Posted on 02/06/2015 1:50:14 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Media are largely silent about their fear of vaccination and their belief in astrology and UFOs
The New York Times claims that the vaccine controversy we’re all talking about raises important questions about “how to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.”
Well, here’s another question: How do we deal with the false perception that liberals are more inclined to trust science than conservatives? Also, how do we approach the media’s fondness for focusing on the unscientific views of some conservatives but ignoring the irrational — and oftentimes more consequential — beliefs of their fellow liberals?
Though outing GOP candidates as skeptics of science may confirm the secular liberal’s own sense of intellectual superiority, it usually has nothing to do with policy. However, if you walk around believing that pesticides are killing your children or that fracking will ignite your drinking water, or if you hyperventilate about the threat of the ocean’s consuming your city, you have a viewpoint that not only conflicts with science but undermines progress. So how do we approach matters that have been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by liberals?
Take vaccines. There is little proof that conservatives are any less inclined to vaccinate their children than anyone else. If we’re interested in politicizing the controversy, though, there is a good case to be made for the opposite.
For starters, polls show that Millennials (most of whom lean liberal) are far more skeptical about vaccines than are older Americans......
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
So, if you are skeptical about the government force-medicating your children, you are the same a a UFO-believer.
“... been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives.”
Those words, again. In the same sentence. “Settled by scientists”.
One thing David Harsanyi didn’t mention in this piece is the millions who have died from the DDT ban.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15583-ddt-breeds-death
“....DDT’s life-saving properties are lost to them because the EPA’s 1972 ban sparked a global censure of the pesticide. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) now classifies it as one of 12 “Persistent Organic Pollutants” (POPs), otherwise known as “The Dirty Dozen.” UNEP claims DDT is a danger to humans and the environment. Yet a closer look at the case reveals a terrifying reality: saving lives isn’t what policymakers are after.
“My chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it has greatly added to the population problem,” complained Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, a global think-tank dedicated to population reduction. In his 1968 best-selling book The Population Bomb, Malthusian Paul Ehrlich warned that “every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations,” arguing against DDT as “exported death control.” Sierra Club Director Michael McCloskey explained his organization’s opposition to DDT in 1971, saying, “By using DDT, we reduce mortality rates in underdeveloped countries without the consideration of how to support the increase in populations.”
As we shall see, it was this philosophy that led to the ban and continues to keep DDT blacklisted. But first it is necessary to take a glimpse at the pre-DDT world....”
John Erlich and John P. Holdren (Obama’s Science and Techonolgy Advisor) have been advocating for population reduction for decades.
“Ehrlich, Paul R. and John P. Holdren. “Impact of Population Growth.” Science 171 (1971): 1212-17.”
I know a liberal gal who think Christians are “crazy for believing in an invisible guy in the sky that tells them what to do” yet they are always wanting to tell people that because they are (insert sign of zodiac) that they are (one type of personality or another).
Nancy Reagan comes to mind. Belief in astrology knows no political boundaries. Ignorant proles of all persuasions fall for it. I suspect you would find overlap with people who play the lottery.
Global warming/cooling/disruption/change advocates need it to be settled science - it cannot survive debate.
Liberal science = social engineering.
That’s true for most beliefs to which liberals subscribe.
They also disregard the obvious testimony of nature re nature’s God.
Seems so.....Global Immunization [once Warming] deniers.
Evolution is IMO the original issue tying conservatives to a lesser belief in science.
I live in a liberal area, and here liberals are definitely more likely to question vaccinations.
I believe in UFOs, but I think astrology is pure hokum, and vaccinations should be the decision of the parents. Pigeonhole that!
>> There is little proof that conservatives are any less inclined to vaccinate their children than anyone else.
According to the excerpt, the author is essentially neutralizing the Left’s accusation concerning the fallacy of Conservative ignorance in science... that’s fine, and that said, I bet there’s better data on the impact of vaccines than the ultra-macro impact of changing climates.
When our daughter was last vaccinated, that night she was sneezey and had watery eyes.
I had my wife call a special number for vaccinations and she talked with an actual doctor.
From talking with the doctor, we were able to determine she was having a mild allergic reaction from playing with a puppy after she had been vaccinated.
We washed and put her to bed, next day she was fine.
That call saved my nerves. We got a little panicky and didn’t think about the puppy.
“....We washed and put her to bed, next day she was fine....”
Parenting can be nerve racking as well as rewarding.
Hillary is exceptionally liberal and she channeled Eleanor Roosevelt.
Vaccines need to be used when needed but with extreme caution. Obviously no one wants smallpox or polio back. I went through childhood measles and chicken pox and even 2 bouts of the dreaded shingles. But I was brought down by a flu shot. That has me sick for 15 years (GB/CIDP).
Except for the very old, very young or health compromised there are many vaccines that just weaken the bodies own ability to build immunity and some that need further testing (they rush the latest flu strain vaccine out much faster than safety dictates)
If there was proof that UFOs killed people, that Bigfoot terminated hundreds of individuals per year, or that the Loch Ness sea monster tormented a dozen people per year on average....then maybe I’d fall into this discussion. When vaccinations came along for polio and a few other odd things...it was all good. After the 1960s...I’d say the whole thing became a sales gimmick where you just hyped up something and sold people on the necessity of twenty-odd things to vaccinated against or for.
It’s like people rushing now to develop a vaccination against Ebola and trying to convince millions to get the shot. As we’ve noticed in the past twelve months...if you use simple medicines, hydration and decent medical care after you get Ebola...you have an overwhelming chance of surviving it. The need for a vaccination? I’d probably question the need to spend money on research or testing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.