11

Boston Herald calls for government-run execution squads to MASS MURDER naturopaths, scientists and journalists who oppose mercury in immunizations

Posted by Dobrien 7 years ago to News
122 comments | Share | Flag

From the Boston Heralds editorial staff.
It’s one thing for Hollywood celebrities to wear their anti-vaccine pride like just another fashion trend. It’s another thing when anti-vaccine activists start preying on vulnerable people, particularly within immigrant communities.

Yes, the anti-vaxxers appear to be plying their trade with the Somali community in Minnesota — and the result, sadly, is a dangerous outbreak of measles.

The recent outbreak is now up to 41 kids, all of them under 10. The Washington Post reported Friday that the number of children of Somali descent in Minnesota who have received the vaccination for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) plunged from 92 percent in 2004 to 42 percent in 2014 — not nearly enough to immunize against those diseases.

Skepticism about vaccines within Minnesota’s Somali community goes back a decade, the Post reported, after parents raised concern about possible higher rates of autism among their children (research later indicated that wasn’t the case).

But it seems that was all the truthers needed to hear. When Somali parents sought answers to explain autism, anti-vaccine activists were delighted to fill in the information gap. The disgraced British doctor who once reported a link between vaccines and autism — which was deemed fraudulent and cost him his medical license — has met with families, the Post reported. Even amid this latest outbreak, anti-vaccine groups have fanned the flames, making it hard for public health officials and doctors to be heard above the noise.

These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/e...


All Comments

  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And neither is irrational 'downvoting' of simple facts refuting and rejecting hysteria.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If someone physically impacts others, such as by spreading disease and infecting them, that is a matter of individual rights. The proper principles are figured out rationally, not by emotional outbursts and false accusations of "mass murder" and "government run execution squads". The more serious the question, the more important it is to think and communicate rationally.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the reply. The down vote was not mine, disagree though I did and do. I appreciate the more reasonable essay above. Josef Goebbels and David Rockefeller are less interesting. I was going to post from the Principia Discordia and Illuminatus! on the matter of chaos versus control -- in fact also a theme from the Get Smart tv shows. The Holy Trinity would be soothing to you, but the duality of the Manichaean Heresy, Arianism, and Zoroaster would unsettle you. The Sumerians had a three-faced god. The Greeks specifically divided the world among Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, though the other Indo-Euroepans apparently did not.

    I will also point out that other languages such as Russian have singular, dual, and plural whereas we have only singular and plural. Does that cause you to be discordant? Some languages have three genders: male, female, neuter. Others have four, one with no gender at, not neuter. But Hebrew has only two: Male and Female. Thus, their god Yahweh was male, when, theologically, capital-G God should probably be without sex or gender. Are Jews naturally discordant because they have only two genders, not three?

    The 440 Hz... Thanks again for the "high, bright, and loud" explanation. I point out that no one could measure well and easily until the oscilloscope was invented.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    “International standard pitch,” in which the A above “middle” C (a' in the British system of pitch designation, A4 in the American system) is tuned to 440 Hz, was adopted in the Western world for concert music only in the twentieth century, after a long history of unstandardized pitch.

    In Europe prior to the twentieth century, pitch varied widely from place to place and from century to century. How widely, and how erratically, is evident from studies of organs (either historic instruments that had not been modified when tests were made, or replicas of historic instruments), early treatises that mention pitch, and historic tuning forks, To take Germany prior to 1600 as an example, organ pitch there is thought to have varied from a high of A=567 Hz for the first simple pipe organs of the Middle Ages to a low of A=377 Hz for the early modern German organ around 1511.1 But not even at one particular time in one region of a country was standardization deemed necessary. It seems that composers and performers were accustomed to taking local variations in the tuning of organs and other keyboard instruments into account, either by writing a score in more than one key, or by transposing at sight – thereby accommodating the fixed pitch ranges of other instruments and the singers in the ensemble.Difficulties were naturally increased as scores and musicians traveled further. Two eighteenth-century international musicians, Handel and Mozart, are known to have favoured specific pitch levels — (again expressed in modern terms) A=423 Hz in the case of Handel and A=422 Hz in the case of Mozart, i.e. approximately one-half semitone lower than A=440 Hz.3The nineteenth century saw a trend in Europe and North American toward the inexorable raising of the pitch level of instruments in performances. Alexander Ellis attributed this to two nineteenth-century developments: larger venues, and new developments in instrument making. As compared to Haydn or Mozart’s day, public concerts in the nineteenth century were played before larger audiences, often in concert halls and opera houses larger than existed in previous times. These large rooms could accommodate – even required – high, brilliant pitches at climaxes, effects that could be achieved when playing eighteenth-century scores by employing instruments pitched higher than those that had performed the same scores in smaller rooms. For reasons such as this, nineteenth-century makers of wind instrument for band and orchestra sought to garner a niche in the market by developing and selling instruments pitched slightly higher so as to sound more brilliant than the competition’s. Meanwhile, improvements to the strings of stringed instruments meant that these could be stretched tighter, i.e., tuned higher, to match the tuning of the newly acquired wind instruments of, say, an opera house.most of history there were varying customary pitches employed depending on the musical style of the times, but a truly organized, accepted “gold standard” did not exist. In the mid-20th century this all changed. In 1939, Reich Master of Propaganda in Nazi Germany Joseph Goebbels was the first to push for the 440 Hz pitch to be standardized internationally– he succeeded in doing so only within Germany and, briefly, in England.

    Prior to this, the American music industry had reached an informal standard of 440 Hz in 1926 for instrument manufacturing. In 1936, the American Standards Association recommended that the A above middle C be tuned to 440 Hz. This standard was taken up by the International Organization for Standardization in 1955. Although still not universally accepted, it has served since then as the audio frequency reference for the calibration of acoustic equipment and the tuning of pianos, violins, and other musical instruments. [2]

    Prominent musician and manufacturer J.C. Deagan, who also campaigned for the 440 Hz standard, designed the 440 Hz-based war chimes that were used for World war II propaganda news reels. Interestingly, these same chimes are also used in the call signs for the NBC television network.

    It should be noted that there exists an infinite number of frequencies out there — some see the standardization of 440 Hz as simply arbitrary, whereas others feel it’s downright sinister. Why attach so much animosity to a number? The answer lies in the work of two music-related scientific fields: Cymatics and psychoacoustics. Cymatics is the study of sound and vibration as they pertain to the physical plane.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nonsense.
    "Despite such confusion, A = 440 Hz is the only official standard and is widely used around the world. Many orchestras in the United Kingdom adhere to this standard as concert pitch.[15] In the United States some orchestras use A = 440 Hz, while others, such as the New York Philharmonic use A = 442 Hz.[16] The latter is also often used as a tuning frequency in Europe,[3] especially in Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Norway and Switzerland.[17] Nearly all modern symphony orchestras in Germany and Austria and many in other countries in continental Europe (such as Russia, Sweden and Spain) tune to A = 443 Hz.[15][17]The Boston Symphony Orchestra tunes to A = 441 Hz." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 12 months ago
    No argument here, you are correct in those points. Dobrien just posted (in the GG email) a thing where an organic farm is being forced to use sprays to control weeds. It is a different county from a discussion I just listened to on the radio about an identical issue in another county. While I believe in individual rights, I also believe if you impact others you are responsible too, and that is a similar type of situation where people get emotional because the govt is forcing people to do something. It speaks to the need to weigh each event and see who is getting hurt in it, who is impacting who and is all means being utilized to alleviate it. There is a lot more to things than just the "bad guys", as sometimes there are no "bad guys".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Emotional reactions as such are not bad, but they are not a substitute for rational, honest thought and communication. Thought and understanding require objectivity and personal honesty. Fantasy, paranoia, rationalizing and emotional thinking are not tools of understanding.

    The whole thread was based on a hysterical false incendiary accusation lifted from a kook website that its proponents still refuse to acknowledge. I don't expect to get through to those who choose to act like that. No one can because everyone must decide for himself whether to be rational and learn enough to understand what that requires.

    But anyone can see what they are doing, including the frenzied "downvotes" of simple statements of fact, the emotional, evasive "responses" and further slinging of accusations, and that this is rejected by rational people. They're destroying their own credibility by continuing like this but hopefully not the integrity of the forum.

    We can only hope that others not so familiar with Ayn Rand can realize that her ideas are not compatible with such activist promotions and hysteria from the fads of anarchists, anti-vaxxers, Birthers, Birchers, Con-cons, Ron Paulers, Trump idolatry, Truthers, or whatever else that mentality starts pushing.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • nickursis replied 6 years, 12 months ago
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No one is "cluttering" your inbox. You have subscribed to forum alerts telling you of new posts. I am not sending you anytthing and none of us can change what you get from the forum or make you read anything you don't want to. If you are still having trouble understanding how the system works you should contact the forum for help at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/cont...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not arguing it, but consider: There are many things in this world that various people, businesses and organizations, do not want "unsavory" facts to be known. That leads people to get very emotionally tied into some topic, and that is true for all sides of debates today. Since I have also gotten excited about specific topics, I am not inclined to castigate people who do. Your points may be very true and valid, but some people may not be ready to hear them. So, the best you can hope for is to make your logical, reasoned points and see what happens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There you are again, cluttering up my email like a same ole' thing visual skipping record~and I'm old enough to remember vinyl.
    Say, why don't you think up another fancy word for calling me stupid and see if I have any use for you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Medical science preventing disease is not a "religion" and rejecting hysterical lies does not "demonstrate" otherwise. The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER". "Leave people" alone is not a defense for hysterical dishonesty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER". Anyone has a right to reject the exploitation of this forum to spread this dishonest nonsense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for demonstrating that vaccines are the new religion.

    Leave people alone.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The outrageous accusation that the Boston Herald advocates "government execution squads and MASS MURDER" isn't true. Observing that and holding the perpetrators accountable isn't a rant.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the heads up. Pretty sure I never rode indentations that deep.
    I'll ignore that rant at the end.
    You see, when I'm called names, it pulls an off switch in my little dino head.
    It's something I picked up from working 21 years at a state prison.
    Well, bye.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no excuse for the "anti-vaxxers" to be "fired up" into an irrational emotional frenzy, hysterically and falsely accusing an editorial in a relatively conservative newspaper of advocating "government execution squads and MASS MURDER". No normal reader can confuse their hysteria against vaccinations in this thread and in the "Natural News" page it linked to with a "sub thread" of anything rational. Rational thought must be explicitly so, not presumed for hysterics, and does not appear here in defense of the "anti-vaxxers".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The post "landing way over here" is the standard formatting for multiple responses that would otherwise lead to excessive indentation and columns too narrow to read effectively. When that would happen the forum places subsequent responses back to the left margin of the page, starting over with the indentation and with forward and backward links so the train of discussion is easily followed. That is why it provides links labelled "replied" and "in reply to this comment".

    If you don't care about the anti-vaxxer's hysterical lying then don't read the posts about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Boston Herald editorial is pro medical science. The term "hanging offense", which is literally obsolete everywhere in the country, is a metaphor for the seriousness of spreading anti-science hysteria against vaccines saving billions of lives.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER" (capitalization in original at the top of this thread). It didn't say it. There is nothing to "soften". Your further misrepresentations insinuating what else I think so you can sell "bridges" only add to the dishonest evasions. The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER" and Ayn Rand was not an anti-vaxxer".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 6 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are no "dotted lines" to follow. It was a response to your comment at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... ignoring the bald-faced lie and insinuating that it was the fault of the writing style of the Boston Herald as somehow politically incorrect in "this environment". The editorial did not advocate "government execution squads for MASS MURDER" as Dobrien's post falsely stated. It did not say that. It did not remotely say that. It did not "insinuate" that. It is a hysterical lie. If you don't "give a happy damn" what anyone else thinks then don't read it and don't subscribe to update alerts, which is why they appear in your email inbox.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 12 months ago
    “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
    ― Stephen Hawking

    How does the term "hanging offense" fit in here, my fellow Objectivists?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo