To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
House debates vaccine safety
BY ARTHUR ALLEN
(08/06/99)
Dan Burton deserves some support for standing up against mass vaccination. As a father of a happy, healthy and intelligent 4-month-old boy, I'm not risking his health with certain shots. ADD, ADHD, SIDS, shaken baby syndrome, autism, asthma, epilepsy and other conditions have been blamed on vaccines. There really are not enough thorough long-term safety studies to be sure -- that would cut into the manufacturer's profit margin.
The only thing I want is a choice. In my state of Texas, my child will not be allowed to attend public school (unless we join some crackpot religion that the state deems "established" that forbids us to vaccinate our children) A philosophical reason just ain't good enough. A parent shouldn't have to be forced by the state to make his child a retard in order to give her an education.
-- J.D. Dwinell
Austin, Texas
Isn't this an ugly irony: "Family values" conservatives, who condemn abortion as the killing of children, are now on a crusade to dismantle a system that prevents children from being killed by germs the conservatives can't hope to evangelize. I guess their nostalgia for the "good old days" extends to such elements of those days as scarlet fever.
-- Keith Ammann
Can vaccines be made safer? Certainly. Should we conduct research to find out the risk of complications? Of course! However, I disagree completely with those who would abandon vaccination entirely. Those of us who are fortunate enough to grow up in the last half of the 20th century do not understand how dangerous so-called "childhood" diseases are. In my own family, three of my grandparents' siblings and one of my aunts died from diseases that are now prevented by vaccination. My parents vividly recall the terror of polio epidemics while they were growing up, and can name schoolmates who were stricken with the disease. I'll take the relatively small risk of vaccination over the huge risk of disease any time.
-- Nancy Ott
Pittsburgh
If people don't want to immunize their children, the United States probably shouldn't make them. As soon the unprotected kids start getting sick and the insurance companies raise their premiums, I'm sure these parents will come around.
-- Bryan Johnson
What about all the lives vaccines have hurt? Arthur Allen didn't think to investigate all the facts. Dan Burton is going against the propaganda the vaccine companies have given us, and is making most people think.
-- Kelly Larsen
Phoenix
Aug 13, 1999 |
Yes, sir, that's my cannibal
BY NIKKI FINKE
(08/06/99)
Having recently read "Hannibal," as well as "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs," I can say without reservation that the latest book should not be made into a film. Even a talented director like Ridley Scott can't take sub-par material and turn it into a watchable movie without drastically altering the plot. Michael Mann, director of the superb "Manhunter," and Jonathan Demme, helmsman of "Silence of the Lambs," both had an advantage over Ridley Scott: They had terrific, believable stories to work with. Such is not the case with "Hannibal."
Yes, "Hannibal" is a page-turner. Dr. Lecter is one of the most interesting villains ever written. However, putting Lecter and Clarice Starling through the ridiculous machinations of Mason Verger is a disservice to the characters and to the wonderful actors who portrayed them. And the ending is an obvious setup to bring the disfigured Will Graham out of retirement. Let us hope that Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins take a pass on this multimillion-dollar turkey.
-- Todd Prepsky
Northridge, Calif.
Do picture makers really have talent, or do they depend on gory special effects to carry them through? Excellent movies have been made without leaning on the nauseating visuals. Good story lines with good acting and directing are what we need today. Not simply all the "realism" that today's directors lean on.
I remember when a man could get shot onscreen without showing every detail of his inner anatomy. Too much "blood and guts" has ruined creative moviemaking.
-- Marvin West
Homosassa, Fla.
Nothing Personal
BY AMY REITER
(08/06/99)
I appreciate Amy Reiter's desire to end her column on a witty bon mot. However, being a gay male does not equal experiencing being called a "man" as an insult. None of the reportage of the hetero-altered ballads has intimated that Robin Hood disdained being a man -- on the contrary, it would appear he enjoyed his (and others') manhood very much.
-- M. Daniel
New ethics for the new economy?
BY JANELLE BROWN
(08/06/99)
I'm in the "no investments, no mixing of consulting and journalism, period" camp. My only financial interest in any technology company is a small stock option granted by Andover.net, the online publisher for which I work. If I want to start my own consulting company, write PR material or corporate "white paper" reports or trade technology stocks, I must quit writing and editing for Andover. This is not an edict from my boss. It is my own, personal ethical position.
A freelancer writing a story from "inside" a given field is not an unbiased journalist, and should not be regarded as one. As long as the insider piece is clearly identified as what it is, either from copy it contains or in a separate editorial disclaimer, I see no problem with it. Rebecca L. Eisenberg, for example, writes a column that is clearly opinion-based, rather than fact-based, and she has never been shy about openly promoting the "RLE" brand.
My self-imposed set of rock-hard journalistic ethics will probably keep me from ever becoming wealthy as a nonfiction writer. I have no problem with this. I got into journalism because I like the work, and gradually drifted into computer reporting because I like to play with computers. No one forced Chris Nolan or anyone else go into journalism full time. Those who have done so, but now feel they aren't earning enough money at it, should take one of three courses: Either find a better-paying job within the field, leave it entirely or find an unrelated source of "side" income.
-- Robin Miller
The story should be titled, "New economy, no ethics." If your reporting is biased by financial, or other gain, it is inaccurate disinformation.
This is not to say journalists should never be compensated for their writing -- but it should be very clear what the sponsorship aspect to any article is, so as to avoid misleading a trusting public. It's a difficult task, but an important one. In an age when the news media is becoming the commercial between the commercials, journalists should promote and adhere to full disclosure.
-- Harry Brown
Dissecting the Barbie debate
BY JANELLE BROWN
(08/06/99)
John Dvorak has a long history of missing the biggest trends yet somehow profiting from those mistakes. Not only has he derided the mouse as a useful input device, he's also derided the GUI and other technological innovations.
The ironic thing is, just recently, Dvorak wrote a column on how depressing the state of industrial design in the computing world was. I quote:
In the 50s, they used to paint cars with two colors. There was even a three-tone era, and the colors included pink and chartreuse. Only Mary Kay Cosmetics paints cars pink any more. Look at the parking lot today, and see what you see: muted gray, muted brown, muted green, and white. It's almost impossible to find your car among the sameness.
Let's see, it's OK to paint cars in two or three tones, but on computers, it's "girly." It's OK to praise a cosmetics company for painting cars pink because it's simply different, but the "effeminate" iBook is doomed to failure for the exact same reason. Huh??
Even if Dvorak claims he's not really sexist, his column putting down the iBook does indeed promote and foster the sexual stereotypes still embedded in the industry. He gives voice to all those unenlightened and unimaginative poor souls who think square corners, exposed hinges, mismatched colors, ungainly ports, and clunky mechanical mechanism is actually good design.
-- Paul Lee
I appreciate that Janelle Brown came onto "Silicon Spin" in person to talk about the iBook debate. She helped elevate the discussion, as we thought she would. But I found her post-show column a little strange, in that Janelle said afterward that it had been a "good discussion." It's unfortunate she received hate mail, but that's what happens when you push buttons. (You should see what they wrote to Dvorak.)
As for the TV show, we've never tolerated personal attacks on guests. When Dvorak introduced the special as "the Jerry Springer version" he meant that as a joke. The only person attacked on Spin is Dvorak himself, who can take the heat.
-- Robin McCall
Producer, "Silicon Spin"
I give Dvorak very little serious consideration. He is often so inflammatory (and wrong) about the market, social forces and technology in general that it is laughable. The iMac was and is still dismissed as being too cutesy, yet continues to rake in cash for Apple. He doesn't understand that more and more students and families have gender-neutral aesthetics, and that there is a significant postmodern population disgusted with facile gender stereotypes, traditional marketing strategies and conventional wisdom. Our culture is constantly changing. I applaud Janelle Brown for having the insight to notice that fact, and for having the courage to express views that are based on critical reasoning instead of unconscious prejudice.
-- Dave Barnhart
Life or death software
BY ANDREW LEONARD
(08/05/99)
If individual programmers could be found liable for failures in software they wrote, it would have a chilling effect on the development of open source medical software.
I think the likely answer comes from the models for the deployment of Linux. Those health care organizations for whom theoretical liability is less important than low cost and high reliability will take advantage of free software distributions. Such organizations might include many in the developing world.
The other deployment model follows the example of Red Hat Software. Red Hat packages a distribution of Linux and sells it for a nominal fee. They add value in several ways. By testing all components of the operating system at selected levels, they assure that the distribution is stable. They provide some technical support as part of the package. The bulk of their revenue comes from the sale of additional technical support and services.
A medical version of Red Hat could provide extensively tested software distributions and support services. In addition, it could submit its distributions for FDA certification as appropriate and could assume liability for the quality of the distributions. It could charge accordingly for these additional services. As you point out, the degree of liability to be assumed by any software company for its products is still being determined; this model merely suggests that it will possible to play by the same rules for open source software in the medical arena.
-- Steve Doubleday