Don�t Pass Go, And Don�t Collect $200
Given the dominance and confluence of the Warfare Thesis, its resulting scientism, and evolution�s apparently unceasing thirst for control over people, I kick myself for not predicting Jeff Sachs� latest we-would-laugh-except-this-is-real threat that parents who do not vaccinate their children are committing a crime [1:50]. It is not enough that this past week the California legislature passed a new law that prohibits parents, who avoid the risk of vaccination, from sending their children to the public schools while nonetheless taxing those same parents to pay for the public school system which they are not allowed to use. These parents are a small minority and so are an easy target. But if Sachs has his way, unfair taxation will be the least of these parents� concerns as they will be convicted as criminals for their choice to protect their children. Undoubtedly the state would also take their children from them.
Given the strong language from global warming (AGW) advocates about how those who don�t agree with them should be incarcerated, Sachs� move is not too surprising. Please see this post , where I concluded that this vigilante justice could jump to other issues:
What we are seeing are classic defamation tactics. Evolution�s Warfare Thesis has lit all kinds of fires and emotions are running high. With evolution there is no law, just narrative. Today it focuses on climate, but it could jump to any number of issues.
According to Sachs, vaccination should be one of those issues. That fits nicely into the nineteenth century, mythical Warfare Thesis which was erected by evolutionists to protect their theory. One of the many targets of the Warfare Thesis were those anti-vaccination rascals. To this day evolutionists rally around vaccinations as another support for their scientism.
The fact is that vaccinations have done a world of good and there are plenty of reasons to vaccinate, but they also carry low-probability risk. Those are generalizations and the details are different for each vaccine and each patient.
The bottom line is that vaccinations often present a classic risk-reward tradeoff. They provide helpful protections, but they can present a very low risk of both short-term and long-term illness and death. Recently more than two dozen children in Mexico were hospitalized and two died after receiving vaccines. Authorities halted vaccinations temporarily. Tragedy has also struck in this country, such as in the case of Lorrin Kain, popularized in a recent book, who eventually died from her vaccination injuries. Even the official vaccine court acknowledged the vaccine injury, though the reparations were not nearly adequate.
For most people the risks are tolerably low, and the tradeoff favors the vaccination. But this isn�t a scientific analysis. Not only are the exact probabilities unknown (mostly because the Warfare Thesis has served to cloud and corrupt the science of properly evaluating the vaccine risk), but even if they were known, the risk-reward tradeoff cannot be set to a formula. It is a choice each parent must make for each vaccine, in consultation with their doctor.
None of this is controversial, yet evolutionary thinking demands a very different approach. It demands that while parents must have the choice to kill their unborn child, they ought not have the choice to make the vaccine risk-reward decision. What about the risk? Evolutionists deny the risk because, after all, correlation does not imply causation.
When I explained this evolutionists attacked me with their usual demagoguery. One evolutionist explained the problem is that I don�t accept the basic principles of science because, after all, unlike him I am skeptical that the species arose naturalistically:
The fact that the author of this post is a dedicated anti-evolutionist for whom no amount of evidence is enough to make him even question his convictions, and who has now apparently become an anti-vaxer is not surprising: if you don't accept the basic principles of science, then any application of science to human welfare is, by foregone conclusion, definitely negative
Note the dismissive language. Doubting that the species arose naturalistically makes me a �dedicated anti-evolutionist for whom no amount of evidence is enough� who does not �accept the basic principles of science.� And pointing out that the benefits of vaccines are accompanied by risks makes me �an anti-vaxer.� It�s all Warfare Thesis.
Another evolutionist attacked my post, making the absurd suggestion that the Lorrin Kain�s injuries may have been a mere coincidence, and threatening that he had �Saved and tweeted [the post] for posterity.�
It is disappointing that rational discussion is not possible, but this is the environment that the Warfare Thesis has created. The above Jeff Sachs video in which he calls for the criminalization of parents choosing not to vaccinate, for example, appears at Business Insider under the heading: �Watch Jeff Sachs destroy the anti-vaccine movement in under two minutes.� It is all about attacking the �deniers.� Meanwhile unlikely hypotheses are insisted to be fact, and anyone who doesn�t go along will incur their wrath, and maybe their indictments.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar