I wonder how Sheldon got the song stuck in his head in the first place?

Sheldon has an eidetic memory and only needs to hear a song once, he explained in a previous episode.

He also knows the words to Bohemian Rhapsody

Thanks for the reply.

I've had a look into the Henry Makow webpage. Makow appears to be an utterly paranoid crank (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow). From wikipedia:

The Beatles were Illuminati mind controllers who promoted drug use, free sex and the New Age movement. [...] Makow knows this because of a gesture John Lennon made with his hand on the cover of Yellow Submarine

and so i certainly wouldn't trust anything he puts on his page 

The article itself, heavily excerpted and edited by Makow, is unreferenced and unscientific, and is very economical with the truth, if you follow up some of the stories reported elsewhere on the internet. The article's original author, Tom Valentine (a "veteran health commentator" according to Makow) is an alternative-medicine proponent who makes money off of "enzyme" supplements (https://www.carotec.com/aboutus), and whose company's products are thoroughly debunked here (https://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/wobenzym-n-a-closer-look-at-systemic-enzyme-therapy/)

And so I certainly wouldn't trust the original, also unreferenced, unscientific 1996 article by Tom Valentine, which he didn't even give a title to. Just "By Tom Valentine, Winter 1996", from what i could find online.


So, if you put stock in being skeptical of the people behind any allegation, Henry Makow and Tom Valentine would certainly come very far down the list in people whose viewpoints i would trust. They are like those people you see hanging around at bus stations even though they aren't waiting for a bus.


This discussion is going to go around in circles, however the best (and most succinct) that I can find on the subject (and this only refers to Polio vaccine 1955-1962, and not to any polio vaccine after this date) is a well-referenced paragraph on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40

The hypothesis that SV40 might cause cancer in humans has been a particularly controversial area of research.[11] Several methods have detected SV40 in a variety of human cancers, although how reliable these detection methods are, and whether SV40 has any role in causing these tumors, remains unclear.[12] As a result of these uncertainties, academic opinion remains divided, with some arguing that this hypothesis is not supported by the data[13] and others arguing that some cancers may involve SV40.[14][15] The US National Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".[16] This announcement was based on two studies.[17][18] This 2004 announcement is in contrast to a 2002 study performed by The National Academy of Sciences Immunization Safety Review committee that stated, "The committee concludes that the biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.”[19] However, Namika, Goodison,...and Rosser found that the SV40 large t-antigen, in combination with mycoplasma, often a contaminate of vaccines and which were also likely to have infected Eddy's hamsters, can cause prostate cells to turn cancerous. Whether or not this is true for other human cells is debated.[20]

This admits the debate, but says that evidence that the vaccine did cause cancer is inconclusive at best.

This is a viewpoint repeated over and over again by credible sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221113/

Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with a virus, called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it. Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk. However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.

And for a more pop-science take on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1860042.stm

So i'm not denying there is reason to investigate here, but when scientifically addressed, the data is inconclusive at best.


I would also like it to be noted that the above articles mentions scientific reports from both sides of the argument. Science gets quite a bashing on here, and elsewhere, with people saying that all scientists are paid off by Big Pharma, or under the government control, or have their conflicting data repressed. And this just isn't true (in by far the majority of circumstances). It's a viewpoint peddled repeatedly, usually by those such as Henry Makow, who want to benefit from sufficient doubt to put people off, and it's a viewpoint people trot out over and over again.

However, from the last few pages of posts on vaccines and the validity of the research, what we have seen, over and over again, is that scientific data is open and available to scrutiny and addresses both sides of a debate. A scientific viewpoint will start with a question, and seek to address that question.

What we have seen from the "vaccines = evil" side of things is that they start with their endpoint (Vaccines = evil) and work back from there, selectively including half-truths and quotes from debunked long-dead doctors to support their viewpoint.

It seems to me that this is more an issue of trust than the actual scientific data. There is an extreme culture in the USA of distrust (Preppers, Birthers, Truthers, anti-vaxers, and certainly anything that even seems remotely "intellectual" or educated) that simply doesn't exist to such an extent in the rest of the developed world. And i think before taking a stance on an issue, this peculiar unique-to-American culture viewpoint ought to be addressed

Sorry for the essay above, but why do Americans have such a distrust of these things? I'm genuinely curious. What is it about American culture that creates this fear?

I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 

Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?

Hey Loaf - I don't like your term scaremongering.  And the "ill informed" people remark. 

What I can tell you is that this is also about efficaciousness. And propaganda. This year we had a flu vaccine that was pushed on everyone (for sales!) and for it was less than 28% effective in those under the age of 50 and 13% for those over 65, who were mass vaccinated.  People were herded to be vaccinated and shamed if they weren't by the media.  It is sales.  Now people are going back to find out about how these vaccines were produced to find out why they don't work, and why they are being foisted on the whole society. 

The UK may have a different legal system for damage recovery.  The U.S. has formats of administrative law that are exclusive remedies, such as Worker's Comp.  This difference in system doesn't mean fewer employees injuries but claims on the books or in the dockets. 

We also have arbitration which conceals many damage cases. That way no one knows the settlement amount and the fault of the party who caused the injury. It never gets to court and so that the public is no wiser.

Thanks for replying. I'll address your points about "scaremongering" and "ill-informed" first, because that is what happens. See these links as four examples:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/071713_CDC-Admits-98-Million-Americans-Received-Polio-Vaccine-In-An-8-Year-Span-When-It-Was-Contaminated-With-Cancer-Virus.shtml

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/testimony/testimonyspetember102003.aspx (sadly the references in this article are dead, it would be interesting to see what they said originally, and i'll see how many i can track down).

How about this headline: "ALL the vaccines are contaminated - every last one of them" (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292011/vaccines-contaminated-se.php)

"When It Comes to Vaccines, Don’t Sit On The Fence!" (https://worldtruthtoday.wordpress.com/tag/dr-robert-bell/)

Reading these articles, and others, we see the same "facts" get trotted out and treated as conclusive evidence that the polio vaccine will give cancer to untold millions of Americans. Articles like these love to quote a man named Dr Robert Bell, who is listed as a former Vice President of the International Society for Cancer Research, British Cancer Hospital. Dr Robert Bell said,

“The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination”

Sounds scary, right? He's a doctor. Of cancer research. He rose to a position of Vice President, so he clearly knew what he was talking about. He's British. And he worked at a hospital. Impeccable credentials, right? Dr Robert Bell is clearly a leading proponent of anti-vaccination, of the quest for truth and the right for parents to make an informed choice, right? Why else would he be quoted in so many online articles?

The only downside is... he is dead. He died in 1926. His research was repudiated in a 1911 article in the British Medical Journal entitled "Cancer Credulity and Quackery". You can download a free pdf of the article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2333936/pdf/brmedj07832-0005.pdf

The primary aim of the four articles like these, it seems to me, is to instill fear in the reader. And as it turns out that these "facts" are incorrectly reported, and that the authors (and countless others) did not seek to cite the countless scientifically-valid reports to the contrary, wouldn't that make the authors "ill-informed"? How else can you explain the fact that they quote a man who died more than 25 years before the Salk polio vaccine? Whose research was refuted more than 40 years before the Salk polio vaccine?

On the subject of scaremongering and ill-informed authors, I am fully prepared to amend my position if you can cite one credible article that discusses this issue using valid science and without trying to instill fear.


I appreciate your response above, but let's stick to the polio vaccine for now, as I am still very interested in your initial viewpoint that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and I'd like to know why you think this way.

I would also like to know, if credible evidence cannot be found that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and if credible evidence can be found that the polio vaccine is safe, whether you would consider amending your position that the polio vaccine is troublesome?

I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 

Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?

There would be no "vaccine fund" if there were no "vaccine damaged" people.  It exists as "appeasement" or to "counter" the adverse outcomes.  And has nothing to do with liberal, conservative or moderate political stances. The injured human body knows no political affiliation.  The existence of the fund should cause you to do your own investigation.  

This is an interesting point.

Do you think that the existence of the Fund may be more related to the US culture of excessive litigation, and the close ties of Big Pharma to US government, than the idea that vaccines inherently cause damage? A similar fund doesn't exist in the UK as far as i'm aware. Does this lack of a fund cause you to reconsider your viewpoint?

There is a second, more scientifically valid reason, that I will propose. As each individual person has a unique genome, it is entirely possible that a (hypothetical) vaccine may cause an unforeseeable and unpredictable reaction in someone (or more than one person) due to their unique genetic make-up. It may affect such a small minority of people that the years of Phase trials for the drugs could not have statistically been expected to pick it up. The reaction may be severe only in these few specific individuals, and with absolutely no effect whatsoever in everyone else, and may be directly attributable to the vaccine. Under this scenario, the legislation has been passed (admittedly to protect Big Pharma, because they are closely tied to US policy) to limit the financial damage they could incur from a (hypothetical) vaccine that otherwise works efficiently, but the Fund exists to provide some recompense for the affected individual(s).

In my opinion, a mixture of both of these viewpoints seems far more likely, and scientifically valid, than the viewpoint that vaccines negatively affect large numbers of people in the long-term and need paying off.

Do you have any data on cases brought to the Fund? (Other than the one i quoted in my earlier reply, which refuted a large scale attempt to claim that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused autism).

I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy? This isn't meant to be sarcastic, it's just that it's difficult to debate someone's subjective experience.

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

The polio vaccine = cancer has been thoroughly debunked (see http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/)

Similarly, the vaccine = autism link has no basis in scientific evidence. In fact the person (Andrew Wakefield) who made the initial claim was subsequently stripped of the title "doctor", and struck off the UK medical register because his data was falsified, his report was an elaborate fraud and he stood to gain financially from the situation.

Would you care to cite reliable sources for your information?

Loaf - absent any issues with temporally related autism and other vaccines injuries, a fund has been in effect since October 1, 1988, The National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (just after the vaccine schedule was ramped in 1986.) Public Law 99-660.  It is considered a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims.  (Individual personal injury suits.)

The three federal agencies involved are DHS, The Dept of Heatth and Human Services, DOJ, Dept. of Justice, and U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  There is a $ .75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the CDC. And the MMR is taxed at $2.25 because it covers three diseases. (Measles, Mumps and Rubella)

And I'm not an anti vax proponent, but the schedule and amount of shots is insane.  The CDC is subject to political manipulation to amend this schedule.

Thimoserol is a Mercury based preservative.  We don't have mercury in thermometers.  If one breaks the hazmat people get called in but it is injected into newborns.  I have a real problem with that practice. 

Much of the information from "studies" are funded by the industry who are desiring an advantageous result.  Before I give any study any cred, I now want to know who funded it, and who stands to profit from a good outcome.  And that skepticism flows right to the colleges and universities, where drug companies look to recruit new researchers.

I can see your point in terms of the number of vaccines received in the US. However, the vaccination schedule is different in the UK, I would guess because the public-funded NHS has a motive to reduce costs where possible, whereas the profit-driven health care system in the US seeks to maximise its profit at the expense of its customers. This doesn't have anything to do with the vaccines themselves, but the lack of governance and responsibility to patients in the health care system in place in the US.

In terms of the use of thimerosol, and possible links to autism, associated with vaccines, have a read of this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00194.x/full

It's an open-access fully-referenced article that reviews the scientific literature and studies (from around the world, from a number of scientific fields, from people who do not stand to benefit financially from vaccines) around the issue. Their overwhelming conclusion is that there is no established link.

Interestingly, the above review quoted this (although i will say that I haven't looked into this case beyond this statement. However, if you wish to debate any thing on this issue, then we can go through it):

As a result of public concern about autism and vaccines, thousands of claims have been submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On February 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims published decisions about these claims, which were considered as a group under the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. The Court found, after reviewing 5,000 pages of transcripts, 939 medical articles, 50 expert reports, and hearing testimony from 28 experts, that the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines, independently or together, were not causal factors in the development of autism or ASD (U.S. Court of Federal Claims, n.d.).

As a side note, I'm just curious, if mercury is a problematic issue for you personally, do you still eat fish? This isn't supposed to sound snarky or rhetorical, i'm just curious as to where you stand, i.e. is any trace of mercury bad, or do you think that there are acceptable doses of mercury that human metabolism can tolerate? As full disclosure, I eat fish maybe 1/2 times a month and think that exposure to that level of mercury won't adversely affect my health.

So, back on topic, i'm just curious if can you cite any reliable sources (i.e not including "wellness" websites, or Jenny McCarthy) that shows a link between vaccines (especially the polio vaccine) and autism? Or is your opinion based on media perception?

And if we're also taking into account suspicion of the motives of those who stand to benefit financially from trying to link vaccines to autism, let's not forget that the media has a financial stake in increasing ad revenues through fear-based coverage and clickbait webpages

Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?    The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men

Cut the "I'm slow.  Explain yourself to me, I'm just a simple farmer" routine.  You're a liberal.  You're cocked and loaded.  The two acts don't mesh as well as you think.

And if you're truly a stumped bumpkin -- and frankly, I'm starting to believe -- I'll grant you a 2 week pass.  But, please.  Do not respond until you've thought about it for 2 weeks. 

Two weeks, Loaf. Two whole fcking weeks.   

----

For those who are versed on these matters (not you Loaf, you sit the rest of this post out) -- liberals have to change the subject.  They have to.  That's what they do.  And yes, often to Reagan, as Loaf just did.  Liberals are hung up on the guy so badly.  They feel the need to discredit him.  They can't let it go.  Even though he's dead.  They can't accept it.

Anyway... the "do you dispute anything I wrote?" act, is the lame bait for the subject change.  That's what liberals do.  That's the tactic.  Liberalism is a puny little arrogant ideology whose whole agenda is to keep people from believing what they know in their heart is true.  Write that down.

And if attacking an accomplished warrior like Reagan is something that they think will make people doubt what they believe is good and true (it won't) -- then by God, they'll do it.  So if someone wants to play cat and mouse with Loaf on Reagan's history on abortion, please be my guest.  Loaf seems like a reasonable guy, and will eventually admit when the jig's up.  But you have to do the dance.  For me, life's too short and I'd rather dance with my wife.  So, I'll let him stew for 2 weeks.

Gosh, I sure hope Loaf didn't read any of that.  Do you think he did?  I beginning to think nobody reads anything I write...   

Your paranoia is getting the better of you

There were no judgement calls on Reagan, just a statement of facts, that a government panel was appointed under his Presidency to look into the issue of abortion and foetal tissue research, and that one of the outcomes of that panel's findings was that abortion and the issue of foetal tissue for research were two separate issues. Feel free to debate this issue.

Much like a politician, you try to steer any question or statement, regardless of its content or intent, back to your personal agenda and hotlist of topics.

i'm beginning to think you aren't actually interested in a debate, just opportunities for pushing your biased political rhetoric 

Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

The polio vaccine = cancer has been thoroughly debunked (see http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/)

Similarly, the vaccine = autism link has no basis in scientific evidence. In fact the person (Andrew Wakefield) who made the initial claim was subsequently stripped of the title "doctor", and struck off the UK medical register because his data was falsified, his report was an elaborate fraud and he stood to gain financially from the situation.

Would you care to cite reliable sources for your information?

Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?    The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men

My position is easy to understand. If you believe a baby is a human being. You're stuck on what we do after the body or head arrives "eyes closed" to avoid the horror of opening the box. I don't care if they're making soup to feed the homeless. It's wrong.

The point of these horrendous videos (that most human beings find bone chilling) is the callous and breezy nature with which this is conducted -- illustrating a human society that has devolved into something most find unrecognizable.  The depths of depravity and selfishness required to accept this sort of behavior -- let alone to conduct it as casually as ordering a f-cking pizza -- is beyond me.

Sorry if I thought this was self-explanatory.  . But that is the whole point.  You don't see it yourself.  

Thanks for the response, and I completely understand this point of view.

In an ideal world, abortion would be legal but no one would ever feel the need to get one. This would mean no tissue for foetal research, but that's not the priority here.

Having said that, and this i guess is where we disagree, my own personal take on it is that the subsequent tissue (with parental consent) can be used for research which has done and will continue to benefit everyone. That also means that there are practical implications involved in getting that tissue from point A to a science lab. It is troubling to think about in detail, but i am not ethically against the use of the tissue.

Research is conducted on post-mortem child and adult tissue too, and there are similar practical implications in obtaining and transporting it, and it seems highly likely that similar conversations are involved about packaging and presentation, but because they are not linked to a hot-button topic such as abortion, people don't protest it. The 1988 Fetal Tissue Transplantation Panel, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and including members who opposed abortion rights, decided that abortion and the use of the parentally-consented tissue for research were two separate issues. Not that everyone has to believe this to be the case, but under a Republican President-appointed panel, these were its findings.

Anyway, there's probably not any more to be said and I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I'm glad we could get to this point.

William S. Burroughs's Junky.

I enjoyed that one. Burroughs was such a good writer of conventional narratives that it's a shame he spent so much time and effort on stuff i consider unreadable like The Ticket That Exploded, when the avant garde became 'avant garde a clue', to borrow from George Harrison. Naked Lunch was good as well, but i think it's at the tipping point of what i can stand from him.

Have you read many Beat writers?

Nope, nor have I read anything else by Burroughs. But I do enjoy this a whole lot at the moment.

I wholly recommend On the Road by Jack Kerouac, as the pinnacle of the Beat movement and writing style. It has an overbearing reputation, but it's a tremendous work. More than the stereotypes usually associated with the book (though it is also hugely fun), it is tender and melancholy at its heart, in a similar way to Junky. A lot of great Beat literature balances this extrovert/introvert aspect. Also maybe check out The Subterraneans and Tristessa by Kerouac. Burroughs actually features as a character in all 3, but most heavily in Tristessa.

Thanks for the description. What other good Beat writers are there?

I like Kerouac the best. John Clellon Holmes wrote the first published Beat novel, Go, which is good. Neal Cassady's partial autobiography, The First Third. For Ginsberg's poetry, only Howl is essential. You can also find online audio recordings of him reading it. Unlike most writers, he is a superb reader of his own work. Actually, check out Kerouac's audio stuff too. he recorded a couple of LPs with 2 jazz saxophonists (Al Cohn and Zoot Sims). Memoirs by Joyce Johnson and Carolyn Cassady are great reading too. Ann Charters compiled a good compendium Beat Down to Your Soul, which collects stuff from a whole bunch of other poeple like LeRoy Jones (aka Amiri Baraka).

For Kerouac, i'd also recommend Dharma Bums, the second half of Desolation Angels, Big Sur.

The Beat writers kind of morphed into 60s writers like Leonard Cohen and Michael McClure, but mileage may vary with the later writers.

So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right.

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.

If it's the consent that's crucial, this newborn girl didn't get a say in donating her organs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30878890), but her parents willingly agreed, so do you disapprove of situations such as this?

Research conducted using foetal tissue has been used in many applications, including vaccines for polio and rubella. Foetal tissue research has saved millions of lives around the world. If you've had the polio vaccine, then you have directly benefitted from foetal tissue research. Even those who haven't had the vaccine have benefitted from the herd immunity provided by those who have had it.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view on these things.

William S. Burroughs's Junky.

I enjoyed that one. Burroughs was such a good writer of conventional narratives that it's a shame he spent so much time and effort on stuff i consider unreadable like The Ticket That Exploded, when the avant garde became 'avant garde a clue', to borrow from George Harrison. Naked Lunch was good as well, but i think it's at the tipping point of what i can stand from him.

Have you read many Beat writers?

Nope, nor have I read anything else by Burroughs. But I do enjoy this a whole lot at the moment.

I wholly recommend On the Road by Jack Kerouac, as the pinnacle of the Beat movement and writing style. It has an overbearing reputation, but it's a tremendous work. More than the stereotypes usually associated with the book (though it is also hugely fun), it is tender and melancholy at its heart, in a similar way to Junky. A lot of great Beat literature balances this extrovert/introvert aspect. Also maybe check out The Subterraneans and Tristessa by Kerouac. Burroughs actually features as a character in all 3, but most heavily in Tristessa.

Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?    A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.

They're killing unborn babies Loaf.  This is not a morgue, though that term would be slightly closer than the one they're using.  But these, eh-hmm, "clinics" (how they can use that term, I don't know) are killing half of their patients -- and discussing the best methods to do so, in order to extrapolate the best gain, in this case financial.

I appreciate the discussion, but this was all covered in the syllabus. Please tell me I've answered the question to your satisfaction!  

---------

Regarding the ones that are already dead.  Remember they had to be alive before they were dead.  And I don't think they were capable of "checking the organ donor box" on their driver's license (as you were) before they were killed.  Killed, not died.  Killed.  Even though they were legally killed -- please remember to thank them for their donation when you get to the pearly gates.

Please tell me we're good on this question.

---------

Regarding your personal opinion on abortion -- that's fine.  I'm appreciate you sharing it.  But I find it silly that anyone would label it "complex" then proceed to school those who find it easy.  Either you're OK with it or not.  But if you're OK with it, just understand what you are doing.

Sorry for my condescending tone.  It's actually part of the presentation, as it emphasizes the basic logic and morality that needs to be brushed aside in order to excuse some pretty strange behavior.

So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

I'm amazed by how some Christians think they are acting according to their beliefs by hating other people.

Maybe they threw her in jail for being a bad Christian?

Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?   A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.

Let's sort out a definition of science and faith first, then we can tackle the other stuff

Loaf,

I want to continue this discussion but I'm unbelievably tied up.  I'll try to post in the next day or so.

EoL

That's cool, there's no rush. Thanks for letting me know.

William S. Burroughs's Junky.

I enjoyed that one. Burroughs was such a good writer of conventional narratives that it's a shame he spent so much time and effort on stuff i consider unreadable like The Ticket That Exploded, when the avant garde became 'avant garde a clue', to borrow from George Harrison. Naked Lunch was good as well, but i think it's at the tipping point of what i can stand from him.

Have you read many Beat writers?

[Maus]

Maus is a powerful and moving book, and highly skilled artistically. Recommended for anyone looking to see how far the "comics" medium can be stretched, to see what comics can do that novels and movies can't.

I'm diving right into MetaMaus, and it's fascinating to hear Spiegelman discuss the artistic process and see rough drafts.

Right, right, right.  We disagree on the fundamentals, seems kind of pointless, no?  I'll walk you through it again, if you like.  Just didn't want you to get dizzy again.

Which fundamentals?

You still haven't answered my questions

It's hard to get a straight answer out of you.

I'm not sure why you keep talking around in circles, you still haven't answered my questions.

You create a straw-man argument about being against killing people for research, but that isn't what's happening here. People aren't being killed for research, tissue from foetuses already aborted are being used for research. Despite what your paranoia might suggest, there isn't a killing-to-order going on here.

Abortion is legal, and it is legal under some circumstances to use that tissue for scientific research.

So, how about answering my questions from my previous post, so we can have a reasoned debate? You want people to share and discuss their opinions, but you seem to be reluctant to answer questions about your own opinions.

To answer your question, I am happy for my organs to be donated for others to use after I die, and any remaining tissue can be used for scientific research. I like the idea of helping after I am gone.

Hold your horses.  Wait a second.  Stop the train.  We can't debate.  You have different definitions than I have.  I define a fetus as a life (or anchor baby, if you're a Hillary kinda person).

It's sorta like arguing with Himmler -- I say "hey you're killing people!"  And Himmler says "no we're not.  We're killing Jews."  So... you know, it's not gonna work, you and me.


By the way... thanks for being an organ donor.  But do you recall seeing a checkbox for "Right Now."

I see you've invoked Godwin's law and are backing down. Righty-ho

I'll try to address your points, and try to keep this useful, but your definitions of science and faith (whether or not in terms of religions and cults) are a little lacking and I do not agree with them.

Scientific arguments are evidence-based, peer-reviewed and open-access. See for example the case of (ex-Doctor) Andrew Wakefield and his (now discredited) claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism. His 'evidence' was available for scrutiny and was found to be unfounded. Faith is a judgement based on a lack of objective evidence. This is different to your claim that faith is anything not personally validated.

As in the following example: I haven't personally created any polio vaccines, but does that mean that (a) the polio vaccine works on FAITH, or (b) because I can observe that the polio vaccine works (no one around me has polio), it is SCIENCE? It is possible for something to be scientific if others have done the scientific research, even if i haven't personally done it.

Let's sort out a definition of science and faith first, then we can tackle the other stuff

Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise. 

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you explain it to me, I'll try to answer.

I don't know why you stated that scientists are trapped inside a cult. Using that language makes it seem that you don't understand scientific research or scientific principles beyond a tabloid level.

And if your understanding of science is at a tabloid level, then you'll likely only have registered the scientific headlines that cover breakthroughs (such as "Miracle Cure for Cancer on the Horizon") or the scare stories.

And based on your siding with TRBB, i'd guess that the scare stories have registered strongest with you, so I asked what it is that you might be scared of?

I'm also assuming that you are (culturally) American, but you didn't correct me on that.

Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise. 

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?