Then a friend of mine, a pro-vaccine nurse in northern California, gave me a heads-up as to the actual data. And it wasn’t even close to that number doubting vaccine safety.
Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which is one of the leading American science organizations, which generally casts a very critical eye toward this kind of data, kind of got it wrong.
Skeptical Raptor 4.0 has been out in the wild for almost a month, and we’re not sure what we think about it. For example, most of you didn’t know that clicking on the bright red Skeptical Raptor logo brings you to the home page, where you can search for almost any article. We wanted to throw in a couple of website construction polls to find out what you all are thinking, maybe to help decide which direction to go next.
The current website is really a beta, with issues popping up all the time (like the date of the article is no longer at the top, but now at the bottom – we know that’s an issue that needs to be fixed).
(Throw any additional observations and suggestions down in the comments.)
We hope you notice a few things about the new website. First, we’ve cut out almost all of the embedded ads (those within the body of the articles), because the fundraising model means we can operate the website without relying on ads (though we kept a few along one side). If continued fundraising remains healthy enough to support this website, we will remove more of the ads.
Second, the new design should be faster, and allow for quicker navigation between articles.
Third, there is a new landing page which lists the most recent articles and the 5-6 most popular articles published on this website.
We’re still trying to raise money for the feathery dinosaur to improve the website (such as fixing the date issue, something that’s harder than we originally thought). Because of some really odd hacking attempts, a lot of what we budgeted for website improvement was put into plugging any potential security flaws.
Again, if you’ve got a few spare dollars, please click on the links below. We can use the help in removing more ads, upgrading the website even further, and giving this place a long future of providing content about everything from vaccines and the law to GMO myths.
Today, 3 September is the 60th birthday for one of the biggest scientific frauds of our lifetime, maybe of the past 100 years or so. So today it’s time for the carnivorous dinosaur to wish a happy birthday Andrew Wakefield.
I do try to ignore him, like I ignore that Australian expatriate, Ken Ham, who is wasting American taxpayer money to build a temple to that biblical myth that has all of the scientific basis of, well Wakefield’s claims. But sometimes Wakefield just keeps coming, without muzzling his mouth.
The latest is the photo below that’s hitting the interwebs. The picture includes a sad looking dog, possibly a German Shepherd (but I am not a dog expert – I’m a cat person), sitting next to Mr. Wakefield.
Wakefield is holding a couple of hand written signs that say, ” My name is Tex. I was injured by vaccines.”
Now he’s trying to do the same for our pets? Dogs are protected from some serious diseases because of vaccines and other preventative medicines. Rabies. Distemper. Parvovirus. Bordetella. Hepatitis. Lyme disease. And many more.
Not only are these diseases dangerous to our dogs, they can be passed to us. Rabies is a horrible disease, and if a dog contracts it, they may have to be euthanized. And if that rabid dog bites a child, they have to endure a very painful series of vaccines.
No, rabies cannot be prevented by a gluten free, organic diet for your dog. They are bitten by some rabid animal because, well, dogs are curious, and can be bitten by a bat, raccoon, wild cat, and who knows what else – and once bitten, the disease transfers to them.
And, we can only conclude that Wakefield also fails on the “how he treats dogs” category.
If dogs could talk, I wonder what the dog comments on Andrew Wakefield would be. Here’s a poll of what I believe the dog thinks about Andrew Wakefield. Choose your favorite. Or reply in the comments with a better one. I love that!
I’m sure if I actually did a Google search, I’d find out that I’m really President Obama pushing vaccines that contain nanobots which will convert everyone to “the Islam” so that I can implement Sharia Law, and put all the gun owners in FEMA camps. I might have a few details confused.
So this time for a poll. I haven’t done one in a while, but we need a break. Choose your top three choices. And Vote Early Vote Often on who is the genuine Skeptical Raptor.
Both California and Illinois recently have enacted legislation tightening vaccine exemption requirements. California’s SB277 made vaccinations nearly mandatory (except for those children with legitimate medical exemptions), whereas Illinois’ SB1410 tightened up religious exemptions, although I am skeptical that it will really do anything.
So what do you think about vaccines and religious exemptions – what would you like to see?
I’ve written a lot about the scientific consensus, which is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study. This consensus implies general agreement, and disagreement is limited (sometimes from individuals who are not experts in the field) and considered insignificant.
The scientific consensus is powerful, and can only be refuted by evidence. Not debate. Not belief. Not flipping a coin.
So here are some of my favorite scientific consensuses (yes, that’s the plural, as far as I can tell). Which one(s) do you accept? Vote early, vote often.
Professor Dorit Reiss has written another wonderful article here clarifying that there really is a lack of conflict between so-called “informed consent” and public health mandates to keep citizens (especially children) safe from infectious diseases. It could not be clearer (at least to me) that informed consent does not trump the needs of the greater good.
In the Star Trek Movie, the Wrath of Khan, Spock and Kirk had this conversation:
Spock: Do not grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many, outweigh… Kirk: The needs of the few. Spock: Or the one.