It is all fun and cute to invoke natural selection to insult people when they have a sense that they are protecting their own health from scientists whom they believe may not have taken everything into account, given limitations on testing the vaccines and so on... but let's see how the columnist feels when we suggest that people who get abortions are evidently stupid - proof: an invocation of natural selection.

...see abortions only eliminate one reproductive endeavor...one woman could get an abortion at one point and then still reproduce later down the line...thus the traditional factors associated with natural selection (elimination of a set of genes from the gene pool) becomes gray area (any side effects of the abortion leading to diminished reproduction capacity, did she eliminate the genes of a less desireable male and then choose to reproduce with a more desireable male, etc.)...now with infectious disease and vaccines...this is a vastly different type of process...massive die offs seen in wide spread out-breaks of an infectious disease do lead to selection of those most fit for survival...(see the Bubonic Plague and HIV resistance among European descendants)...so one can hope that not getting vaccinated is genetically linked to an inferior capacity for critical thought and lack of intelligence...thus a massive die off of people with this trait could potentially remove other undesireable traits from our gene pool...all of that aside...what do mean "not taken everything into account"...?

You could also go the other way. People who do get vaccinated might not be smarter, they might just be more weak and sickly and figure that they better get the vaccine because they are more likely to die if they get the flu. That being the case, if the vaccine did cause any problems, it would cause a problem in the people least likely to be able to deal with it. So, you might get natural selection by killing off the weak by giving them the vaccine.

OH BOY...[cracks knuckles]...this thread is turning into a comedy gold mine...a vaccine and natural selection debate with anti-vaccine internet tough guy...what fun this will be.

First: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Second: The people who plan to not get the vaccine are not doing so out of some special knowledge that they will be able to "handle" the flu virus. Let me tell you a little something about pandemic flu. It reaches pandemic levels because it infects those who are considered "the strong." (You are very manly by the way, I am so impressed by how "strong" you are.) This is why it spreads; because "the strong" are the ones working and interacting more socially, spreading the disease. Additionally, pandemic flu is from a strain that the population, as a whole, has low tolerance for, even for you manly tough guys. This is another reason why it spreads so far. Thus, any of your preconceived notions about "I never get sick because I am strong" go right out the window.

Third: People get flu shots every year...shots that have had the same R&D as this vaccine and every year there are an insignificant amount of bad reactions to the vaccine...unless something has gone horribly wrong with this vaccine...there is absolutely no reason to think it will have a significantly different amount of danger.

Fourth: Do you not get vaccines for other diseases because you feel you are strong? Do you not get your tetanus booster every ten years because you think, "I don't even feel the nail when it goes through my foot, let alone need to worry about a bacteria that releases one of the deadliest toxins know to man." No, why? Because infectious diseases, like tetanus and pandemic-level flu viruses strike indiscriminately of "tough guy status."

Lastly: Have I told you yet how impressed I am by how strong and tough you are? Really, you are quite tough and strong and impressive because you are so strong and and tough.

I am thankful for 5 paragraphs without your abysmal overuse of ellipses. I can't help but read your posts like you are stoned and trail off after every thing you say.

"but let's see how the columnist feels when we suggest that people who get abortions are evidently stupid - proof: an invocation of natural selection."

Not a new suggestion though. You've just proposed a slightly less PC version of the movie Idiocracy.

BenK:

It is all fun and cute to invoke natural selection to insult people when they have a sense that they are protecting their own health from scientists whom they believe may not have taken everything into account, given limitations on testing the vaccines and so on... but let's see how the columnist feels when we suggest that people who get abortions are evidently stupid - proof: an invocation of natural selection.

Ben,

People who don't get vaccinated don't just endanger themselves, they endanger their community. In a way it IS natural selection though.

LOL, people who engage in abortion ARE selecting themselves out of existence. Look at Europe hiring in all its workers from Muslim countries. Is it stupid not to reproduce? If all you care about is your own income, probably not. If you care about having a stable society ( and children yourself) then probably yes.

Bondsman:

BenK:

It is all fun and cute to invoke natural selection to insult people when they have a sense that they are protecting their own health from scientists whom they believe may not have taken everything into account, given limitations on testing the vaccines and so on... but let's see how the columnist feels when we suggest that people who get abortions are evidently stupid - proof: an invocation of natural selection.

Ben,

People who don't get vaccinated don't just endanger themselves, they endanger their community. In a way it IS natural selection though.

LOL, people who engage in abortion ARE selecting themselves out of existence. Look at Europe hiring in all its workers from Muslim countries. Is it stupid not to reproduce? If all you care about is your own income, probably not. If you care about having a stable society ( and children yourself) then probably yes.

A person must be alive to have an abortion. Subsequent children are not "you". Thus, your statement that people are selecting themselves out of existence makes no sense.

Further, your statement about workers from muslim countries is weird. Surely, it is merely a non sequitur and you don't mean that (if it were actually true) a significant amount of muslims in europe has anything to do with the stability of the society.

Finally, what about the fact that reproducing can and has lead to overpopulation which can and does lead to instability in societies? Wouldn't that mean that one may elect not to reproduce so as to maintain stability in society?

From the CDC list of people who get the flu shot: Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.

So, Swine_SARS, perhaps you should be complaining to the CDC since you seem to think that everybody, regardless of current health condition, should get the vaccine.

Bondsman:

People who don't get vaccinated don't just endanger themselves, they endanger their community.

True. OK, so far so good.

Bondsman:

...people who engage in abortion ARE selecting themselves out of existence... Is it stupid not to reproduce? If all you care about is your own income, probably not. If you care about having a stable society ( and children yourself) then probably yes.

Huh? How does not reproducing have any effect on the stability of a society? Do you know what overpopulation means, and how it relates to "stability"?

Ok wise guy. First, termination of a reproductive effort probably costs more (in terms of fitness - reproductive potential) to a young woman than could be made up by virtually any subsequent 'trade up' in mate selection. Whether or not this has a group selection advantage is debateable, but if it does, it is probably because it limits the impact of both original partners in the population. Next, you are right that a selective sweep is pretty different than a single death, but actually, the free exercise of abortion rights does resemble a selective sweep at the population level. Further, your faith in vaccine scientists is admirable, but I work with them and they frequently don't know quite what they are doing. It's not necessarily ominous, but when they have to put out a new vaccine each year, they can't test it as well as one might want. Heck, it took decades to establish the harm in smoking and asbestos. Do you know that one or another antigen in the vaccine this year won't cause an autoimmune reaction in some set of humans, over the next 10 years? No, you don't. You can't. Oh, and vaccines fail all the time, so you can't say that their design is foolproof. You have to rely on testing. Limited testing, in this case, since the development cycle is short. Is H1N1 vaccine unusually dangerous? I doubt it. But are you an arrogant and gullible fool for simply writing off doubts people may have as the simple result of ignorance? Yes, yes you are. A cost benefit analysis, I think, will come down on the side of supporting vaccines, but everyone will make their own, and if the result should wobble - then differences in measurement and judgement will create a distribution of people who do and don't get the vaccine - and that will reflect their collective wisdom, both those who do and those who don't.

BenK:

Ok wise guy. First, termination of a reproductive effort probably costs more (in terms of fitness - reproductive potential) to a young woman than could be made up by virtually any subsequent 'trade up' in mate selection. And so of course you can back this up, and as though it were a really significant issue?

Whether or not this has a group selection advantage is debateable, but if it does, it is probably because it limits the impact of both original partners in the population No, one why would it limit the male? He could just go find another female. Also, the female would have to impaired from reproducing again.

Next, you are right that a selective sweep is pretty different than a single death, but actually, the free exercise of abortion rights does resemble a selective sweep at the population level. Only in the sense if you are talking about the very rare circumstance where a terminated pregnancy leads to the inability to reproduce. This is so rare and isn't anywhere on the level to have an influence on some kind of selection process. If the person who has one abortion or even 10 abortions can at the end still reproduce then it has had no effect on her fitness.

Further, your faith in vaccine scientists is admirable, but I work with them isn't that convenient and they frequently don't know quite what they are doing. It's not necessarily ominous, but when they have to put out a new vaccine each year, they can't test it as well as one might want. Heck, it took decades to establish the harm in smoking and asbestos You are comparing the single category of medicine most responsible for the jump in life expectancy in the 20th century to two of the most dangerous habits ever? Seriously?

Do you know that one or another antigen in the vaccine this year won't cause an autoimmune reaction in some set of humans, over the next 10 years? No. However, (maybe this a little out of scope) as gene expression analysis moves forward determining this information will be something we will able to do. No, you don't. You can't. Oh, and vaccines fail all the time, so you can't say that their design is foolproof. This is why herd immunity is important and the more anti-vaccine nuts you have the less chance there is of establishing that herd immunity. You have to rely on testing. Limited testing, in this case, since the development cycle is short. Is H1N1 vaccine unusually dangerous? I doubt it. But are you an arrogant and gullible fool for simply writing off doubts people may have as the simple result of ignorance? Yes, yes you are. A cost benefit analysis, I think, will come down on the side of supporting vaccines, but everyone will make their own, and if the result should wobble - then differences in measurement and judgement will create a distribution of people who do and don't get the vaccine - and that will reflect their collective wisdom, both those who do and those who don't.

Always with the "it isn't unreasonable to point out the risks of vaccinating" from you people. No it isn't unreasonable and where, really where do you ever ever ever see someone try to say that vaccines carry no risk. Drug companies, the CDC, doctors, public health officials all recognize this. Furthermore, all substances are potential toxins only the dose is important. Ever heard of Paracelsus? Have you ever considered stopping breathing or going without drinking water? No, people pick and chose based on "spooky anecdotes," and the spookier the anecdote more "reasonable" it is to point out that there are risks. I know there are risks, everyone knows there are risks. They do not out-weigh the benefits.

bpsimps3:

A person must be alive to have an abortion. Subsequent children are not "you". Thus, your statement that people are selecting themselves out of existence makes no sense.

Further, your statement about workers from muslim countries is weird. Surely, it is merely a non sequitur and you don't mean that (if it were actually true) a significant amount of muslims in europe has anything to do with the stability of the society.

Finally, what about the fact that reproducing can and has lead to overpopulation which can and does lead to instability in societies? Wouldn't that mean that one may elect not to reproduce so as to maintain stability in society?

On "selecting themselves", I meant as *a society*, not as an individual. It makes plenty of sense. If your population is declining, and you don't have the workers to keep your country functioning, you import workers from places that do NOT believe having children to be a bad thing.

Then their culture supplants yours, yours fades away, theirs flourishes.

Overpopulation can lead to stressors on society, and possibly wars, but it does not result in that society disappearing or being overrun. UNder population does.

pb53:

Huh? How does not reproducing have any effect on the stability of a society? Do you know what overpopulation means, and how it relates to "stability"?

See the above. Basically, "nature abhors a vacuum". If your population disappears, someone else's moves in. Their society takes over, yours gets moved out. No kids, no society.

BenK:

Heck, it took decades to establish the harm in smoking and asbestos. Do you know that one or another antigen in the vaccine this year won't cause an autoimmune reaction in some set of humans, over the next 10 years? No, you don't. You can't.

but Ben, now that everyone KNOWS smoking and asbestos are dangerous, do you think that next year it won't be? No. Smoking is dangerous.

Similarly, they've been making vaccines in the same way for years. If there was going to be a big reaction to a part of them, it would have happened already. the antigens they use are taken *from the flu virus*, so if you have an autoimmune reaction to the vaccine (which could always happen), you would probably ALSO get that exact same reaction from the flu itself, right?

There's just not a good reason to refuse to take the vaccine. I think 350 people have died in Canada, and 76 confirmed deaths to kids have happened in the U.S. so far. How many people have died from the vaccine?

None?

So what's the issue? Why would you risk your own family on something that is ALREADY killing people to avoid risking their exposure that to date hasn't killed anyone? that doesn't make much sense