You're certainly right that the view should be broadened, Sigrid.
Let me add some reactions to the narrow question, however.
Mitchel listed a dozen ingredients of vaccines, some of which
sound noxious. Is he saying that Big Pharma prescribes these
dubious ingrediants, or that they creep in as contaminants? If
the latter, should we --in addition to keeping a critical eye
on the public health scene-- be calling for more vigilant
quality control? If the former, what is the motive?
I don't think that hair-trigger response to any conceivable
capitalist plot is necessarily progressive. Mitchel, and the
other vaccine skeptics we know, should ask themselves whether
they like the UN's program of vaccinating against polio.
Some of the challenges Mitchel makes would apply to that too.
What did he examine that led him to drop his opposition to the
Sabine vaccine? and has he done the comparable examination of
measles vaccine? Some --perhaps including Mitchel but I don't
know that-- would oppose inoculating people with anything. This
seems difficult to defend. If they defend it on anti-sapitalist
grounds, how do they rebut the argument that the vaccines in
these programs don't bring in much profit?
Chandler
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Sigrid Schmalzer wrote:
> Hello. I am pro-vaccine for all the reasons that Michael and others have been emphasizing. However, I have many friends who do not vaccinate. I cannot consider them "fools" and I know them to be
> political allies on virtually every other issue. Their opposition to vaccines comes from the same kind of critical concern about capitalism, state power, etc. that leads them to embrace environmentalist,
> anti-racist, and other important social movements.
>
> So, assuming Michael, Carol, Herb, and many others including myself on this list are right about vaccines, what has gone wrong? Two possibilities occur to me. One is that their understanding of science
> is poor. That's definitely part of it, but honestly I'm not sure that more science education would change things that much. It's not easy even for people with good college-level science to sort through
> the scientific arguments on this and many other issues. Arguments like the ones that Mitchel is raising can sound like good, rational arguments, especially if we don't know whose data to trust. At the
> end of the day, a lot of what people know about science is based on whom they trust (see Shapin's A Social History of Truth for a nice class-based analysis of this).
>
> I think focusing more attention on the political analysis might be a better angle to take. Herd immunity, for example, has a scientific aspect that we should be hammering away at, but it also has a
> political aspect. We should be asking how progressive movements (especially around food and medicine) have taken on highly individualist values (protecting "my" family) that are in fact not in concert
> with the deeper social values that most of these folks (at least the people I know) hold dear. And, having succeeded in encouraging people to be skeptical about the power structures that push science in
> anti-social directions, we should work to refine that analysis to capture more of the nuances so that people don't end up rejecting science that is in fact working for people despite the fact that it's
> embedded in capitalist structures.
>
> And of course we should always be keeping our sights on capitalism. People are right to suspect that medical knowledge is rigged in favor of power holders and that it fails to serve women, poor people,
> people of color, people in the global south, etc. equally. If we could liberate science from capitalism, we would be far better able to encourage people to place their trust in vaccines and other
> important life-saving technologies.
>
> The vaccine debate is one of the most obvious issues today where the rubber meets the road for Science for the People, since we've got people questioning authority (which we want) but doing it in a way
> that many of us think is counter-productive and even hazardous. It's an opportunity for us to hone the analysis... and given all the other equally important, scary issues out there, it's not surprising
> that it should be such a frustrating high-stakes problem.
>
> Sigrid
>
>
>
>
> Sigrid Schmalzer
> Associate Professor, History Department
> Director, Social Thought & Political Economy Program
> UMass Amherst
> On 1/25/2015 5:27 PM, Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
> Vaccines are anti-capitalist, on the whole. Any self-interested drug company or hospital corporation far prefers diseases that can be managed at great expense but not cured and certainly not
> prevented. Public health workers, overwhelmingly pro-vaccines, are mostly on the left for obvious reasons. Parents who decide their child shouldn't be vaccinated are hardly good examples of
> the socially concerned.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Well, all your arguments have not convinced me, because there is little real science in them. You argue hyperbolically.
>
> I've tried to point out any number of issues, which you have not addressed, including serious problems with the composition of the vaccines themselves. You ignore all of that, as though
> it's inconsequential.
>
> You say: "Here's a question for you: If a baby too young to be vaccinated dies of the measles because the unvaccinated destroyed the herd immunity, will you take any responsibility?
> After all, you've been repeating this sort of remark re vaccines for years, presumably with some effect on the badly educated."
>
> OK, here's one right back at you: "If a baby IS vaccinated and dies because of an adverse effect (or becomes lifetime disabled), will you take any responsibility? After all, you?ve been
> repeating this sort of remark re vaccines for years, presumably with some effect on the badly educated."
>
> **********************************
> If I conflated your remarks with Herb's, sorry 'bout that. I don't remember seeing any remarks by Herb, except his sending of the Washington Post story.
>
> Here's on radio show to listen to and comment upon with David Crowe, Suzanne Humphries MD (anti-vax) and Jennifer Raff (pro vax).
> Both at: http://prn.fm/shows/infectious-myth
>
> By the way, it might interest you to know that I am not against vaccines, per se. I understand the scientific principles underlying them. (We can argue over whether those principles are
> aided or thwarted by injection of all sorts of chemicals directly into the bloodstream, the marketing, the orchestrated hysteria, the failure to deal with contamination, and so-called
> "environmental" causes, and so forth.) What I have seen here, however, is all the worst capitalist propaganda for mandatory injection of little children -- I think they're up over 48
> different vaccines in the infant's first few months, before their immune systems are even half-way developed -- which betrays the real science, in the name of profits. And you fall for
> it every time. You're unable to bring your critique of capitalism into a critique of science, and science as practiced. Repeatedly. Amazing.
>
> Mitchel
>
>
>
> At 01:06 PM 1/25/2015, you wrote:
> Mitchel, it's interesting that you don't bother to reply to my question about taking responsibility. Don't you even read what you reply to?
>
> You obviously don't even have the time or interest to distinguish my remarks from Herb's. Nor apparently the willingness to follow major trends on the news. Currently,
> there's a substantial measles outbreak that has been spread from Disneyland. As I said, a large majority of the children infected were unvaccinated. Orange County, where
> Disneyland is, is a center of the anti- vaccination movement.
>
> Mitchel, instead of reading the news or looking up even approximately authoritative medical sources, relies on an acquaintance who strings together a list of outlandish
> claims. In fact, measles is most dangerous to children. It results in fatalities quite commonly, as I mentioned. In this country, those have been ended by the vaccine.
>
> We've had numerous discussions over the years on this list relating to vaccination in general, and the unreliability of arguments against them. Did Mitchel ever alter his
> general position as a result? I think not. He just moves on to new outlandish arguments rather than ever conceding on anything. This method in general, as I said resembles
> the methods used by deniers of other well-established knowledge.
>
> Mitchel, I do know you're not a Holocaust denier and assumed you're not a climate-change denier, which is exactly why I used those examples to point out the flawed way you
> argue, hoping to shock you into reconsidering. Let me reiterate: you argue just like them!!!
> MITCHEL, YOU ARGUE JUST LIKE THEM.
>
> Of course, it's foolish of me to believe Mitchel will change his ways, or even consider the gist of any reply with enough care to come close to doing so. So henceforth I'll
> refrain from replying to him unless, amazingly, I do note such a change.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2015, at 7:52 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Without getting into the other items being discussed, I want to respond to one issue Mitchell raises.
>
> He says:
> "Do you really think that graph from the Washington Post proves anything at all other than there are more cases of measles this year than in years past? It shows
> a sudden leap, actually, and not the gradual or even exponential leaps from year to year that one would expect in claiming a "trend"."
>
> In infectious diseases like measles, there is often a pattern of sudden outbreaks where a virus gets into a pool of susceptibles and runs through them rapidly.
> This can easily produce leaps rather than gradual increases.
>
> (Mitchell may or may not be acknowledging this in his/your rather cryptic phrase about "even exponential leaps" which has many, many possible meanings.)
>
> best
> sam
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitchel Cohen < [log in to unmask]>
> To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE < [log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sun, Jan 25, 2015 8:13 am
> Subject: Re: The devastating impact of vaccine deniers, in one measles chart from The Washington Post
>
> Michael,
> Let's go through this slowly.
>
> 1) If you can't convince me, you should ask yourself "why not?", instead of calling folks like me "holocaust denyers" and "climate change denyers" -- neither of
> which category is applicable, and you know it.
>
> So you should also ask yourself why you need to disparage people in that way, even when you know it not to be true.
>
>
> 2) Do you really think that graph from the Washington Post proves anything at all other than there are more cases of measles this year than in years past? It
> shows a sudden leap, actually, and not the gradual or even exponential leaps from year to year that one would expect in claiming a "trend".
>
> So why do you use such a graph to bolster your claims? Don't you see how that makes your arguments suspect, untrustworthy, and even frivolous?
>
> I will look at the CDC data a little bit later, to give you time to consider these.
>
> Mitchel
>
>
>
> At 03:51 AM 1/25/2015, you wrote:
> Mitchel,
>
>
> It??????s not only insulting but indication of a poor memory for you to suggest I haven??????tbeen listening to and rebutting the fools as well as you on this subject for
> years.
>
> I have in fact heard a great deal from the fools over the years. They will not listen to reason. Measles vaccine is highly effective, with rare,
> far-from-fatal side effects. On the other hand, measles (the disease, not the vaccine) kills one in a thousand, and does serious permanent damage to
> several more.
>
> With optional vaccination, herd immunity is lost. Those who have an immuno-compromised status and can??????t be vaccinated are therefore in far more danger. In
> the current outbreak, almost all the victims are apparently un-vaccinated. It is not part of a cycle. It goes along with the rise in whooping cough.
> Nothing worrisome is in the vaccines.
>
> The reasoning you indicate, Mitchel, by your list of questions, resembles that of deniers of well established truths of all sorts, from
> climate-change deniers to Holocaust deniers and many others. Ignoring that there is well-known and readily available evidence that deals with most of
> their questions, as with yours, they all adopt an unwarranted attitude of ignorance and mistrust of all painstakingly verified studies and careful
> analysis. Another similarity is each time new evidence is presented against them they act as if nothing has ever been argued or rebutted before.
>
> Why you choose to take the side of such people the kind of questions you seemingly reflexively ask here I don??????t know. It doesn??????tredound to your credit.
>
> Here??????s a question for you: If a baby too young to be vaccinated dies of the measles because the unvaccinated destroyed the herd immunity, will you take any
> responsibility? After all, you??????ve been repeating this sort of remark re vaccines for years, presumably with some effect on the badly educated.
>
> Michael
>
> On Jan 24, 2015, at 5:00 PM, Mitchel Cohen < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> At 06:25 PM 1/24/2015, you wrote:
> According to a program on KQED yesterday, one of the groups with a large number of vaccine refusers are holders of advanced
> degrees. What is the process of educating fools?
>
>
> First step is to listen to what those so-called "fools" are saying, and see if you can successfully rebutt their concerns and understand
> them even if you disagree.
>
> There are actually several issues rolled into one:
>
> 1) Mandatory vs. Optional vaccination
>
> 2) What else is in the vaccines?
>
> 3) Effectiveness of different types of vaccines
>
> 4) Is this spike representative of a general "comeback" of measles in the U.S. or of a longterm cycle?
>
> 5) The history of measles vaccine in the U.S.
>
> More later.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> > On Jan 24, 2015, at 1:49 PM, herb fox < [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > http://wapo.st/1ATEQTz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.lulu.com/shop/mitchel-cohen/what-is-direct-action/paperback/product-20937425.html
> Mitchel Cohen's book, "What Is Direct Action? Lessons from (and to) Occupy Wall Street" (foreword by Richard Wolff) (596 pages). Get it now!
>
> Check out http://www.MitchelCohen.com
> o HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. by Mitchel Cohen
> o ON PHIL OCHS, MALCOLM X, & JE SUIS CHARLIE by Stan Rogouski
> o PROTESTERS, COPS & THE MAYOR -- the movement to end violence by police sweeps across the country (Mitchel Cohen, Dave Zirin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Black Agenda Report?s Dr. R. Marsha
> Coleman-Adebayo, Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon; CommonDreams? Abby Zimet; Max Blumenthal, Sam Mintrani); Hey, Guess what? Another FOX-News Twistory: No one ever said 'Kill a Cop!'
> o WHY I HATE THANKSGIVING by Mitchel Cohen
> o AUDIO: Listen to poems by Mitchel Cohen: "The Permanent Carnival," and "In Memoriam: For Fallen Comrades"
> o IS VIOLENCE IN YOUR GENES? Genetic Racism & Biological Determinism, by Mitchel Cohen
> Ring the bells that still can ring, Forget your perfect offering.
> There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in.
> ~ Leonard Cohen
>
> Realize that little things lead to bigger things ... And there?s a wonderful parable in the New Testament: The sower scatters seeds. Some seeds fall in the pathway and get stamped on, and
> they don?t grow. Some fall on the rocks, and they don?t grow. But some seeds fall on fallow ground, and they grow and multiply a thousandfold. Who knows where some good little thing that
> you?ve done may bring results years later that you never dreamed of.
> ~ Pete Seeger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
