|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 04 2015 12:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:CNBC does non-scripted interviews, which tends to lead to a lot of derp comments. I wouldn't read into it too much. He said very firmly that he thinks vaccines are great. Calling him anti-vaccine sounds like going down the path of 'Obama is a muslim communist'. Anyways, from the CDC: + Show Spoiler +MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. While 'vaccines cause autism' isn't proven, it's not fair to say that they're 100% safe either. the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro  I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? He's acknowledging other people's concerns more than anything else. Right after he made that comment he put his hands up and clarified that he wasn't saying that vaccines are bad. Here's Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008. Will you be just as uncharitable to Obama?
yea obama was pandering too. apparently these anti-vax dudes are seriously off the wall concerned and command some sort of political power above their weight.
|
On February 04 2015 12:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:CNBC does non-scripted interviews, which tends to lead to a lot of derp comments. I wouldn't read into it too much. He said very firmly that he thinks vaccines are great. Calling him anti-vaccine sounds like going down the path of 'Obama is a muslim communist'. Anyways, from the CDC: + Show Spoiler +MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. While 'vaccines cause autism' isn't proven, it's not fair to say that they're 100% safe either. the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? He's acknowledging other people's concerns more than anything else. Right after he made that comment he put his hands up and clarified that he wasn't saying that vaccines are bad. Here's Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008. Will you be just as uncharitable to Obama?
He said he knows many people who happened to develop mental disorders after being vaccinated. That isn't acknowledging the concerns, that is him adding legitimacy to them by giving his own fake experience that would confirm their suspicions. In what way to you disagree with that?
I see there being absolutely zero room for non-scientists to comment on anything scientifically related. Science is unique in that any opinion is almost always invalid because there already exists data for whatever is being discussed. There is no reason for opinion. There are rigorous methods of determining the most statistically significant interpretation of data and that's all there is to it. The bad/wonderful thing about academia is that anything that is made up or seems shaky will be pummeled into the ground for the sake of getting an easy publication with high citation numbers. There is huge incentive to crush shitty data and shitty studies. I have been a member of 2 studies aimed only at shitting on data for easy pubs.
This ended up as a bit more of a rant than intended, but I think I have made my point. Someone saying "Sure, science says X, but I just think that's weird" is a decision to believe the statistically less significant viewpoint. It blows my mind.
|
On February 04 2015 12:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:CNBC does non-scripted interviews, which tends to lead to a lot of derp comments. I wouldn't read into it too much. He said very firmly that he thinks vaccines are great. Calling him anti-vaccine sounds like going down the path of 'Obama is a muslim communist'. Anyways, from the CDC: + Show Spoiler +MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. While 'vaccines cause autism' isn't proven, it's not fair to say that they're 100% safe either. the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? He's acknowledging other people's concerns more than anything else. Right after he made that comment he put his hands up and clarified that he wasn't saying that vaccines are bad. Here's Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008. Will you be just as uncharitable to Obama? yea obama was pandering too.
Yeah Obama was pandering too, but we can't ignore that was before the study was totally discredited and the doctor got his license pulled.
I didn't expect people to actually try to say he wasn't even pandering and it was just him misspeaking or randomly jamming two pieces of information together. The mental gymnastics have been impressive.
|
On February 04 2015 13:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:54 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 12:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? He's acknowledging other people's concerns more than anything else. Right after he made that comment he put his hands up and clarified that he wasn't saying that vaccines are bad. Here's Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008. Will you be just as uncharitable to Obama? yea obama was pandering too. Yeah Obama was pandering too, but we can't ignore that was before the study was totally discredited and the doctor got his license pulled.
I didn't catch that. In that case, Obama's view was 100% legitimate because it had withstood scientific rigor at the time. Someone can not be blamed for accepting science that has undergone peer review.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
btw i don't think the stigma attached to autism is fair at all. it's a spectrum and individuals can lead fulfilling and productive lives while on the spectrum, some are creative geniuses in their field.
|
On February 04 2015 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
btw i don't think the stigma attached to autism is fair at all. it's a spectrum and individuals can lead fulfilling and productive lives while on the spectrum, some are creative geniuses in their field.
It's also kind of like ADHD or ADD in that lazy/cheap doctors use it as a catch all to explain disruptive behavior that often stems from parenting whether they have a disorder or not.
Good god if you could see some of the research I've done on medicating children with drugs that were not approved for the use in children (We haven't a fucking clue what it does to their long term brain chemistry) it would turn your stomach.
|
I take great solace in knowing that the Republican field is already tripping over itself in preparation for an election that is more than a year and a half away. Just wait for Walker's huge school funding cut in Wisconsin to set in and the bar will be set.
|
On February 04 2015 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
btw i don't think the stigma attached to autism is fair at all. it's a spectrum and individuals can lead fulfilling and productive lives while on the spectrum, some are creative geniuses in their field.
Autism, or nerds flu, in popular culture is portrayed as pretty positive. You become a lonely billionaire (social network) or become friends with a dumb hot chick (that sitcom with all the nerds and the blonde chick that infests the airwaves but I dont remember its name).
|
On February 04 2015 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
btw i don't think the stigma attached to autism is fair at all. it's a spectrum and individuals can lead fulfilling and productive lives while on the spectrum, some are creative geniuses in their field.
That's part of the problem. How many cases of autism are actually just kids who are a little different? Not sick, no disorder, just they're unique? Should you really diagnose someone as autistic if all they have is a little nervous tick now and then?
I'd wager there's a good percentage of anti-vaxers whose kids have been diagnosed as autistic when they probably shouldn't have been.
|
How is this not ridiculous by now?
The House on Wednesday passed another bill aimed at derailing Obamacare - the 50th time the GOP-led chamber has tried to repeal or alter President Barack Obama's signature health law in the past three years.
From the White House...
+ Show Spoiler +HERE'S WHAT ELIMINATING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD MEAN:
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS COULD LOSE COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT
Here's why: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we've reduced the number of uninsured by about 10 million people, In the Marketplace, nearly 8 in 10 consumers can find coverage for $100 or less after tax credits. The House Republican repeal would eliminate those tax credits, leaving millions with the problem they faced before the ACA: unaffordable coverage.
MILLIONS MORE COULD LOSE THEIR COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID
Here's why: Under the ACA, 28 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid. Medicaid now covers over 10 million additional Americans compared to the fall of 2013. Rolling back the expansion would leave millions of low-income Americans and children without the coverage.
UP TO 129 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS COULD BE DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE OF THEIR HEALTH
Here's why: The ACA requires insurance companies to provide coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. If Republicans repealed that requirement, the up to 129 million Americans, including 17 million children, with pre-existing conditions could be denied the coverage in the individual market.
105 MILLION AMERICANS COULD SEE THE RETURN OF LIFETIME CAPS ON THEIR COVERAGE
Here's why: Before the ACA, many insurance companies enforced lifetime limits -- a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan. The ACA prohibits those limits. If repealed, 105 million Americans, including nearly 60% of those with employer-based coverage, could see the return of caps on their coverage.
76 MILLION AMERICANS COULD LOSE EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING VACCINES, CANCER SCREENINGS, AND BIRTH CONTROL
Here's why: The ACA even improved coverage for Americans who already had insurance, expanding access to preventive services at no out-of-pocket cost. The Republicans' repeal would cost 76 million Americans their eligibility for expanded preventive services -- including 30 million women and 18 million children.
CONSUMERS WOULD LOSE BILLIONS IN SAVINGS
Here's why: Since 2011, consumers have saved $9 billion due to the law's requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on consumers' health care and empowers states to review and negotiate premium increases.
Given the White House numbers are surely inflated and worse case scenarios, there are some basic questions 50 votes and years later Republicans still can't answer at all.
The biggest and obvious ones are pre-existing conditions and annual/lifetime caps. What are republicans going to do?!
Like if republicans got their way and the ACA was gone tomorrow what would they do about pre-existing conditions?
|
On February 04 2015 13:57 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
btw i don't think the stigma attached to autism is fair at all. it's a spectrum and individuals can lead fulfilling and productive lives while on the spectrum, some are creative geniuses in their field. That's part of the problem. How many cases of autism are actually just kids who are a little different? Not sick, no disorder, just they're unique? Should you really diagnose someone as autistic if all they have is a little nervous tick now and then? I'd wager there's a good percentage of anti-vaxers whose kids have been diagnosed as autistic when they probably shouldn't have been.
See the thing is now you can get all sorts of interventions that are funded by school districts and such with that autistic diagnosis, that's why parents try so hard to get the diagnosis.
|
On February 04 2015 13:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:CNBC does non-scripted interviews, which tends to lead to a lot of derp comments. I wouldn't read into it too much. He said very firmly that he thinks vaccines are great. Calling him anti-vaccine sounds like going down the path of 'Obama is a muslim communist'. Anyways, from the CDC: + Show Spoiler +MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. While 'vaccines cause autism' isn't proven, it's not fair to say that they're 100% safe either. the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? He's acknowledging other people's concerns more than anything else. Right after he made that comment he put his hands up and clarified that he wasn't saying that vaccines are bad. Here's Obama on the campaign trail in 2008: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. [Points to someone in the audience.] The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it. We can't afford to junk our vaccine system, we have to figure out what's happening." --Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008. Will you be just as uncharitable to Obama? He said he knows many people who happened to develop mental disorders after being vaccinated. That isn't acknowledging the concerns, that is him adding legitimacy to them by giving his own fake experience that would confirm their suspicions. In what way to you disagree with that? + Show Spoiler + Of course I am just as uncharitable to Obama. I have always been less than kind when liberals are anti-science on things like fluoridation, GMOs, etc. I live in Portland, Oregon. The shit these fucking hippies come up with would drive any scientist up the walls.
I see there being absolutely zero room for non-scientists to comment on anything scientifically related. Science is unique in that any opinion is almost always invalid because there already exists data for whatever is being discussed. There is no reason for opinion. There are rigorous methods of determining the most statistically significant interpretation of data and that's all there is to it. The bad/wonderful thing about academia is that anything that is made up or seems shaky will be pummeled into the ground for the sake of getting an easy publication with high citation numbers. There is huge incentive to crush shitty data and shitty studies. I have been a member of 2 studies aimed only at shitting on data for easy pubs.
This ended up as a bit more of a rant than intended, but I think I have made my point. Someone saying "Sure, science says X, but I just think that's weird" is a decision to believe the statistically less significant viewpoint. It blows my mind.
I don't want to keep arguing over how we should interpret his words. For me if he had repeated that claim or stuck to it after the fact it would have been a problem. But he didn't. He clarified his statement and everything else he said was fine.
|
On February 04 2015 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:45 coverpunch wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 03:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:CNBC does non-scripted interviews, which tends to lead to a lot of derp comments. I wouldn't read into it too much. He said very firmly that he thinks vaccines are great. Calling him anti-vaccine sounds like going down the path of 'Obama is a muslim communist'. Anyways, from the CDC: + Show Spoiler +MMR vaccine side-effects
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)
What are the risks from MMR vaccine?
A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine. While 'vaccines cause autism' isn't proven, it's not fair to say that they're 100% safe either. the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? It's quite obvious he meant it differently from the way you've interpreted and tortured it to look like. So what exactly is it you think he meant?
I think he meant exactly what he said he meant in his backpedal - he made a foolish link that sounded and was taken like it implied a causation and that wasn't his point. He was trying to speak out against mandatory regimes of vaccinations and for more parental choice. It was a dumb place to make a stand.
He didn't repeat it 18 times in a row like you did before going on to say non scientists shouldn't be allowed any opinion on scientific matters and actually describing a work later declared "utterly false" and retracted as having scientific rigor because it passed peer review, despite the fact that there were a slew of other studies by 2008 challenging the original link as the anti-anti-vaccine had already started.
|
On February 04 2015 15:21 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:45 coverpunch wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 04:19 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
the charge isn't that he's anti-vax but he is entertaining the anti-vax position, which is very very far from the CDC info you posted. Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: "I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related—I did not allege causation. I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact, today I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year," Paul said in the statement. Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? It's quite obvious he meant it differently from the way you've interpreted and tortured it to look like. So what exactly is it you think he meant? I think he meant exactly what he said he meant in his backpedal - he made a foolish link that sounded and was taken like it implied a causation and that wasn't his point. He was trying to speak out against mandatory regimes of vaccinations and for more parental choice. It was a dumb place to make a stand. He didn't repeat it 18 times in a row like you did before going on to say non scientists shouldn't be allowed any opinion on scientific matters and actually describing a work later declared "utterly false" and retracted as having scientific rigor because it passed peer review, despite the fact that there were a slew of other studies by 2008 challenging the original link as the anti-anti-vaccine had already started.
Why would he bring attention to the "temporal" relationship anyway?
|
On February 04 2015 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:How is this not ridiculous by now? Show nested quote +The House on Wednesday passed another bill aimed at derailing Obamacare - the 50th time the GOP-led chamber has tried to repeal or alter President Barack Obama's signature health law in the past three years. From the White House... + Show Spoiler +HERE'S WHAT ELIMINATING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD MEAN:
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS COULD LOSE COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT
Here's why: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we've reduced the number of uninsured by about 10 million people, In the Marketplace, nearly 8 in 10 consumers can find coverage for $100 or less after tax credits. The House Republican repeal would eliminate those tax credits, leaving millions with the problem they faced before the ACA: unaffordable coverage.
MILLIONS MORE COULD LOSE THEIR COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID
Here's why: Under the ACA, 28 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid. Medicaid now covers over 10 million additional Americans compared to the fall of 2013. Rolling back the expansion would leave millions of low-income Americans and children without the coverage.
UP TO 129 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS COULD BE DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE OF THEIR HEALTH
Here's why: The ACA requires insurance companies to provide coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. If Republicans repealed that requirement, the up to 129 million Americans, including 17 million children, with pre-existing conditions could be denied the coverage in the individual market.
105 MILLION AMERICANS COULD SEE THE RETURN OF LIFETIME CAPS ON THEIR COVERAGE
Here's why: Before the ACA, many insurance companies enforced lifetime limits -- a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan. The ACA prohibits those limits. If repealed, 105 million Americans, including nearly 60% of those with employer-based coverage, could see the return of caps on their coverage.
76 MILLION AMERICANS COULD LOSE EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING VACCINES, CANCER SCREENINGS, AND BIRTH CONTROL
Here's why: The ACA even improved coverage for Americans who already had insurance, expanding access to preventive services at no out-of-pocket cost. The Republicans' repeal would cost 76 million Americans their eligibility for expanded preventive services -- including 30 million women and 18 million children.
CONSUMERS WOULD LOSE BILLIONS IN SAVINGS
Here's why: Since 2011, consumers have saved $9 billion due to the law's requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on consumers' health care and empowers states to review and negotiate premium increases. Given the White House numbers are surely inflated and worse case scenarios, there are some basic questions 50 votes and years later Republicans still can't answer at all. The biggest and obvious ones are pre-existing conditions and annual/lifetime caps. What are republicans going to do?! Like if republicans got their way and the ACA was gone tomorrow what would they do about pre-existing conditions?
Interesting. Reuters article says the parties can't even agree on the number but they're both different from your quote - GOP says this was the 67th try and Democrats say this was the 56th. It also says the GOP is trying to sway the Supreme Court to kill federal subsidies but they don't say how. I guess by forcing the administration to keep using the veto, it shows executive abuse or something.
|
On February 03 2015 01:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2015 20:06 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
all right, you guys can keep generalizing this to the point where my argument no longer makes sense because it's not my argument, i will accept that. carry on.
if you ever feel like pointing at specific policy efforts or awareness efforts that are accomplishing meaningful things to actually curb the process of and fallout from man-made climate change, feel free to PM me. though be warned, i don't consider delaying the whole thing by anywhere under 1000 years too meaningful SMAC policy option: Show nested quote +Launch Solar Shade[edit] Prerequisite: Advanced Spaceflight Causes global cooling and makes the sea levels drop. If a solar shade has already been launched, this proposal will be called "Increase Solar Shade". Source If it can work on Planet, home to a sentient, God-like fungus, it can work in America damnit.
increasing the albedo coefficient of the atmosphere might actually be somewhat of a workable bandage not requiring too much cooperation by industry and politicians, but i feel that it will just qualitatively change the nature of climate change, not necessarily fix its course back to what it would've been without human intervention. then again, that might be better after all, since the earth was probably going to get to a point where its natural climate pattern would suck for human life anyway...
the scary part though is that irreversible methods are way easier than reversible methods, if such a thing exists, so if we fuck up the model, we might accelerate armageddon
|
The administration hasn't had to use the veto much; the other such bills never made it passed the senate. IIRC Obama has an unusually low number of vetoes for a president, though that's on absolute count, not % basis. Not that using the constitutionally clear veto power could be executive abuse anyways (well, it could if you really pushed it, maybe)
|
On February 04 2015 15:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 15:21 coverpunch wrote:On February 04 2015 12:48 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:45 coverpunch wrote:On February 04 2015 12:40 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 12:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 04 2015 11:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 04 2015 10:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Eh... in like one fragment of one sentence, sure. He tried to clarify his point today anyways: [quote] Link dude's clearly backtracking. Not really. Did you watch the interview? He said many times that vaccines are great. I expect better of you man. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. Mental disorders. You are consistently refusing to recognize what he said about mental disorders. I'll repost it: "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Direct quote. Whether he says they are good or not is irrelevant to the point you are avoiding. "Many" tragic cases. He lied by saying he has heard of these cases because it's not real. How are you not getting this? Nice tantrum bro I know what he said. Children developing mental disorders after vaccination is almost certainly a true statement, since vaccination happens at a young age and mental disorders often take time to either be noticed or manifest. There's also an implied causality there which he later pointed out isn't what he meant. The guy made a poor reference and later corrected himself for it. That happens to everyone, and trying to take a dump on the guy over it is just trollish. Are you actually saying that you believe him when he says that wasn't what he originally meant? In what world would mentioning mental disorders ever have any relevance other than a causation relationship? It's quite obvious he meant it differently from the way you've interpreted and tortured it to look like. So what exactly is it you think he meant? I think he meant exactly what he said he meant in his backpedal - he made a foolish link that sounded and was taken like it implied a causation and that wasn't his point. He was trying to speak out against mandatory regimes of vaccinations and for more parental choice. It was a dumb place to make a stand. He didn't repeat it 18 times in a row like you did before going on to say non scientists shouldn't be allowed any opinion on scientific matters and actually describing a work later declared "utterly false" and retracted as having scientific rigor because it passed peer review, despite the fact that there were a slew of other studies by 2008 challenging the original link as the anti-anti-vaccine had already started. Why would he bring attention to the "temporal" relationship anyway?
Speculative but I would guess to illustrate a nanny state forcing vaccines on kids without regard to side effects or medical exemptions, where parents who know their kids' unique issues could make a better choice. But anti-vaxxers are almost never people complaining about side effects or requiring medical exemptions, which is what made it a dumb statement and brought out the outrage.
|
On February 04 2015 15:34 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 14:48 GreenHorizons wrote:How is this not ridiculous by now? The House on Wednesday passed another bill aimed at derailing Obamacare - the 50th time the GOP-led chamber has tried to repeal or alter President Barack Obama's signature health law in the past three years. From the White House... + Show Spoiler +HERE'S WHAT ELIMINATING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD MEAN:
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS COULD LOSE COVERAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT
Here's why: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we've reduced the number of uninsured by about 10 million people, In the Marketplace, nearly 8 in 10 consumers can find coverage for $100 or less after tax credits. The House Republican repeal would eliminate those tax credits, leaving millions with the problem they faced before the ACA: unaffordable coverage.
MILLIONS MORE COULD LOSE THEIR COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID
Here's why: Under the ACA, 28 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid. Medicaid now covers over 10 million additional Americans compared to the fall of 2013. Rolling back the expansion would leave millions of low-income Americans and children without the coverage.
UP TO 129 MILLION AMERICANS WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS COULD BE DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE OF THEIR HEALTH
Here's why: The ACA requires insurance companies to provide coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. If Republicans repealed that requirement, the up to 129 million Americans, including 17 million children, with pre-existing conditions could be denied the coverage in the individual market.
105 MILLION AMERICANS COULD SEE THE RETURN OF LIFETIME CAPS ON THEIR COVERAGE
Here's why: Before the ACA, many insurance companies enforced lifetime limits -- a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan. The ACA prohibits those limits. If repealed, 105 million Americans, including nearly 60% of those with employer-based coverage, could see the return of caps on their coverage.
76 MILLION AMERICANS COULD LOSE EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES, INCLUDING VACCINES, CANCER SCREENINGS, AND BIRTH CONTROL
Here's why: The ACA even improved coverage for Americans who already had insurance, expanding access to preventive services at no out-of-pocket cost. The Republicans' repeal would cost 76 million Americans their eligibility for expanded preventive services -- including 30 million women and 18 million children.
CONSUMERS WOULD LOSE BILLIONS IN SAVINGS
Here's why: Since 2011, consumers have saved $9 billion due to the law's requirement that insurance companies spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on consumers' health care and empowers states to review and negotiate premium increases. Given the White House numbers are surely inflated and worse case scenarios, there are some basic questions 50 votes and years later Republicans still can't answer at all. The biggest and obvious ones are pre-existing conditions and annual/lifetime caps. What are republicans going to do?! Like if republicans got their way and the ACA was gone tomorrow what would they do about pre-existing conditions? Interesting. Reuters article says the parties can't even agree on the number but they're both different from your quote - GOP says this was the 67th try and Democrats say this was the 56th. It also says the GOP is trying to sway the Supreme Court to kill federal subsidies but they don't say how. I guess by forcing the administration to keep using the veto, it shows executive abuse or something.
This one isn't expected to make it passed the Senate either, whatever that says about the combined control of Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
