Category: Uncategorized

Vaccine enthusiasts such as Megan McArdle, Respectful Insolence and others very much like to point out that there is no scientific link between autism and the modern vaccine schedule. They particularly enjoy pointing out that no scientific study has been shown that vaccines have any negative effects on childhood development. And they are correct, but what they never seem to see fit to mention is that this is because no actual scientific studies have been done on the matter. What have been provided instead are statistical studies, temporal correlations and metastudies that are little more meaningful than the statistical “study” referenced in TIA wherein I proved that atheism is linked to Asperger’s Syndrome.

However, that missing evidence of vaccine harm appears to have been detected by a researcher who got around the supposed ethical problem of studying vaccines by using monkeys. (The vaccine cheerleaders have historically attempted to evade the use of actual science to investigate the matter by claiming it would be unethical to make use of an unvaccinated control group, thereby begging the question.)

The vaccine hypothesis was bolstered recently by a five-year study in monkeys who were given the same vaccinations that American children are routinely given. Last week, Dr Laura Hewitson, a specialist in obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, told the International Meeting for Autism Research in London that in the double-blind placebo-controlled study, 13 vaccinated animals showed increased aggression, impaired cognitive skills and developmental delay. The three unvaccinated animals in the study developed normally.

“There was a significant difference between the two groups,” said Hewitson. “The vaccinated group had trouble developing reflexes?… They also became more insular and more aggressive. There was an increase in aggressive behaviour after they had their MMR vaccines, and they stopped exploring their surroundings as much.”

Abnormal brain activity was found in the monkeys, and higher sensitivity to a naturally occurring brain chemical linked to sleeplessness, hallucinations, lack of social skills and a high pain threshold – all symptoms found in children on the autistic spectrum. The monkeys also exhibited abnormalities of the amygdala, the part of the brain which regulates emotions.

“We can’t conclude that vaccines cause autism from this study,” said Hewitson, “What we can conclude is that the vaccinated monkeys showed significant negative behavioural differences before and after the MMR.”

Obviously, the matter is far from concluded. This is a very small study that involves monkeys rather than humans. It is possible that further studies will achieve different results. But what the vaccine defenders will have to explain away – and just watch them try to evade the topic and change the subject to the benefits of herd immunity – is that there is direct scientific evidence that the modern American vaccine schedule impairs cognitive development.

I am not opposed to all vaccines. I don’t know if the vaccine schedule causes autism or other forms of harm. But I am opposed to an accelerated schedule that injects far more chemicals into children at a much younger age than was required to achieve the historical results in suppressing various childhood diseases, especially when there is absolutely no scientific evidence to demonstrate that the modern schedule is not harming children. Those who attempt to paint every critic of the modern vaccine schedule as pre-Industrial ignoramuses bent on living in disease-ridden squalor are being disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, and their opinions about vaccine safety should be taken about as seriously as a vaccine salesman working for a Big Pharma company.

Consider this: if the vaccine schedule is not harmful to a statistically significant number of children, then why are its advocates so afraid of proper long-term double-blind studies of the sort that Dr. Hewitson has done?

Evidence suggests that the UN and various “aid” groups are far more abusive of children around the world than your average polygamous religious freaks:

An international watchdog must be set up urgently to investigate widespread cases of child sex abuse by aid workers and peacekeepers, a British charity said today. Save the Children demanded action after its research found that starving and desperate youngsters as young as six were being coerced to sell sex for food, money, soap and even mobile phones in war zones and disaster areas. Hundreds of young people from Ivory Coast, Southern Sudan and Haiti were involved in the research behind the conclusions.

It really shouldn’t be surprising to learn that it is those adults who are the most dedicated to “helping” children that have the greatest tendency to prey upon them. After all, the first instinct of every predator is to go where the prey is. Now, precisely where is that moral authority so often claimed for the UN and from whence does it spring?

Surprisingly, it seems that hiring individuals named Raul, Fidel, Luis, and Margarita may not be the wisest means of guarding the US-Mexican border:

Mr. Villarreal and a brother, Fidel, also a former Border Patrol agent, are suspected of helping to smuggle an untold number of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Brazil across the border. The brothers quit the Border Patrol two years ago and are believed to have fled to Mexico. The Villarreal investigation is among scores of corruption cases in recent years that have alarmed officials in the Homeland Security Department just as it is hiring thousands of border agents to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

Of course, given the amount of money involved, it’s not surprising that non-Hispanics can be bought too. But it sure seems like asking for trouble to hire people with direct family ties to Mexico and then giving them responsibility to keep Mexicans out. This ease of corruption is one of the many reasons I don’t favor a static border defense; immigration defense structured around social services, licensing and registration would be far more effective.

What is your primary reason or argument for believing that God cares or is even particularly interested in the ultimate fate of any individual soul? I note that the common omniderigent view, which posits active and all-encompassing divine control and management, does not necessarily indicate an interest in any one individual’s well-being and can be reasonably construed to demonstrate the opposite. Non-Christians, I’m interested in your beliefs as well if you actually have any on this score, although I’m not interested in anyone’s opinion regarding something in which they do not believe.

And on a tangential note, since some of you failed to understand what I felt was a very clear statement at the beginning of TIA, let me reiterate: I am truly indifferent to the ultimate fate of nearly everyone. While the Apostle Paul may have had a burden for others, I do not. I feel no more sympathy for those who choose to reject God than I would for one who elected to walk into a burning building while loudly insisting that it is not on fire. I realize that not all Christians feel this way, but I do. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, I would not take that freedom to choose one’s own fate away from anyone even if I could.

What is your primary reason or argument for asserting the nonexistence of God? Blackblade, for example, once mentioned the inferior design of the human body as being one reason for his doubts, which is a subject of some interest to me. I’m just curious about those that are outside of the eight general ones I addressed in TIA. And theists, do please keep your opinions to yourselves, as I’m no more interested in hearing your theories about why an atheist believes what he believes than I am in reading an atheist’s equally clueless theories about why you believe what you believe.

UPDATE: Correct me if I’m wrong, but in amidst the morass of tangential discussion, I have ascertained the following reasons:

Argument from Sub-optimal design (Blackblade)
Argument from insufficient evidence (Endosymbiosis, Eddie)
Argument from lack of scientific evidence (Garlic Powder)
Argument from failure to be impressed by religion (Jonathan B)
Argument from inability to believe (Noezoom)
Argument from unfamiliarity (Glasser)
Argument from material utility (Eddie)
Argument from post-trauma disorder (DH)
Argument from accident of circumstance (Stanford)
Argument from unconvincing arguments (Old Ned)

If I’ve missed any, other than the usual drivel from the oft-banned one, (how ironic that he, of all people, would complain of others being rude when he continues to impose himself upon us), do let me know. Or, if you feel I’ve failed to properly summarize your argument, I’d like to know that too.

Congratulate Spacebunny today. While I never had any doubts that all the time and hard work she was putting into teaching would be well worth it, it’s still encouraging to see external confirmation that homeschooling really does work as well – better, actually – than advertised. It’s one thing to know that the logic behind your family’s educational decision is sound, but to get tangible, external results demonstrating that each year of homeschooling is equivalent to more than two years of collective schooling takes one’s confidence in the concept to an even higher level.

Paul Krugman doesn’t notice the rather glaring flaw in his scenario:

Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.

Except, of course, that doing her part will not get her what she wants. So, what happens if she doesn’t play along? That’s my point in today’s column… and I notice that Team Obama isn’t doing what Krugman declares needs to be done either. Is there any reason to believe Team Clinton is less ruthlessly focused on winning at all costs than Team Obama? Assuming that a woman will fight like a man is potentially erroneous at best, and it’s clear that Obama’s obvious weakness in the general election is of serious and growing concern to Democrats.

UPDATE – Paul Lukasiak postulates Democratic buyer’s remorse:

Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable” after February 19th, based on a two week period when the an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight losses”, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee” that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.

Isn’t it interesting how no one ever seems find fault when women are practical about their financial interest in a marriage, while men are excoriated for considering anything other than “love”:

The prospect of widespread City job losses has seen a surge of bankers’ trophy wives heading for the divorce courts, say lawyers. With thousands of job losses announced and more rumoured to be on the way, divorce specialists say that some wives want to secure good divorce deals before their husbands lose their jobs. Consequently, divorce specialists have seen the number of inquiries treble.

This isn’t to say that some women can’t be trusted; there are certainly plenty of women who are far more interested in things other than money. But since a significant percentage of women are primarily interested in marrying in order to achieve status and financial security, it’s important for a man to know exactly what he’s getting into. As a basic rule of thumb, if she prides herself on being high maintenance, insists on only the best brands, judges a restaurant by its ambience rather than its food, or is in credit card debt, you’d better make sure a pre-nuptual contract is in place.

And in Libertarian Party news: Rep. Bob Barr is the nominee for President:

Rep. Bob Barr has won the Libertarian Party’s nomination on the sixth ballot at the LP convention, with 324 votes to 276 for Mary Ruwart. The ex-Republican from Georgia won the nomination after a tough battle that one of his supporters called a “dog fight.” Ruwart, a longtime LP activist, was the favorite of the party’s more radical or “purist” faction.

It may surprise some, but I probably would have preferred Dr. Ruwart to Rep. Barr. But I nevertheless regard it as a generally good thing that Republicans are beginning to migrate rightward.

The law was always against the CPS. Now the emotional tide has turned as well:

When I first heard about the raid, I applauded the efforts of protective services. As a parent, all I could imagine was my teenage daughter being forced to live in such an environment, where, according to the authorities, there was a pervasive atmosphere of subservience and sexual indemnity for the girls.

But the more I read about the story, the more I became alarmed at the way the state had acted. My tune abruptly changed from “how could they” in regards to the leaders of the sect and the mothers, to “how could they” in regards to protective services. Instead of imaging my daughter living in such a rigid and archaic environment, I was now imagining her being snatched from my life by overzealous “advocates” who presume they know what is happening to her or what will happen to her within my house. So I was relieved when a state appeals court ruled on Friday that officials of the State Department of Family and Protective Services had no right to take the children away from their parents and scatter them across the state in foster homes.

At this point, only those who are total tools that believe a government can do no wrong due to mere fact of it being the government are on the side of the CPS. The essential battles have been won, so we should now see things rapidly proceed to the CYA stage from the governor on down. As Instapundit has said, the entire case has evolved into a legal debacle that goes well beyond nuns playing hockey.