Thinking about the immunization battle

Jun 04, 2011 13:04

I used to subscribe to "Mothering" magazine, a new agey periodical which, even if it did support some odd ideas, at least wasn't a mass-market pub subsidized by formula ads and had articles that made me think. (If you want such a publication, minus the really wonky ideas, I highly recommend "Brain, Child" for parents of children of all ages.) Then ( Read more... )

opinion, science

Leave a comment

Comments 6

houseboatonstyx June 4 2011, 17:12:01 UTC
When I pieced my brain back together (praising the Goddess for my quilting skills), I realized that technically he was correct, because Edward Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine before the scientific method was in use for medical studies and he did his research without control groups.

==============

Hm. And the same argument has been used against traditional herbal remedies; centuries of use in several continents doesn't count as scientific proof.

Reply

nohwhere_man June 5 2011, 02:02:28 UTC
Part of the problem is the word "prove", especially when applied to complex organisms. Proof means something quite different from the more appropriate word "demonstrate". Several centuries use of certain herbs has demonstrated effectiveness against some ailments, but that really isn't scientific proof. OTOH if it seems to work, why not use it?

Reply

ericavdg June 11 2011, 06:25:33 UTC
Not only does American modern medicine refuse to accept centuries of effective use for herbal remedies, it won't even accept controlled studies done in Europe as proof that they work. Of course, most drug studies are conducted by drug manufacturers; you can't patent a plant but you can a drug, so there's nothing in it for them. Interesting, though, that one is hard pressed to find pennyroyal at herb and magick shops. It's perfectly legal, but it's also an effective abortifacient.

By the way, how did you find me? I checked your info out of curiosity and you don't seem to be anyone I know. Just wondering. :)

Reply


cz_unit June 5 2011, 02:01:10 UTC
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Reply


wouldyoueva June 5 2011, 05:57:41 UTC
I wonder in which way that guy meant that comment.

But I hear you on MOTHERING. Love, love, loved 2/3rds of it, hated the anti-vax stuff and the pro-homeschooling stuff. But at least I could understand why they were homeschooling, the anti-vax stuff didn't make sense to me.

I should have subscribed to it. I loved "New Times" magazine--it went under. I loved "Spy" magazine--ditto. I loved "Brill's Content"--yeah, we know how that went. I'm taking TIME and the NEW YORKER as my personal challenge now.

Reply


ashcomp June 6 2011, 02:51:09 UTC
Or the shorter version, "Don't believe everything you read!"

Reply


Leave a comment

Up