spiritual doctrines/teachings.  The fundamentals of Darwin's theory of natural selection was the important central basis for the research of Gerald Edelman who won a nobel prize for his work on the immune system, adaptive immunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman
Part of that research, he outlined how the immune systems adapts and learns and where this memory is stored. That the immune system has a memory of how to deal with stuff.
That is the basis for an acquired immunity.
Back to my simple point, an artificial immunity (eg vaccination) is not an acquired immunity, it is not a learned immunity, not does the body hold any memory of this experience. An adapted immunity is passed on to the next generation and Edelman also explains how this is done.

I take some exception to being regarded as a crank for not sharing the same joy about the artificial immunity belief system. Not only have I studied this for years, I have wide experience in this area. If someone doesn't agree, then fair enough, I am not going to call them stupid for not believing in me, nor will I call for pistols at dawn.

[Hardy]

I'm sorry, but your point is still not clear to me. Simple questions:

1. Are you saying people shouldn't be vaccinated and, if so, are you supporting the inevitable corollary of that position by stating that people should be prepared to sacrifice their children to preventable diseases in the interest of the evolution of the species?
2. Are you saying vaccination is anti-Darwinian and therefore wrong in some way or that it frustrates the Darwinian destiny of the individual (as opposed to the species) in some way that any other preventive or curative treatment doesn't?

If you're not saying these things, would you ever the f*** say in plain English whatever it is you are saying?

(Take the smiley as read.)

[Main Street]

Species/populations adapt, not individuals. With individuals its down to the luck of the genetic draw.

That's poppycock, which flies in the face of Darwinian science and the historical evolution of humankind and disease.
Where on earth does science accept luck?  Science demands a bit more rigour than that.
The factors that mount up an individual's susceptibility are varied -  hereditary, nutrition, environment, hygiene, exposure
and a person's adaptability to that threat depends also on those factors.

You would need to read the history of diseases like the plague and small pox to see  where the people who were afflicted and adapted to these infectious disease, were not affected when the 2nd wave came, immunity is an individually acquired state. Hereditary susceptibility to a disease is only one factor in a person's susceptibility.
My point is that vaccination might offer a temporary immunity but it can't be passed on to ones' offspring whereas an acquired natural immunity is passed on the next generation.  Passed on in the first crucial years of growth, before birth and post birth. The germane issues are the reasons why some people don't adapt. Statistics prove that the incidents of and problems arising  from a mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced, yet the consensus of allopathic 'science' is that it was the introduction of vaccines that radically affected the statistics.

Not a lot of time just now, but couldn't let the above garbage pass (esp bold)


(From the World Health Organisation)
Key facts
Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2010, there were 139 300 measles deaths globally – nearly 380 deaths every day or 15 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2010 worldwide.
In 2010, about 85% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.

It remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 – mostly children under the age of five.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. From 2001 to 2011 more than one billion children aged 9 months to 14 years who live in high risk countries were vaccinated against the disease. Global measles deaths have decreased by 74% from 535 300 in 2000 to 139 300 in 2010.

Most measles-related deaths are caused by complications associated with the disease. Complications are more common in children under the age of five, or adults over the age of 20. The most serious complications include blindness, encephalitis (an infection that causes brain swelling), severe diarrhoea and related dehydration, ear infections, or severe respiratory infections such as pneumonia. As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the benefit of providing universal access to measles and rubella-containing vaccines. Globally, an estimated 535 300 children died of measles in 2000. By 2010, the global push to improve vaccine coverage resulted in a 74% reduction in deaths. These efforts, supported by the Measles & Rubella Initiative (MR Initiative), contributed 23% of the overall decline in under-five deaths between 1990 and 2008 and are driving progress towards meeting MDG4.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/


P.S. Any comment on the inefficiency of Mass Vaccination as a means of controlling this?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

Or this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11542653

The above full quote you took exception to was a
mild childhood disease like measles were radically on the wane for 60 years before vaccinations were introduced
I apologise for some misunderstanding here.
This only refers to the UK.
I assumed this was understood and I assumed wrongly.
Everything I wrote is from a West European perspective because  apart from recent enough wars, famines and plagues  we have a similar enough standard of living/health care.
The statistics  for the UK
1850  - 1910   approx 1200 out of a million children under the age of 15   died from measles

1910 to 1968  this death figure was steadily reduced to one or two per 1,000,000 children,
Vaccination was introduced in or around 1968

Measles notification was in cycles of course, with peaks and troughs.
The highest peak in the UK was 1962 (probably was when I did measles)  some 750,000 notifications
1964 peak  - 600.000 notifications
1966 peak -  450,000 notifications
1967 peak - 400,000 notification
1968 measles vaccination introduced
1970 peak   300,000 notifications
1976 peak 225,000 notifications

So we have a recorded decline to almost zero in deaths  and a steady recorded decline in notifications before vaccinations were introduced. .

The other part you refer to is in poverty stricken 3rd world. The key word here is poverty. Yes children do die in their millions and the wonderment is how so many survive those conditions. If it was just a simple matter of saving lives through vaccination programs, I have no issue with that. But it is not as simple as that. There are hundreds of millions perhaps billions of people living in poverty. The main issues are poverty, sewage, food and water.
If I saw one stat which showed that vaccinations lowered the overall children mortality rate then I would be convinced of its benefits. But all I see is children dying of other causes. I have spent many years working with installing  water systems for remote villages  and drought areas throughout India. I have a reasonable overview of conditions that children have to put up with in the cities and the rural areas.

[Main Street]

I'm sorry, but your point is still not clear to me. Simple questions:

1. Are you saying people shouldn't be vaccinated and, if so, are you supporting the inevitable corollary of that position by stating that people should be prepared to sacrifice their children to preventable diseases in the interest of the evolution of the species?
2. Are you saying vaccination is anti-Darwinian and therefore wrong in some way or that it frustrates the Darwinian destiny of the individual (as opposed to the species) in some way that any other preventive or curative treatment doesn't?

If you're not saying these things, would you ever the f*** say in plain English whatever it is you are saying?

(Take the smiley as read.)

I am saying I am not a believer in artificial immunity and I have good scientific reasons for doing so.
Whatever you do with your gene pool is your issue.
I don't quite understand Q2.
I am saying that adaptive learned immunity is in harmony with Darwinism science and theory, and artificial immunity is not.

I am not saying it is wrong, just because a person does not believe or understand  Darwin science/theory does not make them wrong.

[Hardy]

I still haven't a clue whether you would allow your children to be vaccinated or would refuse to because it wouldn't be "in harmony" with Darwinian principles. If you wouldn't, you're mad. I don't imagine that's the case, so why rail against vaccination? And why pick on vaccination as opposed to any other preventive measure against disease as anti-Darwinian.

I can't get a grip on your point, but your use of the term "harmony" seems seems to suggest that you think belief in and and understanding of the theory of natural selection and the evolution of species it facilitates is a quasi-religious phenomenon. My antennae for new-age quackery are raised by the fact that you seem to place it in a context that includes "Eastern philosophy" and its "teachings" that are "well established in ancient spiritual doctrines/teachings" No they're not. That's mystical mumbo-jumbo and tommyrot.