Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=Hobie]Frankly, I’m getting very tired with every news report showing the barbaric, savage treatment instigated by ISIS combatants. You should too.
They are playing us with these shocking videos. What are the credentials for these Imams and others that issue these ‘scholarly’ interpretations of the Quran. I’m guessing they are the only ones that might be able to at least read. Where are the women’s rights people condoning their treatment of women? Where is the exit plan? Either crush them or come back home.[/quote]+100. We’re making the same mistake that we made in the Vietnam war and the British made with us. You’re trying to impose some rule of war to a group that don’t care and won’t honor those rules. Either go all in and beat them at their own game or get out. There’s no point in spending billions and doing it half ass.
Participant[quote=flu]
Apparently, even though Rand did make that idiotic statement, he apparently does believe in getting vaccinated…Is it really a surprise? Politics make people say stupid shit to try to win votes from stupid people. Even Obama does that. So did Bush. And I can’t wait the sort of shit that will come out from Jeb or Hillary.[/quote]It’s only idiotic if it comes out of the other side’s mouth. If it comes out of the mouth of people on your side, then it’s fully justified. Historical data be damned. This thread is the prime example of that.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Wasn’t that a message that should have been learned since the 1970s? I think some Vietnamese general said that they could endure at least 10 of their own deaths for each American.[/quote]That’s what you’d call a bluff.
ParticipantParticipantJust 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.
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.
Participant[quote=all]
She was explicitly asked Would you support a federal right for families and individuals to choose for themselves which vaccines they will use?, to which she (or more likely one of her sidekicks) replied
As President, I will support efforts to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective, including
independent reviews and large-scale studies. All Americans should have access to accurate and comprehensive information about vaccinations.I interpret that answer as ‘no’ said in about 30 words.[/quote]I interpret that as, I’m not going to take a position. I’ll pander to those who will donate to my campaign the most. Since the Hollywood crowd are big anti-vaxxer and are big D supporter, I’m sure she didn’t want to upset them and flat out say “no”.
This doesn’t mean R candidates don’t do the same. They definitely do, just to a different crowd. Which is why I’d say most do political talk/answer and most pander. At the presidential level, I would go as far as saying all.
Participant[quote=flu]I think for the by far the best place to work for geeks is orange county. I think you get above SD pay, and you’re company selection is more competitive. Down here, there’s not as much to choose from. Up in the the bay area, there’s a lot more to choose from, but cost of living is also insane up there.[/quote]Well, it depends on which industry you’re in, right? If you’re in biotech, I’m sure there are more jobs here than both OC and bay area. Same goes for defense. Not all geeks are the same. But in general, I agree that there are more jobs up there than down here. Which is why cost of living is also lower down here. I haven’t looked at OC in awhile, but the last time I did, relative to wages, it’s still cheaper down here than up there. This might just be because my requirement is a little unique.
Participant[quote=zk]I disagree. They really had no way of knowing that Wakefield’s “science” was really not science at all. There was a published paper in a major medical journal saying vaccines caused autism. And there were also people saying it didn’t. So, if you didn’t know that the Lancet paper wasn’t science, then, in 2008, you’d think that “the science right now is inconclusive.”
A published paper in a major medical journal is a lot more to go on than a bunch of nutjobs’ claims. ‘Course, turns out Wakefield was (is) a nutjob.[/quote]Sorry, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I give more credence to our CDC and the vast amount of doctors who did the research and came up with the MMR vaccine than one person writing in the medical journal. It was not backed up by the medical community as a whole and the CDC, so why should a presidential candidate comment on such speculation, which turn out to be false.
Participant[quote=all]This is from her response to A_CHAMP’ Presidential Candidate’s Questionnaire, which is available online. Her answers are political, but she does not question the vaccination program. When asked about autism and vaccination she talks about environment and mercury.[/quote]Isn’t everything coming out of a politician’s mouth is political? So, if you give Hillary an out by saying her answers are political, but fault other politician for making other political answer, then you just come off as partisan. She said “including possible environmental causes like vaccines”. I don’t think it gets any clearer than that. Just like Ran Paul saying what he then, but followed on by saying “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they’re a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input,” he added. “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom.” If you fault Rand Paul for making the statement in the OP, then you should also fault Hillary and Obama for theirs? After all, none of them are truly anti-vaxxers like Jenny McCarthy. But it doesn’t make what they said a good thing, especially when they can be used out of context. As I said, in this day and age of cut and paste and words taken out of context, statements like these give credence to the anti-vaxxers’ claims.
Participant[quote=bewildering]
Fair point. But you also have to plan for “what ifs” like things continuing as they are for the next 30 years. 2-3% house appreciation/year, 2-3% rent increase per year. The economy plods along.In this case if you are intending to stay in the same place for at least 5 years then buy.
I suspect people do not consider unrealized gains (from not investing in stock market or buying a house) as losses. This attitude is very human, and very short sighted.
Myself, I failed to follow my own rules and did not put my ROTHIRA contribution in the SP index fund last january because I thought the market was overvalued. Instead I put it in a money market acount. I LOST 20% because of that dumb decision.[/quote]Yes, you should totally plan for that “what ifs” as well. With all of these “what ifs” and various different probability of them coming true, the only way I see for me to be ready is to be diversified. Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket. Do put all in the stock market, don’t put all in the housing market, don’t put all in the money market, etc. If you’re well diversified, then you’ll win some and you’ll lose some. But you can then re-balance your various investments as the picture gets clearer.
I agree with you that if you plan to stay in the same place for at least 5 years, then buy. That’s why I brought up the point that it’s actually cheaper to rent than buy in some areas.
If you consider unrealized gain from not participating in the stock market, you should also consider unrealized loss as well. Since we don’t have a working crystal ball, we have to wait and see which one it’ll be. Then there’s also the appreciation of real estate and the leverage you’re taking with that capital. Lets say you take $100k out of your stock investment to buy a $500k house. Over 5 years, the stock market went up 40%. That mean you have $40k in unrealized gain from the stock market. But then, if the housing market went up 10%, you’d have a $50k gain from the house. There’s no way to know at the moment which will appreciate more, which is why you shouldn’t put all of your eggs in one basket.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=AN][quote=flu]Paul is a retard.
What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.
“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.
“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.
As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.[/quote]
Those Obama and Clinton comments were made, I believe, in 2008. The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper in 2010.[/quote]I still think it was retarded to make those statements, even in 2008. Why didn't they consult with the CDC first before commenting and giving credence to anti-vaxxers claims. That like saying those crazy birthers who claimed that Obama wasn't American before he showed his birth certificate were OK, as long as they only made those claims before Obama show his birth certificates.
Participant[quote=flu]Paul is a retard.
What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.
“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.
“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.
As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.
ParticipantYay for SD. However, after traveling abroad, I have to say, our definition of affordable is very skewed.
-
AuthorPosts
