Science: Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine"

[Bill Mattocks]

A person who selflessly sacrifices themself for the good of others is usually lauded as a hero, rather than the opposite. Those folks who run toward the gunfire or into a burning building may have a very different mentality than you, but do you really consider them "morons?"

Does the fact that the action here is far less dramatic really change how you perceive these people?

It's not the same thing. 'Dramatic' has nothing to do with it. It's math.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just like childhood vaccination for rubella, this vaccine will protect the population as a whole. You, and everyone else. Epidemiology doesn't really fit very well into Galtian-logic.

No, it's not a vaccine. Read again. You are not protected. In fact, you are specifically NOT protected. If you get bit by a mosquito infected with Dengue Fever, you run the same risk of becoming infected as an un-innoculated person. A 'vaccine' stops you getting the disease or illness. This isn't one.

 

[Empty Hands]

No, it's not a vaccine. Read again. You are not protected. In fact, you are specifically NOT protected. If you get bit by a mosquito infected with Dengue Fever, you run the same risk of becoming infected as an un-innoculated person. A 'vaccine' stops you getting the disease or illness. This isn't one.

It will induce a herd immunity if a critical percentage of the population takes it. That's the same thing a vaccine does. If enough people do their part, everyone is protected. The "screw you Jack, I've got mine!" attitude specifically prevents an individual from being protected if everyone takes that attitude.

They become, just like vaccine-deniers now, freeloaders on the risks that everyone else has taken.

I thought Objectivists hated freeloaders?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It will induce a herd immunity if a critical percentage of the population takes it. That's the same thing a vaccine does. If enough people do their part, everyone is protected.

No, the population is NOT protected. Ever. That's what I mean about this being a scam for those unable to do math.

For everyone to be protected, every mosquito capable of carrying Dengue Fever would have to bite a person who was inoculated and die - BEFORE they reproduce. In other words, mosquitoes would have to become extinct. That's not going to happen.

The "screw you Jack, I've got mine!" attitude specifically prevents an individual from being protected if everyone takes that attitude.

I's not 'screw you Jack, I've got mine,' it's 'screw you, Jack, I'm not exposing myself to an unknown-what-it-does to me inoculation AND exposing myself to a disease which will NOT do anything for anyone else except for an unknown number of people protected by not being bitten by MY particular mosquito.

They become, just like vaccine-deniers now, freeloaders on the risks that everyone else has taken.

I thought Objectivists hated freeloaders?

It's not a vaccine, it does not become a vaccine, and Ojectivism doesn't enter into it, that I can see.

 

[blindsage]

I'm not really sure where the problem is with this. If there are some serious side effects sure, I wouldn't want it either, but if it could help save not just strangers but friends, family members, your children? Why wouldn't you want to take it? Is there an assumption that your going to be hurt by the injection, or that it's going to cost a fortune? I'm really confused where the perceived negative is with this?

 

[blindsage]

No, the population is NOT protected. Ever. That's what I mean about this being a scam for those unable to do math.

Your making big 'mathematical' assumptions here. I would think it would be better to see evidence of whether or not this kind of effort works rather than assume based on surface logic whether or not it could.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not really sure where the problem is with this. If there are some serious side effects sure, I wouldn't want it either, but if it could help save not just strangers but friends, family members, your children? Why wouldn't you want to take it? Is there an assumption that your going to be hurt by the injection, or that it's going to cost a fortune? I'm really confused where the perceived negative is with this?

"It does not harm" is not a valid reason for me to take it. What does it do for me? Nothing. What does it do for my friends, family, or even strangers? Nothing - unless, on the off chance, a mosquito that bites me first, also would have bitten them but won't now because it is dead. What is that statistical probability (Defined as 'X')? Unknown. Give me a value for X and I'll let you know if it is worth it to me. No value for X? See ya.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I'm not really sure where the problem is with this. If there are some serious side effects sure, I wouldn't want it either, but if it could help save not just strangers but friends, family members, your children? Why wouldn't you want to take it? Is there an assumption that your going to be hurt by the injection, or that it's going to cost a fortune? I'm really confused where the perceived negative is with this?

Why would anyone take a vaccine if it didn't vaccinate them? Why put money into an 'altruistic' vaccine, when you can work on an actual vaccine?

Blindsage, I'm thinking of going on vacation in Afghanistan, but I don't have any body armour. Will you come with me and strap yourself onto my chest? It seems you will have no problem taking a bullet for me.

And yes, I would say if the thing makes your blood POISENOUS to mosquitoes then there is some danger involved. There is danger involved in most vaccines.

The whole notion is silly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your making big 'mathematical' assumptions here.

Not at all. In fact, it is the reverse.

The first thing to note it that 'vaccine' is being used here in an inappropriate way. It does not vaccinate anyone against anything. It turns your blood into poison that kills (supposedly) mosquitoes.

The second thing to note is that the only mosquitoes it kills is the ones that bite you - and now you may be exposed to Denque Fever, the same as anyone who gets bitten by a mosquito in that geographical area, whether they have taken the 'vaccine' or not.

The third thing to note is that once the mosquito bites you, it dies - but you have no way of knowing two important things:

1) Are you the first person it ever bit, or the 133rd?
2) Would it have bitten anyone else after it bit you, if you hadn't killed it with your poisonous blood?

Now, this is no assumption - these are facts, as stated by the person who proposes creating this 'altruistic vaccine'. There is nothing here to dispute. I am stating what he is stating - but I am stating it clearly, and without the buzzwords. No assumptions at all.

In fact, I'm even going along with him and presuming that it actually works and does turn your blood into poison that kills mosquitoes.

I would think it would be better to see evidence of whether or not this kind of effort works rather than assume based on surface logic whether or not it could.

I am presuming it works as intended, and pointing out that it is a flawed mathematical model. There is nothing 'surface level' about it - I'm presuming from the assumption that it works exactly as described.

You read the word 'vaccine' and you presume that means it confers something in the way of protection on you or your friends and family. It is not a vaccine, the word is being used improperly.

It would be precisely the same if I encouraged everyone to swat mosquitoes on sight. If they did that, the mosquito in question could not bite anyone else, and would thus reduce the incidence of Dengue Fever. Would it? Do you suppose people do NOT swat mosquitoes when they catch them? Has it been working to reduce the incidence of Dengue Fever transmission?

All this is - in essence - is a super mosquito swatter. It 'swats' by poisoning every mosquito that bites you. Swatting mosquitoes is a crap-shoot - there is no mathematical model that can solve for X with X being the number of people who WOULD have been bitten if the mosquito in question had not been 'swatted' by your blood poison.

I'm sorry, this is really basic stuff. The Gates Foundation is moronic if they could not see the flaw in this one on paper. What a waste of money. As to taking the 'vaccine' myself, no way. It's not a question of waiting to see if it works - it can't - by their own logic.

 

[blindsage]

Blindsage, I'm thinking of going on vacation in Afghanistan, but I don't have any body armour. Will you come with me and strap yourself onto my chest? It seems you will have no problem taking a bullet for me.

Ok, I actually laughed at this image.

 

[blindsage]

Not at all. In fact, it is the reverse.

The first thing to note it that 'vaccine' is being used here in an inappropriate way. It does not vaccinate anyone against anything. It turns your blood into poison that kills (supposedly) mosquitoes.

Agreed.

The second thing to note is that the only mosquitoes it kills is the ones that bite you - and now you may be exposed to Denque Fever, the same as anyone who gets bitten by a mosquito in that geographical area, whether they have taken the 'vaccine' or not.

Maybe. Unless enough people have been injected to affect the mosquito population and infection rate.

The third thing to note is that once the mosquito bites you, it dies - but you have no way of knowing two important things:

1) Are you the first person it ever bit, or the 133rd?
2) Would it have bitten anyone else after it bit you, if you hadn't killed it with your poisonous blood?

Now, this is no assumption - these are facts, as stated by the person who proposes creating this 'altruistic vaccine'. There is nothing here to dispute. I am stating what he is stating - but I am stating it clearly, and without the buzzwords. No assumptions at all.

I'm not confused, I understand what he's saying. I'm disagreeing with you, there's a difference.

In fact, I'm even going along with him and presuming that it actually works and does turn your blood into poison that kills mosquitoes.

I am presuming it works as intended, and pointing out that it is a flawed mathematical model. There is nothing 'surface level' about it - I'm presuming from the assumption that it works exactly as described.

No, you're assuming it works as you think it would work, which obviously not how the scientist or the Gates Foundation think it would work.

You read the word 'vaccine' and you presume that means it confers something in the way of protection on you or your friends and family. It is not a vaccine, the word is being used improperly.

No, I specifically haven't used the word vaccine, because as you have pointed out that is not what this is. The word is being used incorrectly, I am not presuming anything.

It would be precisely the same if I encouraged everyone to swat mosquitoes on sight. If they did that, the mosquito in question could not bite anyone else, and would thus reduce the incidence of Dengue Fever. Would it? Do you suppose people do NOT swat mosquitoes when they catch them? Has it been working to reduce the incidence of Dengue Fever transmission?

Exactly the same? Aside from the fact that most people don't know they've been bit until the bite starts to itch, no it is not the same.

All this is - in essence - is a super mosquito swatter. It 'swats' by poisoning every mosquito that bites you. Swatting mosquitoes is a crap-shoot - there is no mathematical model that can solve for X with X being the number of people who WOULD have been bitten if the mosquito in question had not been 'swatted' by your blood poison.

Actually there's plenty of models that could account for this given the human population, the mosquito population, the infection rate, the effectiveness of the poison. It's been pretty effective in areas where there are swamp land that breed mosquito that when you remove the swamp land, fill them in, dry them out, whatever, the mosquito population goes down, but you don't think that poisoning their food supply could have any effect? Their not talking about 1 person, or 10 people, their talking about giving this to a community, so yes your logic fails at that level without actually trying it and seeing it's effectiveness.

I'm sorry, this is really basic stuff. The Gates Foundation is moronic if they could not see the flaw in this one on paper. What a waste of money. As to taking the 'vaccine' myself, no way. It's not a question of waiting to see if it works - it can't - by their own logic.

I'm not saying that it necessarily will work, but it might, by their own logic, and thinking of how one person is affected in isolation is not the point they are trying to make. No one is likely to force you to take this, but your logic is flawed.

 

[yorkshirelad]

All this is - in essence - is a super mosquito swatter. quote]
The only difference is that it's a poisonous super mosquito swatter, that you have to lick before using. Again the whole thing is silly.

BTW, the exchange between Bob and Bill has been the most entertaining thing that I have read on this forum. Thanks gents.

 

[Empty Hands]

No, the population is NOT protected. Ever. That's what I mean about this being a scam for those unable to do math.

You are simply wrong. If you reduce the supply of Dengue carrying mosquitos and poison their food source, you reduce Dengue mosquitos, and reduce infections. There is some simple math for you.

Part of your conceptual problem is thinking of this in personal terms with just you and just your mosquito. This will have population wide effects and reduce infection rates over an entire population.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Disregarding the whole "Screw you Jack, I've got mine" debate.....

On the assumption that this...treatment, let's call it...has no negative side effects on the person and would be substantially effective in combatting the spread of the disease, then yes, I would agree to taking it. No harm to me, a benefit to the community.

I would like to point out that while I would agree to taking the treatment, I would not want it to become a mandatory action. As BM has pointed out, the treatment does not provide a benefit to the person being innoculated, and as EH has pointed out, such measures do not rely on 1 or even 100 people taking it to be effective. "Altruistic" loses its wind when it's not voluntary.

All I really have to say on the matter.

 

[yorkshirelad]

You are simply wrong. If you reduce the supply of Dengue carrying mosquitos and poison their food source, you reduce Dengue mosquitos, and reduce infections. quote]
tWhat exactly is the mosquito's food supply? It's you. If you poison the food supply you are poisoning yourself and at the same time, you're getting dengue. I'm really enjoying this thread, but I still find the logic of an 'altruistic' vaccine rather bizarre and fundamentally flawed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just something else I was thinking of at dojo tonight. Suppose this 'vaccine' comes to market. If I apply a mosquito repellent, I'm not allowing myself to be bitten, and thus defeating the purpose of the 'altruistic vaccine'. I guess that would make me a criminal!

 

[Carol]

Being a bit of a goofball, my first thought was "There is a vaccine for Altruism? I didn't know that was a disease" :rofl:

When surfing around FMA talk, I've surfed on to links that have talked about Dengue Fever and how attacks have devastated communities in the region. There hasn't been as much research done on diseases such as this because its an issue that largely blights developing nations (that aren't a source of substantial profit).

So whether one of you, or me, or someone else on this board would or would not take the "vaccine" is basically irrelevant. Dengue Fever has not invaded wealthy western nations. If it ever did, there would be a momentous increase in funding for its prevention and treatment.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So whether one of you, or me, or someone else on this board would or would not take the "vaccine" is basically irrelevant. Dengue Fever has not invaded wealthy western nations. If it ever did, there would be a momentous increase in funding for its prevention and treatment.

I worked in Brazil for awhile (Manaus). I took anti-malaria pills and got my Hep A (or was it B) shots. They didn't have anything to take for Dengue, still don't. It's really common in the jungle.

 

[Carol]

I worked in Brazil for awhile (Manaus). I took anti-malaria pills and got my Hep A (or was it B) shots. They didn't have anything to take for Dengue, still don't. It's really common in the jungle.

And damn difficult to treat, from what I hear.

Sigh. That's depressing. I think I need to cheer myself up with thoughts of opening special schools for kids affected with altruism.