Vaccination is a very serious topic that should not be taken lightly, especially in the case of the MMR vaccine. In days before the MMR vaccine, 1 in 3 children died before his or her fifth birthday. Presently, 1 in 150 children die before his or her fifth birthday in developed countries. According to Wilson (2009), this decrease in child’s death is not only a result of better sanitation, but also a result of vaccines. The MMR vaccine is a combination vaccine that protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, all of which used to be deadly diseases to small children.
Some benefits of vaccination are: to protect your child from MMR diseases, to decrease the chance and size of outbreaks, and to protect others through herd immunity. Although some people have questioned the safety of this vaccine after its alleged link to autism, many studies have been conducted and have yet to find a direct link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
In my opinion you can tell people to vaccinate their children until you run out of breath; however, sometimes when people are too set in their ways to conform, it is important to reiterate the importance of vaccinating to protect others through herd immunity. When a child has leukemia, he or she cannot be vaccinated because his or her body is too weak to handle even the smallest of immune challenges. In these circumstances, herd immunity may be the determining factor as to whether a child lives or dies. Through the concept of herd immunity, the majority of people get vaccinated so that there are fewer cases of the disease thus lessening the chance that the disease will spread and therefore protecting the minority who are physically incapable of being vaccinated.
In order to protect your child, decrease the chance and size of outbreaks, and provide immunities for those who cannot be vaccinated, you must make sure you and your family is vaccinated. If you would like to get vaccinated all you have to do is contact your local physician and make an appointment to go get your injection. So make that phone call and get yourself vaccinated!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Respond To A Classmate: Marne's Formula 50
After browsing some of my fellow student’s LSC 100 blogs, I came across an article on Marne Bruckner’s page that quickly caught my eye. At the top of the screen there was a large photo of 50 cent and his advertising campaign supporting his newly formulated vitamin water dubbed “Formula 50”. In her article, Marne discussed how big name rappers and other stars are paid an insane amount of money to indorse different products, in an attempt to get the consumers to buy their products.
I agree with Marne’s opinion on this idea, which is that in this situation, as in most others, 50 cent is not qualified to indorse vitamin water. I also liked how Marne drew attention to some of 50’s lyrics, “You can find me in the club, bottle full of bub, look mami I got the X if you into taken drugs…” With this clever use of 50’s words, Marne directly showed how 50 cent isn’t too terribly concerned about his health or about consuming products which are good for one’s health such as drinking the vitamin water that he endorses.
In the end, it usually turns up that the celebrity is unfit to endorse the product that he or she gets paid to advertise. Most actors, although I can’t say that I necessarily blame them, are in these commercials to make an easy buck. In return, the companies are profiting from their celebrity endorses because most people don’t stop to think about whether or not the person selling the product is qualified enough to know what he or she is talking about, or if they do, the consumer may not even care if he or she is a fan of the celebrity. In the end, however, I guess if companies are willing to hire good advertisers and people are willing to buy the product, then all the more power to the company for thinking of using that celebrity.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Kutcher's Camera
While watching the various football games over Thanksgiving break, I couldn’t help but notice Ashton Kutcher’s face gracing my television screen during EVERY commercial break. Kutcher would oh and ah, turn his head, move around, and dance with his little toy: the Nikon camera.
As many people know, Nikon has always been a brand that creates a fierce competition in the camera industry. With many professionals utilizing Nikon products everyday, people began to desire that same great quality in their everyday photographs. Nikon finally gave the public what they wanted and found a way to make the professional quality camera affordable for the amateur photographer, and some would say that Nikon’s new Coolpix camera does just that.
Although I do not own a Nikon Coolpix camera, I have read some positive reviews about it as well as heard positive feedback from some of my friends that own the camera. Like previously stated, Nikon never seems to disappoint, and always brings a great camera to market. The discrepancy, however, lies in Kutcher.
Does Kutcher, busy, super star actor, really have time to be snapping photos with his Nikon? Sure, most people want more photos capturing the greater moments in life, but how many people seriously carry a camera around with them 24/7? And even if they do, which percent of those people takes them time to break out the camera, make everyone freeze, and then pause for a photo?
Don’t get me wrong, I am a big Ashton Kutcher fan and believe that Nikon is a great camera company; however, I’m not so sure Kutcher should be the one to make this kind of judgment. Let’s face it, he spends the majority of his time in front of the camera, not behind it.
By bringing Kutcher into the commercial, I’m sure that the Nikon company has seen an increase in sales. After all, they caught my eye, as well as many others at my Thanksgiving, so what’s to say that they are not influencing the public.
I understand why companies use celebrities to sell their products; however, I think people need to look at quality of the actual product itself rather than the status of the person the company paid to endorse it.
Stem-Cell Research
The two opposing articles I chose to read were on the topic of stem cell research. Stem cell research is currently a very controversial topic. The purpose of stem cell research is to take cells from an embryo that has not matured and manipulate those cells to be used anywhere in the body. For example, a popular stem cell research topic right now is taking the stem cells and injecting them into damaged heart tissue to see if those cells will take on the role of the heart cells, start to regenerate, and then repair the damaged heart tissue.
Those who are against stem cell research argue that by conducting stem cell research, the embryos from which the stem cells are derived are “killed” and cannot develop into a human being. Those who are in favor of stem cell research argue that by using these stem cells, one is saving a human’s life who is already developed and has experienced what it feels like to live; whereas, the embryo has not yet developed and is simply a bundle of cells at the time the stem cells are extracted.
I think the article that supported stem cell research was more convincing because it mentioned the facts and the opposing viewpoints of the topic. It also attempted to refute the opposing viewpoints with facts and knowledge, and not by simply stating that the opposing viewpoints were wrong just because they were wrong. My opinion of the topic has not changed because the articles against stem cell research have no solid backup for their point of view other than stem cell research is unethical, basically based on religion. While religion is great, and people are entitled to their own opinions, I believe people can be religious without following every guideline outlined for them by documents created hundreds or thousands of years ago when these topics of concern didn’t exist.
In my opinion, if you can save the life of someone living who has experienced life, you should, and that is the correct ethical decision.
Those who are against stem cell research argue that by conducting stem cell research, the embryos from which the stem cells are derived are “killed” and cannot develop into a human being. Those who are in favor of stem cell research argue that by using these stem cells, one is saving a human’s life who is already developed and has experienced what it feels like to live; whereas, the embryo has not yet developed and is simply a bundle of cells at the time the stem cells are extracted.
I think the article that supported stem cell research was more convincing because it mentioned the facts and the opposing viewpoints of the topic. It also attempted to refute the opposing viewpoints with facts and knowledge, and not by simply stating that the opposing viewpoints were wrong just because they were wrong. My opinion of the topic has not changed because the articles against stem cell research have no solid backup for their point of view other than stem cell research is unethical, basically based on religion. While religion is great, and people are entitled to their own opinions, I believe people can be religious without following every guideline outlined for them by documents created hundreds or thousands of years ago when these topics of concern didn’t exist.
In my opinion, if you can save the life of someone living who has experienced life, you should, and that is the correct ethical decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)