Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 2 October 2012

Archives

July 2006—January 2007 Feb 2007—March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007–July 2007 Old odds and ends Admin stuff, RfA through June 2007 July 2007 July–August 2007 August 2007 September 2007 September 2007 September 2007–October 2007 November 2007 November 2007–January 2008 January 2008 February 2008–March 2008 March 2008–May 2008 June 2008 June 2008–July 2008 July 2008–September 2008 September 2008–October 2008 October 2008–November 2008 November 2008–December 2008 December 2008–February 2009 February 2009–May 2009 May 2009–June 2009 June 2009–August 2009 August 2009–December 2009 December 2009–March 2010 March 2010–June 2010 June 2010–August 2010 August 2010–November 2010 November 2010–December 2010 December 2010–July 2011 July 2011–September 2011 September 2011–January 2012 January 2012–April 2012 April 2012–present (Date ranges are approximate)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Misplaced Pages, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

You never fail to make the best responses. Hopefully this'll keep the energy up to keep them coming. Yobol (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'm supposed to eat burgers. They're totally wrong for my blood type. :P MastCell  17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You Fundamentally Misunderstand the Issue

Here's a couple tips for you:

(1) Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules.

(2) In time, right makes might; and with respect to thimerosal, you're on the wrong side of history.

sincerely and respectfully,

Seipjere (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since your posts generally come across as neither sincere nor respectful, adding those adverbs only compounds the insincerity.

As to interpreting history's verdict, we already have a head-start. The thimerosal hypothesis already had its moment in the sun: a few researchers got rich and famous promoting it (of course, their research turned out to be scientifically flawed and deeply unethical, but who's counting?). There were pieces in Rolling Stone and Salon (filled with factual errors which did nothing to detract from their truthiness). The media were happy to "teach the controversy". Scientists who tried to sort out the truth of the matter got death threats. Oh, and a lot of parents were frightened into not vaccinating their children, with sad but predictable results - the incidence of autism has continued to rise regardless, but now we've got pertussis and measles epidemics to contend with as well.

I think history is rendering its judgement in real time. People have started to see through it, and we're left dealing with the hangover from this deeply irresponsible campaign. Seriously, I don't think history is going to be particularly kind to people like Andrew Wakefield and Mark Geier.

In any case, I'll leave it there. I'm breaking a number of my own rules, and unlike some of my colleagues, I've never found it productive to try to reason people out of an irrational belief. MastCell  17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Dr Wakefield's case to say definitively one way or the other (and frankly, I don't much care) but, as for Dr Geier, with all due respect, (to tell you the unvarnished truth) I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're talking about...

I'm quite certain that he, and, for that matter, his son, David, are precisely the kind of good men who, having stuck their necks way out on moral grounds, good historians (and wikipedians) are likely to exalt. Seipjere (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose someday we may exalt a physician who, in the words of the Maryland state medical board, displayed "an almost total disregard of basic medical and ethical standards" and "exploited patients under the guise of providing competent medical treatment" (). But it's an impressive feat of cognitive dissonance to imagine a massive conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment while ignoring the concrete, well-documented ethical lapses of the researchers whose findings agree with your preconceived beliefs. Really, you should learn a bit more about Wakefield's case; it's instructive, and I think will enter medical history as a cautionary tale. MastCell  18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree on Wakefield as a cautionary tale, but, to get back to the point, I'm curious: how much do you know about the nuerotoxicity of mercury? Seipjere (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for. I'm certainly not an expert on the specific field of heavy-metal metabolism or toxicity. MastCell  05:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point was MastCell being on the wrong side of history?--Tznkai (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You said it Tznkai... (I'm trying not to rub it in.)

(But, since you mentioned it...) It has very little to do with conspiracy, but a great deal to do with "cognitive dissonance". i.e. It's just how the scientific method works.

To steal a phrase from Otto Warburg and Max Planck (re. paradigm shifts and the scientific method): "Science progresses not because scientists change their minds, but rather because scientists attached to erroneous views die, and are replaced."

All the best, Seipjere (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You know when you're having a discussion, but the other person seems to be going to great lengths to avoid actually engaging with what you're saying? I'm sure you're trying to make some sort of point, between asking about my personal knowledge of mercury toxicity and spouting a constant stream of sententious quotations. But from my perspective, it feels like you're going to great lengths to avoid thinking critically or confronting some inconvenient truths. MastCell  04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert of my edit on Elizabeth Warren

You reverted my edit on the article on Elizabeth Warren by incorrectly stating wikipedia policy. You referenced WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG as reasons why blogs do not consitute credible sources. While that is correct in many cases, The National Review does NOT meet that critera. WP:BLP's only reference to blogs is under a section titled "avoiding self-published sources" where it says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." National Review fits these criteria perfectly. WP:REDFLAG says " may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process." I understand that the self-published blogs by themselves do not consitute a news story, however National Review's coverage of the blogs DOES constitute a news story (regardless of the fact that this coverage was, in and of itself, in a blog). I have refrained from restoring the information to give you time to respond in case I incorrectly understand wikipedia's policy. If my understanding is correct, feel free to restore the content if you feel better suited to provide a more neutral treatment of the topic.

Addition: hope you see this before you comment. National Review's article contains additional context as compared to the original blog post. It has NOT been regurgitated "uncritically" as the two updates at the bottom of the article clearly indicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perpetualization (talk • contribs)

First of all, the National Review is not a "news organization". It has no news-gathering staff or function. It is a partisan opinion magazine/site. Secondly, I see no evidence that you're "using with caution"; you're using it as the basis for a substantial stand-alone section of a biography, which is sort of the opposite of "caution".

You're citing a blogger, supported by another blogger at the National Review. That is an insufficient basis to accuse a living person of a crime, per WP:BLP. If there is actual independent, reliable news coverage of this event, then properly phrased coverage would be appropriate. I think your time would be best spent looking for better sources rather than trying to force the material in with the existing, inappropriate sourcing. If this accusation doesn't make it beyond individual bloggers and the website of a partisan periodical, then you may have to accept that it is inappropriate to feature it in the biography of a living person. MastCell  18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner has now covered the story and as such I will be restoring the edit with the new citation. Perpetualization (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What is it about "independent, reliable sources" that you're not getting? MastCell  06:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

In what way does the Examiner not qualify as a reliable source? It's an independent newspaper. Also, fox has now covered the story as well. By what possible standard do they not qualify as legitimate sources? Perpetualization (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is pretty dicey, as a free paper with a distinctly partisan outlook. Moreover, the Examiner piece simply repeats the blogger's allegations without examining their credibility (see WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject", emphasis mine).

More broadly, this is a great case study in why WP:BLP exists. The blogger's criminal allegation, which you were intent on cramming into Warren's biography, turns out to be incorrect (per the general counsel of the Massachussetts Board of Bar Overseers (). So we narrowly avoided falsely accusing a living person of a crime, because we insisted on waiting for high-quality sources. That's how BLP is supposed to work, and I hope next time something like this comes up you'll be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. MastCell  18:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of letting biases play a role. The board of bar overseers is not the highest authority here, nor does its statement necessarily clear her. The only thing we narrowly avoided was acknowledging that one person had accused another person of a crime. The accusation is in and of itself worthy of inclusion, regardless of the merits behind it. If it turns out that there are no merits behind it, that can be stated as well. The fact that she has been accused is fact, regardless of the veracity of the allegations. The comparison I made on the talk page: we include reid's accusation that romney paid no taxes (even though the claim appears false) because it is fact that he made the accusation. Similarly... Perpetualization (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Board of Bar Overseers isn't the "highest authority" on who can practice law in a state? Er, OK.

There's a difference between an accusation made by Some Random Blogger and an accusation made by the Senate Majority Leader, in terms of notability. I mean, that's common sense, right? And the point of WP:BLP is that, given the prominence of this website, we don't simply regurgitate every criminal accusation that a blogger makes about a living person, because doing so would have the effect of amplifying them. MastCell  18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind my intrusion, I'd like to add a comment. I agree that the original edit had BLP issues; we were just repeating a rumor. At this point, fair and balanced reliable sources such as Fox News have picked up the story, which makes it notable, to the point where omitting it might seem like whitewashing. We still shouldn't simply repeat these accusations, lending them undue credence. However, I think there might be a place for a carefully-worded mention that includes the various refutations. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one wish, it would be that we stop using the word "whitewash" every time a marginally sourced non-troversy fails to warrant immediate and prominent inclusion in a politician's biography. When you put together 24-hour news cycles and multi-million dollar "message machines", you're going to get something like this pretty much every day of an election cycle. Hell, even in the Massachussetts Senate race, the law license stuff has already taken a backseat to Tomahawk-gate. It makes us look like clowns - and not at all like a serious encyclopedia - when we get caught up in this. But that's less of a BLP issue and more a general complaint about the way partisan editing totally dominates our political biographies during election cycles. MastCell  19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I had one wish, I'd wish for unlimited wishes, but that's just me. I sympathize with your take on the scandal-of-the-day and we do have to be careful not to become part of the aparatus. My concern is that, across many articles about politicians and political groups (and definitely not just liberal ones), there is a pattern of suppression of "negative" information. Articles tend to get written by supporters, which tends to bias them in favor. This is why I primarily edit conservative articles rather than liberal; so that my natural bias can act as a counterbalance. Anyhow, my point is that this law license nonsense is something readers are going to come here to learn more about anyhow, so we might as well cover it accurately. If we don't, they'll just Google up some Fox News piece, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Technically, the State Supreme Court is generally the highest authority on who can practice law in a State, and the charges are brought by the State's AG office. As a practical matter, the Overseers take care of that sort of thing. They are certainly more authoritative than any blogger, journalist, or even legislative official.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I try to learn as little as possible about the legal system. :) MastCell  22:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, moving on point for a second, repeating erroneous negative accusations that appear in the news cycle can do serious harm. By repeating something, Misplaced Pages at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. There are, at any moment, many, many negative things, said, occasionally by notable persons and notable outlets. That in and of itself does not make them in fact news worthy, or encylopedic. One of Misplaced Pages's great assets is the speed with which we can update. Likewise, it can be a great downfall, because the consensus process depends on outside sources producing good, high quality information. That process takes time, and the BLP policy serves to push the breaks on the edit cycle long enough to allow the news cycle to work through, and good (verifiable, accountable) information to emerge.--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. The thing that irritates me is the short-sightedness. By rushing ahead with crappy sources, we gain nothing (since we're not a news site and we have no deadline), but we risk violating the basic ethical principles set out in WP:BLP by amplifying false criminal accusations against a living person. If this is a real story, it will be all over the legitimate news within 24-48 hours. Losing a couple of days isn't a concern, since it's more important to get it right than to get something in the article right now. But getting people to understand that is nearly impossible, especially during election season when partisan editing becomes the norm. MastCell  16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

By repeating something, Misplaced Pages at the very least, suggests that it is worth repeating, which lends something credibility. Yes, my thoughts exactly. Onward we go boyz, to fight racism, sexism, egotism, and every other kind of ism including just plain old fucking stupidism. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Medical Question

Are white blood cells actually white? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a trick question, right? They're too small to see. :P Actually, if you centrifuge a tube of blood, you'll see a thick layer of red cells at the bottom and yellow plasma on top. In between, there's a small white layer, which is where the white blood cells reside and why they're called "white". Similarly, pus (which is made up largely of dead white blood cells) is white(-ish). So maybe they are white - if you clump a lot of them together, they certainly look that way. When you view them under a microscope, they look more or less clear/transparent, unless of course they've been stained. MastCell  17:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not trick, quite serious. I wondered if they were labelled "white" merely because of their goodness and their healingness....wondered if it was one of those "good things are white, bad things are black" kind of lables. I envision any attempt to combat racism as white cells attacking a camcer or a bacteria that is threatening the body. Thanks for the info. I knew your answer would be undertandable and on topic. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, white blood cells are a lot more morally ambiguous than is generally appreciated. Most of the clinical manifestations of sepsis, for instance, result from a runaway inflammatory reaction propelled by white blood cells. With modern antimicrobial therapy, it's a common occurrence to successfully eradicate a bloodstream infection but nonetheless watch a patient deteriorate because of an overzealous white-blood-cell and immune response. Far from goodness and healingness, they're sometimes lethally ungrateful.

That's why I've always shaken my head at those supplements promising to "pump up" your immune system. In fact, the immune system devotes substantial resources to suppressing immune reactions - through regulatory T cells, anti-inflammatory cytokines like IL-10, and T-cell costimulatory molecules such as the CTLA-4 pathway. It's probably no exaggeration to say that half of your immune system is devoted to suppressing white blood cells and immune reactions. But for some reason, no one's struck it rich yet with a dietary supplement that promises to hold back your white blood cells... such is our bias. :) MastCell  20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention autoimmune diseases.

"Holding back" the immune system is poor marketing. The marketing-approved phrase is "balancing the immune system". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally I just lurk, but this really is a nice thread, involving a favorite topic and a couple of my favorite editors. Cheers! -- Scray (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

RfAr/Race and intelligence clarification

I'd been meaning to respond to your comments on the arbitration noticeboard talkpage, but I see the discussion's been archived, so I'll post briefly here instead.

At least as I saw it, the thrust of the motion that was adopted wasn't aimed primarily or solely at TrevelyanL85A2, who as you note wound up being blocked indefinitely anyway. But if you check the (admittedly overlong) discussion that led to the motion, there were at least two other editors who stated that they too thought it was just fine for them to be having discussions on their talkpages with socks of the users who were previously indefblocked for gross misconduct and harassment. When I and other arbitrators stated in no uncertain terms that they should desist from this practice, these editors told me in no uncertain terms that they would ignore me. It was in this context that I thought the motion was useful, to make clear that this shouldn't happen.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit. What was adopted probably won't win "motion of the year," but I don't think it opens up the floodgates of wikilawyering as you suggest, either. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I wanted to thank you for responding. I know it's not especially pleasant to deal with the hordes of angry and often irrational people who show up to complain after each ArbCom decision (and in this case, I'm one of those angry and perhaps irrational folks). You and a few of your colleagues shoulder the burden of dealing with complaints - a burden most of the Committee members seem to avoid. So I really appreciate your response.

I think we agree that the bottom line is that there's really no legitimate reason to restore talkpage posts from abusive banned editors. You said as much in your comments on the request, early on, for which I thank you. My problem is that I don't think we needed a months-long case to reach that conclusion. It's a simple matter of established practice and policy - all that's needed is to reaffirm what's in policy, and voice support for those who upheld it.

I know that a few editors said that they would ignore you, but I don't see how their obstinacy turned this into a drawn-out proceeding. You told them that what they were doing was unhelpful and not OK. If they ignore you, we (admins) will handle it - that's what we're here for. If you as Committee members provide guidance that a behavior is inappropriate, then I (and, I think, many other admins) will act on that - especially in a black-and-white case where everyone with a clue already recognized the behavior as inappropriate. All you guys need to do is support admins when they're acting appropriately, and ideally protect them from frivolous or vexatious litigation. I think a motion would have been helpful, to nail things down, if it were promptly enacted, but the balance tipped from "helpful" to "unhelpful" when the request entered its second month or so. At that point, it was basically providing a free platform for the sort of bickering that all of these remedies are intended to prevent.

In any case, I understand the realities of working on the Committee, at least as much as an empathetic outsider can. I know it can be like herding cats, and I can't even imagine the demands on your time - you guys give a lot more time and effort to this project that I ever could or would. I don't mean to bash you, although I know it probably came across that way because I was sort of miffed when I posted. I do see a long-term problem with wikilawyering in this arena - one which the involvement of full-time defense counsel like TDA exacerbates - but I also have a tendency to be overly cynical, so you're probably right that in the long run the motion won't be counterproductive. It's more that the time and effort could have been much better spent if this were nipped in the bud, but that's not your fault - after all, the participants themselves could have dropped it at any point.

In any case, as I said, I really do appreciate your responsiveness and your thoughts on the matter. Cheers. MastCell  18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mast, would you please not refer to me in such a manner? I previously stated on Risker's talk page that I do not appreciate you calling me Trev's "full-time defense counsel" or anything similar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Vaccine denialism and a court case

Don't know if you're a reddit fan, but here you go. Not sure if the underlying court case might fit into one of the various vaccine articles, but I noticed you've been fixing one or two of them. Obviously, the court ruling isn't really MEDRS, but as much as Jacobson v. Massachusetts is part of the controversy, maybe this ruling is too. Of course, it's only a Federal district court, so who knows. Atheists love it though. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, of all of the objections to vaccination, the only one that I have real sympathy for is the personal-liberty concern. It is an imposition of the collective on the individual to insist that we vaccinate our children. Obviously, we as a society have largely accepted that trade-off, but I can at least empathize with people who feel forced by the government to vaccinate their children against their parental preference.

It's one thing to abuse the trappings of science, as I think a number of anti-vaccine campaigners have done and still do. But it's another to object to the state's right to mandate a medical treatment. I don't agree with the latter concern in the case of vaccination, but I can understand it - whereas I can't understand people who simply seem unwilling to acknowledge objective reality, as with the anti-vaccine commenter a few threads up.

That said, I agree with you that the religious-freedom exemption doesn't apply. Religious freedom has always been circumscribed where it has the potential to harm others. I can't drink and drive, or refuse to pay taxes, and claim a religious exemption. Refusing vaccination is a dangerous act - both for one's own child and for other people's children. MastCell  21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You must be more of a libertarian/Ron Paul type. I'm much more extreme in the pro-vax world. The only acceptable exemptions are ACIP's approved contraindications for vaccines. I think there are just a few like certain immunocompromised situations. Line up the kids and milk the their vaccine induced tears. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any conceivable stretch of the imagination by which I could be described as a libertarian or a "Ron Paul type". If you ever see me up on stage in a publicly funded sports arena declaring my rejection of government, you'll know that tertiary syphilis has set in. Believe me, I work with immunocompromised people, and I've seen patients die because of low vaccine uptake in the community around them. I feel strongly about it. I just don't think it helps to be dogmatic; it only plays into people's natural resistance to being told they have to do something they don't want to do. MastCell  22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SR, I'm curious about what you think about vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases. They're pretty different from a blood-borne disease like Hepaitis B or an airborne one like smallbox. Texas had the HPV vaccine on the mandatory vaccination list for a while, but in my mind, there is a pretty clear distinction between the smallpox vaccine and the HPV vaccine. NW (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see the difference for smallpox (it's a much more acute danger), but what is the practical difference between blood-borne diseases and STDs? Both are transmitted rarer than smallpox or the flu, but herd immunity still protects the risk groups. I somehow don't see you in the "if my daughter screws around, it's only fair that she dies of cervical cancer" crowd... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope that my kids choose to get vaccinated for HPV, but I do see a fairly clear distinction even between Hep B and HPV. You can get Hep B accidentally a number of ways: accidental needlestick for one, improper screening of transfused blood for another. Granted, the odds of both are fairly low and unlikely to happen to kids in school. And it is the case that a large percentage of school-aged kids are going to engage in sexual practices that make them at risk for HPV. But a large enough number are going to wait or practice sex safely, and I don't entirely see a reason to force them to undergo an expensive and bothersome three-shot vaccination series. NW (Talk) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I disagree with the interpretation. Teenagers don't wait (as a rule - there may be individual exceptions). And "safe sex" is safer, but not absolutely safe - typical condom users have a 15% chance of pregnancy over one year, and even under optimal conditions, there is a two percent chance of pregnancy. Infection risk should be at least similar, and given that pregnancy depends on ovulation, likely higher. Note also that the vaccine is only recommended to people not yet infected, and that it provides long-term protection. The earlier it is given, the more likely it will prevent an infection. Apparently 80% of women in the US have contracted an infection with at least one HPV strain by age 50, so it is by no means rare. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue being that very few parents are going to think their daughters are in the category of school-aged kids who are going to engage in sexual practices, so few would get the vaccine in that situation, even if they are in a higher risk category. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The HPV vaccine issue is pretty interesting. I would hope that everyone would realize the real value of the vaccine in helping preventing cancer for an entire lifetime. Even if daddy's little girl waits until marriage to a similar partner, there's no guarantee she won't remarry at some point, etc. That being said, the whole Perry, Texas thing probably did more harm than good since a lot of people now think it's some evil scheme by big pharma. On a somewhat related note; MC, I would be curious to hear what you think about flu shots. I'll get my first one this year since I'll be around someone with a weakened immune system, but am I a terrible person for not getting them in general? a13ean (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the HPV vaccine, I think that any disease-prevention strategy which relies on teenagers, as a group, being abstinent or practicing safe sex is entirely unrealistic. Separately, even "safe" sex poses a risk with regard to HPV. There's fairly strong recent evidence suggesting that oral sex, performed on an HPV-positive partner, is strongly linked to the risk of head and neck cancer. With the decline in tobacco use, HPV infection is probably the dominant risk factor for oropharyngeal cancers, which are increasingly common in younger non-smokers. So there's a benefit even to people who practice what is commonly understood to be "safer" sex.

About the flu shot, I would strongly encourage it. I won't judge you for not getting them before, but everyone really should. I've had the flu a few times, and it's been utterly miserable. I haven't gotten it once since I started getting vaccinated every year in 2001, despite a significant degree of occupational exposure. Besides, you never know when you're going to take the bus or ride the elevator next to someone who's getting chemotherapy, or who had a bone marrow transplant, or who is carrying an infant. Even if you're not personally at risk for serious complications, there's a benefit to not being a vector. Finally (for the Republicans in the crowd), there's a clear economic and productivity benefit to widespread flu vaccination. The amount of missed workdays and lost productivity in people who catch the flu (or who have to care for someone who caught it) is substantial, in the millions if not billions of dollars annually.

In your defense, the ACIP didn't start recommending universal flu vaccination until 2010, so you've only shirked your societal obligations for a year or two. :) MastCell  21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really about personal liberty, rather they want the ability to enforce their idiosyncratic opinions on their children, also with a right to neglect their children. Not to jump into an excessive example, but; isn't that argument essentially similar to demanding freedom of movement to send your children into a quarantine zone? On the religious freedom aspect, this made for interesting, if rather sad reading: a list of case studies of parents who deliberately neglected their children for religious reasons, causing them to die from preventable diseases. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the counterargument. And I agree with it; I think that personal liberty needs to take a backseat when it comes to protecting the welfare of the vulnerable, like children. I agree that the death toll from religiously motivated medical neglect is appalling... but it's also an astounding testament to the implacable power of irrationality. I mean, people will literally allow their own children to die preventable deaths - I can't even begin to imagine the thought processes at work.

Refusing to have your child vaccinated is one thing. Refusing curative medical care for illnesses like appendicitis or Hodgkin lymphoma - which are universally fatal if untreated - is another. I don't think anyone has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation for why the human psyche contains this self-destructive germ of resistance to reason, although maybe Michael Shermer came closest in Why People Believe Weird Things. MastCell  23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated: speaking of weird things about humanity, do you happen to know if the prevalence of people needing corrective vision has actually gone up in recent decades and if so, what hypotheses people have about why that is? NW (Talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it has gone up or not, but would not be surprised if it had increased slightly; I'm not a biologist, but I had understood it to be that bad eyesight was previously an evolutionary disadvantage (not a massive one since we live in societies so this would offset it), but now with correct vision etc it's even less so; so defective eyesight no longer has a strong effect as a selection pressure. If there is a mutation that changes the genes for vision so as to be degrading vision, for offspring now, then there is no strong advantage or disadvantage in evolutionary terms. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I totally understand that. But I hear it's something that has gone the way of peanut allergies—a huge spike in the last 50 or so years. Could just be making that up, but I don't know. But 50 years is a bit short, even for human medical history and for death rates to have changed all that much. NW (Talk) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I found some research papers looking at vision , and (following the citation tree might lead to a clearer picture), it seems for vision there is a mixture of causes:

"While genetic factors undoubtedly play a major role,8,10–12 these cannot account for the recent steep increase in myopia prevalence. ... While nearwork has long been accepted as being in some way involved in myopization,1–4 it appears that periods of outdoor activity may offer protection against myopic change.21–23 More recently, following early work by Hoogerheide et al.,24 it has been suggested that refraction and imagery in the peripheral retina might be of importance.25–30"

I'll stop commenting for a bit to give the biologists a time to reply :> IRWolfie- talk) 14:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. The skeptic in me wonders if over time we've simply done more vision testing, and provided better vision coverage - meaning that the increase in myopia is simply related to detection bias. The proposed timeframe - only a generation or two - does seem far too short for an actual evolutionary change in gene frequency or a response to selective pressure. (Although glasses, which used to carry a social stigma, are definitely in right now and might confer at least a minor reproductive advantage).

Maybe myopia is more prevalent because Big Vision succeeded in strangling and suppressing naturally effective vision cures like the See Clearly Method? (I've spent so much time in the realm of paranoid Misplaced Pages quackery that these hypotheses occur to me naturally now). Then, of course, the massive behavioral changes over the past several decades could certainly play a role - the amount of time we spend in front of computer monitors and TV screens, not to mention staring at tiny smartphone text, has increased dramatically. I guess it could be any or all of the above. MastCell  21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This would make sense for the nut allergies; less detection for cases combined with less nuts being consumed as part of diet 50 years ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)