Why is it that when science tells us about Evolution, we laugh at the

Creationists, but when other scientists apply evolutionary theory and tell us we should get a flu shot, some people accuse the scientists of fear mongering and/or declare the scientists have it all wrong.?

They love its capacity to help humanity and hate its desire to categorize and control it.

Scientists are human beings with biases and agendas just like everyone else. The scientific method exists to filter that stuff out but it's imperfect.

and our illustrious pharmaceutical companies don't have as good a track record

that sort of gets involved and leaves many (rightfully) suspicious about all sorts of medical/drug claims.

seriously how long could the drug trials have gone on for this flu vaccine?

Other drugs have lengthy trials and still have fatal results

being too chickenshit to get stuck with a vaccination needle by howling about nonexistent government and pharmacy conspiracies.

I have no idea what it is, really, I just know they're passionate, obdurate, and wrong.

Are often into creationism themselves.

If not psychic powers, flying saucers, all sorts of assorted conspiracy theories, etc.

Basically, those people just aren't right in the head.

But I tend to follow the money, and I have little faith in 'scientific' studies that are funded by businesses who have an interest in the outcomes.

But hey, ignorance is bliss.

Considering your predilection for anti-vaccine woo woo and pro-tobacco woo woo, you must be in seventh heaven.

Are you stalking me? LOL

I am an ex-smoker and very grateful to be done with the habit. But I don't think it is right to kick smokers in the teeth just for jollies. That doesn't make me pro-tobacco anymore than having a healthy skepticism makes me anti-vaccine.

But I know you are enjoying your trip through crazy-land far too much to let reality slip in.

Posting erroneous info about second hand smoke makes you pro-tobacco.

Posting erroneous info about vaccines makes you anti-vaccine.

It's like listening to a fifth grader on the playground. Everything is either black or white. There is nothing in between (lol, you will probably call me a racist now).

I can't say. I haven't seen you comment on race yet.

Name-calling tizzy.

That would make about as much sense as any of your other statements to me.

I understood your comments on second hand smoke and vaccines perfectly well.

Regarding the vaccines: I am practically defined by straddling the middle ground on many issues. This is one of them. I am cautious and skeptical, but favor most vaccines. I may even get the swine flu one; I am not sure yet.

Since you have such a black or white mentality, you can't conceive of a middle ground. So unless I heartily endorse 100 % of what you believe, I am 'anti-vacc'. (Either you're with us or you are against us - sound like any unpopular president you know?)

Regarding the second hand smoke: Second hand smoke is bad, bad for kids, bad for everybody, but it is totally hype that it is actually WORSE than smoking cigarettes yourself. Again this is not a 'one side or the other' kind of position. But this kind of nuance is beyond your capacity to understand.

Is it even fathomable that you could ever admit you were wrong? An apology for all the name calling would be really nice right about this time.

there simply IS a risk associated with all vaccines and immunizations. The public and highly probable self gain in virtually all cases greatly outweighs the real or frequently perceived risk to self or child. But there always is as with any medicine a small but measurable risk. Take that risk and blow it out the media and you have what you describe.

whatsoever about having their child get a vaccine, knowing full well there are always risks in the best-case scenarios?

Many of us are not anti-vaccine, per se, and see the value of many vaccination programs.

However, there is a growing lack of trust when it comes to huge corporations, specifically pharmaceuticals, insurance, banking, and "defense" industries. For good reason, don't you think?

And, the effects of many things -- natural and man made -- aren't always obvious until they've been studied for years. Is that not a correct statement? Why does this not apply to vaccines and their potential effects in various populations?

So, between this lack of trust and general parental protectiveness, many of us ask a lot of questions and want as much reassurance as possible before exposing our child to something that may be helpful, but also may be found to be harmful down the road.

There is a lot of weighing of pros and cons as responsible parents. I would think those here who like to think of themselves as part of the scientific community -- a naturally inquisitive, always seeking more information type of group -- would appreciate the fact that we don't blindly believe ANYTHING. We read as many places as possible and come here to seek input from supposedly well-informed individuals, to get more information in order to make a truly informed decision.

Instead, what a certain group seeks to do is mock. They accomplish nothing with that. The vast majority here who have been labeled "anti-vaccine" aren't that at all; they simply question every new vaccine, trying to learn.

It doesn't mean anyone's an idiot for merely asking the questions or being concerned.

Of course, I've always been interested in science and have always been a fan of people like Jonas Salk. I also know what happened to people who got Polio and other dread diseases.

(Also, a preemptive "go fuck yourself" to the inevitable "the lives of your niece and nephew are less important than any kids you may have, so obviuosly you'd be more cavalier with their safety" replies the antivaxxers might provide.)

:shrug:

Scientists can be full of shit just as much as anyone, and it happens all the time.

I'm not anti-vaccine, but I am still suspicious of big pharma.