AUDub 11,131 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Mighty interesting how Rand said basically the same thing Obama and Khristie Kreme said on the matter, yet he's the one being skewered. I'm sure its all about vaccines, though. https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/562686461620011009 Obama stated pretty unequivocally, "you should have your kids vaccinated." He echoed that the evidence is indisputable. Christie was smart enough to half-heartedly walk back his comment. Paul doubled down and used the same silly argument Bachmann used back in '12. He deserves to be skewered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Mighty interesting how Rand said basically the same thing Obama and Khristie Kreme said on the matter, yet he's the one being skewered. I'm sure its all about vaccines, though. https://twitter.com/...686461620011009 Obama stated pretty unequivocally, "you should have your kids vaccinated." He echoed that the evidence is indisputable. Christie was smart enough to half-heartedly walk back his comment. Paul doubled down and used the same silly argument Bachmann used back in '12. He deserves to be skewered. "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," It does happen. He- like those other darlings- was unequivocal in stating that vaccines overall are a good thing. Good things do sometimes have legitimate concerns attached to them, however. Which of the three has called for mandatory vaccinations? Zero. One of the three is being skewered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/doctors-against-vaccines-the-other-side-of-the-story-is-not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Mighty interesting how Rand said basically the same thing Obama and Khristie Kreme said on the matter, yet he's the one being skewered. I'm sure its all about vaccines, though. https://twitter.com/...686461620011009 Obama stated pretty unequivocally, "you should have your kids vaccinated." He echoed that the evidence is indisputable. Christie was smart enough to half-heartedly walk back his comment. Paul doubled down and used the same silly argument Bachmann used back in '12. He deserves to be skewered. "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," It does happen. He- like those other darlings- was unequivocal in stating that vaccines overall are a good thing. Good things do sometimes have legitimate concerns attached to them, however. Which of the three has called for mandatory vaccinations? Zero. One of the three is being skewered. One of the three also asserted, without evidence, that "clustering" vaccines presents a risk. Guess which one it was. There are risks associated with vaccines, but the risk is much higher to go without them. And the mandatory vaccines suggestion was mine and mine alone. That none of the three called for it is an uninteresting bit of trivia to me. At least Obama's statement isn't steeped in denialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I agree that ignorant would have been a much more appropriate term. Anyone who isn't aware of or doesn't understand the evidence is ignorant but not necessarily stupid. But then you have some folks who are capable of understanding the evidence but refuse to accept it or subordinate it to some libertarian political principle. I think that's where stupidity entered into the discussion. But I agree it's an alienating term. I frequently try different ways of avoiding it when discussing anthropogenic global warming on this forum. It's difficult. Rand Paul is an MD. He knows better than to say something so off the wall. He's pandering to the ignorant. Shame on him, but it's a bigger shame that constituency is apparently large enough to make it profitable. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised considering the scientific literacy of the body politic. Of course, he could be wrong on this. Ignorant people can learn. That's undoubtedly why he's equivocating about it. He's wanting it both ways also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. This is really starting to resemble an AGW thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. This is really starting to resemble an AGW thread. Don't they all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. This is really starting to resemble an AGW thread. Don't they all? Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. I knew you'd love that site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. This is really starting to resemble an AGW thread. Please! There's more science in this than AGW..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. :poke:/> http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. This is really starting to resemble an AGW thread. Please! There's more science in this than AGW..... Actually, the vast majority of literature on the subject supports my position. And it's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 It isn't even close by light years, Ben. For all those whining about Paul's treatment in the media...There is a reason for it, WELL DESERVED reason... However, ya boy made it over to the capitol Doc office today and got a HEP booster vaccine....With cameras. Imagine. At least he is smart enough to recognize the scent, when he steps in it. http://www.vox.com/2015/2/3/7966975/rand-paul-vaccine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. I knew you'd love that site. You're lucky I didn't invoke Scopie's Law. One of your examples from that site has her own subsection on Whale.to Scopie's Law states that anyone that cites Whale.to in the course of an argument automatically loses... ...and is summarily laughed out of the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Another group of skewers needed. :poke:/> http://healthimpactn...not-being-told/ Crank alert. Crank alert. Crank alert. I'll bet, if you look hard enough, you'll find two or three that deny the causal link between smoking and cancer or drinking heavily and liver disease. And seriously, "Health Impact News?" You might as well go whole hog and link Mercola or Natural News. :laugh:/> I knew you'd love that site. :)/> You're lucky I didn't invoke Scopie's Law. One of your examples from that site has her own subsection on Whale.to Scopie's Law states that anyone that cites Whale.to in the course of an argument automatically loses... ...and is summarily laughed out of the room. :roflol:/> I'll have to remember Scopies Law. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,693 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Rand Paul was clearly pandering to the ignorant and should be skewered. If vaccines are not mandatory then, at a minimum, parents whose kids catch a preventable disease should be treated as child abusers, and if others catch a preventable disease from their child then criminal charges should apply. There is a HUGE difference in vaccines and AGW. We know the cause of the preventable diseases and how to prevent them. I consider myself to be quite conservative, but listening to any of the proponents of anti-vaccination is probably more stupidity than ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,132 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ben, I need to ask a question for clarification. While again, I'm not advocating for or against vaccination (mainly government over reach is what I'm concerned about), I have a question concerning the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. You're in the medical field and have at least some qualification to answer. Okay, the question I have is this, if you and I, mine and yours are vaccinated, do we really have a worry of contracting disease from the unvaccinated that we are already supposed to be protected from through our vaccinations? Likely not. There are some rare situations that it could happen. We could develop an illness or require a treatment that compromises our immune system. I'm not meaning to be agitating or anything of the sort, but is an honest question. Honest questions are welcome and happily answered. If I'm vaccinated and supposed to be protected from the measles, then I should be okay if I'm in a room with somebody with measles right? You should. That is the intended purpose of vaccinations isn't it? Yes, but they also have benefits for society at large. Think about how we quashed polio or smallpox. Two diseases that were effectively eliminated in this country thanks to vaccination. This is the concept of herd immunity. If fewer kids at Disneyland had not been vaccinated, this outbreak would not have happened. It eliminates the virus's ability to spread to other unprotected folks like the very young, the immunocompromised, or the unvaccinated. If you eliminate a virus's ability to spread, you can effectively wipe it out. After a while, just like polio or smallpox, the vaccine is no longer necessary. Thank you for your answer. I enjoy a reasoned and civil discussion/debate and will often times play "devils advocate". An fyi, as I have school aged children, they aren't allowed to attend public (in the county where we live)or the private school they previously attended without a current and up to date "blue slip" which is the immunization record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Five babies at suburban Chicago daycare center have measles: report (Reuters) - Five babies at a suburban Chicago daycare center have been diagnosed with measles, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune, citing local health officials. Health officials are investigating the cluster of measles cases at KinderCare Learning Center in suburban Palatine, the Tribune report said. All the children are under 1 year old. (Reporting by Mary Wisniewski; Editing by Will Dunham) http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-measles-illinois-idUSKBN0L92FD20150205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Rand Paul’s Dishonest Tap Dance on Vaccines Sen. Rand Paul, trapped between pandering to the ignorant and not looking like an idiot, went on CNN and, in addition to condescending to the anchor asking him questions, declared based on totally anonymous anecdotes, that vaccines caused “profound mental disorders.” “I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” Paul said. “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.” Asked for evidence of those claims, Paul campaign spokesman Sergio Gor didn’t address them and instead said that while Paul largely supports vaccines, “many” should be voluntary. So now he’s backing down, with this highly dishonest statement: On Tuesday, Paul further clarified his stance, saying he didn’t say vaccines caused disorders. “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,” Paul said in a statement. “In fact today, I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year.” If you didn’t allege causation, why was your statement in any way relevant? If the conversation is about whether people should get vaccines and you claim that people got “profound mental disorders after vaccines,” it couldn’t possibly be relevant if you aren’t claiming causation. If there’s no causation, then your statement is totally irrelevant to the conversation. He’s just lying. He absolutely meant to claim that vaccines cause mental disorders, but he realized afterward that saying that made him look like a moron. So he invented this ridiculous explanation to get out of it. And this guy went to medical school, for crying out loud. If anyone should know better… Emphasis mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted February 5, 2015 Author Share Posted February 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 "It amounts to abuse for me. You do not "own" your children. They have a right to be healthy relatively free of risk, which you are denying them by not vaccinating them against potentially deadly.................."..W O W !!! Are you Pro Life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The usual suspects, up to the same old tricks. http://rare.us/story/pauls-attackers-arent-worried-hell-stop-vaccinations-theyre-worried-hell-stop-wars/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 It's what they do....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The usual suspects, up to the same old tricks. http://rare.us/story/pauls-attackers-arent-worried-hell-stop-vaccinations-theyre-worried-hell-stop-wars/ Oh, Lordy. This article is a bizarre and nonsensical appeal to motive. "You're not actually criticizing Paul for his intellectual dishonesty. You just don't like his foreign policy." Look, I understand you're probably a Paul supporter, but defending him on this matter isn't a game you're going to win. I only hope he's smart enough to walk it back at this point. Too bad the audience he's trying to appeal to doesn't see it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The usual suspects, up to the same old tricks. http://rare.us/story...hell-stop-wars/ Probably true for those more politically motivated than motivated by what is practical or principled. However, I believe you can agree with him on one and, disagree with him on the other and, not fit into the generalization made by the article. And, I believe you can still vote for him even if you disagree with him on some issues. I could not have disagreed with his father more on several issues (gold standard, his unqualified faith in Austrian economics, etc.). However, I voted for him because there were many more issues on which I did agree with him. More importantly, I found him to be, by far, the most genuine candidate, the most principled candidate, the least entrenched in the bureaucracy, and the most respectful of the concept of democracy. Personally, if from time to time he takes Libertarian ideology a little too far but, he has absolutely no desire to serve special interests, well that is a tradeoff I am willing to make. I'm not saying I will absolutely vote for him but, I really want to see him in the debate. A candidate willing to challenge the extremes of his own base has my attention. In this particular case, I believe he was playing to his base. No respect for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.