The swine flu vaccine

"It can cause autism, cancer and Alzheimer's; just eat fruit and vegetables to stay healthy!"

There are needles and pharmaceutical companies involved (and many people think that antibiotics kill viruses), so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised to encounter sentiments like the above. But people can get so emotional about vaccines! The specter of mandated vaccination terrifies far more effectively than does the H1N1 virus. Is this fear justified?

More...

For the purposes of this post, lets say that you are weighing the risks of getting vaccinated. From your point of view, it may well seem like you are faced with a choice: a risk of a 'natural' disease; or a scary needle combined with a risk of an 'unnatural' disease. But let's zoom out, and put things in perspective.

Infectious and parasitic diseases are collectively responsible for the deaths of a huge majority of the humans that have ever walked the Earth (malaria alone has killed about half of us). If pathogens could be seen, we would recoil from them with more disgust than we do from the sight of any snake or spider. According to Wikipedia, they account for over 19% of the modern annual death rate, which is second only to cardiovascular disease, and leaves autism, Alzheimer's, and even cancer in the dust. They are caused by organisms which mutate and evolve rapidly, making them dangerously volatile and hard to contain. Even on battlefields, where people have done their darnedest to kill each other, infectious diseases have tended to do a much better job of it. If we really want to survive and thrive as a species, we need to put serious effort into controlling these parasites by doing whatever we can to limit their room to spread, and thus mutate, evolve, and possibly become more virulent.

"But it's only the flu"? Hmm.

On the other hand, you have the vaccine. An important first point is that the H1N1 influenza vaccine, although it is being administered separately, differs very little from the usual yearly 'flu shot', which itself needs to be varied slightly year to year. The influenza vaccine has been in use since the end of WWII. Vaccines have allowed us to eradicate or corner terrible diseases like small pox and polio. And what they haven't done is leave a legacy of mercury poisoning and cancer. Vaccines are arguably mankind's single most important medical advance. Ever. Untold thousands are alive today because of them. Like anything that actually does anything to you medically speaking, they may cause allergic reactions or other complications; they are not risk-free. But the vast majority of the accusations leveled at vaccines are just the result of a public lack of: scientific understanding; trust in government; and love of needles. Get informed, and weigh the risk against the alternative risk of not only becoming infected, but also of possibly infecting someone else, who then infects someone else, and so on.

If you are still choosing to forgo personal vaccination, then at least consider the ethical implications of the anti-vaccine hype. By choosing not to be vaccinated, a person risks communicating the flu to a vulnerable second party and allows the virus "room" to evolve. This is not just like deciding not to wear a bike helmet; your decision impacts others. And think before you try to change the choices of those around you! Are you really saying that those suffering from swine flu brought it upon themselves by neglecting their greens? Be careful; blame shifts with responsibility! And might not they neglect vaccination, for fear of being seen by you to pad the pockets of the evil drug companies? Are the people who look up to you having their choice made for them?

Unfortunately, there are real vaccine-related scandals, but they have more to do with the fact that there's only so much to go around. That people in poorer countries will have less protection from H1N1 is only part of it: will vaccinating only the affluent really help anyone in the long run?

(A special thanks to Dr B. And apologies for my liberal use of the word "organisms" )

The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH)

It's personal; this one got me at first.

The idea is that many of our morphological differences with the chimps (less hair, bipedalism, nose shape, body fat distribution, fat babies, possession of a "diving reflex", etc.) can be explained by postulating the existence of an intervening human ancestor that had experienced the selective pressures of an aquatic or semi-aquatic environment. So according to this view, a lack of hair is supposedly meant to help us swim faster; bipedalism to help us wade in the shallows; our strangely shaped noses to keep water out; and our body fat is actually blubber and so on. I'm probably underselling it, but it's actually quite a seductive idea. Especially when first encountered, say, in this BBC documentary which features Elaine Morgan (the AAH's best friend), or during her TED appearance.

After some reflection, though, I have discarded this rather endearing meme. I mean, babies do look pretty cool in the water (okay - some of them), but if an aquatic environment really shaped us morphologically to such a degree, why do we drown so easily? why does our skin become water-logged? why is swimming so bloody hard? and why can't I see better underwater? The more I thought, the more it all fell apart.

Let's be clear: no one is saying that bodies of water were completely absent from the world of our ancestors. Obviously, we need water to live. But that's not what the AAH is about; the AAH makes very specific claims, most of which either lack, or are undermined by, evidence. Here is a cool site which is dedicated to dismantling the AAH point by point, if you want to investigate it more thoroughly.

Why is all of this even important? Well, ever since I realized that the AAH is actually somewhat fanciful, I seem to feel slightly better about swimming fewer laps in the pool, and not liking oysters.

More importantly, Elaine and other proponents claim that the scientific community is dismissing their arguments out of hand, and failing to offer alternative explanations. There are in fact many different alternative explanations, and, as I noted above, there are many points that the AAH does not address. AAH adherents thus seem to me to be arbitrarily connecting the dots; constructing a constellation which ignores dim or merely inconvenient stars to trace out an interesting image which subsequently appears obvious. They embrace evolution by natural selection, and seek to understand actual observations via a plausible explanation. But they also cherry-pick the facts instead of letting them speak for themselves. The road to a better understanding of our world is littered with many a stumbling block.

The raw food diet

The idea that cooking your food is bad for you has never sit well with me. I take issue with the term "living foods" to describe raw foods. In an anthropology class, a fellow student even asked if humans suddenly had to eat more food when they discovered fire and started cooking it, due to it's supposedly inferior nutritional value.

I like potatoes, onions and meat, but not raw. Is it really better not to eat ANY cooked foods? And if so, where do we draw the line between "cooked" and "not cooked"? What about just warming things up a little bit? What about denaturing proteins with lemon juice? What about drying your food in the sunshine?

Moreover, I keep running into citations of research that has apparently shown that cooking tomatoes may actually make them "better" for you, because it makes a carotenoid pigment and essential nutrient called lycopene more available for your body to use. The research also showed that cooking tomatoes lowered their vitamin C content, but since it seems like EVERYTHING I eat contains 200% of my daily recommended vitamin C intake, this might actually be a sacrifice worth making.

To me, this illustrates the actual nature of food preparation: it's chemistry. And incredibly complicated chemistry at that, because it must take into account the chemical and biological properties of both the food and the devourer. In other words, stating that raw food is better for you than cooked food is heavily oversimplified at best; it depends on the food as well as on the person. You can't really say that it makes it more or less healthy, all you can really say is that when you cook food, it changes.

To pursue a truly raw food diet, you must give up most restaurants and spend large amounts of time shopping for fresh produce and rendering it edible. So not only are the health benefits disputable, but it's just plain inconvenient!

Give your body more credit and enjoy your life! Beware of the raw food dogma; there are so many things humans can get away with eating! I have had some amazing raw food dishes, but I like to eat food that tastes good, makes me feel good and is relatively easy to obtain and prepare. Sometimes, that includes raw food.

US missle defence plans reconsidered

The American "missile defense shield" bases in Poland and The Czech Republic are being scrapped in favor of a kind of sea-based network. The bases were part of a proposed Bush administration plan to protect Europe from attack from "rogue states", specifically Iran. (Of course, anyone with access to a map can be forgiven for being skeptical of this claim!) Russia was not pleased about them and the Bush administration was repeatedly compelled to state that the bases posed no threat to Moscow. Despite this, tensions grew and in 2008 a Russian general even threatened Poland with a nuclear strike for agreeing to the plan. Understandably, in both Poland and the Czech Republic, popular enthusiasm for thus pleasing America was somewhat dampened by worry. And pleasing America is no trivial matter - there are real worries (in Poland at least) that relations with the US will suffer as a result of the scrapping of the plan.

One thing in all of this is clear to me; even IF there was some diabolical Iranian plan to launch a missile attack upon the West in the near future (a stretch in itself) it would not have been effected significantly by US bases in North-Eastern Europe anyway! Again - check out a map. The fact that not only was an Iranian threat to Europe used as an excuse to construct these bases, but that ridicule of this idea was so subdued in the mainstream media, is, I believe, important for two reasons: Firstly, it's a great example of an obviously flimsy excuse being largely unquestioned and regurgitated by the media and thus popularly accepted; and secondly, where are the conspiracy theorists??? Why do they constantly miss their easiest targets? Why accuse the government of UFO and 9/11 cover-ups, despite a complete lack of evidence, and then allow blatant lies ("we went to war for democracy") and misdeeds (torture) regarding more "mundane" (in other words, existent) issues to go unquestioned?

The question is NOT "does government lie?" Of course they do!! The question is "should we really continue to ignore the lies that are there for all to see, in favor of the ones that we might well be imagining?"

So what was the real point of this missile defense system? Personally, I think Russia had some legitimate concerns.

About this blog

"Meme" (rhymes with "cream"): A theoretical "unit of communicable information". Individually, memes are traditions, beliefs, techniques, jokes, or anything else that can be transmitted from one mind to another. Together, memes constitute cultures. 

"Screen": a) A selectively permeable barrier, or a filter. b) To investigate with the aim of identifying a particular feature or problem. Also: c) the face of your computer monitor - why not?

- MemeScreen's Purpose -

I have subtitled this blog "discerning reality in the age of information", but I hasten to add that I do not presume to be telling you what is and isn't "real": what I really mean this to imply is that I am attempting to improve my own view of reality by way of authoring this blog. For example, doing so compels me to think about and investigate popular beliefs and ideas more deeply than I might otherwise; and by openly sharing my findings and personal opinions on these, I also allow others to offer perspectives that I might not have considered otherwise. In other words, I am not so much trying to impress upon you my opinions, as I am trying to enlist your help in formulating, refining, and informing them.


That said, I would like to encourage critical thinking and to promote a science- and reason-based world-view, as I am currently convinced of the nobility of this goal. I am also aiming to entertain my readers, and to provide them with a useful resource which they might then use to combat popular misconceptions.

- The Author's Pledge -

I will attempt to be accurate in my writing (both in terms of content and meaning); and as transparent and intellectually honest in my conduct as possible. I will post a courteous response to any comments or inquiries that warrant one. I will pay close attention to any constructive criticism. I will attempt to update this blog regularly. MemeScreen is nonprofit and will forever remain ad-free.

- A Word On Links -

I use links in three different ways. Here is a brief explanation of each. 

1) If a link is encased in "quotation marks", is a disambiguation link, which will most often lead to something like a Wikipedia page that explains in greater detail any potentially ambiguous words or concepts I am referring to. 

2) If I put a link at the end of a statement, a succession of statements, or a quote, it is a supportive link meant to back-up or justify a claim that I am making, or to site the source of the information or quote to which I am referring. 

3) I will also draw your attention to any especially worthwhile link by saying something like "check out this video!", or by giving some other hint as to it's contents. The bigger the fuss I make about them, the more you should consider clicking on them. These will tend to lead you to things like entertaining and relevant YouTube clips, TED talks, newspaper articles, etc. 

- A New Development (**July 2012 Update**) -

It has now (as of this writing) been almost three years since I started this blog, and over this time it has evolved considerably. Most notably, my articles have gradually become much more time-consuming as I have sought to continually raise the bar in terms of their comprehensiveness, originality, and overall quality. In addition, I have become much busier with school than I was in the recent past. The downside to all this is that MemeScreen is being updated much less frequently than it was previously - and much less frequently than I would like. To compensate for this without reversing the increasing quality of my feature articles, I have decided to begin filling the space between them with "Mini Memes": less ambitious and more narrowly-focused entries that can be concocted more rapidly. If you have any, please share with me your thoughts and feelings on this change.

- Dear Reader -

Thank you for visiting my blog! Let's stay in touch - see the sidebar for subscription options. If you feel MemeScreen could be better please feel free to suggest possible improvements. I wish you good health and happiness whoever you are, and wherever in the world you may be.


MemeScreen is dedicated to my dear and lovely sister.

Yours Sincerely,
N. Harland Bird