The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.

Vaccination:Clark County Washington, Failing the rest of the state Since Inception

13468994

Posts

  • WarcryWarcry I'm getting my shit pushed in here! AustraliaRegistered User regular
    I've only ever been to one chiropractor in my life, and he was an 'unlicensed' professional. (as in, it was his job and he'd never finished the required training)
    Honestly, it was fantastic. He just sized me up, laid me out on the bench and started cracking away. I've never felt so goddamn relaxed in all my life. He didn't spout any bullshit, didn't even tell me to come back in two weeks or that I would 'experience pain' afterwards. I didn't have a single twinge. My girlfriend at the time also went to one, and she was bedridden for two days afterwards.
    To my great dismay, the guy shut up shop shortly after he did my back. It only cost me fifty bucks and I'd gladly have gone back in a few months when I needed it again.
    Since then, I've learned how to do it myself, though the neck part still gives me trouble sometimes.

  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    I have seen 3 Chiropractors in my life, the first is a family friend, awesome dude never mentioned shit about how the subluxations cause all sort of medical illness and all that shit. He was a straight up, back cracker.

    The second was recommended to me from my GF at the time, I was having some back pains and this guy got me to get xrays and then sit in on a 30 min presentation with a bunch of other potential new patients about how misalignment in the back can cause just about everything. Before that seminar I thought it was really great that he wanted to see what we were dealing with in regards to how my spine etc looked. He was concerned about how straight my neck was in the Xray and then showed some stuff regarding how that is a degenerative thing and that with a bunch of treatment we could get the neck back to being curved. Part of me was like.. ok.. yea that could make sense. Then I went to the presentation and completely disregarded everything the guy had said before because he was straight up full of shit.

    My Last Chiro I see from time to time. He has a sports med clinic that does physiotherapy and they have a bunch of licensed physiotherapists. Usually I get heat on my legs/hip. He works out the hamstrings and glutes and then gives my hip a crack on both sides. In the past that freed up my range of motion when I am doing kicks and allievated pain I would have in my hips for well.. a few months. He's never said shit about healing anything or any mumbo jumbo. I have also seen his Physiotherapists, I had separated my shoulder in August and was with one for a few weeks. No loss of range of motion and all I have left is maybe an extra pop in my shoulder that wasn't there before.

    If its all bullshit and what I am seeing is the result of placebo then I am ok with going to see this guy. (Its covered anyways :D)

    Physiotherapy is generally the real deal, as long as your physiotherapist isn't a quack. I suspect that any improvement you saw with the actual chiropractor was the physiotherapy. The actual chiropractic cracking your hip, however, was in all likelihood completely useless.

    Which is a really good idea now that I think of it. "While I prepare my mystical healing crystals to cure your headache, why not enjoy some complimentary Advil?"

    I only ever saw the physiotherapist specifically for my shoulder. My hips were always with the chiropractor, I have a Femoral Acetabular Impingement on both hips, which was found by my GP and a radiologist when I got xrays done. so my range of motion in my hips is limited , as well according to the one MSK doc I saw my one leg is a bit shorter than the other so my stance and hip tends to be a bit skewed. I started to see the chiro as my hips where hurting while trying to do some kicks and I was noticing that I wasnt able to get my legs out as far as they use to. I went to see the Chiro he did his thing and at least for the next few months the kicks I was doing that caused pain were no longer painful and I was able to perform them properly again. I maybe would see him every few months, usually around when I noticed the pain starting to return and my form being shit.

    I will eventually have to go in for surgery to correct the impingement as it is really starting to limit my movement and I would rather it get when I am young then wait and potentially need a hip replacement down the road.

    I personally would love to take an xray before and after my hip "adjustment" to see if there is any difference in how it is angled etc, and it is quite possible what the chiropractor is doing to me isn't apart of the chiropractic treatments and could be actual sports medicine or perhaps something that has actual merit that they adopted and put into there bag of tricks.

    Confirmation Bias, Anecdotes and all that, I still don't have a problem seeing my guy.

    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • This content has been removed.

  • laservisioncatlaservisioncat Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    You're looking at it the wrong way. My sugar pills have been proven to have minor beneficial effects on a wide variety of diseases, have been tested in more clinical trials than any medicine on the market,are completely natural, and the main ingredient has been used by ancient civilizations probably.

    I am now taking preorders act quick before big pharma scams you
    darkmayo wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    I have seen 3 Chiropractors in my life, the first is a family friend, awesome dude never mentioned shit about how the subluxations cause all sort of medical illness and all that shit. He was a straight up, back cracker.

    The second was recommended to me from my GF at the time, I was having some back pains and this guy got me to get xrays and then sit in on a 30 min presentation with a bunch of other potential new patients about how misalignment in the back can cause just about everything. Before that seminar I thought it was really great that he wanted to see what we were dealing with in regards to how my spine etc looked. He was concerned about how straight my neck was in the Xray and then showed some stuff regarding how that is a degenerative thing and that with a bunch of treatment we could get the neck back to being curved. Part of me was like.. ok.. yea that could make sense. Then I went to the presentation and completely disregarded everything the guy had said before because he was straight up full of shit.

    My Last Chiro I see from time to time. He has a sports med clinic that does physiotherapy and they have a bunch of licensed physiotherapists. Usually I get heat on my legs/hip. He works out the hamstrings and glutes and then gives my hip a crack on both sides. In the past that freed up my range of motion when I am doing kicks and allievated pain I would have in my hips for well.. a few months. He's never said shit about healing anything or any mumbo jumbo. I have also seen his Physiotherapists, I had separated my shoulder in August and was with one for a few weeks. No loss of range of motion and all I have left is maybe an extra pop in my shoulder that wasn't there before.

    If its all bullshit and what I am seeing is the result of placebo then I am ok with going to see this guy. (Its covered anyways :D)

    Physiotherapy is generally the real deal, as long as your physiotherapist isn't a quack. I suspect that any improvement you saw with the actual chiropractor was the physiotherapy. The actual chiropractic cracking your hip, however, was in all likelihood completely useless.

    Which is a really good idea now that I think of it. "While I prepare my mystical healing crystals to cure your headache, why not enjoy some complimentary Advil?"

    I only ever saw the physiotherapist specifically for my shoulder. My hips were always with the chiropractor, I have a Femoral Acetabular Impingement on both hips, which was found by my GP and a radiologist when I got xrays done. so my range of motion in my hips is limited , as well according to the one MSK doc I saw my one leg is a bit shorter than the other so my stance and hip tends to be a bit skewed. I started to see the chiro as my hips where hurting while trying to do some kicks and I was noticing that I wasnt able to get my legs out as far as they use to. I went to see the Chiro he did his thing and at least for the next few months the kicks I was doing that caused pain were no longer painful and I was able to perform them properly again. I maybe would see him every few months, usually around when I noticed the pain starting to return and my form being shit.

    I will eventually have to go in for surgery to correct the impingement as it is really starting to limit my movement and I would rather it get when I am young then wait and potentially need a hip replacement down the road.

    I personally would love to take an xray before and after my hip "adjustment" to see if there is any difference in how it is angled etc, and it is quite possible what the chiropractor is doing to me isn't apart of the chiropractic treatments and could be actual sports medicine or perhaps something that has actual merit that they adopted and put into there bag of tricks.

    Confirmation Bias, Anecdotes and all that, I still don't have a problem seeing my guy.

    You said he 'works the hamstings and glutes'. That sounds a lot like physiotherapy to me, which incidentally is a typical treatment for FAI over the short term. I mean, if you like him and he isn't overcharging you, then more power to you. It just isn't anecdotal support for chiropractic the discipline.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    You're looking at it the wrong way. My sugar pills have been proven to have minor beneficial effects on a wide variety of diseases, have been tested in more clinical trials than any medicine on the market,are completely natural, and the main ingredient has been used by ancient civilizations probably.

    I am now taking preorders act quick before big pharma scams you
    darkmayo wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    I have seen 3 Chiropractors in my life, the first is a family friend, awesome dude never mentioned shit about how the subluxations cause all sort of medical illness and all that shit. He was a straight up, back cracker.

    The second was recommended to me from my GF at the time, I was having some back pains and this guy got me to get xrays and then sit in on a 30 min presentation with a bunch of other potential new patients about how misalignment in the back can cause just about everything. Before that seminar I thought it was really great that he wanted to see what we were dealing with in regards to how my spine etc looked. He was concerned about how straight my neck was in the Xray and then showed some stuff regarding how that is a degenerative thing and that with a bunch of treatment we could get the neck back to being curved. Part of me was like.. ok.. yea that could make sense. Then I went to the presentation and completely disregarded everything the guy had said before because he was straight up full of shit.

    My Last Chiro I see from time to time. He has a sports med clinic that does physiotherapy and they have a bunch of licensed physiotherapists. Usually I get heat on my legs/hip. He works out the hamstrings and glutes and then gives my hip a crack on both sides. In the past that freed up my range of motion when I am doing kicks and allievated pain I would have in my hips for well.. a few months. He's never said shit about healing anything or any mumbo jumbo. I have also seen his Physiotherapists, I had separated my shoulder in August and was with one for a few weeks. No loss of range of motion and all I have left is maybe an extra pop in my shoulder that wasn't there before.

    If its all bullshit and what I am seeing is the result of placebo then I am ok with going to see this guy. (Its covered anyways :D)

    Physiotherapy is generally the real deal, as long as your physiotherapist isn't a quack. I suspect that any improvement you saw with the actual chiropractor was the physiotherapy. The actual chiropractic cracking your hip, however, was in all likelihood completely useless.

    Which is a really good idea now that I think of it. "While I prepare my mystical healing crystals to cure your headache, why not enjoy some complimentary Advil?"

    I only ever saw the physiotherapist specifically for my shoulder. My hips were always with the chiropractor, I have a Femoral Acetabular Impingement on both hips, which was found by my GP and a radiologist when I got xrays done. so my range of motion in my hips is limited , as well according to the one MSK doc I saw my one leg is a bit shorter than the other so my stance and hip tends to be a bit skewed. I started to see the chiro as my hips where hurting while trying to do some kicks and I was noticing that I wasnt able to get my legs out as far as they use to. I went to see the Chiro he did his thing and at least for the next few months the kicks I was doing that caused pain were no longer painful and I was able to perform them properly again. I maybe would see him every few months, usually around when I noticed the pain starting to return and my form being shit.

    I will eventually have to go in for surgery to correct the impingement as it is really starting to limit my movement and I would rather it get when I am young then wait and potentially need a hip replacement down the road.

    I personally would love to take an xray before and after my hip "adjustment" to see if there is any difference in how it is angled etc, and it is quite possible what the chiropractor is doing to me isn't apart of the chiropractic treatments and could be actual sports medicine or perhaps something that has actual merit that they adopted and put into there bag of tricks.

    Confirmation Bias, Anecdotes and all that, I still don't have a problem seeing my guy.

    You said he 'works the hamstings and glutes'. That sounds a lot like physiotherapy to me, which incidentally is a typical treatment for FAI over the short term. I mean, if you like him and he isn't overcharging you, then more power to you. It just isn't anecdotal support for chiropractic the discipline.

    I think it's worth noting here that my insurance co-pay for chiropractors is $35 per visit. It's $75 to see a licensed physical therapist. I went with the latter when I hurt my back, but I can fully understand how someone with chronic issues might choose a chiropractor over PT.

  • This content has been removed.

  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    Cabezone wrote: »
    I am curious how many of the people supporting chiropractors would give the same benefit of doubt to faith healers.

    I am an atheist and fairly skeptical about a bunch of things, as well my wife is a MD so I get blasted with science and new shit and findings in the medical world all the time.

    for me it all depends on what you are seeing your "healer" for and if you feel like you are being ripped off by how much they are charging you. My Chiropractor is covered under my health benefits so even if it is all FUD it still helps me until I can get in to see a orthopod. While the relief I feel might just be psychosomatic I cant deny that I do feel and move much better after it.

    The thing that the bloody naturopaths, homeopaths and other "alternative" medicine folks have over the actual MDs is the time they can spend actual time with you instead of 8 minutes in and out. That sort of interaction helps with vague bullshit maladies and imagined pains etc. I would rather these quacks exist to look after these folks instead of having them clog up GPs and hospitals.

    That said there has to be a serious legal line drawn against these "alt" folks to make sure they aren't trying to treat actual illnesses or provide them with the tools to refer people to actual doctors when they suspect something is real, of course to do that they would likely have to go to a real medical school to get up to speed with actual treatment, which might in turn open there eyes to the fact that what they do is just placebo and that they perhaps would be better off trying to become actual doctors (which of course they likely don't have the schooling to even attempt to get into med school in the first place... :D )

    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    You're looking at it the wrong way. My sugar pills have been proven to have minor beneficial effects on a wide variety of diseases, have been tested in more clinical trials than any medicine on the market,are completely natural, and the main ingredient has been used by ancient civilizations probably.

    I am now taking preorders act quick before big pharma scams you
    darkmayo wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    I have seen 3 Chiropractors in my life, the first is a family friend, awesome dude never mentioned shit about how the subluxations cause all sort of medical illness and all that shit. He was a straight up, back cracker.

    The second was recommended to me from my GF at the time, I was having some back pains and this guy got me to get xrays and then sit in on a 30 min presentation with a bunch of other potential new patients about how misalignment in the back can cause just about everything. Before that seminar I thought it was really great that he wanted to see what we were dealing with in regards to how my spine etc looked. He was concerned about how straight my neck was in the Xray and then showed some stuff regarding how that is a degenerative thing and that with a bunch of treatment we could get the neck back to being curved. Part of me was like.. ok.. yea that could make sense. Then I went to the presentation and completely disregarded everything the guy had said before because he was straight up full of shit.

    My Last Chiro I see from time to time. He has a sports med clinic that does physiotherapy and they have a bunch of licensed physiotherapists. Usually I get heat on my legs/hip. He works out the hamstrings and glutes and then gives my hip a crack on both sides. In the past that freed up my range of motion when I am doing kicks and allievated pain I would have in my hips for well.. a few months. He's never said shit about healing anything or any mumbo jumbo. I have also seen his Physiotherapists, I had separated my shoulder in August and was with one for a few weeks. No loss of range of motion and all I have left is maybe an extra pop in my shoulder that wasn't there before.

    If its all bullshit and what I am seeing is the result of placebo then I am ok with going to see this guy. (Its covered anyways :D)

    Physiotherapy is generally the real deal, as long as your physiotherapist isn't a quack. I suspect that any improvement you saw with the actual chiropractor was the physiotherapy. The actual chiropractic cracking your hip, however, was in all likelihood completely useless.

    Which is a really good idea now that I think of it. "While I prepare my mystical healing crystals to cure your headache, why not enjoy some complimentary Advil?"

    I only ever saw the physiotherapist specifically for my shoulder. My hips were always with the chiropractor, I have a Femoral Acetabular Impingement on both hips, which was found by my GP and a radiologist when I got xrays done. so my range of motion in my hips is limited , as well according to the one MSK doc I saw my one leg is a bit shorter than the other so my stance and hip tends to be a bit skewed. I started to see the chiro as my hips where hurting while trying to do some kicks and I was noticing that I wasnt able to get my legs out as far as they use to. I went to see the Chiro he did his thing and at least for the next few months the kicks I was doing that caused pain were no longer painful and I was able to perform them properly again. I maybe would see him every few months, usually around when I noticed the pain starting to return and my form being shit.

    I will eventually have to go in for surgery to correct the impingement as it is really starting to limit my movement and I would rather it get when I am young then wait and potentially need a hip replacement down the road.

    I personally would love to take an xray before and after my hip "adjustment" to see if there is any difference in how it is angled etc, and it is quite possible what the chiropractor is doing to me isn't apart of the chiropractic treatments and could be actual sports medicine or perhaps something that has actual merit that they adopted and put into there bag of tricks.

    Confirmation Bias, Anecdotes and all that, I still don't have a problem seeing my guy.

    You said he 'works the hamstings and glutes'. That sounds a lot like physiotherapy to me, which incidentally is a typical treatment for FAI over the short term. I mean, if you like him and he isn't overcharging you, then more power to you. It just isn't anecdotal support for chiropractic the discipline.

    Exactly, he calls himself a Chiropractor and has his diplomas etc for it, but likely what he is doing isn't your standard Chiropractic stuff, so maybe I am actually visiting a dude who just is mislabelled. :D

    darkmayo on
    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    I said this in another thread, but I strongly suspect that moving MMR from 12 months to 2 years would have a real impact on exemption rates. People opt out because they are scared of autism (this is a groundless fear) so telling them that their child will get the vaccine once it is already known whether or not they are likely to be autistic, and still before they start school, seems like the smart move to me.

    I know you feel this way, and you're probably right. But at this point I am sick and tired of pussy-footing around people's strongly held bullshit beliefs that fly in the face of any scientific evidence because it tells them that "maybe I am right in my beliefs, what other things do I believe without any sense, maybe the world should cater to that too!"

    It's a temporary solution that makes the problem worse.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I said this in another thread, but I strongly suspect that moving MMR from 12 months to 2 years would have a real impact on exemption rates. People opt out because they are scared of autism (this is a groundless fear) so telling them that their child will get the vaccine once it is already known whether or not they are likely to be autistic, and still before they start school, seems like the smart move to me.

    Diagnosing autism at eighteen months is considered on the early side - most clinical diagnosis happens closer to two years.

    Moving the MMR vaccine to two years will likely result in more infections (children in the 1-2 year range are generally exposed to a lot more potential vectors than children in the 0-12 month range) and will still result in autism diagnoses occurring around the same time as vaccinations.

    And - let's be honest - your solution probably won't convince anyone who isn't going to vaccinate their kid because of autism.

    I'll note that one major blow in the developing world to vaccination efforts was the CIA using vaccinations as a way to get DNA samples to verify identities (i.e. in the hunt for Osama). That caused a distrust of WHO efforts and directly led to a resurgence of polio. Not that I think the CIA had a bad idea, but keep that kind of shit under wraps.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I said this in another thread, but I strongly suspect that moving MMR from 12 months to 2 years would have a real impact on exemption rates. People opt out because they are scared of autism (this is a groundless fear) so telling them that their child will get the vaccine once it is already known whether or not they are likely to be autistic, and still before they start school, seems like the smart move to me.

    Diagnosing autism at eighteen months is considered on the early side - most clinical diagnosis happens closer to two years.

    Moving the MMR vaccine to two years will likely result in more infections (children in the 1-2 year range are generally exposed to a lot more potential vectors than children in the 0-12 month range) and will still result in autism diagnoses occurring around the same time as vaccinations.

    And - let's be honest - your solution probably won't convince anyone who isn't going to vaccinate their kid because of autism.

    I'll note that one major blow in the developing world to vaccination efforts was the CIA using vaccinations as a way to get DNA samples to verify identities (i.e. in the hunt for Osama). That caused a distrust of WHO efforts and directly led to a resurgence of polio. Not that I think the CIA had a bad idea, but keep that kind of shit under wraps.

    Doing anything that undermines trust in organizations like WHO, Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal , etc. is a terrible idea, as whatever minor benefit gained from it is going to be vastly outweighed by the consequences of the damage to those organizations' legitimacy.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    zagdrob wrote: »
    I said this in another thread, but I strongly suspect that moving MMR from 12 months to 2 years would have a real impact on exemption rates. People opt out because they are scared of autism (this is a groundless fear) so telling them that their child will get the vaccine once it is already known whether or not they are likely to be autistic, and still before they start school, seems like the smart move to me.

    Diagnosing autism at eighteen months is considered on the early side - most clinical diagnosis happens closer to two years.

    Moving the MMR vaccine to two years will likely result in more infections (children in the 1-2 year range are generally exposed to a lot more potential vectors than children in the 0-12 month range) and will still result in autism diagnoses occurring around the same time as vaccinations.

    And - let's be honest - your solution probably won't convince anyone who isn't going to vaccinate their kid because of autism.

    Yeah. I'm open to looking at it, but the dates of vaccinations are set where they are for epidemiological reasons.
    I'll note that one major blow in the developing world to vaccination efforts was the CIA using vaccinations as a way to get DNA samples to verify identities (i.e. in the hunt for Osama). That caused a distrust of WHO efforts and directly led to a resurgence of polio. Not that I think the CIA had a bad idea, but keep that kind of shit under wraps.

    It didn't help, but ultimately it's pretty much all the same shitty people railing against vaccines that were railing against vaccines before that incident. Like western anti-vaxxers, they live in a fantasy world and are more than happy to kill and cripple kids in service to false idols.

    programjunkie on
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    What do you mean? We have bee...

    Oh. Right.







    Do me a favour: Count backwards from ten.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Flu vaccine isn't 100%, but anyone who has had the real flu and not a cold would take any extra protection they can get. The flu fucking sucks.

    Just watching someone have the flu will make you go to all sorts of crazy lengths to avoid joining them. A vaccine is nothing! Before the vaccine, all my kids and wife got the flu and the doctor tells me "you probably dont' have it yet so here's a prescription for basically magic anti-flu powder"

    "what do I do with it?"
    "you breathe it into your lungs and we think it'll maybe help"
    "I breathe this powder. Like, I just suck it into my lungs?"
    "Yeah, big deep breath. You won't cough but it's going to feel weird"
    "And this blocks the flu?"
    "often..."
    "this powder, that I inhale, that doesn't always work"
    "yes"
    ".... can I do it right now?

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    MKDELTA/MKULTRA

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists. Now, where is my copy of Catcher in the Rye...

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    I find it mind-boggling how stuff like chiropracty, Reiki, homeopathy, antivaxxing etc. are as popular as they are. Ignorance can be fixed if the person is willing to put in the effort to educate themselves, but aggressive intentional stupidity is something that inspires only loathing in me.

    A while back in a previous thread @Feral had a very good post explaining the enduring appeal of non-evidence-based treatments. It basically comes down to medical providers handling patients in an extremely bureaucratic manner -- consider emergency room waiting times; consider how much time you spend at medical appointments waiting in an empty, sterile examination room in a humiliating medical frock waiting for the doctor to even show up -- while going to the quack's office feels like going to the spa. A pleasant, pampering environment plus the placebo effect is more than enough to convince people to opt out of real medical treatment, especially for minor ailments.

    I remember that post and I still believe that. I think it was in an acupuncture or chiropractic thread in response to The Cat.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    edited January 2015
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    It's going to be awhile before that happens. Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
    mcqueen.jpg

    Johnny Chopsocky on
    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • PenumbraPenumbra Registered User regular
    Spaffy wrote: »
    All this talk of the placebo effect is making wonder why we aren't investigating a ton of money into training better hypnotists.

    It's going to be awhile before that happens. Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
    mcqueen.jpg

    Would you kindly please vaccinate your kids already!

    Switch Friend Code: 6359-7575-9391
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    re: Chiropractors.

    They have a lot of overlap with other physical therapy fields, i.e. physiotherapy and massage therapy, so some of what they do genuinely helps.

    Some other beneficial things can be attributed to the placebo effect, and just having someone touch you (which is also a factor in physiotherapy and massage therapy)

    That's all well and good, but "Chiropracty" also covers a lot of other things, some of them actively harmful, especially to children.

    So a lot of people luck out and basically get unlicensed physiotherapists, but the label "Chiropractor" is useless for determining that.

    That's pretty much why I find them one of the most dangerous of the pseudo sciences. There's enough people that luck out on who they get, and will go to bat for Chiropractors, and the fact that they can do lasting harm.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    I said this in another thread, but I strongly suspect that moving MMR from 12 months to 2 years would have a real impact on exemption rates. People opt out because they are scared of autism (this is a groundless fear) so telling them that their child will get the vaccine once it is already known whether or not they are likely to be autistic, and still before they start school, seems like the smart move to me.

    the problem is with all the anti-vaxxers around you do not want your kid without that vaccine between months 12 and 24 when they are most vulnerable to those diseases

    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • mare_imbriummare_imbrium Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    I have three children, and because I breastfed and my third child was born at home I intersect with a community that believes in all of this stuff - the homeopathy, the chiro, and not vaccinating. You think that people who are anti-vax just read heard some rumor, or read some unsourced fear mongering on a mommy blog somewhere. That's incorrect. They have studied. They have read things. Unless any of you are medical professionals or work in public health I doubt you would be able to even argue with them on a fact basis, because they have all of these studies and statistics and what-have-you that they believe prove that they are right, and they have spent far more time on it than you have. They don't just have Jenny McCarthy and the one debunked Wakefield study. They didn't just hear a friend say "this has mercury in it" and that sounded scary and so they decided against it on a whim. The thing is I believe in vaccination, and my brother is a med student besides. So *I* haven't done the research they have done, so I can't say whether or not I would find it compelling. I just did what my kids' pediatrician said to do, and there are people who would say that is irresponsible. Hell, a tiny part of ME feels that not understanding why we do the things we do and just doing what we're told is irresponsible. Anyway, the point is that these people who don't vaccinate are the same people who spend a lot of time advocating for "evidence based" birth practices. They want science, they are looking for science to back them up, and they believe they have it. If I went to these people, these friends of friends, and asked them for sources for why they don't vaccinate I would be buried under an avalanche of things to read. I am not interested in reading those things, but I can do it if anyone is interested.

    The issue is the internet, as someone mentioned, but not just because like-minded people can more easily find each other. We are inundated with information. There are few barriers to it anymore. Even "mainstream" news sources will often run garbage. Now more than ever you have to be your own filter. And people who purvey "junk" science in order to sow doubt, or sell you something, or get their industries out of regulatory legislation (I have on and off been reading a fascinating book called Doubt is their Product by David Michaels but it is dense and long), are very good at what they do. I don't believe that the schooling most people had prepared them to be critical and skeptical of the sources of information we are now exposed to daily. Hell, I have a bachelor's degree in history and I don't feel that there was enough instruction on how to evaluate sources. There should be an entire course on nothing else.

    Anyway, I agree it is a problem for public health, I do vaccinate my kids, but you need to understand these people do not think their opinions are better than your facts. They don't believe it is an opinion, and they think they know better than you do.

    mare_imbrium on
    v2zAToe.jpg
    Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    I was just reading an article on CNN about a family with an infant who had to be quarantined for a month because she might have been exposed to measles from another child who's parents refused to vaccinate.

    Both parents had to take significant time off from work and a family member had to come in and help because their child could not leave the house for a month.

    I wonder if it would be possible for that family to sue the parents who refused to vaccinate for lost wages and whatever else.

    I don't want to add to an already sometimes overly litigious society. But if anti-vacc parents were to suddenly find themselves financially at risk because of it. I think it would move things in the right direction.

  • ArtereisArtereis Registered User regular
    That's a grand jury I'd feel glad to be on, if it happened.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    I have three children, and because I breastfed and my third child was born at home I intersect with a community that believes in all of this stuff - the homeopathy, the chiro, and not vaccinating. You think that people who are anti-vax just read heard some rumor, or read some unsourced fear mongering on a mommy blog somewhere. That's incorrect. They have studied. They have read things. Unless any of you are medical professionals or work in public health I doubt you would be able to even argue with them on a fact basis, because they have all of these studies and statistics and what-have-you that they believe prove that they are right, and they have spent far more time on it than you have. They don't just have Jenny McCarthy and the one debunked Wakefield study. They didn't just hear a friend say "this has mercury in it" and that sounded scary and so they decided against it on a whim. The thing is I believe in vaccination, and my brother is a med student besides. So *I* haven't done the research they have done, so I can't say whether or not I would find it compelling. I just did what my kids' pediatrician said to do, and there are people who would say that is irresponsible. Hell, a tiny part of ME feels that not understanding why we do the things we do and just doing what we're told is irresponsible. Anyway, the point is that these people who don't vaccinate are the same people who spend a lot of time advocating for "evidence based" birth practices. They want science, they are looking for science to back them up, and they believe they have it. If I went to these people, these friends of friends, and asked them for sources for why they don't vaccinate I would be buried under an avalanche of things to read. I am not interested in reading those things, but I can do it if anyone is interested.

    The issue is the internet, as someone mentioned, but not just because like-minded people can more easily find each other. We are inundated with information. There are few barriers to it anymore. Even "mainstream" news sources will often run garbage. Now more than ever you have to be your own filter. And people who purvey "junk" science in order to sow doubt, or sell you something, or get their industries out of regulatory legislation (I have on and off been reading a fascinating book called Doubt is their Product by David Michaels but it is dense and long), are very good at what they do. I don't believe that the schooling most people had prepared them to be critical and skeptical of the sources of information we are now exposed to daily. Hell, I have a bachelor's degree in history and I don't feel that there was enough instruction on how to evaluate sources. There should be an entire course on nothing else.

    Anyway, I agree it is a problem for public health, I do vaccinate my kids, but you need to understand these people do not think their opinions are better than your facts. They don't believe it is an opinion, and they think they know better than you do.

    Which is why the best solution is, in the wake of these outbreaks, for the government to crack down hard on them. It's one of the few areas where I think a campaign of educating the public that "those people" are dangerous to "your children" would be actively helpful to society.

    Some people need to be demonized, especially if they cannot be educated. Put anti-vaxxers in the box with white supremacists, pedophiles and people who sell crack at schoolyards and call it a day.

  • am0nam0n Registered User regular
    I have three children, and because I breastfed and my third child was born at home I intersect with a community that believes in all of this stuff - the homeopathy, the chiro, and not vaccinating. You think that people who are anti-vax just read heard some rumor, or read some unsourced fear mongering on a mommy blog somewhere. That's incorrect. They have studied. They have read things. Unless any of you are medical professionals or work in public health I doubt you would be able to even argue with them on a fact basis, because they have all of these studies and statistics and what-have-you that they believe prove that they are right, and they have spent far more time on it than you have. They don't just have Jenny McCarthy and the one debunked Wakefield study. They didn't just hear a friend say "this has mercury in it" and that sounded scary and so they decided against it on a whim. The thing is I believe in vaccination, and my brother is a med student besides. So *I* haven't done the research they have done, so I can't say whether or not I would find it compelling. I just did what my kids' pediatrician said to do, and there are people who would say that is irresponsible. Hell, a tiny part of ME feels that not understanding why we do the things we do and just doing what we're told is irresponsible. Anyway, the point is that these people who don't vaccinate are the same people who spend a lot of time advocating for "evidence based" birth practices. They want science, they are looking for science to back them up, and they believe they have it. If I went to these people, these friends of friends, and asked them for sources for why they don't vaccinate I would be buried under an avalanche of things to read. I am not interested in reading those things, but I can do it if anyone is interested.

    The issue is the internet, as someone mentioned, but not just because like-minded people can more easily find each other. We are inundated with information. There are few barriers to it anymore. Even "mainstream" news sources will often run garbage. Now more than ever you have to be your own filter. And people who purvey "junk" science in order to sow doubt, or sell you something, or get their industries out of regulatory legislation (I have on and off been reading a fascinating book called Doubt is their Product by David Michaels but it is dense and long), are very good at what they do. I don't believe that the schooling most people had prepared them to be critical and skeptical of the sources of information we are now exposed to daily. Hell, I have a bachelor's degree in history and I don't feel that there was enough instruction on how to evaluate sources. There should be an entire course on nothing else.

    Anyway, I agree it is a problem for public health, I do vaccinate my kids, but you need to understand these people do not think their opinions are better than your facts. They don't believe it is an opinion, and they think they know better than you do.

    I'd love to know what exactly they've studied and read, because beyond the one paper (of which just about everything else is based off) that has been so heavily debunked the guy was kicked from practice, I'm not sure they've actually read and studied much more than what they wanted to hear. And unfortunately, that's not how reality works. Or, at least, that's not how it should work.

    As for you feeling poorly because you listened to someone who has devoted their life to doing something that you looked to them for guidance, that's also kind of how it works. You are right, you shouldn't be entirely ignorant about it, which a very cursory search will teach you why we vaccinate. Eliminating diseases it the big reason. And Herd Immunity (which has been talked about ad nauseum) is a wonderful side effect to control outbreaks.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Another problem is that the general public generally is so scientifically illiterate that good science is already fighting a losing battle.

    If I'm going to talk to some young mother about studies that support vaccination and she "totally read how vaccines have Mercury" I can't even begin to address that point and talk about peer reviewed sources and the difference between methyl and ethyl Mercury. And then they think I'm an asshole because im using phrases they don't know and they think I'm being condescending.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    am0n wrote: »
    I have three children, and because I breastfed and my third child was born at home I intersect with a community that believes in all of this stuff - the homeopathy, the chiro, and not vaccinating. You think that people who are anti-vax just read heard some rumor, or read some unsourced fear mongering on a mommy blog somewhere. That's incorrect. They have studied. They have read things. Unless any of you are medical professionals or work in public health I doubt you would be able to even argue with them on a fact basis, because they have all of these studies and statistics and what-have-you that they believe prove that they are right, and they have spent far more time on it than you have. They don't just have Jenny McCarthy and the one debunked Wakefield study. They didn't just hear a friend say "this has mercury in it" and that sounded scary and so they decided against it on a whim. The thing is I believe in vaccination, and my brother is a med student besides. So *I* haven't done the research they have done, so I can't say whether or not I would find it compelling. I just did what my kids' pediatrician said to do, and there are people who would say that is irresponsible. Hell, a tiny part of ME feels that not understanding why we do the things we do and just doing what we're told is irresponsible. Anyway, the point is that these people who don't vaccinate are the same people who spend a lot of time advocating for "evidence based" birth practices. They want science, they are looking for science to back them up, and they believe they have it. If I went to these people, these friends of friends, and asked them for sources for why they don't vaccinate I would be buried under an avalanche of things to read. I am not interested in reading those things, but I can do it if anyone is interested.

    The issue is the internet, as someone mentioned, but not just because like-minded people can more easily find each other. We are inundated with information. There are few barriers to it anymore. Even "mainstream" news sources will often run garbage. Now more than ever you have to be your own filter. And people who purvey "junk" science in order to sow doubt, or sell you something, or get their industries out of regulatory legislation (I have on and off been reading a fascinating book called Doubt is their Product by David Michaels but it is dense and long), are very good at what they do. I don't believe that the schooling most people had prepared them to be critical and skeptical of the sources of information we are now exposed to daily. Hell, I have a bachelor's degree in history and I don't feel that there was enough instruction on how to evaluate sources. There should be an entire course on nothing else.

    Anyway, I agree it is a problem for public health, I do vaccinate my kids, but you need to understand these people do not think their opinions are better than your facts. They don't believe it is an opinion, and they think they know better than you do.

    I'd love to know what exactly they've studied and read, because beyond the one paper (of which just about everything else is based off) that has been so heavily debunked the guy was kicked from practice, I'm not sure they've actually read and studied much more than what they wanted to hear. And unfortunately, that's not how reality works. Or, at least, that's not how it should work.

    As for you feeling poorly because you listened to someone who has devoted their life to doing something that you looked to them for guidance, that's also kind of how it works. You are right, you shouldn't be entirely ignorant about it, which a very cursory search will teach you why we vaccinate. Eliminating diseases it the big reason. And Herd Immunity (which has been talked about ad nauseum) is a wonderful side effect to control outbreaks.

    Well, I'm sure they didn't read the debunking articles and research. They just found the "research" that agreed with their positions and didn't go any further.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Another problem is that the general public generally is so scientifically illiterate that good science is already fighting a losing battle.

    If I'm going to talk to some young mother about studies that support vaccination and she "totally read how vaccines have Mercury" I can't even begin to address that point and talk about peer reviewed sources and the difference between methyl and ethyl Mercury. And then they think I'm an asshole because im using phrases they don't know and they think I'm being condescending.

    I think the Disney outbreak will be a watershed moment. Lots of people who would tune out the scientific discussion can easily grasp the idea that a bunch of idiots managed to make Disneyland unsafe for their kids. The fact that the people involved remain unrepentant while people like the dad whose kid has leukemia come forward will only deepen the feeling that something is wrong with the anti-vaccination movement.

    That's how the tide will turn against this - a flood of easily relateable incidents where regular parents suffer harm thanks to ideologues. It won't hurt that the media has already turned on the movement (you can tell by the tone of the recent coverage), and I'm sure they will do that thing where they find some of the craziest motherfuckers in the nation to represent it on TV.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Another problem is that the general public generally is so scientifically illiterate that good science is already fighting a losing battle.

    If I'm going to talk to some young mother about studies that support vaccination and she "totally read how vaccines have Mercury" I can't even begin to address that point and talk about peer reviewed sources and the difference between methyl and ethyl Mercury. And then they think I'm an asshole because im using phrases they don't know and they think I'm being condescending.

    Yup.

    It's just about impossible to have any sort of discussion about modern medical science and practice (or really, anything more than a cursory glance at any scientific field) with a layman. It's going to basically come down to an appeal to authority when you're trying to explain the nuts and bolts of vaccination to someone without at least a couple 100-200 level credits of Biology.

    The people mare_imbrium is talking about are the most dangerous, because they chose the wrong authority to trust, and fall victim hard to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even worse, they poison the well for any scientific or fact based discussion with people who may otherwise have been receptive to the facts.

    Public health is like the perfect shitstorm of suck. Really, the only thing that's unusual about the anti-vaccers is that most of them aren't minority, the one group with a legitimate historic reason to distrust public health authorities.

    Personally, I think that unvaccinated children shouldn't be allowed to attend any licensed daycare, school, scout troop, etc - public or private - without a doctor's exemption. If I can't send my daughter to school with a PB&J for lunch because another kid might be allergic, I certainly don't understand how a parent can send a kid that is quite possibly a vector for some hard-core diseases.

  • This content has been removed.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    I find it mind-boggling how stuff like chiropracty, Reiki, homeopathy, antivaxxing etc. are as popular as they are. Ignorance can be fixed if the person is willing to put in the effort to educate themselves, but aggressive intentional stupidity is something that inspires only loathing in me.

    If it's only the health or life of the person in question, I don't care what they do. If it affects other people, especially those like children who have very limited ability to influence their situation, it becomes abominable. Herd immunity sure as hell is a lot more important than their personal preferences barring any real significant risks. It's not like any other type of plague carrier is free to traipse along outside a quarantine.

    I'd probably go to bat for chiropractic methods. I wouldn't out and out call them a Doctor, more like a dentist. And much like dentists there are skags among them.

    But the guy we used to bring my grandmother too was a nice guy. Sort of fellow who'd wait outside and help you and yours in if you needed it.

    Grandmother would be able to walk, upright and not hunched over, and not in a pain for most of the month after. I didn't care if it was a placebo or not, and I still don't. Anything that could do that for a woman who once broke her back in a General Motors factory is a-ok in my book.

    He was cheap too. Old folk got discounts (and apparently loved him because holy shit that guy got a lot of baked goods)

    Really I see it as a specialized form of physical therapy.

    The difference between a chiropractor and a physical therapist is that one of them is a trained medical professional and doesn't make bullshit claims about curing cancer or whatever with a bit of massage. I would also be incredibly sceptical about letting some random guy with no credentials to mess with my back and joints, regardless of how nice he is. Being nice is no substitute for knowing what you're doing.

    It's not a specialized form of physical therapy. It's a bunch of massage techniques (some of which are outright harmful) and pseudoscience baked together. At best you'll get the effects of a good massage. At worst you wont be walking again.

    Except this guy didn't make any claims about curing cancer. His claims were all about helping to deal with pain management and it worked.

    Like has been said before: The placebo affect is amazing.

  • LoveIsUnityLoveIsUnity Registered User regular
    If everyone gets vaccinated at 2, you still have herd immunity. Its really when kids are in school that it becomes so critical that everyone be vaccinated.

    Does your child not come into contact with other children, because my five month old does... All the fucking time.

    steam_sig.png
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    If everyone gets vaccinated at 2, you still have herd immunity. Its really when kids are in school that it becomes so critical that everyone be vaccinated.

    I guess if you never leave the house

  • This content has been removed.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    Where exactly do you posit that all these 18 month olds would be getting measles? Might as well say the exact same thing about waiting until 12 months (which is the current schedule).

    I dunno, where did they get it from this time?

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    If everyone gets vaccinated at 2, you still have herd immunity. Its really when kids are in school that it becomes so critical that everyone be vaccinated.

    Does your child not come into contact with other children, because my five month old does... All the fucking time.

    I'd assume that in general a child < 12 months old comes into less contact with other children (and a smaller group of children overall) than a 2 year old, but it's a red herring of an argument.

    Other than good clinical practices and medical necessity, there's not really any good reason to hold off vaccinating children as early as possible.

    Anyway, amount of contact is a poor measuring stick to determine the necessity of vaccinations to begin with. It disregards the number of children that receive group care, and also ignores the fact that infants and toddlers are an immune compromised / vulnerable population while school aged children generally aren't.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Where exactly do you posit that all these 18 month olds would be getting measles? Might as well say the exact same thing about waiting until 12 months (which is the current schedule).

    other people's houses, other people's kids, public surfaces, mostly other people though

    or yknow disneyworld

  • This content has been removed.

Sign In or Register to comment.