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.