Category Archives: Medical

There Is No Conclusive Evidence That Cannabinoids Actually Cure Cancer

 

 

On the subject of cannabis:

Many healthcare providers can agree that cannabis can alleviate some symptoms associated with cancer, like pain and nausea, as well as the side effects associated with the various kinds of cancer treatments available. But there is no conclusive evidence that it targets any one of the thousands of different and unique types of cancer systemic to the human population. Cancer isn’t just a simple disease: it has multiple causes and multiple ways of causing death and bodily harm. The drugs that can treat these various cancers can be extremely diverse, and one drug that will work with one particular type of cancer won’t work with another. In addition to the many varieties of cancers, each person has unique genetic characteristics which must be taken into account when designing a treatment plan.

The study people like to cite is this one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4171598/

When you look at the actual facts, cannabis isn’t a miracle cure. The conclusion in the paper states that the  study was inconclusive and needed more research. The paper makes no mention of cancer cell destruction, either. It does talk about slowing down metastasizing factors, but not actually killing cancer cells themselves. It even acknowledged that in some cases cannaboids enhanced tumor growth:
“Furthermore, endocannabinoids- AEA and 2-AG are broken down into secondary metabolites like prostaglandin (PGE2) and epoxyeicosatetraenoic acid (EE) which enhance tumor growth and metastasis in diverse cancer types.”

Even if it was shown to have an effect on receptor sites or outright kills pancreatic cancer cells for example, without damaging the surrounding tissue, that’s still just 1 cancer out of many other varieties with multiple variables. With that being said another study even showed that cannabinoids actually had carcinogenic factors that increased the risk of pancreatic as well as other cancers for that matter:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/6/1943.short

“In contrast, Grand and Gandhi recently presented a case study of acute pancreatitis induced by cannabis smoking, indicating that cannabinoids may be a risk factor for pancreatic cancer.”


Above are test results that presents a potential link to cancer from cannabinoids. See the above citation for further information.                                 

Thinking a plant or a single chemical can cure cancer is ridiculous and shows a fundamental lack in understanding medical science. Cannabis has become the new herbalism that quacks and charlatans are using pushing without any evidence to back up their claims.

So in, conclusion, there are specific cancers that cannabinoids may have an effect on reducing metastasis in cancer cells but in others it enhances tumor growth. The current state of the research does not support cannabis as a miracle cancer cure, or even a particularly effective cancer treatment.

A typical method utilized by alternative medicine and quacks are using the plea to emotion to bolster their position rather than using empirical evidence.

Can’t we just agree that it’s simply fun to enjoy without all the nonsense attached to it?

Eteplirsen and the rise of patient participation in FDA drug approvals.

A long road traveled

debra-miller-at-fda-april-2016-1100x642Let me first preface this article with the admission that the FDA drug approval process is not, or anywhere near perfect.  Also, I do feel conflicted as DMD is a devastating disease with little to no treatment.  I do feel for the children, and their family, who are desperately searching for any treatment possible.  The recent decision to grant accelerated approval, although conditional, is worrying.  Have we entered the age of FDA drug approvals that are no longer decided on the quality of their research, but on the emotional appeal of the patients that may benefit from the drug’s approval?

Sarepta has gone through quite the battle to have their most high profile drug, Eteplirsen, approved for sale to patients.   But on April of this year, in front of a standing room only crowd of Eteplirsen supporters and DMD patients, the FDA drug advisory board denied approval to Sarepta’s wonder drug.  In a 7 to 3 vote, the panel advised that Sarepta had not met the FDA requirements for well controlled studies to demonstrate the drug’s efficacy.

A case study in small sample sizes and poor placebo control

The key data Sarepta had presented to the FDA board was a single study of 12 cohorts with DMD that was conducted over the course of a year.  The study did follow the gold standard double-blind placebo-controlled methodology, although 24 weeks in the placebo cohorts were randomized to drug.  Small sample sizes are obviously unavoidable when it comes to rare genetic disorders.  To put it in perspective, if the FDA had voted to approve Eteplirsen, it would have set a record for the least amount of clinical data of its efficacy in the history of FDA approvals.

Not only did this single study suffer from an extremely small sample size, it also showed marginal efficacy.  DMD treatments are verified, primarily, by a test called the 6MWT (6 Minute Walk Test).  During this trial two of the boys that received the lower dose of Eteplirsen lost the ability walk very quickly after being recruited into the trial.  The rest showed moderate (but statistically significant) improvement in the 6MWT compared to placebo.

Although the study showed statistically significant improvement in 6 of the cohorts, what does this tell us?  To me, it’s an indication that the drug could be effective in slowing down or halting DMD in young boys, the key word being could, but more study is warranted.  To, once again, put into perspective the situation the FDA was facing, A competitor, GlaxoSmithKline, which was developing a similar drug, did a randomized trial involving 186 boys, one third of whom were given a placebo.  That drug, now owned by BioMarin Pharmaceutical, did not prove effective in that study and failed to win FDA approval.

The FDA advisory board suggested to Sarepta to repeat the study but with adequate placebo controls and to present the data again for another evaluation.  But the company argued that it would be unethical and impractical to do so, since early hints of effectiveness meant that parents would no longer enroll their sons in a trial where they might not get the drug.

A paradigm shift in FDA approvals of new drugs

Even with the poorly controlled trial complete with its minuscule sample size, in September of this year the FDA granted accelerated approval to Sarepta to produce and administer its new drug.  This isn’t the same as full approval as it comes with contingencies where Sarepta still needs to show that the drug is effective.

On one hand this is amazing news for DMD sufferers as it gives them a glimmer of hope, but on the other hand the drug is astronomically expensive and has extremely limited proof of efficacy past placebo.  The treatment will cost in the neighborhood of $300,000 annually, with insurance companies picking up the tab, except for Anthem who already announced they would not cover the drug as they are not convinced of its efficacy past placebo.

“In summary, the clinical benefit of treatment for DMD with eteplirsen, including improved motor function, has not been demonstrated,” Anthem policy, posted Thursday on its web site, said. “Establishment of a clinical benefit is warranted in on-going clinical trials.”

With the accelerated approval, it is hard to argue that this may be the first time the FDA has relied more on the lobbying of patients, their family, and others rather than the science behind the medication.  Along with what may be the largest lobbying campaign for a drug approval in history, supporters of the drug recruited 109 members of congress to pen a letter to the FDA calling for its approval.  

What it all boils down to is this; Should people with obvious conflicts of interest and others who have absolutely no experience in clinical trials and drug approvals have any say in which drugs the FDA approves and those it rejects?  In my cynical and evidence driven mind, I think not.  The law is very clear, the FDA is mandated to only approve drugs with sufficient evidence of their efficacy past placebo and Sarepta has not shown that Eteplirsen accomplishes that.

Where are we now?

At this point in time, Sarepta has been cleared to begin treating patients with their drug.  But at the same time, they are obligated to provide the FDA with additional clinical data over the next few months. If this additional data is not placebo controlled, or even blinded, then does it even qualify for sufficient evidence?  Only time will tell if the FDA finally approves the drug once and for all, but if they do, it will be a paradigm shift in how drugs are approved.  That could be a good thing, but it could also mean a dramatic shift in the quality of drugs entering the market as the bar for clinical evidence has been lowered substantially as long as sufficient lobbying is performed.

While an open debate about what we, as tax payers and potential patients,  would like the FDA drug approval process to achieve, varying the standards applied based on need or emotional appeal is bad for patients. Under current regulation, Eteplirsen falls well below the bar for approval on the currently available data.  I do hope I am wrong.  I hope that Eteplirsen is a miracle drug and changes DMD sufferers lives forever.  I hope Sarepta is successful in obtaining the data they need to get the drug approved once and for all.  I don’t, however, like the direction the FDA drug approvals process is heading.

New Study Shows Chiropractic Is Ineffective For Migraines (Duh)

The search for a credible placebo

For far too long the research on chiropractic has had the same issue as research on acupuncture, a reliable placebo.  Without a credible placebo, studies become impossible to double-blind and very difficult to single-blind.  Often times the controls are pain medication or no treatment at all.  Many times the studies would show a clear false positive leading to the assumption that chiropractic is more effective than placebo.  However, a study just published in the European Journal of Neurology showed that not only does spinal manipulation not work in the treatment of migraines, it also showed a design which may improve future chiropractic studies.

Study Design

At a university hospital in Norway, a single-blinded randomized controlled trial was performed.  A sample size of 104 patients, while small, is sufficient for preliminary studies utilizing this new sham method.  The control group continued with their current treatment, the active group received chiropractic treatment for their migraines, and the placebo group received a new sham treatment consisting of spinal manipulation similar to a chiropractic treatment, but in a completely different area and utilizing different manipulation techniques.  The blinding was successful and in an exit poll 80% in both the active and placebo groups believed they had received chiropractic treatment.

Results

In all groups the severity and duration of the migraines was lessened, but that is to be expected as any treatment, even the act of participating in the study generally shows improvements.  In the end, all three groups experienced similar improvement.

For the first time, we have solid evidence that chiropractic treatments, at least those for migraines, have no efficacy past placebo.  This is obviously a result we had expected to see; although now, the study backs up that assumption.  Much like a recent review on acpuncture, it seems as if the sham chiropractic treatment may be as effective as the true treatment.  One interesting piece of information surfaced in that adverse effects were significantly more frequent in the chiropractic “active” group.

What does this mean?

Well, it means a few things.  It means that spinal manipulation (not just chiropractic, but the manipulation performed by osteopaths and physical therapists) does not show efficacy past placebo in controlled and successfully blinded studies for migraines.  It also marks the first occasion where researchers were successfully able to blind cohorts, which will hopefully open the door for further research debunking the most accepted pseudoscience in the world, spinal manipulation.

Whooping In Washington

KitsapPeninsulaAreaMap02
In Washington state, here in the United States, pertussis (whooping cough) caused nearly 200 campers to be sent home early after whooping cough prompted the YMCA of Greater Seattle to close the overnight camp on the Kitsap Peninsula. This is yet another dangerous example of the rejection of vaccine uptake. The rise of misinformation and alternative medicine has been increasing and the rejection of science-based modern medicine has been gaining momentum. As we know, vaccines work by stimulating our immune system to produce antibodies (substances produced by the body to fight disease) without actually infecting us with the disease. They trigger the immune system to produce its own antibodies, as though the body has been infected with a disease. There have been many factors leading to this decline: a lot of this has to do with celebrities endorsing fallacious claims; Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Oz, Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, for example. All this was due to a former British Gastroenterologist named Andrew Wakfield and his fraudulent study published in the Lancet articles.

The best way to prevent pertussis (whooping cough) is to get vaccinated. There are vaccines for babies, children, preteens, teens, and adults. The childhood vaccine is called DTaP, and the pertussis booster vaccine for preteens, teens, and adults is called Tdap. Pertussis is a highly contagious bacterial disease. Initial symptoms are usually similar to those of the common cold with a runny nose, fever, and mild cough, followed by weeks of severe coughing fits. After a fit of coughing, a high-pitched whoop sound or gasp may occur as the person breathes in, and may last for 10 or more weeks, hence the phrase “100-day cough”. A person may cough so hard that they vomit, break ribs, or become very tired from the effort. Children less than one year old may have little or no cough and instead have periods where they do not breathe. Infection in newborns is particularly severe.

Pertussis is fatal in an estimated 1.6% of hospitalized US infants under one year of age. First-year infants are also more likely to develop complications, such as: pneumonia (20%), encephalopathy (0.3%), seizures (1%), failure to thrive, and death (1%) perhaps due to the ability of the bacterium to suppress the immune system. Pertussis can cause severe paroxysm-induced cerebral hypoxia, and 50% of infants admitted to hospital suffer apneas. Reported fatalities from pertussis in infants increased substantially from 1990 to 2010. There is no excuse for these kind of vaccine preventable diseases.

Sources:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/state/washington/article93698202.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pertussis

https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/

Are GMOs Necessary? Or Can Organic & Traditional Farming Feed the World Alone?

Does the world really need GMOs? This is a question often asked by anti-GMO activists.

What’s unfortunate in the anti-GMO movement, however, is that it is often difficult to get a dialogue started on this topic purely due to the fact that there is so much misinformation surrounding genetic modification. Attempting to respond to their denialist questions and claims on GMOs oftentimes leads them to commit logical fallacies such as moving the goalposts, appealing to nature or tradition, or special pleading. To be fair though, I would expect anyone who is not well steeped in biology, chemistry, or agriculture in general, to be overwhelmed and confused just by the sheer amount of information that’s available on GM technology. And not only is there a tsunami of information available online, but the vast majority of it is either factually wrong or grossly misleading. I have even attempted to dispel some of the most common claims made by the anti-GMO movement, although I would probably be in the same boat as them if I didn’t have my skeptical background in science.

But besides the fact that GMOs have been shown to be safe for the ecosystem, as well as animal and human consumption, the question of whether or not they are necessary has taken more of an ideological standpoint. The argument has slowly shifted from “Are GMOs necessary?” to “Organic, traditional farming, and other methods can get the job done of feeding the world without the help of GMOs.” For the anti-GMO movement, the reasoning has become “why on Earth would we need transgenic GM crops if our other methods are perfectly capable of sustaining the world food supply?” (Additional source). Besides the false assumption that organic and traditional crops are ecologically and nutritionally superior to GM crops, as there is little to no evidence to support that notion, I think it’s a legitimate question. What do GMOs offer that organic and traditional farming do not? Well, let’s look into it.

Anti GMO

I first want to address right off the bat that regardless how you feel about GMOs, we have to share some middle-ground here. For instance, I think everyone would agree that eliminating or lowering food waste would be hugely beneficial to a truly sustainable food supply. I don’t think that all the other methods anti-GMO activists list — like better use of fertilizers, eliminating food-based biofuels, and cutting global meat consumption (which I actually think addresses another issue entirely, but I will write about that another time and update this article with a hyperlink once I have it written) — are enough to sustain a growing global population, but they may all be considered to be helpful ideas. What I think is important for everyone to focus on, however, is that food waste is the most prevalent of those issues; and everyone, regardless of their stance on GMOs, should come together to solve this problem.

I also think it’s important to address climate change. The world is beginning to feel the real effects of global warming, especially in third-world countries. In America alone, farmland has been decreasing. It’s even worse in impoverished nations like Africa. But despite the looming threat of climate change and future food shortage, the human population is projected to reach nearly 10 billion by the year 2050. In other words, about 2.5 billion people are going to be added to the world’s food supply in just 34 years. This could potentially end in a situation that not even Dr. Norman Borlaug could prevent. To further put it into perspective, we will need to produce more food in the next 34 years than we have in the entire history of the world. If nothing is done to avoid this situation, billions of people could potentially die due to starvation. There are many ideas of how to avoid this horrible catastrophe, as I have mentioned above, and it’s a daunting challenge, but it is plausible that we can accomplish this feat if scientists and farmers work together and use all the tools available to them. While many anti-GMO activists tend to claim that tackling food shortage can, should, and will be done solely through traditional and organic farming, many experts believe that is simply not feasible. In the face of climate change and water shortage, traditional and organic farming simply do not possess the necessary tools it would take to feed it would be near impossible to feed 10 billion people. Organic yields are about 1/4 the size of conventionally grown yields, organic pesticides and herbicides are far more toxic than their non-organic counterparts, and traditional breeding will take too long to produce the amount of food we will need by 2050. I’m not saying these methods of plant breeding are bad by any means, I’m just saying that there is room for GMOs to pick up where those methods are lacking. Eliminating food shortage, along with the other methods I listed, would not be enough to remedy the situation either. Yet the purveyors of those industries maintain the position that they will in fact be able to sustain a growing global population, especially in third-world countries, using their methods.

But let me explain the extremely valuable benefits GMOs offer that organically and traditionally grown crops do not. For starters, GM crops have shown to be very helpful in growing more food with less farmland and resources, which is more important than ever due to climate change and water shortage. Also, what we have now been able to do with herbicide resistant crops, like RoundUp-ready crops, is basically eliminate tillage. In the old days, and what is still practiced in many organic farms today, farmers would get on their tractors and they would plow all the fields and turn all the dirt over — that was the method farmers used to kill weeds. But we don’t need to plow fields anymore with GM crops. We don’t expose that dirt to evaporation of the moisture. We don’t have nearly as bad erosion as we did. We don’t have the instantaneous release of greenhouse gasses when the soil is flipped over. And since the adoption of herbicide tolerant crops in this country in the mid ’90s, the rate of not plowing, of using conservation tillage has more than doubled. It’s great that organic & traditional farmers are optimistic about their methods and products, and they do offer great benefits, but I don’t think their solutions of feeding the world are fully based in reality because they’re still stuck using these old methods of tilling and plowing the land. So it’s especially wrong to claim GMOs are not necessary for issues such as these. Farmers should be working together with all the tools available to them in order to overcome the challenges of feeding 10 billion people. The examples I just offered are just a few of the many ways that GM technology, in collaboration with other breeding methods, should be considered as necessary for a sustainable future. Further, genetically modified crops have decreased pesticide use by up to 27%. That is another huge benefit. But what I think are the biggest reasons for why GMOs should be considered necessary are because of what they have done, and what they will do, for developing nations.

Almost all African farmers are currently either living in poverty or extreme poverty. The African soil is very nitrogen-poor, meaning it’s not very effective for growing crops. On top of the soil already making success with growing crops difficult, the yields tend to be pretty small when it comes time for harvest. With genetic modification, however, scientists have been able to produce nitrogen-efficient rice that grows well in that type of soil. Not only that, but this rice contains higher levels of Vitamin A, which will help deal with the horrific epidemic of blindness and early child-hood death caused by Vitamin A deficiencies that plague these regions. And according to Alison Van Eenennaam, a specialist in
animal genomics and biotechnology at UC Davis, a genetically modified version of Cassava is being developed specifically for these regions. It will have a higher nutrient content, a better shelf life, and will be disease resistant. This is especially important because Cassava is currently a major source of carbohydrates in these parts of the world. Improved Cassava harvests could also increase the incomes of African households, helping lift poor farmers – many of whom are women – out of poverty. This brings up the next point that the champions of traditional and organic farming usually completely miss.

Are GMOs Necessary

Sustaining third-world countries by shipping food to those regions will only make them further dependent on first-world countries. And not only would millions of dollars need to be spent in order to keep that kind of operation going, it would still do absolutely nothing to address the actual problems that plague those regions, like Vitamin A deficiencies and extreme poverty. It would make much more sense to offer seeds to these farmers at very low costs, which is already being done with quite a few GMO crops, and allow these African farmers to grow higher-yielding crops with better nutritional content that they could then sell and make a better profit, thus helping to lift them out of poverty. If they don’t want the seeds, that is their choice. But to completely bar them from having access to these seeds is, in my eyes, an act of complete contempt and negligence.

What is always important to remember though, is that no form of farming should be considered the Holy Grail. Continuing to diversify crops is key. Expanding the use of precision agriculture is important, making organic farming more eco-friendly is important, and using the life-saving tools that genetic modification has to offer will allow humanity overcome these daunting challenges of feeding the world in the face of global climate change and water shortage. Banning or limiting the use of any these technologies could absolutely have catastrophic consequences. And no one should claim that one form of farming is 100% superior to another because they all have their pros and cons. What is imperative is that everyone works collectively on this issue right now for the sake of future generations.

So are GMOs necessary? I would say absolutely.

Using Genetics to Disprove Biblical Stories

In genetics we can look at genetic diversity in everyone and everything and find common genetic traits which would indicate a significant reduction in a given population. This is done by finding and identifying genetic traits that only a small breeding population would have in common and would be subsequently carried down through subsequent generations. If the story of Genesis and Noah were true, we would see genetic bottlenecks showing a breeding population of a very limited number and we would be able to identify roughly when it happened; but this is not the case at all.

wrong

If you don’t know what a genetic bottleneck is, it is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events (such as earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, or droughts) or human activities (such as genocide). Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population with a correspondingly smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring through sexual reproduction. Genetic diversity remains lower, only slowly increasing with time as random mutations occur. In consequence of such population size reductions and the loss of genetic variation, the robustness of the population is reduced and its ability to survive environmental changes can be reduced.

Our last genetic bottle neck is estimated to have occurred over 100,000 years ago and even then there were still thousands of genetic variances belonging to a few thousand individual ancestors.  In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a ‘long bottleneck’ to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the late stone age.

worldpopulat

 Now with that being said, we would see this same genetic bottleneck in every animal on earth happening at the exact same times if the bible was accurate, and yet there is zero evidence to support these ridiculous conclusion. What is so frustrating to scientists is that creationists think that the only evidence for evolution is fossils and educated conclusions. This is entirely incorrect since evolution is also written in your genes and thus not only debunks the story of Noah, but the Genesis story as well. This is yet another reason why we know evolution is a fact and that the bible is not factual by any scientific standard.

-AAPN

References:

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/human-diversity-bottlenecks.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Hawks J, Hunley K, Lee SH, Wolpoff M (January 2000). “Population bottlenecks and Pleistocene human evolution”. Molecular Biology and Evolution 17 (1): 2–22. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026233. PMID 10666702.

When woo memes get DANGEROUS and DEADLY!

When woo memes get DANGEROUS and DEADLY!

woo memes

Woo memes like this need to be pointed out as being dangerous nonsense, gullible people can actually die from bad advice such as this.

According to the World Health Organization:
Cardiovascular disease is number 1 cause of death globally: more people die annually from CVDs than from any other cause. An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths. Of these deaths, an estimated 7.4 million were due to coronary heart disease and 6.7 million were due to stroke .Over three quarters of CVD deaths take place in low- and middle-income countries. Out of the 16 million deaths under the age of 70 due to noncommunicable diseases, 82% are in low and middle income countries and 37% are caused by CVDs. Most cardiovascular diseases can be prevented by addressing behavioural risk factors such as tobacco use, unhealthy diet and obesity, physical inactivity and harmful use of alcohol using population-wide strategies. People with cardiovascular disease or who are at high cardiovascular risk (due to the presence of one or more risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia or already established disease) need early detection and management using counselling and medicines, as appropriate.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/

According to a large case study in the Journal of the American Collage of Cardiology on Short- and long-term mortality for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (heart attack): .METHODS: New York’s coronary angioplasty registry was used to identify New York patients undergoing angioplasty within 6 h of AMI between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 1996. Statistical models were used to identify significant risk factors for in-patient and long-term survival and to estimate long-term survival for all patients as well as various subsets of patients undergoing primary angioplasty. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate for all primary angioplasty patients was 5.81%. When patients in preprocedural shock (who had a mortality rate of 45%) were excluded, the in-hospital mortality rate dropped to 2.60%. Mortality rates for all primary angioplasty patients at one year, two years and three years were 9.3%, 11.3% and 12.6%, respectively. Patients treated with stent placement did not have significantly lower risk-adjusted in-patient or two-year mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Primary angioplasty is a highly effective option for AMI.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1126729

Five years after the procedures, 90.7% of the bypass patients and 89.7% of the angioplasty patients were still alive -source Web MD
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20071015/bypass-angioplasty-similar-survival

It is absolutely imperative that woo like this is pointed out as the dangerous nonsense that it is.

Responses to Popular Anti-GMO Arguments & Rhetoric

Responses to Popular Anti-GMO Arguments & Rhetoric

 

 

Anti GMO march

The typical rhetoric from the anti-GMO crowd can range anywhere from harmless, benign questions to malignant, ignorant claims based on complete scientific illiteracy.

There are hundreds of questions, concerns, and claims from the anti-GMO movement, some more legitimate than others, but I will only be addressing a few of their main talking points.    Continue reading Responses to Popular Anti-GMO Arguments & Rhetoric

Beagle’s Plea For Reason

Polio

Beagle’s Plea For Reason

It barely needs stating, but I will say it anyway. The person that chooses not to vaccinate their child is a selfish, narcissistic creature with no regard for others. They don’t care if their child falls ill because they are convinced that a potentially devastating disease is somehow better than the minimal risks associated with vaccines. They don’t care if your child falls ill. They don’t care that children with valid health reasons for not being vaccinated depend on herd immunity to survive. Instead, they cling to debunked and misleading “studies” to justify their dangerous and ridiculous decision. They make up insane conspiracies about the government attempting to control people through vaccines. They are irrational, arrogant enough to believe that they know better than actual doctors. They will even claim that God protects their children and yours from illness. I’m not kidding. I saw that on my newsfeed only a few weeks ago.   Continue reading Beagle’s Plea For Reason

The Inherent Dangers of the Anti-Vaccination Movement

The Inherent Dangers of the Anti-Vaccination Movement

Dangers of the Anti-Vaccination Movement

There has a trend growing in momentum over the past decade. The rise of misinformation and alternative medicine has been increasing and the rejection of science based modern medicine has been gaining unwanted momentum. The most profound and dangerous of examples is the rejection on vaccine uptake. As we know vaccines work by stimulating our immune system to produce antibodies (substances produced by the body to fight disease) without actually infecting us with the disease. They trigger the immune system to produce its own antibodies, as though the body has been infected with a disease. There have been many factors leading to this decline in vaccine uptake. A great deal of this has a lot to do with celebrities endorsing fallacious claims and Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Oz back in the early 2000’s who brought on to their T.V. shows, a former British Gastroenterologist named Andrew Wakfeild.   Continue reading The Inherent Dangers of the Anti-Vaccination Movement