- This topic has 148 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
zk.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 3, 2015 at 5:48 PM #782603February 3, 2015 at 6:22 PM #782605
SK in CV
Participant[quote=zk]
Those Obama and Clinton comments were made, I believe, in 2008. The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s paper in 2010.[/quote]That’s the difference between science and beliefs. Both Clinton and Obama favored relying on science. (And I suspect, still do.) Beliefs survive criticism. They exist irrespective of criticism. Science doesn’t. Science asks for it. Constant review. Constant scrutiny. Science relies on the best available evidence, that will stand up to that criticism and scrutiny.
Obama may have been a little late to the criticism and subsequent conclusions about the quality of Wakefield’s work. But he was right. These things did need to be studied. And now, almost 7 years later, they have been. Conclusively.
February 3, 2015 at 6:28 PM #782606Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]
Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]It’s also remotely possible that Rand Paul knows the personal liberty approach is a dead end. The supreme court already ruled on it. 110 years ago. State mandated vaccines are legal.
February 3, 2015 at 6:39 PM #782608bobby
ParticipantI’m all for personal liberty but personal liberty does not include putting others at risk.
I don’t have the personal “liberty” to shoot bullets into the sky within a city limit. I don’t have the personal “liberty” to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
I agree with a lot of Rand Paul’s ideas but the optional vaccine is just idiotic.February 3, 2015 at 6:40 PM #782607Participantyou must be a math major (stat), pediatrician or epidemiologist.
well put.
I am a physician who love numbers (engineer in previous life) and can’t explain as well as you did[quote=biggoldbear]Just in case anyone runs into a “informed” anti-vaxer, some vaccines can cause adverse reactions in a small number of people (From CDC) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm
But this argument is similar to saying that some people would be better off not wearing a seat belt because sometimes they trap people in a burning car.
Except not getting vaccines is worse, because of the already mentioned effect on herd immunity. You are not just putting yourself and children at risk, you are putting others at risk too.
The problem is that for some diseases the risk of the vaccine is actually greater than the risk of getting the disease, but this is only because the vaccine works so well. If people start to avoid the vaccine, this math changes quickly (as we all can see clearly now).[/quote]
February 3, 2015 at 7:04 PM #782609
CoronitaParticipant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=poorgradstudent]
Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]
Therein lies the difference. It’s not the same as AN said. There’s a difference in the quality of the approach and quality of the message.[/quote]
There’s a difference in the quality of the lies?
HA HA HA HA HA
February 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM #782610FlyerInHi
GuestI’ve had all kinds of vaccines including travel immunization that insurance doesn’t pay for. I trust the government. In this case there’s no grey area. You either get a vaccine or you don’t.
But I don’t trust the government on nutrition. I will qualify that. It’s OK information for the vast majority of the population and it’s based on culinary culture and general habits. That information is made to work for most people and it’s refined as data is available based on input from the food industry that wants to protect sales revenue. But it’s not the best information based on science.
February 3, 2015 at 7:42 PM #782611GuestFlu, the small differences make similar things totally different. Science teaches that.
Reductio ad same-shitto is something easy for the non-academic, anti-elitist crowd to understand, but that doesn’t leave much room for qualitative differentiation.
February 3, 2015 at 8:50 PM #782612utcsox
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=poorgradstudent]
Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]It’s also remotely possible that Rand Paul knows the personal liberty approach is a dead end. The supreme court already ruled on it. 110 years ago. State mandated vaccines are legal.[/quote]
State-mandated vaccination program is by definition the government take over of health care. The Republican party talking points have been that medical decisions are between you and your doctors and not some bureaucrats in Washington (CDC). I mean if they have to acquiesce with the mandatory vaccine program, I mean what’s next? The real government take over health care program, Obamacare? LOL..
February 3, 2015 at 8:58 PM #782613Participant[quote=utcsox]
State-mandated vaccination program is by definition the government take over of health care. The Republican party talking points have been that medical decisions are between you and your doctors and not some bureaucrats in Washington (CDC). I mean if they have to acquiesce with the mandatory vaccine program, I mean what’s next? The real government take over health care program, Obamacare? LOL..[/quote]That’s silly. Vaccinations are an important part of healthcare. It is not all of healthcare. 110 years ago, the supreme court ruled that state mandated vaccinations are legal. And smallpox was eradicated. Do you think that was a bad idea?
If the Republican party really supported policies that insisted that healthcare be between patient and doctor, they wouldn’t have passed more than 230 laws limiting abortion in just the last 4 years.
(Obamacare, btw, has been a rounding success, far exceeding even the most optimistic projections. Without the government getting involved in healthcare, only in the access to healthcare.)
February 3, 2015 at 9:01 PM #782614an
Participant[quote=flu][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=poorgradstudent]
Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]
Therein lies the difference. It’s not the same as AN said. There’s a difference in the quality of the approach and quality of the message.[/quote]
There’s a difference in the quality of the lies?
HA HA HA HA HA[/quote]Of course there is. The lies from people you support is better than the lies by people you don’t. That makes total sense to me.
February 3, 2015 at 9:34 PM #782615ParticipantJust to help some people with the facts and time line, here’s the like to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies
“In the UK, the MMR vaccine was the subject of controversy after publication in The Lancet of a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and others, reporting a study of 12 children mostly with autism spectrum disorders with onset soon after administration of the vaccine.[76] During a 1998 press conference, Wakefield suggested that giving children the vaccines in three separate doses would be safer than a single vaccination. This suggestion was not supported by the paper, and several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism.[77] It later emerged that Wakefield had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers and that Wakefield had not informed colleagues or medical authorities of his conflict of interest;[78] had this been known, publication in The Lancet would not have taken place in the way that it did.[79] Wakefield has been heavily criticized on scientific grounds and for triggering a decline in vaccination rates[80] (vaccination rates in the UK dropped to 80% in the years following the study),[81] as well as on ethical grounds for the way the research was conducted.[82] In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield’s 12 co-authors,[83] and in 2010 The Lancet ’s editors fully retracted the paper.[84]
The CDC,[85] the IOM of the National Academy of Sciences,[73] and the UK National Health Service[86] have all concluded that there is no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. A systematic review by the Cochrane Library concluded that there is no credible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, that MMR has prevented diseases that still carry a heavy burden of death and complications, that the lack of confidence in MMR has damaged public health, and that design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate.[87]
In 2009, The Sunday Times reported that Wakefield had manipulated patient data and misreported results in his 1998 paper, creating the appearance of a link with autism.[88] A 2011 article in the British Medical Journal described how the data in the study had been falsified by Wakefield so it would arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[89] An accompanying editorial in the same journal described Wakefield’s work as an “elaborate fraud” that led to lower vaccination rates, putting hundreds of thousands of children at risk and diverting energy and money away from research into the true cause of autism.[90]
A special court convened in the United States to review claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ruled on 12 February 2009 that parents of autistic children are not entitled to compensation in their contention that certain vaccines caused autism in their children.[91]”
The National Academy of Sciences has disputed the claim in 2004. In 2004 the MMR-and-autism interpretation of the paper was formally retracted by 10 of Wakefield’s 12 co-authors. In 2007, the UK National Health Service have concluded that this was junk. In 2006, Thirty leading paediatricians and childhood vaccination experts have warned that continued doubts about the safety of MMR will cost lives. In 2007, several subsequent peer-reviewed studies have failed to show any association between the vaccine and autism. So, by 2008, there should be plenty of evidence that this was junk science. So, to say there were sufficient data in 2008 for presidential candidates to cast doubts on the MMR vaccine is retarded and not science. It’s politics.
February 3, 2015 at 9:35 PM #782616Anonymous
Guest[quote=utcsox]The Republican party talking points have been that medical decisions are between you and your doctors and not some bureaucrats in Washington[/quote]
Infectious microbes don’t pay heed to Republican party talking points.
February 3, 2015 at 9:39 PM #782617paramount
Participant[quote=bobby]
optional vaccine is just idiotic.[/quote]Don’t know how long this post will last, given that this blog is full of socialist leftist commies as evidenced by many comments on this topic such as the one quoted above.
There exists a long list of disease outbreaks among vaccinated populations, such as:
whooping cough
flu
measlels/MMR/MRand on and on…
Most disease has been eradicated by improved sanitary conditions, not vaccines.
Vaccines have not been proven 100% safe or effective, and therefore should not be mandated.
To not question what the state wants to inject in you/kids is what’s idiotic.
Who do you trust – Mother Nature or big pharma/govt?
February 3, 2015 at 9:42 PM #782618GuestOf course mother nature never killed anybody!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.