I have no response to that.....

So I go this crazy post on facebook about how H1N1 flu shot is a conspiracy theory.

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/dr-russell-blaylock-vaccine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-swine-flu/

There are legitimate arguments against universal vaccination. Truthfully, there is not a huge risk to healthy people from the H1n1 virus. The best reason to vaccinate is to protect babies, young children, and those with weakened immunity.

His argument contains some truth; the swine flue vaccine in the 1970's was largely unwarranted and resulted in some unneccessary complications. However this guy quickly turns to completely illegitimate arguments. He uses lots and lots of arguments that have nothing to do with the actual facts of this flu shot. He invokes every medical argument ever used against any vaccine and somehow applies it to this one flu shot. He even intimates that HIV may be in the vaccine.
He is completely crazy. If you don't believe me, check out the other posts on his blog. A better name for his blog might be 'crazyparanoidracistblog'.

Why would this "doctor" publish such a blog entry if there were no basis for his arguments?
I believe the answer is found in this article;
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackpro.html
And also in the LDS scriptures, Doctrine and Covenants 121:39
"We have learned by sad experience that it is te nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority , as they suppose, they willl immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion"

I read the blog entry intending to poke a few holes in this guy's argument. However the things he said and presumably believed were so crazy, so conspiracy theorist. That I know there is no arguing with him. If he believes what he has written, and he has actually done enough research to know the truth, then he is crazy. If he does not believe his argument he is a liar or a sociopath and to appeal to mere fact will change that. There is probably no way to change this guy's own point of view, the best we can do is discredit his ideas.

One of his main methods is to use a lot of scientific terms and confuse the average reader. His arguments really have to basis. They are recycled from alarmist fearmongering that have been used all over the world for all sorts of vaccinations but ultimately have no basis. There are some risks with all vaccines. Things like a fever, mild soreness, and, in very rare cases, seizures and strokes. These more serious risks are so rare that it is not known whether the vaccines are responsible or not.

Fears about vaccines come and go in waves. They follow trends. There will be fearmongering, the usual waves of quacks and crazies publishing false data, anecdotal and false data that put certain vaccinations in a bad light.

Refusal to vaccinate is also a form of public protest. When people are upset with their government, vaccination rates fall.

The anti-science movement is one of the largest threats to modern medicine. Perhaps we will conquer aids and cancer, but will the cures truly succeed if large portions of the population are convinced that modern medicine is not in the public interest?

In the late 1990's The World Health organization was ready to eradicate Polio. The hope was that with universal vaccination it could be retired much like the small pox vaccination. Unfortunately a rumor started that the vaccines would render boys sterile. Enough people in Eastern africa believed this that the WHO was not able to deliver their universal vaccinations. As a result we will all continue to be vaccinated for polio, and be exposed to all the marginal though existant risks.

The Cervical cancer vaccine has been made available in recent years and there is a massive public outcry against it. Parents see it as sexualizing their young children, akin to early sex education. In truth practicly everyone will be sexually active and therefore potentually exposed in some degree to this virus. This vaccine is a bit overmarketed, I am not sure that it will offer enough protection long enough to be a part of the current vaccination regiment. The public backlash against it suggests that even if a refined vaccine that protected against all cervical cancer could exist, perhaps enough people wouldn't take it, and all that research and great medical advancement would be wasted.

Now onto HIV. There was actually an HIV vaccine trial in thailand recently. It only reduced the rate of infection by 20%, so it may not develop into a vaccination potent enough for public use. Apparently it needs to reduce the infection rate by 50% to be considered effective enough for use by the public. Were a vaccine to be developed against this scourge, would we Americans be willing to take it?
some of us refuse vaccines and encourage others to refuse them. We live in a land of low rates of these diseases, protected by the immunity of those around us. From where we sit vaccines are optional. This is not the case in all of the world.
HIV is a horrible disease. Many of the victims are women and children.
IF we had a HIV vaccine, if we could rid the world of this scourge, would the anti-vaccine camps slacken their fear mongering in the interest of world health?

I am sorry to say that some of us fat ugly americans would ignorantly exercise our "rights". Perhaps like polio it would not be eradicated and the disease would persist. Would we be able to see the faces of the dead and dying with a clear conscience?

I get very worked up about this subject (as you may be able to tell). there are a lot of real issues to worry about in the world. Lots of poverty and global warming. Wasting time, energy and resources on fear mongering conspiracy theories is not innocent, it is dangerous. It may even be sociopathic.

The real answer to the anti-science, anti-vaccination movement is education. I try to not let any mention of anti-vaccination propoganda go by without comment. I will not offer my silent assent to such irresponsible behavior.

I don't have to be mean about it, just calmly repeat some facts. Try to avoid the terms 'quack' and 'nutter' as they tend to make people angry.

self mastery

the marshmellow experiment

If you’re thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you’re going to eat it,” Mischel says. “The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_lehrer

This is a link to a story in the New Yorker about kids who were given a marshmellow and told if they didn't eat it they could get a 2nd one after 15 minutes. The result was that most could not wait and those who could were good at everyting else in life. No surprise. However, The kids who could wait and not eat the marshmellow were able to do so because they had a method to distract them from eating the marshmellow.

No one can just sit and stare at a marshmellow and not eat it. That is impossible. The way to avoid eating it is to sing a song, or pretend it is a cloud.

With simple training, a few lessons on metacognition (the science of thinking about how to think) children were able to dramatically improve their waiting time.

I used to run 50mile ultramarathons, my last race was over 2 years ago. I am trying to get back into shape to do a 30 mile race this spring, and the distance running is daunting. I have been thinking about the psychology of running great distances lately. As I remember it, the way I got myself to do those was to break up the distance, focus on the podcasts I would have on the IPOD, and other wise distract myself from the physical discomfort of the exercise.

When I am trying to lose weight this week, I am going to avoid eating junk food by not having it in the house, earmarking it for the kids' lunches, and distracting myself by focusing on the TV I get to watch every evening after my healthy dinner. It is comforting to know that it is not really just a matter of "will power" but also a matter of strategy and controlling ones environment.

So, you may ask, why do I need to lose weight if I am training for huge running races? Well, It is evidence of the fact that exercise alone will not make you lose weight.

Whoever maketh and loveth a lie...

The conservative people at large, or republicans in general are nice reasonable people. This is what I would like to think. I assume they are intelligent and reasonable, and I am usually disappointed.

An example:

On the subject of slavery during a conversation on Lincoln....

"Most slaves weren't treated that bad"

To be fair, the conservative in question really didn't know anything about the emancipation or history in general, mixed up Lincoln and Jefferson, and didn't believe me when I mentioned that Andrew Johnson was the 17th president. Thought I meant Andrew Jackson, then argued the point for a while. Needless to say the 'political discussion' didn't get too far. Unfortunately this person has been able to vote for the last 30 years. I am surprised that even this little mind would hold to such a blatant lie.

Slaves were not treated well in general. This is not a point upon which there is debate.

So where did this lie originate? Who would believe this lie and why?
I remember hearing this lie as a child. Did it come from television or elementary school? I did live in a small white town. I hope it was a lie told to kids so they would not be upset about slavery. I suspect it was the true belief of some of our less educated neighbors and family. What began as a way to sugar coat history turned into denial of the sins of the nation's past.

I guess that the original lie came about more or less as a response to the great shame that America feels about its past. We are this land of opportunity with a lovely infallible constitution. Our great forefathers were guided by God to fight the revolution and forge this new country with a bill of rights for all people.

The story sounds good until you find slaves building the White House and Thomas Jefferson raping Sally Hemmings.

The story of our forefathers is complicated. It is a story of flawed people sometimes doing great good, and other times inexcusable evil. It is a lot of stories together. It is natural to cherry pick the best stories and hide others under the rug.

There is a natural tendency to canonize ones relatives, especially the ones long dead. No one speaks of their flaws so we assume they had none. We are their progeny. The strong rising generation, perhaps we have greater opportunity presumably as a result of their hard work. What are we if our own lives are not a testament to the good character of our ancestors?

To be sure respect and honor for ones parents and relatives is very appropriate. However we must not be blind to their imperfections. Many great evils have been accomplished by 'basically good' people. Stanley Milgram conducted his electric shock experiment in an effort to discover why the German people had allowed the holocaust to occur. His original hypothesis was that the German culture was such that people were overly compelled to follow authority. What he discovered is that the German people were not unique. He was able to get lots of people from all walks of life to inflict pain via electric shock.

What exactly would our venerated ancestors want to tell us, if they could leave us with a message, I would hope it would be to learn from their mistakes. We can't do that as long as we are content with an easily digestible story of our nation's part.

I tell my kids the truth. It may be upsetting, but that is the lesser evil.