What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

ScoobyDoo said:
Science denial is so becoming. People now have to worry about measles because of you. Hope you're happy.
Click to expand...
You ascribe to me much greater power than I have. But, given your delusions on many issues, no shocker there.

In case you never noticed, I never said a thing about the measles vaccine. But, don't let that stop your constant yammering, claiming otherwise. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Bob Gray said:
You use awful broad brushes in what you say around this place, and sure are certain about things. Hint. You're not the only one who does a lot of research and reading and all into issues and someday you'll realize that two people can honestly approach the same issue, research it a good deal, and come to very different conclusions. Even your responses here see everything as pretty black and white, when a lot of people see at least some shades of gray (as there are in most issues we deal with as a society). I'll give you credit, your slams are a lot more sophisticated than someone like Scooby, but in the end they are still slams and you still just claim you know what's right and someone like myself, when I say something different, you dismiss. Too bad, as in some ways you seem to be a very thoughtful poster. With some toning down, you could be another thoughtful liberal poster like Kepler, who I rarely agree with, but enjoy the back and forth with and can still be respectful to each other.
Click to expand...

I am not certain about anything. Seriously. However I am educated about certain things and have actually educated myself into poverty ;) Every piece of knowledge I have is subject to revision but that revision comes at the cost of evidence, of data. Show me that it works and how it works. If you want to change my "certainty," show me the data that a different vaccine schedule offers the same protections and limits risks.

You create false equivalence a lot. Someone who has dedicated their life to research and have had a great publishing career is not equivalent to google research. Navigating research databases like pubmed is difficult and it is no small feat to identify the relevant, rigorous research verses the poorly controlled and irrelevant. Not every scientist is created equal but we all live in a world of grey.

I also want you to wonder where my confidence comes from. Do you really think I do not want the best for every child out there? Do you really think I have an ulterior motive to promote bad science to defend "elites" at the cost of children and adult lives and well being? I dismiss some of what you say because you back it up with literally nothing. You do not even bring in an "expert" to defend you point of view, let alone data.

And I do not really identify as a "liberal." Is everyone left of you a liberal? ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

WisconsinWildcard said:
I am not certain about anything. Seriously. However I am educated about certain things and have actually educated myself into poverty ;) Every piece of knowledge I have is subject to revision but that revision comes at the cost of evidence, of data. Show me that it works and how it works. If you want to change my "certainty," show me the data that a different vaccine schedule offers the same protections and limits risks.

You create false equivalence a lot. Someone who has dedicated their life to research and have had a great publishing career is not equivalent to google research. Navigating research databases like pubmed is difficult and it is no small feat to identify the relevant, rigorous research verses the poorly controlled and irrelevant. Not every scientist is created equal but we all live in a world of grey.

I also want you to wonder where my confidence comes from. Do you really think I do not want the best for every child out there? Do you really think I have an ulterior motive to promote bad science to defend "elites" at the cost of children and adult lives and well being? I dismiss some of what you say because you back it up with literally nothing. You do not even bring in an "expert" to defend you point of view, let alone data.

And I do not really identify as a "liberal." Is everyone left of you a liberal? ;)
Click to expand...
I'm actually liberal on some issues (not a fan of going into Iraq, not a fan of the death penalty, not a fan of Wall Street, etc.), but because this board is heavily liberal, my conservative issues are the ones where differences of view get discussed for the most part, particularly certain social issues.

I think we both want what is best for children. It came across to me that you were saying I didn't.

I'm on board with a lot of vaccinations, but I think there are certain ones that aren't as critical to have as others. Having small children, I and my wife have spent a lot of time looking into this and reading in recent years.

Partly I tend to have a reaction when there's an issue where maybe the weight of evidence is more on one side, but there are reasonable thoughtful people who go a different direction and they tend to be mindlessly vilified and dismissed in the public discourse over such issues. I hope you recognize that not all people who have concerns about vaccinations are mindless crazies. It's not just this issue, but others where I have a similar reaction to such vilification. I'm not saying you are doing that, as you seem more thoughtful, if a bit more forceful in thinking you are right than I'd be.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

It's funny how nearly every time Bob gets into a debate with someone, he eventually trots out Kepler as his prop. "See, I can disagree with this person in a civil manner, so the problem here is obviously you." You're the common thread in all of them, Bob, think about it.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

As an aside, I've always found it interesting when someone espouses liberal positions, but recoils from being referenced as a liberal. I've seen it many times.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Bob Gray said:
I think we both want what is best for children. It came across to me that you were saying I didn't.

I'm on board with a lot of vaccinations, but I think there are certain ones that aren't as critical to have as others. Having small children, I and my wife have spent a lot of time looking into this and reading in recent years.

Partly I tend to have a reaction when there's an issue where maybe the weight of evidence is more on one side, but there are reasonable thoughtful people who go a different direction and they tend to be mindlessly vilified and dismissed in the public discourse over such issues. I hope you recognize that not all people who have concerns about vaccinations are mindless crazies. It's not just this issue, but others where I have a similar reaction to such vilification. I'm not saying you are doing that, as you seem more thoughtful, if a bit more forceful in thinking you are right than I'd be.
Click to expand...

I try to talk about the ideas, not the people. I do not think anti-vaxers do not care about their children but I do think they are dead wrong. So does the CDC, the American Association of Pediatrics and basically every physician who is qualified to talk about the issue.

The fact you say you believe some are not critical shows you do not understand how the vaccine schedule is created. Every vaccine on the recommended schedule prevents a disease that can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Every one. Let me know if you disagree. Yes, there are varying rates of morbidity and mortality but that is really not a good road to go down. I am of the belief that if a vaccine safely (and they do) prevents misery, serious complications and death it is pretty trivial to argue about 30 deaths per 100,000 vs 3 deaths per 100,000 in an order to "rank" diseases.

I know you and your wife have read a lot but in reality, you probably have not read anything that could inform you to disagree with the recommendations. You may think this is "elitist" or arrogant but it is the truth. You need to first read the primary literature and be able to understand it in the context of current knowledge and fortunately or unfortunately, this is really just out of reach to the lay public. I would doubt you have the institutional resources to subscribe to enough journals to do the background in primary literature. This is what the experts are able to do that is out of reach for most. I am not at the stage in my career where I would be an "expert" at anything. I am competent. The next step is proficiency and a very few do reach the stage of expert.

Also know the sacrifice a physician scientist has to make and you may better understand the intolerance for some of the anti-vax positions. An MD/PhD involves 4 years of undergrad and 8 years of medical school (most are 2 years MD, do your PhD which is generous to say 4 years and then finish up the last 2 years of MD). At best, these people are entering residency at 30 with about a quarter of million dollars in debt. Residency and fellowship run 3-9 years depending on the field where you are making the equivalent of minimum wage (there is some variance of this).

Finally, every physician that "does" science is doing it for charity. Every hour a physician spends doing research is an hour they are not seeing patients and a hit to their salary. Academics pays significantly less than the private sector (think half) so there is a tremendous amount of dedication these experts have that is so easily and inappropriately dismissed.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Bob Gray said:
As an aside, I've always found it interesting when someone espouses liberal positions, but recoils from being referenced as a liberal. I've seen it many times.
Click to expand...

I do not label myself as a liberal for the same reason you do not want to be an across the board conservative. It brings unwanted baggage that may not accurately represent ones views.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Bob Gray said:
As an aside, I've always found it interesting when someone espouses liberal positions, but recoils from being referenced as a liberal. I've seen it many times.
Click to expand...

I'm a liberal.

Santos: It's true, Republicans have tried to turn 'liberal' into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.

Vinick: A Republican president ended slavery.

Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created social security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed every one of those programs. Every one. So when you try to hurl the word 'liberal' at my feet, as if it were dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

WisconsinWildcard said:
The fact you say you believe some are not critical shows you do not understand how the vaccine schedule is created. Every vaccine on the recommended schedule prevents a disease that can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Every one.
Click to expand...

Here's something I've wondered about (I admit I just blindly follow doctor's orders without knowing much about all factors involved). The chicken pox vaccine. When I was a kid, you got chicken pox, you were itchy for a while, and you were immune for the rest of your life. Nowadays kids get the shot, they're immune throughout childhood, the immunity wanes because nobody gets the proper boosters as an adult, and they are susceptible to "shingles" (adult chicken pox) which is actually dangerous. Is this an improvement? Am I misunderstanding? Are we really trading a harmless (without complications) childhood illness for a deadly adult one? There's something here I don't understand.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

geezer said:
Here's something I've wondered about (I admit I just blindly follow doctor's orders without knowing much about all factors involved). The chicken pox vaccine. When I was a kid, you got chicken pox, you were itchy for a while, and you were immune for the rest of your life. Nowadays kids get the shot, they're immune throughout childhood, the immunity wanes because nobody gets the proper boosters as an adult, and they are susceptible to "shingles" (adult chicken pox) which is actually dangerous. Is this an improvement? Am I misunderstanding? Are we really trading a harmless (without complications) childhood illness for a deadly adult one? There's something here I don't understand.
Click to expand...

I had chicken pox as a kid and I still have gotten shingles so you're not immune.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

Bob Gray said:
As an aside, I've always found it interesting when someone espouses liberal positions, but recoils from being referenced as a liberal. I've seen it many times.
Click to expand...

You are probably conflating two groups. The far left (the folks who start at around me and then gradually disappear over the horizon) often use "liberal" as a by-word for comfortable suburbanites who espouse progressive ideas right up until it affects their taxes, or conflicts with War Fever, or civil liberties are nice but OHMYGODWONTSOMEONETHINKOFTHECHILDREN!!!, when they show their true colors.

Personally, I want to keep the tent as big as possible, so I'll call myself a liberal, a progressive, or whatever else you want if it gets us on the left to stop sniping at each other and start concentrating fire on the true adversary, the right.
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
Here's something I've wondered about (I admit I just blindly follow doctor's orders without knowing much about all factors involved). The chicken pox vaccine. When I was a kid, you got chicken pox, you were itchy for a while, and you were immune for the rest of your life. Nowadays kids get the shot, they're immune throughout childhood, the immunity wanes because nobody gets the proper boosters as an adult, and they are susceptible to "shingles" (adult chicken pox) which is actually dangerous. Is this an improvement? Am I misunderstanding? Are we really trading a harmless (without complications) childhood illness for a deadly adult one? There's something here I don't understand.
Click to expand...

Shingles normally hits older adults. None of them would've been at an age where they would've gotten the shot instead of actual exposure to chicken pox. The chicken pox vaccine has only become common in the last 15-20 years.

Most anyone getting shingles caught chicken pox the traditional way, not from a shot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

WisconsinWildcard said:
I do not label myself as a liberal for the same reason you do not want to be an across the board conservative. It brings unwanted baggage that may not accurately represent ones views.
Click to expand...
I don't want to be labeled an across the board conservative because I'm not. I have no issue being labeled conservative on issues I take a conservative view on.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - Run-HRC? Honest Injun? Gott Mitt Himmel? RyanRubioCruzCrud?

unofan said:
Shingles normally hits older adults. None of them would've been at an age where they would've gotten the shot instead of actual exposure to chicken pox. The chicken pox vaccine has only become common in the last 15-20 years.

Most anyone getting shingles caught chicken pox the traditional way, not from a shot.
Click to expand...

I understand, but is it accurate to say your level of immunity is normally higher going forward if you get the actual disease rather than an inoculation? Isn't adult shingles on the upswing because of the comparative weakness of immunity provided by childhood shots? This is based on a friend of mine, who was immunized, getting shingles in his 20s.
And as Scoobydoo illustrates, nothing provides 100% permanent immunity. Not even the disease itself. Immunity fades, some more quickly than others.
 
geezer said:
I understand, but is it accurate to say your level of immunity is normally higher going forward if you get the actual disease rather than an inoculation? Isn't adult shingles on the upswing because of the comparative weakness of immunity provided by childhood shots? This is based on a friend of mine, who was immunized, getting shingles in his 20s.
And as Scoobydoo illustrates, nothing provides 100% permanent immunity. Not even the disease itself. Immunity fades, some more quickly than others.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if the rate of incidence is increasing. But the gross number of cases increasing likely has much to do with the simple aging of the population. Shingles primarily hits older people, and the population in this country is getting progressively older. We'd therefore expect more cases, all else being equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top