Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: the great smallpox debate

Expand Messages
  • winters_diana
    ... And one more quick reply to this. It s good to worry about controls - once the virus is in the lab, will they just do whatever experiments they please,
    Message 1 of 12 , May 2, 2005
      Deborah:
      >I was wondering about security in the labs where they would be working
      >with the virus. I was worrying about controls: once the virus was in a
      >lab, who would prevent additional modifications and experiments? And
      >so forth and so on.


      And one more quick reply to this. It's good to worry about "controls" -
      once the virus is in the lab, will they just do whatever experiments
      they please, and think of ever-crazier ones next?

      No. There is, of course, a valid reason to fear the "slippery slope,"
      but it easily slides into paranoia. Scientists don't just do whatever
      experiments they please on materials in their labs. That's why there
      are ethics committees and bodies such as the World Health Organization,
      and why countries pass laws about these things. The article Serena just
      posted is full of examples of that.

      Diana
    • Deborah
      Dear Linda, You are so much better at this type of analysis than I am or could ever be, that I m strongly inclined to just stand back and let you go at it. I
      Message 2 of 12 , May 2, 2005
        Dear Linda,

        You are so much better at this type of "analysis" than I am or could
        ever be, that I'm strongly inclined to just stand back and let you
        go at it.

        I am going to post something about Diana's take on how allergies are
        preferable to infectious diseases, but it might take a couple of
        days. I need to gather a bit of data.

        Thanks for your brilliant work!
        Nana

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Linda Clemens"
        <aesopo_aeternus@y...> wrote:
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana"
        > <diana.winters@v...> wrote:
        >
        > [Deborah:]"Part One: When I first posted the article about the WHA
        > and the possible GM modification of the smallpox virus, I was
        basing
        > my concerns on everyday stuff, although I didn't state all of
        these
        > concerns at the time, unfortunately. To be specific, I was
        wondering
        > about security in the labs where they would be working with the
        > virus. I was worrying about controls: once the virus was in a lab,
        > who would prevent additional modifications and experiments? And so
        > forth and so on. "
        >
        >
        > [Diana] " Reasonable concerns. I'm not sure that they would be
        > subsumed under a general concern about "innocence" of the
        scientists,
        > or of science in a general way, though, leading me to suspect
        you've
        > kind of reformulated your concerns in accord with things posted
        > later. It packed a much greater punch to question "innocence" than
        to
        > muse on whether they'd be sure to lock up the vials carefully
        every
        > night when they leave the lab. The way these things work
        > rhetorically, we're supposed to *imagine* a vast conspiracy
        brewing,
        > and it's all the more sinister because it isn't explicit. Also,
        that
        > way there's great deniability when someone says, Yes but are you
        > really suggesting . . . ???"
        >
        > Diana, who has associated both Deborah and awarded scientists (a
        > Nobel prize winner is among them) with "malicious homicidal
        > idiocy", "mass murder", and "demonic" possession and the
        > like~~~~~yes, *this* Diana is delivering a haughty scold to
        Deborah
        > over the supposedly sinister and paranoid implications conveyed by
        > the phrase "innocent"?
        >
        > You can't make this stuff up, folks.
      • Deborah
        Diana said: Where do you find these sickly children? I don t know any. My son does have a friend who was not vaccinated who missed a goodly chunk of fifth
        Message 3 of 12 , May 3, 2005
          Diana said:

          Where do you find these sickly children? I don't know any. My son
          does have a friend who was not vaccinated who missed a goodly chunk
          of fifth grade to whooping cough. Now *he* was sickly. A great,
          strapping, hardy youth, normally – spent MONTHS sidelined from this
          ghastly business. Was rushed to the hospital one night in about week
          7 of the illness, turning blue from throwing up night after night.

          Hi Diana,

          This is the epitome of anecdotal evidence. How about some studies on
          how healthy american kids are as compared to children in various other
          countries? Our kids get the most vaccines, the earliest. We have very
          low rates of infectious childhood illnesses, overall. But how do we
          look on stuff like asthma, allergies, diabetes? You have access to all
          the medical studies, so turn up some stuff that shows how healthy
          american children are and how low our rates of chronic illness
          compared to some of the other countries that are less thorough in
          their vaccinations.

          Cheers!
          Nana
        • Deborah
          Diana said, referring to results from vaccination: The results are stupendous. The childhood diseases were essentially defeated in the West. Yes, we have more
          Message 4 of 12 , May 3, 2005
            Diana said, referring to results from vaccination:

            The results are stupendous. The childhood diseases were essentially
            defeated in the West. Yes, we have more allergies. ALLERGIES
            Deborah –
            as opposed to kids in iron lungs or kids dead of scourges that are
            now GONE thanks to modern science.

            My response:

            1: J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003 Dec;112(6):1203-7.

            Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States
            determined by
            means of a random digit dial telephone survey: a 5-year follow-up
            study.

            Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA.
            "Allergy to peanuts and tree nuts (TNs) is the leading
            cause of fatal
            and near-fatal food allergic reactions." <snip>
            "CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported peanut allergy has doubled among children
            from 1997
            to 2002, and peanut allergies, TN allergies, or both continue to be
            reported by
            more than 3 million Americans. Considering that reactions are severe
            and the
            allergy is persistent, these allergies represent an increasing
            health concern."

            So allergies are better than childhood illnesses? Not if you have a
            child who could die in a few minutes if exposed to peanuts.

            I have a close friend who is allergic to fish and a few other
            things. She copes, but has to maintain a constant awareness of what
            she eats and what she is around.

            But hey, Diana has spoken.
            Nana
          • Deborah
            Diana said, claiming that vaccines are what did it all: The results are stupendous. The childhood diseases were essentially defeated in the West. Yes, we have
            Message 5 of 12 , May 3, 2005
              Diana said, claiming that vaccines are what did it all:

              The results are stupendous. The childhood diseases were essentially
              defeated in the West. Yes, we have more allergies. ALLERGIES
              Deborah –
              as opposed to kids in iron lungs or kids dead of scourges that are
              now GONE thanks to modern science.


              http://www.whale.to/v/phillips.html#VACCINATION

              According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
              childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling
              improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory
              vaccination programs. The Medical Sentinel recently reported, "from
              1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from
              infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet
              fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from
              these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation
              of mass immunization programs."(34)

              My response:

              I definitely would give a lot of credit to modern science. The
              brilliant engineers who designed and built sewage and water quality
              systems, the scientists who discovered that contaminated water
              spread disease, the social scientists who demonstrated that
              overcrowded housing and generally lousy diet caused a high death
              rate among the "huddled masses" living in cities all deserve a lot
              of credit for saving millions of lives. I tend to look at the
              medicos who hype vaccines as johnny come latelies who are taking
              credit for a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with them.

              Here is a practical question:

              Suppose you and your famiy were transported back in time and
              suddenly found yourselves living in a tenement in NYC in say 1890.
              You share one cold water tap with 16 families. All clothing has to
              be washed by hand. For most of the year fresh food is not obtainable
              at any cost (and you are living on the usual working class wages of
              the time). Your housing is inadequately heated and your clothing
              generally not warm enough. In the summer there is no air
              conditioning. The drinking water is not very clean. Now, you are all
              vaccinated, unlike the rest of the folks around you. You are also
              fairly well-nourished, to start with, unlike the people you are
              living with. How long do you think it would be before you and your
              family were seriously ill? A week? Two weeks?

              Ah yes, let's give the credit to vaccination by all means.
              Nana
            • winters_diana
              ... and I m just curious, feel free to ignore me but I am interested in whether any of that rang a bell or you think I misunderstand Steiner there. Diana
              Message 6 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                I wrote to Deborah:

                >There's no "The world being what it is, people will suffer" in
                >Steiner. Steiner says (it makes Dottie cover her ears and begin
                >shrieking to drown me out, but it's true) Steiner says we *seek* our
                >suffering and *engineer* our suffering in specific ways for specific
                >spiritual purposes. We are extremely clever in selecting for
                >ourselves *exactly* the right disease/misfortune/etc. to correspond
                >to what ails us spiritually. That is the point of the karma
                >lectures, you might find if you re-read them. *Specifics* such as
                >smallpox being the karma of unlovingness are given to support this
                >point. It is not about "the world being what it is." It is about us
                >*creating* the things that happen to us – drawing them to us
                >deliberately and inexorably. If there is a smallpox outbreak, it
                >will be because certain people *wanted and needed and chose* to get
                >smallpox.

                and I'm just curious, feel free to ignore me but I am interested in
                whether any of that rang a bell or you think I misunderstand Steiner
                there.

                Diana
              • winters_diana
                ... Of course it is. *You* made the claim there are an awful lot of sickly children around. *You* should back up that claim with references. I merely looked
                Message 7 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                  >Hi Diana,

                  >This is the epitome of anecdotal evidence.


                  Of course it is. *You* made the claim there are an awful lot of sickly
                  children around. *You* should back up that claim with references. I
                  merely looked around and said, "Where are these children? I don't see
                  any." The person making the claim needs to back it up, not ask someone
                  else to prove they don't exist.

                  Diana
                • winters_diana
                  ... Yes! It is plainly obvious. I understand it works against an ideology you believe in deeply, but yes, Deborah, allergies are better than childhood
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                    Deborah:

                    >So allergies are better than childhood illnesses?

                    Yes! It is plainly obvious. I understand it works against an ideology
                    you believe in deeply, but yes, Deborah, allergies are better than
                    childhood illnesses - at least, the ones that used to kill or
                    permanently scar many of their victims.


                    >Not if you have a child who could die in a few minutes if exposed to
                    >peanuts.

                    There isn't a free lunch. It is too bad that there are children with
                    all kinds of serious medical conditions, still. Anyway, we're acting
                    like this allergies/vaccination thing is established, and it's far
                    from established. This "dying from exposure to a peanut because I had
                    an MMR shot the other day" is a big s t r e t c h.

                    >I have a close friend who is allergic to fish and a few other
                    >things. She copes, but has to maintain a constant awareness of what
                    >she eats and what she is around.

                    Yeah . . . medicine has not solved everything. I'm sorry for your
                    friend. It's largely solved the problem of the childhood illnesses
                    that pretty much ruined childhood for so many.

                    Diana
                  • winters_diana
                    P.S. A child with a peanut allergy is not sickly. ... sickly ... someone
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 3, 2005
                      P.S. A child with a peanut allergy is not "sickly."



                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "winters_diana" <wrote:
                      > >Hi Diana,
                      >
                      > >This is the epitome of anecdotal evidence.
                      >
                      >
                      > Of course it is. *You* made the claim there are an awful lot of
                      sickly
                      > children around. *You* should back up that claim with references. I
                      > merely looked around and said, "Where are these children? I don't see
                      > any." The person making the claim needs to back it up, not ask
                      someone
                      > else to prove they don't exist.
                      >
                      > Diana
                    • Frank Thomas Smith
                      ... This, but worse, is more or less the situation in much of the third world, where vaccinations do have a certain value. Frank
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 4, 2005
                        > http://www.whale.to/v/phillips.html#VACCINATION
                        >
                        > According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
                        > childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling
                        > improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory
                        > vaccination programs. The Medical Sentinel recently reported, "from
                        > 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from
                        > infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet
                        > fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from
                        > these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation
                        > of mass immunization programs."(34)
                        >
                        > My response:
                        >
                        > I definitely would give a lot of credit to modern science. The
                        > brilliant engineers who designed and built sewage and water quality
                        > systems, the scientists who discovered that contaminated water
                        > spread disease, the social scientists who demonstrated that
                        > overcrowded housing and generally lousy diet caused a high death
                        > rate among the "huddled masses" living in cities all deserve a lot
                        > of credit for saving millions of lives. I tend to look at the
                        > medicos who hype vaccines as johnny come latelies who are taking
                        > credit for a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with them.
                        >
                        > Here is a practical question:
                        >
                        > Suppose you and your famiy were transported back in time and
                        > suddenly found yourselves living in a tenement in NYC in say 1890.
                        > You share one cold water tap with 16 families. All clothing has to
                        > be washed by hand. For most of the year fresh food is not obtainable
                        > at any cost (and you are living on the usual working class wages of
                        > the time). Your housing is inadequately heated and your clothing
                        > generally not warm enough. In the summer there is no air
                        > conditioning. The drinking water is not very clean. Now, you are all
                        > vaccinated, unlike the rest of the folks around you. You are also
                        > fairly well-nourished, to start with, unlike the people you are
                        > living with. How long do you think it would be before you and your
                        > family were seriously ill? A week? Two weeks?
                        >

                        This, but worse, is more or less the situation in much of the third world,
                        where vaccinations do have a certain value.
                        Frank
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.