Immunizations....what has happened

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21 - 40 of total 115 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
SteveW

Trad climber
The state of confusion
Dec 30, 2012 - 10:27pm PT

Ricky D--I was being sarcastic. . .
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 12:43am PT
Here is a rather newer, and controversial, vaccine, and it's impact:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20139221

vaccination was up to 100% effective in reducing the risk of HPV16/18-related high-grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal lesions and of HPV6/11-related genital warts.

High-coverage HPV vaccination programs among adolescents and young women may result in a rapid reduction of genital warts, cervical cytological abnormalities, and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the longer term, substantial reductions in the rates of cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancers may follow.


This is a big deal, because we are talking about a very real possibility of the first step in the eradication of one type of cancer.

It's too early to know that is actually the case, as it takes more years for these cancers to develop, so we have to follow the groups for more years.

Whats sad is the women who will have lost their chance to have these cancers potentially totally eliminated from their lives.

Believe it or not, this is what we actually work towards in medicine.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:47am PT
It's predicted that the next 50 years will be the most dangerous for the human race.

Hi Jan -- can you elaborate on that? We have developed so many ways to endanger ourselves, and I'm curious about which one(s) you're thinking of here.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:52am PT
How about a vaccine that would make people impotent after they have produced replacements for themselves.

Impotent?! Was that something of a freudian slip? lol!

How about merely non-fertile? I could go for that.

re: over-population problem

In the future, maybe not too far off, and after a bout or two of malthusian pressure and its uglies, we might just wise up enough to employ the following solution to the over-population problem: post-replacement sterilization (vasectomy, eg, or tubal ligation) in exchange for continued health care credits. What's not to like with this (reasonable) solution given the alternatives. Quid pro quo. Win win.

Ultimately, there's really only two choices when malthusian pressure red lines: fight it out in natural selection terms or manage the reproduction (fairly in some way in the eyes of the community; via "impotence," haha, no, sterilization after replacement)
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 12:10pm PT
Ultimately, there's really only two choices when malthusian pressure red lines: fight it out in natural selection terms or manage the reproduction (fairly in some way in the eyes of the community; via "impotence," haha, no, sterilization after replacement)

when I first read this, I read this as TEAMS.

I like the idea of being on the climbers team!
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Reno, Nuh VAAAA duh
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:18pm PT
No flu for me yet this season, but I've had some lingering super cold for the past 3-4 weeks. Yechh! Cold vaccine, bitches! STAT!
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 12:59pm PT
Jan, the issue with first world countries needing more children is contrived. It only seems so, because we have built infrastructure that is dependent upon constant growth.

Hold the calls, we have a winner! The "infrastructure," though, is mostly fiscal, not physical, constructs. Any elaboration probably belongs in the "Republicans" thread.

Good topic, Ken. The hostility toward immunization always amazes me, but then the nature of human risk aversion amazes me too. We worry about outcomes with a miniscule probability (or in the case of almost all immunization, zero established probability), and in the process accept avoidable risk of worse outcomes with a significant probability.

John
new world order2

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 01:19pm PT
In the future, maybe not too far off, and after a bout or two of malthusian pressure and its uglies, we might just wise up enough to employ the following solution to the over-population problem: post-replacement sterilization (vasectomy, eg, or tubal ligation) in exchange for continued health care credits.

^^^This will become a reality, "not too far off".

You guys will love what's in store for us! Forced abortion, euthanasia, and sterilization. Add to that, mandating those allowed to breed, and those who should not. Because we sheeple are the terrorists of humanity, the environment, and so must be culled. But some sheeple deserve to live more than others. Who decides? Our loving government, of course!

So goes the new world order.

Bah-ah-ah-ah.....
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:06pm PT
nwo2 makes a point which will most likely determine our fate, that is, while we see that overpopulation is a predictable problem, we have no way of preventing it by our own decisions.

The ecological concept of "carrying capacity" is essentially one of energy conservation, and it is governed by thermodynamics. Biological systems in all their features are not well described by thermodynamics since they represent a non-equilibrium state locally, that is, they scavenge energy to maintain biological order. The atmosphere of the Earth, for instance, is decidedly non-equilibrium (this was Lovelock's insight which eventually lead to the Gaia hypothesis, but starts as a NASA study of "signatures" of life on other planets).

At some point, the energy demands of human life will exceed the ecosystems ability to produce it. This is easiest to see in our fossil fuel use, which we are expending at a very high rate. Interestingly, the alteration of the climate by CO2 emissions due to that fuel use might make the environment unable to support other human energy needs, like food production.

Energy use also requires water, and we are using fossil water resources at an increasingly high rate too. We cannot produce energy without water, it is required in nuclear power plants as well as for crops of plants and animals.

Thermodynamics also limits the efficiencies with which we can utilize these energy resources, so there is a limit to our ability to realize efficiencies, and not only that, but the efficiencies have to be applied to all of the elements of the process. So, for instance, the apparent efficiency of solar-power when we only look at the end use on our roofs is offset by the very inefficient production, distribution, installation, decommissioning and deconstruction steps of the process.

Increased efficiencies and the utilization of local climatic and geophysical "resources" can greatly reduce energy need, but not at an exponential rate, which is how population grows. It is true no matter how slow that rate of growth is, put simply, the more people you have, the more people reproduction you have.

It is a matter of supreme individual liberty that we hold the individual responsible for making their own reproductive choices. It is a central aspect of our behavior that we seek to reproduce. Obviously these two central characters of our being lead to the uncontrolled growth of population. Preserving both of these characters means that the limits to population growth would only the inability of the ecosystem to support that growth.

We can see it coming, it is doubtful that we can do anything about it in an organized manner.

Educating people, giving them choices and letting them decide is probably the only hope. Unfortunately there is an economic stake here, too, with many interests weighing in to insure their ox is not gored in the process. The most rudimentary understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and mathematics is needed to understand the concept of limits and carrying capacity, yet apparently educated people make the most absurd statements in an authoritative manner (especially economists, who are unaware that they are a subfield of ecology).

Allowing people to make choices, especially reproductive choices, goes hand-in-glove with the topic of the OP, the increased ability to successfully raise your offspring to adulthood. That along with access to contraception for both partners makes conception a choice rather than a fate. Obviously there are many social issues at play here, but once again, allowing this to be a matter of individual choice is paramount, freeing the individual from those social constraints has to be a goal.

There is contained here the classic collaboration between the individual and the society in which the individual lives. If there is a "new world order" it is in the fact that our neighborhood actions effect the globe as a whole, the consequences of our choices are borne not just by our community near by, but by the entire planet.

And so we must learn, somehow, to act as a planet.

There are living things on the planet that are also essential for our existence, and them lacking a voice in this debate must be represented by those of us who understand the consequences of our choices on that voiceless, but essential, domain.

At times I am optimistic, but mostly I am pessimistic, about humans rising to this challenge. Lately I have come to view the human condition in terms of the myths given to us from the Greeks, that of Cassandra... our scientific knowledge the gift of prophecy, but in a world not willing to accept that knowledge and act on it. As Cassandra is a figure of the epic tradition and of tragedy, so, fittingly, would this play out in human history.

I'm not saying that "science" should be accepted unthoughtfully, rather all along I've advocated for and aided in educating people on science, in my mind the more people understand the better they are prepared to make those individual decisions that will be required to be made. Science is both an individual and a societal enterprise, and is best performed with all the bits laid bare. But even that is contentious, as the "immunizations debate" illustrates.

Tami

Social climber
Canada
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:27pm PT
Educate a woman, you educate a family.

Life isn't game theory.Humans are cooperative organisms; individually we are pretty lame. In a group we are more dangerous then rats. But if rats had opposing thumbs? Hmmmm.......




Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 02:32pm PT
Ed, a remarkable discussion.

I agree, that we probably do not make these decisions "collectively".

As of right now, we do not have a replacement fertility rate in place. We only continue to grow, due to immigration.

If it were up to me, I think there is a national discussion that needs to take place. Personally, I'd aim for a "replacement" level at this point, and no more. 30 years from now, I'd like to see some shrinkage, but there need to be institutional changes for that to work without chaos in our society.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 02:40pm PT
Tami, I think there has been an educational shift in this country that no one understands the meaning of: 60% of college graduates are now women.

When you consider where we were 100 years ago, that is astonishing.

Even with the cultural stigma against women being educated, even more so.

60 of the 100 members of the entering class of my medical school this year are women. I'll grant that mine is progressive, but even so, an amazing advancement. 30 years ago, it was 28 out of 100, and that was considered radical.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:40pm PT
especially economists, who are unaware that they are a subfield of ecology

Nice to see you're on board with this.

.....

Oh no...
Life isn't game theory.

Life IS game theory. Meaning that it plays out according to game theory - if not as an economist defines it, then in terms of how an astute ecologist defines it - in terms of game rules, players, strategies (including cooperation, deceit, freeriding, penalty or punishment, teaming up), objectives, moves, player strengths and skills, winning and losing, winners and losers.

Suggest (1) reading NonZero, by Robert Wright, for starters, for a fuller treatment (and not anything in a more traditional vein, esp from an economist or mathematician writing in the abstract); (2) watching Survivor (the reality show) as a most excellent metaphor and microcosm of it.

Humans are cooperative organisms...

Of course. Cooperation is essential to success in the game of life (described by "game theory" in evolutionary eco terms) when played at more complex levels - heart cells to honey bees to humans.

.....

Natural selection TEAMS - might come down to that! :)
hb81

climber
Dec 31, 2012 - 02:47pm PT


Watch this video to further understand what Ed has outlined above.
It starts out a bit dry but it's well worth watching the whole thing.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 03:08pm PT
Ken,

You don't even need to got back 100 years. When I was an undergrad at Berkeley from 1969-73, there were 1.8 males for each female student, and the faculty male-to-female ratio in the departments in which I studied was closer to 99%. Even in law school at UCLA in the late 70's, there were at least twice as many men as women, and the school had to go out of its way to attract those women.

Unfortunately, at the high school where my daughter was teaching, there were still plenty of 14-to-16-year-olds intentionally getting pregnant. The rise in female education has, sad to say, not led to lifestyle changes in that community. Instead it simply expanded the gap between the haves and have nots. How do we reach the sorts of disadvantaged (economically, sociologically, and parentally) students my daughter encounters?

John
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 04:39pm PT
John, we won't do it.

The women will do it, just as they have accomplished what has taken place. It didn't happen because of what men did, it happened because of what women made happen.

Those girls don't trust us, and they shouldn't. They have good reason not to (meaning as a group, not individuals).
Batrock

Trad climber
Burbank
Dec 31, 2012 - 05:57pm PT
Has anyone read Ecoscience by John P Holdren and Paul R Erlich? It has some interesting solutions to population control. I have been trying to upload some pages from the book but they wind up upside down when download it from my Ipad. I'll try it tomorrow when i get home tomorrow, unless you want to try and read it standing on your head.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 06:19pm PT
I agree, Ken. I find it interesting to have been an observer of the women's movement over the years. I have no brothers, but I am an older brother of sisters. I have two (grown) daughters and no sons, so I'm not exactly disinterested in this topic.

It was my contention while at Berkeley that the biggest oppressors of women in the world may have been men, but the biggest oppressors of women in the United States were other women. Sad to say, I'm not sure that's changed for the most disadvantaged women. According to my daughter, the high schoolers dealt with were getting their ideas to get pregnant (and the acceptance of such plans) from their female friends and family.

When I was in high school in the 1960's, the segment of the U.S. population with the lowest birthrate was college educated Mexican-Americans. The portion of Fresno County's population with the highest teenage pregnancy rates now are probably Mexican Americans who did not (or will not) graduate from high school, so I'm hoping that you're right about how increased education for women can turn this problem around.

I wouldn't entirely discount the role of men, though. I know I was instrumental in getting my sister into the legal profession, and, as a law professor, encouraged many women to go into areas of the law that were traditionally male bastions, with much success. Ultimately, though, I think the social guidance (and pressure) from other women holds our best hope.

John
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 31, 2012 - 06:40pm PT
I don't think we disagree on any of this, John, although we may come at it from slightly different angles.

I also had the opportunity to get a first-hand look at minority penetration into professions, as well. My classmate was Alan Bakke, so my entire time in professional school was a media zoo. Sad to say, the minorities have not fared as well as the women.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 31, 2012 - 09:00pm PT
the relationship between "Total Fertility Rate" and socio-economic status of a country's (or region's) population is not understood. A 2009 study published in Nature shows that the TFR increases at some point as the HDI (Human Development Index, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index); increases.

the article can be viewed here:
http://cfs.ccpr.ucla.edu/events/ccpr-previous-seminars/ccpr-seminars-previous-years/Kohler-advances%20in%20development.pdf

in fact the study finds that, e.g. the US, Netherlands and Norway have increasing TFR recently, whereas Japan continues to have a decreasing TFR...

the various empirical economic models regarding human fertility still have a ways to go to describe the underlying causes of TFR changes...
Messages 21 - 40 of total 115 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews