Talk Show TV

[Nekowolf]

Yo, sorry for the absence. Anyway, I'll just get straight back into things.

I was reading a pagan blog I frequent when it mentioned that OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) is doing some new reality TV. To summarize the post: he was cautioning against pagans signing up, as reality TV shows tend to take good intentions of the pagan community (such as having ourselves understood) and instead bastardizes those intentions for the sake of their ratings. And Oprah isn't so different.

While she has had big, influential people on her show, on the same hand, she has had people who are radical, even arguably dangerous, in what they promote, such as Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccination bullshit. Or James Arthur Ray. Etc. Rather than the intellectual, talk shows like Oprah's rather run on the emotional.

Of course, this applies to other TV talk shows as well, such as Dr. Phil. How can people watch this stuff and actually belief in some of this crap? Is it because they don't want to bother thinking about something and just agree with it? Or is it because people who come on with some asinine cause spout misinformation and bullshit, veiled in the guise of intelligent speak? Do such shows have a societal moral obligation to fulfill, especially when some of these causes could have potentially detrimental effects on people and families?

[fakepeeps7]

Yo, sorry for the absence. Anyway, I'll just get straight back into things.

I was reading a pagan blog I frequent when it mentioned that OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) is doing some new reality TV. To summarize the post: he was cautioning against pagans signing up, as reality TV shows tend to take good intentions of the pagan community (such as having ourselves understood) and instead bastardizes those intentions for the sake of their ratings. And Oprah isn't so different.

Oprah can't win. The Christians go after he for not being Christian enough. Now the pagans go after her...

Oprah's not perfect. She has a lot of influence, yes. But that doesn't mean she's all knowing or that she has it all figured out. She's allowed to make mistakes, just like the rest of us. She's not the only one with responsibility. The rest of us have brains. We're supposed to use them.

While she has had big, influential people on her show, on the same hand, she has had people who are radical, even arguably dangerous, in what they promote, such as Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccination bullshit. Or James Arthur Ray. Etc. Rather than the intellectual, talk shows like Oprah's rather run on the emotional.

Last I checked, Jenny McCarthy was pro-safe-vax... not anti-vax. Big difference. Besides... if you're going to base the decisions about your child's health on the personal anecdotes of someone who isn't even a doctor, perhaps you shouldn't be a parent in the first place.

James Arthur Ray, on the other hand, is another story. Self-styled gurus bug me. Although, I would love for Oprah to have him on her show now. I'd like to see what he'd have to say for himself. It (along with his attitude) would probably be very telling...

Of course, this applies to other TV talk shows as well, such as Dr. Phil. How can people watch this stuff and actually belief in some of this crap?

What's not to believe about Dr. Phil? I've only watched a few times, but he seems to deal with family dynamics and psychology issues... not parapsychology and little green men. It's voyeuristic, for sure, and probably doesn't do much to help anyone besides the person sitting on the stage. But I'm not sure it's an actual matter of belief.

Is it because they don't want to bother thinking about something and just agree with it? Or is it because people who come on with some asinine cause spout misinformation and bullshit, veiled in the guise of intelligent speak? Do such shows have a societal moral obligation to fulfill, especially when some of these causes could have potentially detrimental effects on people and families?

If people are that affected by what someone on talk TV says, and then go make rash decisions without looking into the matter (whatever matter that may be) for themselves, well... they get what they get, I guess. If you're going to base your most important life decisions on voyeuristic "reality" television, you're going to end up in trouble.

[Nekowolf]

She's allowed to make mistakes as a person, yes. But as such a huge personality, I think she, like anyone in a position like hers, should be held to a higher standard; money is not an issue with them, nor is ratings, so there really is no excuse to allow certain people to slip through.

And pro-safe vaccination? No offense, but that sounds rather ridiculous. It's if I was to say I'm pro-safe driving, or pro-hospital sanitization, or anti-murder. It's sort of a redundant position to express, cause, well...duh. I mean, any rational person would of course be for something safe. But someone who knows more on her actual position than me should clarify.

As for Dr. Phil; does he honestly expect to be of help. He's like one of those televangelist healers. I can cure your gambling problem! Do not gamble in the first place! BE HEALED-AH! Problems cannot be helped in one or two shows. Or how about comments like this episode of some Farmville-obsessed woman. His advice boils down to just stop playing. Yeah, and I guess alcoholics should "just stop drinking." Oh yes, because going cold turkey is the answer to any addiction and is as easy as 1, 2, 3. It doesn't even help the person sitting on stage, aside from telling the nation "this is my problem!" Not to mention when he plugs stuff. He's nothing more but a pop psychologist.

Lastly, I do agree with your notion on people who make such decisions off of nothing. But if anything, that just adds onto the moral burden of such shows, if you think they have that responsibility. Uh, like if you have a very aggressive dog. If you know it may lash out at strangers, you have a responsibility to keep it in check, because it's dangerous. If they know that there are going to be viewers who will make stupid decisions based on what some self-acclaimed "expert" tells them, then if anything, the TV show has the responsibility to either not promote this person, or go out of their way to make sure it is known that they should be wary of what this person claims. I mean, it's easy to blame the viewers, but what about the people around those viewers? What if a woman who saw some anti-vaccination bullshit, decides not to vaccinate their children. It's not the woman who is risking her health, it her risking her childrens' lives, who more than likely have no say in the matter.

[fakepeeps7]

She's allowed to make mistakes as a person, yes. But as such a huge personality, I think she, like anyone in a position like hers, should be held to a higher standard; money is not an issue with them, nor is ratings, so there really is no excuse to allow certain people to slip through.

It sounds like you were expecting her to be psychic. When she and her staff are making judgments about the people they're going to have on the show, they have just as much information as the rest of us. How were they to know that Ray would turn out to be an ego-freak criminal whose actions resulted in the deaths of others? At the time they had him on the show, he was just a New Age blowhard... like many of the others who haven't been responsible for people's deaths. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And pro-safe vaccination? No offense, but that sounds rather ridiculous. It's if I was to say I'm pro-safe driving, or pro-hospital sanitization, or anti-murder. It's sort of a redundant position to express, cause, well...duh. I mean, any rational person would of course be for something safe. But someone who knows more on her actual position than me should clarify.

I do know more on her actual position than you; that's why I brought it up. I was just trying to clarify her position. I'm tired of people misrepresenting her views for their own propaganda.

As for Dr. Phil; does he honestly expect to be of help. He's like one of those televangelist healers. I can cure your gambling problem! Do not gamble in the first place! BE HEALED-AH! Problems cannot be helped in one or two shows. Or how about comments like this episode of some Farmville-obsessed woman. His advice boils down to just stop playing. Yeah, and I guess alcoholics should "just stop drinking." Oh yes, because going cold turkey is the answer to any addiction and is as easy as 1, 2, 3. It doesn't even help the person sitting on stage, aside from telling the nation "this is my problem!" Not to mention when he plugs stuff. He's nothing more but a pop psychologist.

We don't know what goes on afterwards. For all we know, the staff could provide resources to the guests. Of course you can't solve anything in an hour. And you certainly can't solve anything just by watching someone else solve their problems. But just because he can't take the time to do years of counseling with a person doesn't mean that his impressions about their problems are wrong. They're just not very helpful in the context of a daytime talk show.

Lastly, I do agree with your notion on people who make such decisions off of nothing. But if anything, that just adds onto the moral burden of such shows, if you think they have that responsibility. Uh, like if you have a very aggressive dog. If you know it may lash out at strangers, you have a responsibility to keep it in check, because it's dangerous. If they know that there are going to be viewers who will make stupid decisions based on what some self-acclaimed "expert" tells them, then if anything, the TV show has the responsibility to either not promote this person, or go out of their way to make sure it is known that they should be wary of what this person claims.

And I'd ask, "Who is putting a gun to these people's heads and making them watch crap?" Just because it's out there doesn't mean you have to watch it.

I mean, it's easy to blame the viewers, but what about the people around those viewers? What if a woman who saw some anti-vaccination bullshit, decides not to vaccinate their children. It's not the woman who is risking her health, it her risking her childrens' lives, who more than likely have no say in the matter.

And if her children develop a neurological or seizure disorder from the vaccines (which does happen... or VAERS wouldn't need to exist), resulting in a need for lifelong care, they didn't ask for that, either. Life is full of choices. If parents can make the choice to pump their children full of junk food until they're obese, they should also be allowed to make the choice to not vaccinate.

And before you go and tell me that the sky will fall if a few people stop vaccinating, perhaps you could tell me why the deaths from infectious diseases dropped before vaccines were even introduced, as shown in this chart (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/FIGJOC80862F2).

[Nekowolf]

Firstly, James Ray has a history of questionable actions, including lawsuits filed against him.

Next, the very fact that nothing Jenny McCarthy says seems to be lacking in medically-backed evidence makes her entire position incredibly shaky. It means she believes in some form of unreal threat in vaccination, and why she may be "pro-safe vaccination" the question then becomes, how can you even define that when currently, no vaccine causes, say, autism, as she says.

But so what if his impressions are right? What difference does that make? Then you get into plugging books and diet crap. I seriously question his motives for the show.

Lastly, yeah, bad things happen. But saying "well they don't have to watch it" is not an answer, is avoiding an answer. Yeah, they don't have to. But they do. And they watch. And they absorb the bullshit that some of these guests spout. I mean, Christ, I bet if you have someone who goes through the talk-show circuit warning about rainbow parties, I bet a whole hell of a lot of parents who watch are gonna freak right the fuck out about it. Even though it's about as much reality as the D&D moral panic of the 80's. Oh wait, that's right, it did.

As for the chart...

The concept of vaccination was first discovered in the late 18th century/early 19th century. Throughout the 19th, the use of vaccination grew considerably. Other advancements in medicine and sanitation. So, actually, vaccination was around well before the 1900s, as well as other achievements, and most certainly applies to the fatality decrease the chart portrays.

[Oaktree]

Last I checked, Jenny McCarthy was pro-safe-vax... not anti-vax. Big difference.

There is no such thing as a completely safe medical procedure. It's pure fantasy and to say that she's only pro-safe-vax is to say that she is anti-vax. There is some level of risk in anything we do, really. The risks inherent in vaccination are so low, particularly compared to their benefits, that it makes more sense to favor vaccination. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't work on ways of dealing with the side effects that do occasionally crop up, but probability is by far stacked far in favor of vaccination.


Lastly, I do agree with your notion on people who make such decisions off of nothing. But if anything, that just adds onto the moral burden of such shows, if you think they have that responsibility. Uh, like if you have a very aggressive dog. If you know it may lash out at strangers, you have a responsibility to keep it in check, because it's dangerous. If they know that there are going to be viewers who will make stupid decisions based on what some self-acclaimed "expert" tells them, then if anything, the TV show has the responsibility to either not promote this person, or go out of their way to make sure it is known that they should be wary of what this person claims. I mean, it's easy to blame the viewers, but what about the people around those viewers? What if a woman who saw some anti-vaccination bullshit, decides not to vaccinate their children. It's not the woman who is risking her health, it her risking her childrens' lives, who more than likely have no say in the matter.

I agreed with everything you said in this post until this point. People are responsible for themselves, and sometimes for children and pets, but not for other adults. Ideally, one should avoid spreading misinformation and moral panic, but some people choose to anyway. It doesn't make the people who listen to them any less responsible for their actions. If a woman listens to Jenny McCarthy and decides not to vaccinate her children, it is her responsibility, not Jenny's. She is doing wrong out of her own judgement.

[Nekowolf]

Mm, but, the thing is is that there are two parties involved. Someone has to spread the propaganda so they should be held responsible as much as anyone else for that, because often, it's lies, misinformation, and hearsay, and while it's one thing for someone to take a position while not fully understanding it, it is quite another for them to take a position that is contradictory to the actual information out there, because that requires either A. a degree of understanding that their position is that baseless, or B. a degree of incompetence and, or, vanity.

And for television shows to allow these people to come on, sometimes without refutation, oftentimes for them to promote whatever half-assed cause it is. This is why I think these shows should be held responsible. To use a political analogy; it's like Fox News allowing Birthers to come on and promote their completely made-up crap.

[kennyinbmore]

This is McCarthy's view on vaccines, which I disagree with
If we are going to solve this problem and finally start to reverse the rate of autism, we need to consider changing the vaccine schedule, reducing the number of shots given and removing certain ingredients that could be toxic to some children.

We take into account that some children have reactions to medicines like penicillin, for example, yet when it comes to vaccines we are operating as if our kids have a universal tolerance for them. We are acting like ONE SIZE FITS ALL. That is, at the very least, a huge improbability.

Even if the CDC is not convinced of a link between vaccines and autism, changing the vaccine schedule should be seriously considered as a precautionary measure. (If you would like to see some ideas for alternative schedules, check out http://generationrescue.org.)


We wish to state, very clearly, that we are not against all vaccines, but we do believe there is strong evidence to suggest that some of the ingredients may be hazardous and that our children are being given too many, too soon!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/index.html

Of course, it's already been proven that there's no link to vaccines and autism.

An analysis of 2,000 research studies concluded yesterday that there is no evidence that the triple MMR jab or the single measles vaccine is linked to autism in children or inflammatory bowel disease.

Doctors who carried out the most extensive review of all the scientific literature to date said they could reassure parents about the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/no-evidence-of-link-between-mmr-and-autism-doctors-find-606372.html

[grumpy_otter]

To summarize the post: he was cautioning against pagans signing up, as reality TV shows tend to take good intentions of the pagan community (such as having ourselves understood) and instead bastardizes those intentions for the sake of their ratings. And Oprah isn't so different.

Could you give an example of what you mean by this? I don't watch her much, so not sure exactly what she does with the pagan community.

I did see Tyra Banks do a show on Wicca once, and although the promos were ridiculous--trying to play up the "oooh, witches scary" angle, the show itself was very good and not sensationalized.

Is that the kind of thing you mean?

[Nekowolf]

I should clarify though, that this is meant towards most reality TV/talk shows regarding the pagan community; Oprah was mentioned because it's her network that is doing the newest reality show.

Anyway, I'm only guessing the episode you mean based other mentions of it. If it is the one I'm thinking of, though I have not seen it (as I cannot find it anywhere), what I have read on it does not sound good at all.

While, during this episode, there was one person who was rather level-headed, there were other guests who were pegged as "dark witches." Yeah, and I shit money. The concept of "white witches" and "dark witches" that these other guests that are mentioned are an extreme minority. Most would simply consider it as nonsense.

Then, from what I read, there was later a pair of Satanists, but it was said they are from the Church of Satan, which is actually an atheistic organization. So they would not be theist Satanists. No real point to that, just that there is a difference. Then there was a Born-Again Christian, who was also a supposed ex-witch, who now believes witchcraft is bad. On an episode which, by the title, "Mysterious Lives of Witches" would usually denote it being more focused on paganism, not some kind of religious football.

Then you get into reality TV shows. They tend to take any pagan contestant they get and bastardize the whole thing, basically trying to get them to fit into the bullshit stereotype pagan you get from pop culture. Hell, even fictitious shows do it as well. The Mentalist (which apparently was just awful), CSI:, House, and Supernatural, which apparently has a bit of a history with this crap, with one episode in particular, "Hammer of the Gods"

Generally, when it comes to TV, the pagan community just cannot get a break, aside from the few exceptions. Most of the time, it's stereotype and ridicule. Also considering pagans are an easy target. We're relatively new, and a minority in the US, with a rough estimation of about a million pagans (Pew Forum, ARIS). Of course, you have to consider, that isn't one group, but several groups who share the classification. So, we're pretty easy to pick on.

[Oaktree]

Mm, but, the thing is is that there are two parties involved. Someone has to spread the propaganda so they should be held responsible as much as anyone else for that, because often, it's lies, misinformation, and hearsay, and while it's one thing for someone to take a position while not fully understanding it, it is quite another for them to take a position that is contradictory to the actual information out there, because that requires either A. a degree of understanding that their position is that baseless, or B. a degree of incompetence and, or, vanity.

And for television shows to allow these people to come on, sometimes without refutation, oftentimes for them to promote whatever half-assed cause it is. This is why I think these shows should be held responsible. To use a political analogy; it's like Fox News allowing Birthers to come on and promote their completely made-up crap.

I agree that the shows that deliberately spread mis-information are wrong and should probably be punished in some way (though it is difficult to prove the 'deliberate' part). But the things that you do with the mis-information they give you are solely your responsibility.

[grumpy_otter]

Anyway, I'm only guessing the episode you mean based other mentions of it. If it is the one I'm thinking of, though I have not seen it (as I cannot find it anywhere), what I have read on it does not sound good at all.

While, during this episode, there was one person who was rather level-headed, there were other guests who were pegged as "dark witches." Yeah, and I shit money. The concept of "white witches" and "dark witches" that these other guests that are mentioned are an extreme minority. Most would simply consider it as nonsense.

Then, from what I read, there was later a pair of Satanists, but it was said they are from the Church of Satan, which is actually an atheistic organization. So they would not be theist Satanists. No real point to that, just that there is a difference. Then there was a Born-Again Christian, who was also a supposed ex-witch, who now believes witchcraft is bad. On an episode which, by the title, "Mysterious Lives of Witches" would usually denote it being more focused on paganism, not some kind of religious football.


I don't remember it very well--I saw it a long time ago. I do think there was a differentiation between "white" and "dark" and the dark witches looked very goth. I don't know enough about it to really judge. I just remember being impressed that she allowed them to talk and explain their views pretty well, didn't ask stupid questions like "Do you sacrifice babies," and my impression of them was pretty positive.

I don't recall the satanists at all--must not have made an impression.

Back to your original post--I think most "reality" TV is based on distorting reality for ratings--the pagan community may need to start their own show if they want a fair viewpoint!

[Nekowolf]

Yeah, I can't imagine that the Satanists would. The form of Satanism that the Church of Satan practices, it's an ideology, wrapped in atheism/anti-theism, that's really its biggest significance.

But anyway, yes, that's my point. But the question is, do they have a moral responsibility that they should be held to?

[fakepeeps7]

But anyway, yes, that's my point. But the question is, do they have a moral responsibility that they should be held to?

If we're not going to hold other groups to a decent moral standard, we can't very well go after talk show hosts. We let people like the WBC run around and make others miserable, but if you want free speech, you have to take their nonsense. As I said before, nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head to make them do anything. They don't have to do something just because a person on TV says so. They don't even have to watch TV. If they make the choice to do so, they must take responsibility for their own actions.

There are all kinds of people who believe all kinds of crazy things. If we had to cater to their crazy, we wouldn't be allowed to say, write, perform, or express much of anything. People need to take responsibility for themselves, and (to a lesser extent) for those around them, if those people aren't capable of making good decisions on their own.

The concept of vaccination was first discovered in the late 18th century/early 19th century. Throughout the 19th, the use of vaccination grew considerably. Other advancements in medicine and sanitation. So, actually, vaccination was around well before the 1900s, as well as other achievements, and most certainly applies to the fatality decrease the chart portrays.

The concept had been around earlier, yes... but not the implementation we saw on a mass scale that started after WW2. If vaccination was so darned important, why did the number of fatalities drop significantly way before the vaccines for some of the scary diseases (such as pertussis, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles, and rubella) even existed? Sanitation and other improvements in medicine, like you said. But if vaccines were so important, why wasn't there another huge drop in fatalities when all those vaccines were introduced? If they were the panacea, there should have been a significant drop. There wasn't.

[Nekowolf]

The difference is Westboro are clearly homophobic batshit insane assholes. When you have talk shows pegging people as "experts" when they're not, that is a different story, as an "expert" has certain denotations; namely, someone who knows what they're talking about. But this is not the case. Or hell, not even that, just someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about.

Not only that, but it's easy to say "well they should take responsibility." Yes, they should. But they're idiots, so they won't. This isn't catering to the crazies, holding these shows to standards is trying to prevent that. Let's say, uh... Okay, let's say some show calls some person who says "spiritual healing works!" and calls them an expert. These stupid people are going to take their word for it because they are an "expert." Again, stupid, yes. But who is the one responsible for giving these shows a platform to stand on? The TV shows. Especially talk shows. To say it is entirely the fault of the viewers is disingenuous, because it is these shows that bring these dumb-asses out in the first place. They should be held responsible for their part in it. And since they are the platform from which these people speak to the viewers, they should have a moral obligation, because they can be assured there will be people who'll just sit and watch and absorb everything without question.

Now I am not saying illegalize it or anything, but they do need to face real criticism, frequently, and to be refuted, and to be pushed into the corner over their decisions to book these people or even promote their causes.

-----------------------------------------

Now. I would like to drop this soon as this is not part of the main topic's discussion, but: let's start at the massive spike there. That is most likely the 1918 influenza pandemic. Why it ended is a matter of debate, so we'll ignore that. The big drop after that is between 1920-1940. So we'll look at that first.

First, medical advancement must be attributed. But let's take a look at some other stuff.

A quick search on Google showed that pertussis is nowhere near as big as a threat as it was. Why? Vaccination.

Diphtheria. Medical advancement in its treatment as well as the Schick test, invented in 1910~1911. Vaccination in the mid-1920's.

Tetanus. Vaccine created in the mid-1920's and used throughout WWII to prevent tetanus in soldiers.

Polio, almost entirely wiped out in the Western countries. Thanks to vaccination. And it's clearly still around, as other regions suffer from it.

Measles have gone down very dramatically in the United States, thanks, once again, to vaccination. Same with rubella.

You're not making any sense here. Okay, it started to go down before the flu pandemic thanks to medical technology and sanitization. People's quality of life improved.

Another BIG one? The Smallpox vaccine. It became mandatory in Britain, in freaking 1853! Mandatory! Required by law! 1853! Then to further convince people, more laws were passed to push this requirement. Then in the United States. And by the early 1900s, smallpox was a rather low threat. Smallpox was a massive killer that has plagued man for thousands of years. And it was only a sliver of its former threat by 1920. Thanks to vaccination.

[fakepeeps7]

Now I am not saying illegalize it or anything, but they do need to face real criticism, frequently, and to be refuted, and to be pushed into the corner over their decisions to book these people or even promote their causes.

Well, yeah, you kind of are suggesting to illegalize it (is that a word? My spell checker hates it... :lol: )

These groups that you so despise do face criticism frequently, and are refuted all the time. Just like with the paparazzi issue, these shows are simply giving people what they want. I can't help it if some people think the highest form of entertainment is looking at some celebrity's cellulite-riddled crotch. So you take away one form of "entertainment" or "media". What difference will it make? Dumb people will always find something dumb to obsess about. People who are addicted to celebrity will just shift their attention to something else. You can't legislate intelligence.

-----------------------------------------

Now. I would like to drop this soon as this is not part of the main topic's discussion

Hey, you brought it up.

but: let's start at the massive spike there. That is most likely the 1918 influenza pandemic.

Of course.

The big drop after that is between 1920-1940. So we'll look at that first.

Quite frankly, I don't see a big drop. And that's my whole point. If you take out the spike for the Spanish Flu, you get a pretty nice (slightly curved) line. My point was that, if mass vaccination campaigns had an effect on overall deaths from infectious diseases, we should see major drops in mortality whenever they are introduced in large numbers.

Polio, almost entirely wiped out in the Western countries. Thanks to vaccination. And it's clearly still around, as other regions suffer from it.

Some version of the polio vaccine have a bad track record. It can actually cause polio (VAPP), so I'm not sure if that's the best example.

You're not making any sense here. Okay, it started to go down before the flu pandemic thanks to medical technology and sanitization. People's quality of life improved.

What, exactly, am I not making sense about?

Another BIG one? The Smallpox vaccine. It became mandatory in Britain, in freaking 1853! Mandatory! Required by law! 1853! Then to further convince people, more laws were passed to push this requirement. Then in the United States. And by the early 1900s, smallpox was a rather low threat. Smallpox was a massive killer that has plagued man for thousands of years. And it was only a sliver of its former threat by 1920. Thanks to vaccination.

Wow... I didn't know you worked for the vaccine manufacturers, Neko! Thanks for the pamphlet, but I'll make my own decisions about vaccination, thank you very much.

[Nekowolf]

Please say where I ever intended it to be illegal. And yes, illegalize is a word, however, it is not in your computer's dictionary - I had the same problem.

Anyhow, is it what they want? Or do people want it because they present it? Likely both. But anyway, if they are going to present information, I think, as stated, they have a societal moral obligation to present real information, quality information. Because they are presenting it for the idiots to have. Sure, these people will always be looking for something, but perhaps if these shows stopped showing completely bullshit like some kind of useless "alternative healing," then at least it would be better for these people, because maybe the next thing to latch into is something that will just make them look like the fools they are, instead of ruining themselves or other people.

--------------------------------------------
Okay, sorry if my numbers are way off. I think at the beginning, it's, what, 75 million deaths? 750x100k? Down to, I dunno, 10 million? That's a drop of 65 million. That seems pretty damn big drop to me. That's like of 88% in 50 years. That is incredible. The only way you'd see this kind of drop you seem to be speaking of, at least I think, would be if all the vaccinations were given out together. But they weren't. It was a gradual process. Just like now, there were people who did not trust vaccination from the start.

I mean, I really don't get what you expect the chart to look like! But just by numbers alone, which is what you should really be focusing on as well, clearly show that vaccination has helped dramatically. Not to mention simply eradicating some horrible diseases within our country. I mean, smallpox and polio simply did not disappear on their own here.

"Some version" doesn't cut it. You have to get a name, here. Otherwise, I will just assume it's going to be in that small percentage where something could maybe go wrong. Because if you don't have a name, numbers can't be looked up.

And I don't have to work for a vaccine manufacturer to look up historical documented information. I just did it. From my home computer. If you want to refute history, fine, but you better make a damn good case. Because so far, history has you one-upped.

[fakepeeps7]

Neko, you're getting extremely confrontational. Help me to understand, please. Did someone close to your family die from not being vaccinated? Do you have some sort of vested interest in making sure every single person is stuck with a multitude of vaccinations, whether they're beneficial or not? I don't understand why you're getting so angry, unless it's because you don't like having your beliefs challenged.

What I expect the chart to look like is... well, let me draw something for you:

http://www.modyourpanties.com/hosting/21403_100717203123expectedfall.jpg

The green line is what I would expect if vaccines really had a hand in eradicating disease like you claim they did. If the numbers were already falling, is it not reasonable to expect them to continue to fall, even without vaccines? And if they would have continued to fall, then what was the point of large-scale vaccination? (I'm not really talking about individual diseases here, like smallpox and whatnot. I'm talking about the dozens of vaccines that kids today have to get in order to not drop dead. Never mind that my generation never got all those jabs and we're still alive. Same goes for my parents' generation... and my grandparents'...)

The polio vaccine variant I was talking about was the oral polio vaccine (OPV). It wasn't just some small subset; it was a big deal. It still is a big deal. From what I can tell, most cases of polio in the developed world today are actually from the vaccine. It's rare, but tell that to some kid who'll never be able to run and play with his friends.

I'll just finish this by saying that I'm not saying not to vaccinate. I'm just pointing out that vaccines are not harmless treats that should be passed out like candy... especially for things that have very little chance of actually killing you, statistically speaking.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

...i dont...watch talk shows.... theyre drama. thats pretty much what they run on, why they exist; they eat drama, sleep drama, poop drama, and breathe drama.

and since drama interests me not a whit, neither do talk shows.


...but if it results in this occasionally, i might stick around long enough to laugh at it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIrXwYhwicg)

[Vanito]

:new: NEWSFLASH! TV is not real! :new:

Commercial TV exists to make money. Thats why Oprah pops up books to sell, sell, sell, sell, sell, and why Dr Phil teaches the dumbest viewers "common sense" and sells that in his books with simple ABC-common-sense-logic.

These people make the programs that PAY them the best by going for what makes the average TV viewer spend most. And dumb people are more easily manipulated. TV serves this goal: watch the commercials, buy the books, buy the abs shapers with manipulated photoshop pictures etc. MONEY!

Do you realy think these people care about responsibilities? Oprah adds to the womens view that fat is bad, by repeating it every show that she wants to be thinner and bringing in diet book writers etc. Fat is so bad.

Then tries to manipulate politics, sells another book which she doesnt stands behind. And the commercials with more "get slim fast" machines pop in in between.

MTV with its prefab sentences shows like "make me" or 'roomraiders' are funny and also 100% fake. Every contestant says exactly the same things, pre programmed sentences. The dudes in "the Hills" talk like women wrote their texts. FAKE.

TV exists for entertainment and sales, but take it with a big grain of salt.

[Purity4]

Neko, you're getting extremely confrontational. Help me to understand, please. Did someone close to your family die from not being vaccinated? Do you have some sort of vested interest in making sure every single person is stuck with a multitude of vaccinations, whether they're beneficial or not? I don't understand why you're getting so angry, unless it's because you don't like having your beliefs challenged.

What I expect the chart to look like is... well, let me draw something for you:

http://www.modyourpanties.com/hosting/21403_100717203123expectedfall.jpg

The green line is what I would expect if vaccines really had a hand in eradicating disease like you claim they did. If the numbers were already falling, is it not reasonable to expect them to continue to fall, even without vaccines? And if they would have continued to fall, then what was the point of large-scale vaccination? (I'm not really talking about individual diseases here, like smallpox and whatnot. I'm talking about the dozens of vaccines that kids today have to get in order to not drop dead. Never mind that my generation never got all those jabs and we're still alive. Same goes for my parents' generation... and my grandparents'...)

The polio vaccine variant I was talking about was the oral polio vaccine (OPV). It wasn't just some small subset; it was a big deal. It still is a big deal. From what I can tell, most cases of polio in the developed world today are actually from the vaccine. It's rare, but tell that to some kid who'll never be able to run and play with his friends.

I'll just finish this by saying that I'm not saying not to vaccinate. I'm just pointing out that vaccines are not harmless treats that should be passed out like candy... especially for things that have very little chance of actually killing you, statistically speaking.

That's a nice visual, fakepeeps. :up:

[Oaktree]

The green line is what I would expect if vaccines really had a hand in eradicating disease like you claim they did. If the numbers were already falling, is it not reasonable to expect them to continue to fall, even without vaccines? And if they would have continued to fall, then what was the point of large-scale vaccination? (I'm not really talking about individual diseases here, like smallpox and whatnot. I'm talking about the dozens of vaccines that kids today have to get in order to not drop dead. Never mind that my generation never got all those jabs and we're still alive. Same goes for my parents' generation... and my grandparents'...)

The problem is that the graph you are looking at starts after the introduction of vaccines. Inoculation began to be used in the West in 1796 (it was used long before that in the East). What you are looking at in that chart is the decline of infectious diseases after the introduction of vaccination, which means that there is a good chance that the decline is due to vaccination, but it can't really be said either way without looking at a chart that extends further back. Further, as Nekowolf pointed out, not all vaccines were introduced simultaneously. The steady decline you see could easily be due to the fact that more of the deadly infectious diseases that cause the high mortality rate were being eliminated.

You cannot say that the numbers would have continued to fall without vaccination. There is no control group that allows you to conclusively make that statement. The fact that deaths caused by infectious diseases fell alongside the use of vaccination would seem to indicate that the vaccination was a major part of the reason why. Further, medical sanitation began to be practiced in the 1800's, prior to the first date on the chart, meaning that the effect sanitation would have on infectious disease mortality rates could mostly be accounted for within the first point on the graph. As the graph continued a downward trend after that, it is unlikely that sanitation is the reason for it.