Re: More U.S. Children Vaccinated Than Ever



In <[email protected]>, Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
>> rates fell, ...

>
> Yes, consider it. They were using an inferior and ineffective vaccine.
> Vaccinated kids were getting pertussis at much higher rates than
> other countries. The authorities should have spotted the problem,
> but didn't. The collective wisdom of the parents was apparently
> greater, as they figured out that the vaccine was not working, and
> they started rejecting it. Vaccination was not mandatory, so they had
> the advantage of getting a market response to a problem. The parents
> were right -- the vaccine was no good. The health authorities only
> figured out what was going on when they were confronted with the
> task of persuading the parents to voluntarily take the pertussis vaccine.
> Then they learned that the vaccine was no good. The parents never went
> back to that bad vaccine, either. They were only persuaded by the
> importation of a better vaccine.


Ah! That makes perfect sense: the vaccine was less effective,
so they decided that none at all was better. Of course, we don't
have any /other/ indication that the vaccine wasn't effective,
but that "collective wisdome" appears to have some sort of group
ESP which determined the ineffectiveness of the vaccine even
before any cases happened to disambiguate the probability functions.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Consider the experience in Scandanavia when pertussis vaccination
>> rates fell, ...

>
>Yes, consider it. They were using an inferior and ineffective vaccine.
>Vaccinated kids were getting pertussis at much higher rates than
>other countries.


Were they, now? Let's see your sources. In any event, they were
getting pertussis at much lower rates than unvaccinated kids. When
vaccination rates dropped, disease rates soared. This is a matter of
historical fact and is not subject to Schlafly spin.

>The authorities should have spotted the problem, but didn't. The
>collective wisdom of the parents was apparently greater, as they
>figured out that the vaccine was not working, and they started
>rejecting it.


Do you own a horse? Several of them? It's difficult for me to
believe that you could spread this much horse manure on m.h.a without
access to a steady supply.

They stopped vaccinating due to a fearmongering campaign; the idea
that "market forces" had anything to do with it is sheer fantasy on
your part.

>Vaccination was not mandatory, so they had the advantage of getting a
>market response to a problem. The parents were right -- the vaccine
>was no good.


Pfui. It may not have been as good as it could have been, but that's
miles (of your wishful thinking) from it being ineffective.

>The health authorities only figured out what was going on when they
>were confronted with the task of persuading the parents to
>voluntarily take the pertussis vaccine. Then they learned that the
>vaccine was no good. The parents never went back to that bad vaccine,
>either. They were only persuaded by the importation of a better
>vaccine.


This posting of Roger's exemplifies a number of his more unattractive
features: making things up and then asserting them as facts, combined
with trying to weasel away from the point of the previous posting, to
wit: reduced vaccination rates can and do occur, despite the "wisdom
of the parents," and this is invariably followed by a rise in disease
rates.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"jonah thomas" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > Yawn. No doubt you have a Marxist theory of vaccination up
>> > your sleeve as well. Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
>> > economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.

>> Supposing it was true, could anything convince you of it including your
>> own personal experience?

>
>Both theory and empirical evidence shows that free choice in
>vaccination is a good thing. I'd be happy to look at evidence
>to the contrary. But quoting silly platitudes from goofballs like
>Marx is meaningless. The quotes don't even have much
>connection to the subject being discussed.


Given your prediliction for changing the subject when discussions
start to go against you, it's remarkably hypocritical of you to
criticize someone else for not-terribly-relevant quotes.

Non-physician, heal thyself.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:


> >But quoting silly platitudes from goofballs like
> >Marx is meaningless. The quotes don't even have much
> >connection to the subject being discussed.


> Given your prediliction for changing the subject when discussions
> start to go against you, it's remarkably hypocritical of you to
> criticize someone else for not-terribly-relevant quotes.
>
> Non-physician, heal thyself.


Roger Schlafly earlier indicated that he wanted to discuss
Marx, Engels, Keynes, and Galbraith. I went along.

If somebody were to tell me that Roger Schlafly often brings
up a topic and then declares it irrelevant, I would believe it.

Maybe Roger Schlafly's point is to encourage greater fish consumption.
He presents himself as a cautionary illustration of what happens if
you don't eat fish.


Is Paul Feyerabend a frequent topic of discussion on m.h.a?

--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
 
Robert Vienneau <[email protected]> wrote:

>Is Paul Feyerabend a frequent topic of discussion on m.h.a?


No, but his "no rules" approach to scientific enquiry would be very
acceptable to many of the alt supporters, as they, too, reject the
idea that knowledge can be gained by an iterative process of
observation, hypothesis generation, testing and hypothesis adjustment.

Actually, Feyerabend might be too conservative for some. A lot of alt
supporters seem to think that scientific enquiry consists of making an
observation, extrapolating it to all conditions and then saying that
the resulting hypothesis must be true because it has not been
falsified. Put another way, Feyerabend seemed to be saying "whatever
you can dream up might be true", whereas most alts would say "whatever
I can dream up must be true - prove me wrong".

--
Peter Bowditch [email protected]
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
 
Albert Wagner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 25 Aug 2003 06:20:03 -0700
> [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> <snip>
> > An obvious example of the first is the criminal justice system. I and
> > others might argue about what constitutes a crime, but having reached
> > such agreement, sure, the answer is to capture, try and jail ( or
> > shoot if you prefer ) those who won't cooperate.
> > Any number of examples of the second......society has an interest in
> > healthy eating, but are we quite ready for a food police ?

>
> Depends on what you mean by "food police." Would it be a crime for a
> canner/packager to lie about what chemicals are actually in a product?
> Knowing that some are simply poison and others trigger hyperallergic
> reactions in some? Would it be a crime for a meat processor to
> distribute meat when it is known that certain safety precautions were
> ignored in it's processing and that it is possibly contaminated with
> harmeful bacteria?


Apologies....I meant a food police that came round andarrested you for
not eating your 5 portions of fruit and veg each day....society does
have an interest in this as it is known to reduce cancer rates, and
thus medical costs ( especially in Europe where medical costs are
bourne by tthe State ).
>
> >
> > A Libertarian would, in your question above, first ask, " Is this so
> > important that it is moral for me to enforce cooperation ? ".
> > In this matter the only difference between a Libertarian and a liberal
> > is how to define " so important ".

>
> Right. The devil's in the details. All self-proclaimed Libertarians
> that I have encountered consider the protection of their right to own
> stuff the only thing "so important."


The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins
".

It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ", limited only
by the way in which it impacts upon other people being able to do as
they wish.

Tim Worstall
 
On 26 Aug 2003 00:59:40 -0700
[email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
<snip>
> The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
> Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose
> begins". It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ",
> limited only by the way in which it impacts upon other people being
> able to do as they wish.


Hi, Tim.
I agree with the above in principle. But, as noted before: "The devil's
in the details." In a highly integrated society, it is problematic
where my neighbors nose begins.
 
In <[email protected]>, Tim Worstall wrote:

> Albert Wagner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...


> The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
> Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins
> ".
>
> It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ", limited only
> by the way in which it impacts upon other people being able to do as
> they wish.


The problem with that theory is that people slam their fists
together.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
>Given your prediliction for changing the subject when discussions
>start to go against you, it's remarkably hypocritical of you to
>criticize someone else for not-terribly-relevant quotes.



>Non-physician, heal thyself.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net


Right idea, wrong verb.
 
In <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:47:04 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
>>economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.

>
> Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
> economist.


Sure he can. Look: Rog just did.

Now if you were to add a modifier such as "honestly" or
"accurately" ...

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end
 
<[email protected]> wrote
> >Silly quotes from discredited and goofy
> >economists will not convince me that free choice is a bad thing.

> Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
> economist.


The Samuelson quote was that there is no "asymptotic
laissez-faire utopia". As a reason, he says it would have
"inequalities". Yes, an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia probably
would have some inequalities. Did someone say otherwise?
At any rate, it doesn't relate much to the subject at hand.
 
Albert Wagner <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 26 Aug 2003 00:59:40 -0700
> [email protected] (Tim Worstall) wrote:
> <snip>
> > The classic definition of Libertariansim is , to paraphrase John
> > Stuart Mill, " My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose
> > begins". It is my right todo as I wish that is " so important ",
> > limited only by the way in which it impacts upon other people being
> > able to do as they wish.

>
> Hi, Tim.
> I agree with the above in principle. But, as noted before: "The devil's
> in the details." In a highly integrated society, it is problematic
> where my neighbors nose begins.



Indeed. I don't pretend that all the operating instructions for a
complex society are contained in such a trite phrase.
The legalisation or not of drugs and alcohol were mentioned earlier in
the thread. Using my triteness as a guide only,we come to the
following :
1) Alcohol. There are areas in the US which are dry. This is a
restriction of my freedoms for ( usually ) moralistic or religious
reasons, and so " bad " under my formulation. There are no areas of
the US where drunk driving is allowed. This is quite obviously an area
where my right to imbibe is impacting upon the freedom of others, and
so correct.
2) Drugs. It's my body, something I definately do own. I should be
able to pollute it in any way I wish, so long as it does not impact
upon others. With a few exceptions ( PCP for example ) drugs like
heroin, pot,E, cocaine , my consumption does not impact upon others.
It should therefore be legal for me to consume them.The external
effects that we do see, such as shared needles, AIDS, OD's, crime,
drug gangs and so on are side effects of the illegality, not the drugs
themselves. My freedom to consume drugs should be limited in the same
way that my freedom to smoke or drink is.....where and only where my
actions impact upon others and so limit their freedom. So driving
while drugged, causing Big Mac attacks in those who inhale my second
hand cannabis smoke.....these should be illegal, not the primary
consumption.

These are the sort of things that Libertarian ideals bring you
to.....nothing to do withownership as you can see, except in the sense
that I own my body.

Tim Worstall
 
In article <%[email protected]>, "Roger
Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote


> > Paul Samuelson can hardly be called a "discredited and goofy"
> > economist.


> [Erroneous irrelevancy - deleted.]


Paul Samuelson is a discredited and goofy economist. Even as
ad hominem, such a statement is mistaken.

Does Roger Schlafly now agree?

"Gradual evolution toward near laissez-faire market mechanism
responding to individual's self-interest, history suggests
and advanced economic theory second guesses, will incur
areas of market failure AND will generate and perpetuate
considerable degrees of economic and political inequalities.
Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
-- Paul A. Samuelson (emphasis added)

--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
 
"Robert Vienneau" <[email protected]> wrote
> Does Roger Schlafly now agree?
> "Gradual evolution toward near laissez-faire market mechanism
> responding to individual's self-interest, history suggests
> and advanced economic theory second guesses, will incur
> areas of market failure AND will generate and perpetuate
> considerable degrees of economic and political inequalities.
> Just as there is no asymptotic communist utopia, neither is
> an asymptotic laissez-faire utopia."
> -- Paul A. Samuelson (emphasis added)


That is a goofy and idiotic statement.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
(...)
> That is a goofy and idiotic statement.


Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement? Perhaps provide
references to back your view?

Otherwise, I question which is goofier and more idiotic: you or the
statement.

All the best,

Jeff
 
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote
> > That is a goofy and idiotic statement.

> Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement?


It says that evolution towards "near laissez-faire" will
incur some market failure. What is he trying to say?
That if the markets are imperfect, then some of the markets
won't be perfect? If so, that is a tautology. Or maybe he is
saying that anything that is not perfect laissez-faire will
have market failure? If so, then that is an argument in favor
of laissez-faire, not against.

Then he complains that asymptotic laissez-faire utopia will
have some inequalities. Guess what -- all societies have
inequalities. And certainly all free societies have inequalities.

I guess someone posted the quote in order to make an argument
that Samuelson is against asymptotic laissez-faire utopia, and
he is an authority on the subject, and therefore it is a bad
thing. But he is really saying that it doesn't exist because his
political views are such that it is not his idea of utopia. That
proves nothing. No one here was advocating asymptotic
laissez-faire utopia anyway.
 
"Robert J. Kolker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<OtZ2b.272964$Ho3.36269@sccrnsc03>...
> Tim Worstall wrote:
> > These are the sort of things that Libertarian ideals bring you
> > to.....nothing to do withownership as you can see, except in the sense
> > that I own my body.

>
> While I share your libertarian twitches, I wonder if the consequences of
> drug use isolated just to the user. For example, how does drug use
> affect one's driving. Or will continued drug use lead a person to become
> non-productive and a burden on others.


I do address that point : Driving under the influence should continue
to be a crime.
>
> We live in a society where we don't just let people die (perhaps we
> should, but we don't). So the usual libertarian arguments that one's
> personal habits affect only the person, don't quite hold true.


I agree that they don't hold true entirely. Especially where there are
charity r Govt funded medical services, there is then some component
of cost to others of drug taking. Yet I would also point out that the
vast majority of drug costs come from their very illegality :
adulteration and inconsistent dosing.

The drug most worrying in Europe is heroin ....it's been pointed out
that if the National Health Service were to prescribe H to registered
addicts ( as they used to ) then a weeks supply of pahrmaceutically
pure H would be less than the 6 pounds or so charged for the
prescription. The NHS would make a profit on hte deal.

One could, and I do, argue that the lowering of costs on police,
jails, gang warfare, interdiction and the rest would be less than the
costs of treating an increase in addicts.

Tim Worstall
>
> If we kept people from driving if they are not alert and allowed them to
> die if they became sick or unemployed and used up their own resources,
> one would be able to make a stronger argument for the principle --- its
> my body---.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
> >
> > Tim Worstall
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > That is a goofy and idiotic statement.

> > Can you please explain what is wrong with the statement?

>
> It says that evolution towards "near laissez-faire" will
> incur some market failure. What is he trying to say?


No, that laissez-faire is not perfect either.

> That if the markets are imperfect, then some of the markets
> won't be perfect? If so, that is a tautology.


No, that is you putting words in his mouth.

> Or maybe he is
> saying that anything that is not perfect laissez-faire will
> have market failure?


No, I think he is saying that laissez-faire itself is not perfect and with
laissez-faire, some people will be hurt.

> If so, then that is an argument in favor
> of laissez-faire, not against.
>
> Then he complains that asymptotic laissez-faire utopia will
> have some inequalities. Guess what -- all societies have
> inequalities. And certainly all free societies have inequalities.


I think he is saying that when a society gets to close to laissez-faire,
inequalities start to go up.

> I guess someone posted the quote in order to make an argument
> that Samuelson is against asymptotic laissez-faire utopia,


I disagree. I think someone posted this to make an arguement that
laissiez-faire itself is not utopia.

> and
> he is an authority on the subject, and therefore it is a bad
> thing. But he is really saying that it doesn't exist because his
> political views are such that it is not his idea of utopia. That
> proves nothing. No one here was advocating asymptotic
> laissez-faire utopia anyway.


I would love utopia, any type, if it existed on earth.

Jeff
>