The Warfare Thesis in Action: Why Jimmy Kimmel is Important

_{Cornelius Hunter
March 4, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On July 30 of last year Meredith Prohaska had the misfortunate of having a sore throat. At what would have been a routine visit to the doctor the 12-year-old’s mother was told that Meredith should have an HPV vaccine. By dinnertime Meredith was dead. Read more

Comments

LH (18): "No one actually takes the position that vaccines literally never have side effects." Ah, the back-pedaling begins.Cornelius Hunter_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Folks, the pattern continues. I have put on the table a risk management and response scale and linked strategies. That should be enough to guide decision-making. KF PS: It is a relevant point that many of the same who are plainly pushing for compulsion on this matter champion "choice" when the like of an inconvenient unborn child is in the stakes.kairosfocus_{March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

daveS
By and large perhaps, but then there’s rape, the risk of which should not be underestimated.
Absolutely! Prevention always trumps treatment for any disease,....cold to cancer.franklin_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

KF,
Specific behaviours are involved in exposure to HPV which is in large part a sexually transmissible disease; where relevant behaviours are by and large subject to our control.
By and large perhaps, but then there's rape, the risk of which should not be underestimated. And "simply" staying in the green zone of avoidance is a nice idea, but life tends to get complicated at times. Young people especially have lapses. I have to add that as a male, I'm sometimes a bit surprised at how these discussions go, especially when most of the participants are male, as I believe is the case here. I mean, we're talking about cancer here. If I had a daughter, I would want her to have every possible protection against that disease, certainly more than "just say no".daveS_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

rvb8 wrote: "From what I read at this site it is the regular contributors who use hear say [sic], innuendo, rationalizations, secondary sources (‘my friend’s cousin said’) etc." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The man who makes generalizations about the desperate plight of atheists in America without any first-hand knowledge of American life, as he lives 10,000 miles away from it; the man who condemns the writings of Mazur without having read them; the man who condemns ID theory without having read the books of Behe, Dembski, basing his condemnations on what he reads in blogs -- this man is upset about the use of hearsay and secondary sources? I wonder if rvb8 would recognize the term "chutzpah"?Timaeus_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

KF, Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted virus in the U.S. but HPV prevention is important mainly because it can cause cervical cancer in women. Every year in the U.S. about 10,000 women get cervical cancer and 3,700 die from it. It is the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths among women around the world. Note that HPV vaccine is an inactivated (not live) so there is hardly any serious risk.Me_Think_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

F/N: I think I should make an observation, though this is not my general line of discussion. I do so in hopes that some toning down of intensity will result. Where, the use of denigration, polarisation, marginalisation and the like -- while duly flying the flag of "Science" -- is an increasing problem in our civilisation. I think, the comparison between polio and HPV (and hoped for onward resistance to Cancers) is over-drawn and some of the rhetoric above is far overblown and polarising as well as seeking to marginalise. Polio was a general and involuntary risk; I recall being told I had to come back in for booster "shots" well up in my 20's and did so. Having had a classmate who wore leg braces due to polio probably served as a reminder, as did knowing someone whose mother as a young adult died of complications due to polio in I think the same epidemic. Specific behaviours are involved in exposure to HPV which is in large part a sexually transmissible disease; where relevant behaviours are by and large subject to our control. Where too, there is a less risky and effective approach of regular pap smears that apparently can detect and open a door to early and from what I have been told, likely to succeed action. So, there are lifestyle and cultural issues here, there is no one generic exposure to HPV . . . which IIRC, is not easily stopped by condoms. So, if there are effective means of prevention and there is a less risky path for monitoring and acting in response, why should an avoidable amber-red zone risk be entertained? Simply go to the green zone of risk avoidance instead. So I read under the above and what is elsewhere, a clash of values and morality, with the use of abusive rhetoric to try to change the focus of the moral and values considerations and project blame. It is in some respects as simple as if you do not nibble on the bait there is little risk of being caught on the hook. There being no credible reason to imagine that baited hooks are the only source of food in a famine (forcing risk minimisation behaviour in a dangerous situation), avoiding baited hooks seems to be a sounder strategy. At least, to me. KF PS: I think here about two medical decisions made in regards to a child. Years ago, a suggested extra vaccination was refused on grounds of low inherent risk and not being able to justify exposure to potential risks of vaccination. (Growing up, there was a child in my neighbourhood who had been damaged by vaccination; breezy declarations of no risk or little risk will not impress me.) Recently, major surgery was accepted, with implications that are life altering and knowing risks to life and of paralysis, as the alternative was worse.kairosfocus_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

And the point continues to be missed, over the shouting that is the point of the original point! This is nothing to do with vaccines Dr. Matzke. It's about the shouting down of contrary viewpoints. Dr. Hunter: Game. Set. Match.AnimatedDust_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

What, we evolved to need vaccines? Its a good thing turtles didn't evolve this need; its hard for them to hold the needles.phoodoo_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Taliban prevents Polio vaccine administration because it insults faith in Allah. UD is trying to prevent HPV vaccine because some Biophysics guy thinks scientists haven't tested it enough?Me_Think_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Like News I am old enough to remember the twentieth-century polio epidemics and the images of people being kept alive by "iron lung" ventilation machines. I remember receiving the Salk vaccine by injection and being much relieved to be able to take the later Sabin vaccine on a sugar cube. There is little doubt that millions of lives have been saved by vaccines. Yes, there are risks but that is true of many things we use without a second thought. Picking on vaccines on the basis of a relatively small number cases of adverse reactions strikes me displaying a lack of proportion at the very least. No one doubts that those cases are tragic for the families concerned but what is the alternative? Allowing millions more, including children, to die from a disease which can be prevented?Seversky_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

And Axel arrives to confirm.rvb8_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

When the vaxx issue was raised earlier, here in the UK, I remember a Government minister trying to 'sugar-coat' what he was effectively acknowledging as putting one's children in harm's way, by saying that the children would be sort of commandos for progress, shock-troops for medical science! Perhaps he didn't realise the mortality rate of the British commandos during WWII was something like 98%. Can't remember his exact euphemism with any certainty, but 'guinea pig' was definitely 'out'; and it was of the nature of shock-troops.Axel_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

News are you saying at No7 that Cornelius' outrageous reporting was the result of bad reporting he latched onto by the large news organisations; 'legacy media'? If so shouldn't he hold his reporting to a higher standard than the media you claim is poor at their job of reporting? From what I read at this site it is the regular contributors who use hear say, innuendo, rationalizations, secondary sources ('my friend's cousin said')etc. This is nothing more than the worst kind of British Tabloid journalism. However, when Nick Matzke and Mark Frank point out these clear and egregious errors you fall back upon, 'it's not our fault other people give us misinformation, how could we know?' The simple answer is honest research, clear presentation of known facts, checking those facts before printing, and follow ups to insure the reporting is accurate. Good scientists know this as wrote, hack scientists copy and paste.rvb8_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Huh! Unbanned? Anyway, the vaccine court exists to protect the manufacturers of a not-very-profitable product from potentially extreme litigation costs that would discourage the production of a public good. It's much more favorable for claimants than normal court: http://violentmetaphors.com/2013/11/22/why-anti-vaxers-hate-the-nvicp-and-just-what-is-it-anyway-by-colin-mcroberts/ Edited to answer your question more directly: because there are side effects to vaccines sometimes. No one actually takes the position that vaccines literally never have side effects. But the evidence is that such side effects are much rarer than the harms of the diseases vaccines prevent.Learned Hand_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke (3): "the massive weight of hundreds of studies of millions of vaccine patients" So why do they have a vaccine court?Cornelius Hunter_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke (3): “Wow this is a dumb post. Saved and tweeted for posterity, as with the Hunter’s other anti-vax post. Reasons it’s dumb: 1. The Warfare Thesis was supposed to be about science versus religion. The modern anti-vaccination movement is not primarily religious, it is primarily about liberal forms of quackery. Although, apparently Cornelius is seeking to link the two.” The Warfare Thesis is, on the surface, about science versus religion. But those are broad categories. What the Warfare Thesis is really about is dismissal, delegitimization, demagoguery and scientism. You could say its motto is “Offense is the best defense.” Take non scientific, indefensible, positions and advance them with scathing criticism, ridicule and scorn of anyone who would dare so much as question them. That was amply demonstrated in the most important work advancing the Warfare Thesis, Andrew Dickson White’s late nineteenth century work which, yes, included a chapter on vaccines. As with his other myths, anyone who questioned vaccines, and they were known to be dangerous, must be a religious nut. Furthermore, religious convictions, as you Nick have so amply demonstrated so many times, are far more fundamental within the Warfare Thesis advocates, such as yourself, than without. “2. Just where does Cornelius Hunter get off ignoring virtually all doctors, the strong fundamental logic and scientific understanding behind vaccination, and the massive weight of hundreds of studies of millions of vaccine patients?” Ignoring doctors and ignoring evidence? How is it ignoring doctors and ignoring evidence to state indisputable facts? No doctor or researcher would tell you there is zero risk to vaccines. Such false claims are promoted by people like you, seeking to spread scorn and ridicule. The point is that vaccines, as with a great many medical procedures, do not fit well into scientific formulas and blanket statements. They are, however, wonderful devices for demagoguery and ridicule. “One anecdotal case could have many, many explanations, including mere coincidence.” That is dangerous. Even the conservative vaccine court agreed Lorrin Kain was devastated by vaccines. This absurdity comes right out of David Hume. You are doing precisely what you accuse me of, and using your logic there would be no basis for advocating for vaccines in the first place. “3. The fact that ID people, allegedly pro-science, aren’t even challenging Hunter on this, either here or at UD, says volumes about either their shoddy scientific acumen or their crazy preference for perverse contrarianism against the alleged dogma of mainstream science, even in the case where the public health is at stake.” Unfortunately you have, once again, provided the perfect example, illustrating precisely the OP’s point. For evolutionists such as Nick, it is all about ridicule and scorn on complex issues—the essence of scientism and the Warfare Thesis.Cornelius Hunter_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

OldArmy94 (8): "Ironically, you don’t even realize you are making Dr. Hunter’s point for him" What intrigues me is not that people are for (or against) vaccines, but the charged rhetoric. I wouldn't normally discuss someone like Jimmy Kimmel. As a comedian he has license to poke fun with impunity. But this is different. He actually took off his comedian hat and wanted to make a serious point in the middle of his monologue. He really is not OK with people hesitating and making a different risk-benefit decision than he would.Cornelius Hunter_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (6): “You write as though the risks of vaccines were unknown. That just isn’t true. … They are also monitored continuously after release.” I don’t think this is quite so simple. First, vaccines carry risk. While medical professionals understand this, what we are seeing in this charged debate is precisely the opposite. Advocates from Sanjay Gupta to Jimmy Kimmel are sending the message there is no risk. Second, the point is not that the risks are completely unknown, but rather that the risks (and benefits) are not something science or mathematical formulas can determine and decide for us. The HPV vaccine, for example, is intended to protect against STDs. I hope I do not need to explain that the risk of STDs depends on lifestyle, family values, and so forth. So clearly there is not a one-size-fits-all risk-benefit calculation. Third, there are quite legitimate questions about the uncertainty in our knowledge of the risks. Your unequivocal statement that vaccine risks are not unknown is reducing a complex topic to a simplistic, misleading claim. Human testing is difficult and costly to do, with significant ethical constraints. And there is a need to turn a profit on some reasonable time horizon. It is not like you can try vaccines out on hundreds of millions of people and watch them for decades. HPV was tested on a few thousands of patients over several years time period. That is not sufficient to completely understand the risks and, as you note, Congress established a reporting system to provide much more data, once a vaccine goes public. Unfortunately, the reporting system is inadequate and the problem of learning from it is complicated. None of this is controversial. This is an extremely difficult problem and your statement that “They are also monitored continuously” is, unfortunately, misleading. Would that that were the case. “If you want to cast doubt on the vaccine you had better have a very sound case based on solid evidence.” It is not controversial that vaccines can cause injuries. They have some level of risk. Hence there is a special vaccine court and vaccine manufacturers are protected from law suits seeking appropriate damages. When you get vaccinated, unlike most medical procedures or otherwise purchases you make, you are essentially assuming all the risk. This can be an enormous burden. It is altogether normal, rational and understandable that a consumer would hesitate, question and perhaps decide not to assume that risk, and instead opt for the risk associated with not having a vaccine. Certainly you can argue against such a decision, but that is not what we are seeing. Instead, you have demagoguery, going back to Andrew Dickson White, aimed at anyone who thoughtfully questions whether they want a vaccine. The point is not to “cast doubt” on vaccines and their obvious value. The point is that this is an unhealthy example of scientism that seems to be gaining strength.Cornelius Hunter_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: It depends on how you characterize those supposed errors, what implications you offer from those characterizations, and what, if anything, those supposed errors, characterizations and implications have to do with the point of the post. Implying that Hunter is being irresponsible and putting lives in danger is not only a scare-tactic distraction from the point, it utilizes interpretive characterizations of what are fairly neutral comments by Hunter to drive a warfare-thesis narrative meant to silence/discredit any remote appearance of disagreement with the approved institutional messaging. IOW, you react automatically to what you bizarrely interpret as some kind of challenge to vaccine orthodoxy with a warfare-thesis smear of Hunter, albeit using softer language and mostly via innuendo and implication.William J Murray_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

#11 WJM Is pointing out CH's errors implementing the warfare thesis? Where is anyone implying that disagreement with the approved view is necessarily due to religious fanaticism/ignorance?Mark Frank_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

I guess I shouldn't find it surprising that the anti-IDists not only utterly fail to comprehend the point of Hunter's post, but to exemplify the very thing Hunter is pointing out as a danger - the implementation of warfare thesis techniques (such as marginalization) against anyone who lies outside of the approved view, as if disagreement with the approved view is necessarily due to religious fanaticism/ignorance.William J Murray_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

IMO,this is an unnecessary post. It is beyond ridiculous.Me_Think_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Oh my, the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the Materialist Prophets is great this morning. Look, I am not anti-vaccine, AT ALL. I believe in their efficacy and safety. But, your indignant responses attest to your allegiance and faith to the gods whom you worship. Ironically, you don't even realize you are making Dr. Hunter's point for him with such over-the-top rhetoric about him being responsible for people's deaths.OldArmy94_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

NickMatzke_UD and Zachriel: "The mother’s speculation was reported by several television stations and the Journal Sentinel, and was picked up by opponents of childhood vaccinations across the country as inaccurate evidence that the vaccine can kill." Ah. So people were incited to doubt by legacy media that they falsely believed would follow some standards. That is something I have been writing about, how the loss of a gatekeeper role means loss of a sense of responsibility. (The media types are not necessarily worse people, they are just no longer the people one should go to for information.) Media no longer fulfil the role they did when the polio vaccine became available in Canada in, I think, 1955-1956. I remember the summer polio scares and the stampede to the local school when the inoculation supplies arrived. No one was promoting hysteria; it was needless. The rows of infant iron lungs lined up at Toronto Sick Kids and the adults and children struggling around in calipers saw to that. Counterintuitively, the promotion of hysteria can be - depending on the culture - inverse to the level of actual danger. i hope Kimmel is helping to identify media failings in these matters.News_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

This disturbs me because while ID is kind of interesting in one sense it doesn't matter much - very few lives are lost because people make the wrong decision about the origin of life. However, vaccinations matter a lot. Misleading stories cost lives and misery and anyone who is putting forward a public opinion that throws doubt on them has to also take responsibility for any lives or misery caused by not taking them - that includes you Cornelius. I don't say you shouldn't express your opinion - but it had better be based on good knowledge and good thinking.
Vaccines are a complex issue and certainly there are arguments in their favor. But vaccines are not perfectly safe. That is a simple fact that no responsible medical professional would deny
I hate to be boring about this but it depends what you mean by "perfectly safe". If you mean that there is zero risk of harm then of course they are not perfectly safe - neither is getting out of bed or eating toast. If you mean as safe as other activities that we regard as acceptably safe then most vaccines fall comfortably into that category; while not taking them is unsafe and also places others at risk. But to prove that you have to get statistical and scientific. Tales, however tragic, of individuals who took a vaccine, and then had bad things happen to them, are just not evidence.
And of course the benefits and risks do not fit a simple formula. Each vaccine is different, and each person is different. Science can inform, but it cannot answer the difficult risk-reward tradeoff question.
You write as though the risks of vaccines were unknown. That just isn’t true. Like drugs they have to go through the most horrendous testing before they can be released (arguably too strong because it prevents perfectly good treatments that could save lives being used). Note what a great exception it was to by-pass these regulations to use an Ebola vaccine. They are also monitored continuously after release. Science may not provide the final answer to the risk-reward decision but it can provide an awful lot of help.
While these are complex issues, the common thread is that in all cases, the mockers hold to irrational positions. The passion is exceeded only by the ignorance.
I don’t know about Jimmy Kimmel but the experts are certainly not ignorant or irrational. There is a massive amount of information. Just look at the detail on the CDC website. What is really irrational is scare stories based on half-understood anecdotes and innuendo such as:
Meredith Prohaska’s cause of death was not the HPV vaccine. At least that is what the official records say. After all, as Hugh Hewitt assures us, correlation does not imply causation
She died of an overdose of an antihistamine – not found in the vaccination. Her mother was absent when she became ill so we have no knowledge of what she might done to have the overdose. On the specifics of HPV vaccination. The recommended treatment starts age 12. That isn’t because the medics expect girls start sexual activity at that age. It is just a good age to complete the treatment and be sure of vaccinating girls before they are sexually active. To quote from the article in the Journal Sentinel:
About 14 million people, including teens, become infected with HPV each year. HPV infection can cause cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers in women and penile cancer in men. HPV also can cause anal cancer, mouth/throat (oropharyngeal) cancer and genital warts in both men and women.
If you want to cast doubt on the vaccine you had better have a very sound case based on solid evidence. A few airy sentences about how complex the issue is and an irrelevant (albeit tragic) tale are not a case. The fate of those who don’t take it and get cancer as a result will be to a small extent your fault.Mark Frank_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Wow, this gets worse the more I research it. It's not just "official records" that say this wasn't due to the vaccine, it's the friggin' medical examiner's official report! That's the whole point of having medical examiners, to investigate these things! And they identified a positive rare-but-known cause, benadryl overdose! How dare you not even mention this stuff? Random news story: http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/medical-examiner-girls-death-not-caused-by-routine-vaccination-b99376029z1-280058462.html ==================== A much-touted vaccine given to teens and preteens to prevent cancers caused by a sexually transmitted virus did not cause or contribute to the death of a 12-year-old Waukesha girl whose mother found her unresponsive in their home on July 30, the Waukesha County medical examiner said Wednesday. Diphenhydramine intoxication — ingestion of a lethal level of an antihistamine — caused the death of Meredith Prohaska, though the manner of death is undetermined, Medical Examiner Lynda Biedrzycki said in a prepared statement. "There is no evidence that any vaccination caused or contributed to her death," Biedrzycki said. Diphenhydramine is a type of antihistamine found in various allergy and sleep medicines, including Benadryl, Tylenol PM, Nytol and Sominex, according to the National Institutes of Health. Overdose occurs when someone accidentally or intentionally takes more than the normal or recommended amount of a drug or medication. No further details from the 12-year-old's autopsy were provided. If her death had been caused by an interaction with another substance, it would have been noted in the statement about manner of death. The girl's mother, Rebecca Prohaska, told the news media in early August that she believed her daughter may have had an allergic reaction to the human papillomavirus vaccine, also known as HPV, about six hours after the vaccine was administered in a doctor's office. The mother's speculation was reported by several television stations and the Journal Sentinel, and was picked up by opponents of childhood vaccinations across the country as inaccurate evidence that the vaccine can kill. ====================NickMatzke_UD_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

The medical examiner determined Meredith Prohaska died from an overdose of antihistimine, diphenhydramine intoxication. http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/medical-examiner-girls-death-not-caused-by-routine-vaccination-b99376029z1-280058462.htmlZachriel_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Wow this is a dumb post. Saved and tweeted for posterity, as with the Hunter's other anti-vax post. Reasons it's dumb: 1. The Warfare Thesis was supposed to be about science versus religion. The modern anti-vaccination movement is not primarily religious, it is primarily about liberal forms of quackery. Although, apparently Cornelius is seeking to link the two. 2. Just where does Cornelius Hunter get off ignoring virtually all doctors, the strong fundamental logic and scientific understanding behind vaccination, and the massive weight of hundreds of studies of millions of vaccine patients? One anecdotal case could have many, many explanations, including mere coincidence. 3. The fact that ID people, allegedly pro-science, aren't even challenging Hunter on this, either here or at UD, says volumes about either their shoddy scientific acumen or their crazy preference for perverse contrarianism against the alleged dogma of mainstream science, even in the case where the public health is at stake.NickMatzke_UD_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, I looked at a related problem in: Media’s methane-based life: No it is not just sensationalism: It is cheerleading for a worldview, one that permits, even encourages, fiction to stand in for fact. At bottom, Kimmel mayn’t care very much whether girls died as the result of the vax. His attachment to fact is low. On the other hand, he sees an opportunity to ridicule the flyover morons he hates anyway. And his attraction ridiculing people he hates is high. So if we watch him for entertainment, we enable his approach to the issues, and can be assumed to agree with his priorities. If we change the channel, we don’t. Note: The HPV vax prompts a thought experiment: Assume we can vaccinate a 12-year-old against ever starting smoking, because the vaccine provokes a very unpleasant (though not dangerous) sensation? And it is true that a tiny percentage will die, and a slightly larger percentage will encounter significant bad effects. Would the same people approve the vax? Disapprove the vax? Want it made compulsory? Just wondering. But we can see from this what a slope we are perched on. Where we could once persuade, now we remove choice.News_{March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply