Chicken Pox parties are actually strongly advised against by modern, non-stupid doctors, and are now being considered under child abuse legislation lobbyists.
To be honest, having your kids catch chickenpox didn't sound so unreasonable to me until I realized there was a vaccine. Back in the 90's, the reasoning was that children were better off catching it when one sibling caught it because all the children would deal with it at once and it was much worse to get it as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people went through that as a kid, don't have a kid now (and so wouldn't be checking what has a vaccine these days), and wouldn't see that as a crazy idea.
We forget that the internet didn't always exist. When you live in Texas, as I did starting in 1991, and what your parents knew about keeping their kids healthy was likely what they learned from how their parents raised them, it wasn't unreasonable to believe that a chickenpox party was a good idea.
Saying so today, though? There's no excuse for that. We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away. It's doubly stupid for somebody who stakes their career and reputation on being a world-renowned physician.
Chicken Pox parties are actually strongly advised against by modern, non-stupid doctors, and are now being considered under child abuse legislation lobbyists.
To be honest, having your kids catch chickenpox didn't sound so unreasonable to me until I realized there was a vaccine. Back in the 90's, the reasoning was that children were better off catching it when one sibling caught it because all the children would deal with it at once and it was much worse to get it as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people went through that as a kid, don't have a kid now (and so wouldn't be checking what has a vaccine these days), and wouldn't see that as a crazy idea.
The chicken pox vaccine is quite new. IIRC it wasn't even released until the early-mid 90s.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+6
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
Chicken Pox parties are actually strongly advised against by modern, non-stupid doctors, and are now being considered under child abuse legislation lobbyists.
To be honest, having your kids catch chickenpox didn't sound so unreasonable to me until I realized there was a vaccine. Back in the 90's, the reasoning was that children were better off catching it when one sibling caught it because all the children would deal with it at once and it was much worse to get it as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people went through that as a kid, don't have a kid now (and so wouldn't be checking what has a vaccine these days), and wouldn't see that as a crazy idea.
The shingles vaccine is relatively new, and before that it was definitely a better idea to get chickenpox as a kid than shingles as an adult because shingles sucks holy shit it sucks so bad
But 1) catching chickenpox as a kid does not preclude you from getting it as an adult, ask my wife and cousin, and 2) there is a vaccine now
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
Yes, but this isn't a stance supported by actual science. Which is completely ironic since two paragraphs above that he states that he wants more scientists to run for office because they are trained to make decisions based on evidence.
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
Yes, but this isn't a stance supported by actual science. Which is completely ironic since two paragraphs above that he states that he wants more scientists to run for office because they are trained to make decisions based on evidence.
This, and the fact that spacing out vaccines keeps kids vulnerable to easily-preventable diseases that do not only affect the one child that spaced out vaccines. There's a very good public health reason to require vaccines on the regular schedule instead of spacing them out -- allowing such a spaced-out schedule allows big outbreaks of diseases and compromises herd immunity.
If it seems like I have zero tolerance for Carson's stupidity on this issue it's because I have zero tolerance for Carson's stupidity on this issue.
Rubio has never really broke out of the 11 to like 13% poll range. I believe his highest is when he entered the race when he also polled at single digits at one point. Betters don't know shit if they are picking marco, on top of that if he gets sunshine than more people look at his finances and they are hinky to say the least.
iirc the story of potential misuse of state party funds went nowhere (he did reimburse the party for personal expenses), so i am not sure it will hurt him as much as you say. I guess you can attack him on his poor financial choices (arguing it makes him unfit to manage the national economy), but it requires you to accept a stupid premise
It went nowhere because he's still polling in third and he's a non entity. This weekend he even said terrorist attacks were good politics for him. This gets overlooked until it doesn't.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Chicken Pox parties are actually strongly advised against by modern, non-stupid doctors, and are now being considered under child abuse legislation lobbyists.
To be honest, having your kids catch chickenpox didn't sound so unreasonable to me until I realized there was a vaccine. Back in the 90's, the reasoning was that children were better off catching it when one sibling caught it because all the children would deal with it at once and it was much worse to get it as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people went through that as a kid, don't have a kid now (and so wouldn't be checking what has a vaccine these days), and wouldn't see that as a crazy idea.
We forget that the internet didn't always exist. When you live in Texas, as I did starting in 1991, and what your parents knew about keeping their kids healthy was likely what they learned from how their parents raised them, it wasn't unreasonable to believe that a chickenpox party was a good idea.
Saying so today, though? There's no excuse for that. We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away. It's doubly stupid for somebody who stakes their career and reputation on being a world-renowned physician.
First of all, Massachusetts did the same thing, and it was recommended by pediatricians at the time. So you can't pin it on some being dumb regional or archaic thing.
Second of all, answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away if we know to search for it. You're counting on people to hear that statement and immediately think it's bullshit. If they think it sounds reasonable, especially based on past life experience, they aren't going to waste the time to look it up.
I'm not saying people should listen to him, but I am saying that people should combat this misinformation with a compelling argument for why it's not true instead of going "LOL and people are believing this!" Especially if that information is such an easy click away.
Edit for clarity: the criticism is directed at the article, not anyone here.
I'm not saying people should listen to him, but I am saying that people should combat this misinformation with a compelling argument for why it's not true instead of going "LOL and people are believing this!" Especially if that information is such an easy click away.
I thought you got shingles because you had chicken pox? Isn't that what those horrifying commercials are telling me when they show the terrifying open sores? I recall Olbermann had shingles and it leveled him, I dated a girl who got it in her twenties and her description was horrifying.
Me I never got chicken pox.
Anyway republican politics, terrorist attacks are good, bring back water boarding, being an open racist is cool now I guess? Anything I miss?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
edited November 2015
People have been combating that kind of stuff, like vaccine paranoia, on these very boards for years with threads dedicated to in depth discussions on said topics. We could just as easily link to those threads like the anti vaxxer one and avoid derailing this thread.
Basically anything that's come out of Ben Carson or Donald Trump's mouth that isn't too beyond the pale to even make sense of can and has already been dug into here and in many places online, and as you say is easily searchable on Google. I will always fondly remember how we picked apart the pyramid grain silo thing a few weeks ago for example.
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
I think what he is pretty clearly saying is that if you have a parent who is not going to follow the schedule, slowed down is better than no vaccines. How is that not a reasonable stance?
And just to say it, you can space out vaccines without slowing down by just doing 1 at a time each month instead of 2 every two months. It's a very minor deviation from schedule that results in the same effective timing and may help parents feel better. Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines can also help people feel better. And I think that polio is probably something you can delay if you need to without much worry in the US. There are easy accommodations, so I don't see the benefit in guilting/intimidating parents into the schedule.
I thought you got shingles because you had chicken pox? Isn't that what those horrifying commercials are telling me when they show the terrifying open sores? I recall Olbermann had shingles and it leveled him, I dated a girl who got it in her twenties and her description was horrifying.
Me I never got chicken pox.
Anyway republican politics, terrorist attacks are good, bring back water boarding, being an open racist is cool now I guess? Anything I miss?
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
I think what he is pretty clearly saying is that if you have a parent who is not going to follow the schedule, slowed down is better than no vaccines. How is that not a reasonable stance?
And just to say it, you can space out vaccines without slowing down by just doing 1 at a time each month instead of 2 every two months. It's a very minor deviation from schedule that results in the same effective timing and may help parents feel better. Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines can also help people feel better. And I think that polio is probably something you can delay if you need to without much worry in the US. There are easy accommodations, so I don't see the benefit in guilting/intimidating parents into the schedule.
Again, it's about dispelling the totally unscientific myth.
Opening the door for doubts and fears, even just a little, encourages them.
+5
Options
Xavier1216Bagu is my name. Show my note to river man.Greater Boston AreaRegistered Userregular
I'm not saying people should listen to him, but I am saying that people should combat this misinformation with a compelling argument for why it's not true instead of going "LOL and people are believing this!" Especially if that information is such an easy click away.
I think I kind of did? On this very page no less.
My criticism was directed at the poorly-written NYT article, but you haven't mentioned a chickenpox vaccine since the article had been mentioned. The closest you came to addressing it was, "We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away," which still doesn't address the problem that people aren't going to look up something that they have no reason to question.
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
I think what he is pretty clearly saying is that if you have a parent who is not going to follow the schedule, slowed down is better than no vaccines. How is that not a reasonable stance?
And just to say it, you can space out vaccines without slowing down by just doing 1 at a time each month instead of 2 every two months. It's a very minor deviation from schedule that results in the same effective timing and may help parents feel better. Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines can also help people feel better. And I think that polio is probably something you can delay if you need to without much worry in the US. There are easy accommodations, so I don't see the benefit in guilting/intimidating parents into the schedule.
Again, it's about dispelling the totally unscientific myth.
Opening the door for doubts and fears, even just a little, encourages them.
They have the fears anyway. Why is intimidation better than a very slight accommodation, which the accommodation actually gets the kid vaccinated? Hell, I don't know of a single major pediatrician in LI that follows the schedule exactly. They all do monthly vaccines.
Because, as he pointed out, catering to people's unreasonable fears lends credence to those fears.
"OMG Thermisol is Mercury!"
"Okay, so we'll replace the Thermisol."
"OMG it must have been dangerous or why would they have taken it out!"
You don't combat truthiness gut feeling based issues by giving into their demands. The schedule has been worked out by experts in these fields. Letting a parent's gut feelings override that expert opinion introduces risks into the system (longer period of time unprotected from things they should be protected from) and damages the herd resistance/immunity that should be present.
At X years old get Y vaccine is pretty straightforward, and from previous threads I'm under the impression that daycares, schools, and other institutions have requirements that need to be met. Stretching things out or shuffling them just so someone can feel better could have consequences for more than just that child or family. It's an unacceptable risk with minimal reward at best, and at worst it reinforces their irrational fears as legitimate, which becomes actively counterproductive.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I actually agree with him on vaccines. If someone is concerned or nervous, I think it's better to slow the schedule down and have them be comfortable getting all the vaccines instead of having them avoid them altogether.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
I think what he is pretty clearly saying is that if you have a parent who is not going to follow the schedule, slowed down is better than no vaccines. How is that not a reasonable stance?
And just to say it, you can space out vaccines without slowing down by just doing 1 at a time each month instead of 2 every two months. It's a very minor deviation from schedule that results in the same effective timing and may help parents feel better. Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines can also help people feel better. And I think that polio is probably something you can delay if you need to without much worry in the US. There are easy accommodations, so I don't see the benefit in guilting/intimidating parents into the schedule.
Again, it's about dispelling the totally unscientific myth.
Opening the door for doubts and fears, even just a little, encourages them.
They have the fears anyway. Why is intimidation better than a very slight accommodation, which the accommodation actually gets the kid vaccinated? Hell, I don't know of a single major pediatrician in LI that follows the schedule exactly. They all do monthly vaccines.
I would like to see more physicians, scientists, engineers serving in public office because they are taught to make decisions based on evidence as opposed to on ideology.
And we have so many ideologues now, and it makes it very difficult to get things done because an ideologue will just assume that their belief is correct.
There's no way he said this. There's no FUCKING way, there isn't enough potential cognitive dissonance in the WORRRRRRRRLD TO COVER THIS STATEMENT!
I literally can't even with this guy when he says shit like that. HOW. HOW.
Because, as he pointed out, catering to people's unreasonable fears lends credence to those fears.
"OMG Thermisol is Mercury!"
"Okay, so we'll replace the Thermisol."
"OMG it must have been dangerous or why would they have taken it out!"
You don't combat truthiness gut feeling based issues by giving into their demands. The schedule has been worked out by experts in these fields. Letting a parent's gut feelings override that expert opinion introduces risks into the system (longer period of time unprotected from things they should be protected from) and damages the herd resistance/immunity that should be present.
At X years old get Y vaccine is pretty straightforward, and from previous threads I'm under the impression that daycares, schools, and other institutions have requirements that need to be met. Stretching things out or shuffling them just so someone can feel better could have consequences for more than just that child or family. It's an unacceptable risk with minimal reward at best, and at worst it reinforces their irrational fears as legitimate, which becomes actively counterproductive.
Pediatricians treat individual patients. They are not public health officials. If a pediatrician has a parent who is going to refuse two vaccines at once but will agree to 1, or who is refusing mmr but will do them seperate, if you don't accommodate then you are doing harm to your patient. I think that pediatricians often take a "my way or no way at all" attitude towards parents and that is counterproductive and I agree with Carson that a culture of accommodation of patient/parent needs and concerns is the direction we should be going in. And pediatricians are just as likely to take a hardline on something that is false or their own opinion, like the time to introduce solids, when nursing should stop, how a child should go to bed at night, etc. as they are something like vaccines.
I thought you got shingles because you had chicken pox? Isn't that what those horrifying commercials are telling me when they show the terrifying open sores? I recall Olbermann had shingles and it leveled him, I dated a girl who got it in her twenties and her description was horrifying.
Me I never got chicken pox.
Anyway republican politics, terrorist attacks are good, bring back water boarding, being an open racist is cool now I guess? Anything I miss?
For most people, you only get chicken pox once. Being infected effectively acts as a vaccine against future infection. Symptoms for chicken pox increase as you age, so before there was a vaccine it made sense to get infected as a young child. Better to suffer a mild flu with itchy rashes than a major illness in your late teenage years or older.
Chicken pox contracted when you're an adult, especially by the elderly due to immunity wearing off over the decades, is called shingles. Hospitalization is common. There are extreme, painful rashes that actually indicate areas of nerve damage from the virus and symptoms can last months.
As long as Trump wins some early primaries in evangelical strongholds, I think he'll hold on and keep anyone else from surging.
Cruz is having a moment right now, but Cruz is a complete idiot without any friends. And a Trump/Cruz ticket would all but guarantee the GOP getting 0% of the Hispanic vote.
I would like to see more physicians, scientists, engineers serving in public office because they are taught to make decisions based on evidence as opposed to on ideology.
And we have so many ideologues now, and it makes it very difficult to get things done because an ideologue will just assume that their belief is correct.
.......
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
This assumes of course that when the GOP primary voters read up on trump they won't like him. I don't think that's a safe assumption. Also 538 has been saying all along that Trump will fade but he hasn't done that yet, so I have to wonder how much is 538 hoping they'll be right eventually. Didn't Nate get his shit pushed in a bit with prediction models of a british election recently?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I still can't believe that Trump is the 'real' republican favorite. I know we like to mock here, but I know plenty of Republican and Republican leaning folks and while they are very ill informed on the financial impact of their policies, and the hardships and barriers in the way of the poor, they aren't INSANE. I know that Trump getting nominated would be good for the Democrats, since he would send every single person who even knows a non-white person out to vote for whmever opposes him, but I just don't want to see a democracy based on the policy of...
"Vote for me, because my opponent literally wants to round people up and lock them in camps exactly as Hitler did. He knows that is what it is like and still thinks that it's OK. I think he may have also grown a Hitler moustache and started parading around armies of brownshirts."
nate is saying it's still likely that trump won't win the nom. he's right that his poll numbers are basically at or below the crazification factor, and, like i said earlier, zero votes have been cast.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I still can't believe that Trump is the 'real' republican favorite. I know we like to mock here, but I know plenty of Republican and Republican leaning folks and while they are very ill informed on the financial impact of their policies, and the hardships and barriers in the way of the poor, they aren't INSANE. I know that Trump getting nominated would be good for the Democrats, since he would send every single person who even knows a non-white person out to vote for whmever opposes him, but I just don't want to see a democracy based on the policy of...
"Vote for me, because my opponent literally wants to round people up and lock them in camps exactly as Hitler did. He knows that is what it is like and still thinks that it's OK. I think he may have also grown a Hitler moustache and started parading around armies of brownshirts."
He has not advocated concentration or work camps. Let's not be hyperbolic. His actual stances are crazy enough on their own.
Chicken Pox parties are actually strongly advised against by modern, non-stupid doctors, and are now being considered under child abuse legislation lobbyists.
To be honest, having your kids catch chickenpox didn't sound so unreasonable to me until I realized there was a vaccine. Back in the 90's, the reasoning was that children were better off catching it when one sibling caught it because all the children would deal with it at once and it was much worse to get it as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of people went through that as a kid, don't have a kid now (and so wouldn't be checking what has a vaccine these days), and wouldn't see that as a crazy idea.
We forget that the internet didn't always exist. When you live in Texas, as I did starting in 1991, and what your parents knew about keeping their kids healthy was likely what they learned from how their parents raised them, it wasn't unreasonable to believe that a chickenpox party was a good idea.
Saying so today, though? There's no excuse for that. We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away. It's doubly stupid for somebody who stakes their career and reputation on being a world-renowned physician.
Counterpoint: it's the information age so I can find 800 different sources backing up any given irrational bat-shit insane prejudice I don't care to examine within 300 seconds. And then take my choice of online communities of people constructing their goddamb identities around maintaining and defending that bat-shit insanity and who will be happy - no, eager - to validate me for doing the same and Other anyone who tries to question it.
Posts
Well, other then the thousands of deaths a year.
We forget that the internet didn't always exist. When you live in Texas, as I did starting in 1991, and what your parents knew about keeping their kids healthy was likely what they learned from how their parents raised them, it wasn't unreasonable to believe that a chickenpox party was a good idea.
Saying so today, though? There's no excuse for that. We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away. It's doubly stupid for somebody who stakes their career and reputation on being a world-renowned physician.
The chicken pox vaccine is quite new. IIRC it wasn't even released until the early-mid 90s.
When Zeus stops cheating on Hera.
The shingles vaccine is relatively new, and before that it was definitely a better idea to get chickenpox as a kid than shingles as an adult because shingles sucks holy shit it sucks so bad
But 1) catching chickenpox as a kid does not preclude you from getting it as an adult, ask my wife and cousin, and 2) there is a vaccine now
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Yes, but this isn't a stance supported by actual science. Which is completely ironic since two paragraphs above that he states that he wants more scientists to run for office because they are trained to make decisions based on evidence.
The reason people are "concerned or nervous" in the first place is because they hear horror stories about vaccines causing autism or containing poisonous mercury or whatever.
When physicians talk about slowing down the schedule, it gives support to those concerns. "Why would Dr Carson, a respected pediatrician, be okay with slowing down the vaccination schedule if there wasn't any good reason to? Hmmm...."
This, and the fact that spacing out vaccines keeps kids vulnerable to easily-preventable diseases that do not only affect the one child that spaced out vaccines. There's a very good public health reason to require vaccines on the regular schedule instead of spacing them out -- allowing such a spaced-out schedule allows big outbreaks of diseases and compromises herd immunity.
If it seems like I have zero tolerance for Carson's stupidity on this issue it's because I have zero tolerance for Carson's stupidity on this issue.
It went nowhere because he's still polling in third and he's a non entity. This weekend he even said terrorist attacks were good politics for him. This gets overlooked until it doesn't.
pleasepaypreacher.net
First of all, Massachusetts did the same thing, and it was recommended by pediatricians at the time. So you can't pin it on some being dumb regional or archaic thing.
Second of all, answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away if we know to search for it. You're counting on people to hear that statement and immediately think it's bullshit. If they think it sounds reasonable, especially based on past life experience, they aren't going to waste the time to look it up.
I'm not saying people should listen to him, but I am saying that people should combat this misinformation with a compelling argument for why it's not true instead of going "LOL and people are believing this!" Especially if that information is such an easy click away.
Edit for clarity: the criticism is directed at the article, not anyone here.
PSN: PLD_Xavier | NNID: Xavier1216
I think I kind of did? On this very page no less.
Me I never got chicken pox.
Anyway republican politics, terrorist attacks are good, bring back water boarding, being an open racist is cool now I guess? Anything I miss?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Basically anything that's come out of Ben Carson or Donald Trump's mouth that isn't too beyond the pale to even make sense of can and has already been dug into here and in many places online, and as you say is easily searchable on Google. I will always fondly remember how we picked apart the pyramid grain silo thing a few weeks ago for example.
Well, besides Jim Gilmore, who has 8 supporters.
I think what he is pretty clearly saying is that if you have a parent who is not going to follow the schedule, slowed down is better than no vaccines. How is that not a reasonable stance?
And just to say it, you can space out vaccines without slowing down by just doing 1 at a time each month instead of 2 every two months. It's a very minor deviation from schedule that results in the same effective timing and may help parents feel better. Seperate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines can also help people feel better. And I think that polio is probably something you can delay if you need to without much worry in the US. There are easy accommodations, so I don't see the benefit in guilting/intimidating parents into the schedule.
Yes you do. And shingles is no fun, trust me.
Again, it's about dispelling the totally unscientific myth.
Opening the door for doubts and fears, even just a little, encourages them.
My criticism was directed at the poorly-written NYT article, but you haven't mentioned a chickenpox vaccine since the article had been mentioned. The closest you came to addressing it was, "We live in the goddamn information age. Answers are a quick tap of our thumbs away," which still doesn't address the problem that people aren't going to look up something that they have no reason to question.
PSN: PLD_Xavier | NNID: Xavier1216
They have the fears anyway. Why is intimidation better than a very slight accommodation, which the accommodation actually gets the kid vaccinated? Hell, I don't know of a single major pediatrician in LI that follows the schedule exactly. They all do monthly vaccines.
I'm tempted to say it's the Libertarian broken clock being right.
Agreed, Paul is probably the most consistent with not-crazy talk.
He's still unfit, but he's far from the worst choice in this field.
Probably why he doesn't have more support.
"OMG Thermisol is Mercury!"
"Okay, so we'll replace the Thermisol."
"OMG it must have been dangerous or why would they have taken it out!"
You don't combat truthiness gut feeling based issues by giving into their demands. The schedule has been worked out by experts in these fields. Letting a parent's gut feelings override that expert opinion introduces risks into the system (longer period of time unprotected from things they should be protected from) and damages the herd resistance/immunity that should be present.
At X years old get Y vaccine is pretty straightforward, and from previous threads I'm under the impression that daycares, schools, and other institutions have requirements that need to be met. Stretching things out or shuffling them just so someone can feel better could have consequences for more than just that child or family. It's an unacceptable risk with minimal reward at best, and at worst it reinforces their irrational fears as legitimate, which becomes actively counterproductive.
Iowa:
New Hampshire:
Let's not and say we did on this one.
I literally can't even with this guy when he says shit like that. HOW. HOW.
Good news! Carson isn't leading polls anymore!
Now Trump is literally crushing everyone else.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Pediatricians treat individual patients. They are not public health officials. If a pediatrician has a parent who is going to refuse two vaccines at once but will agree to 1, or who is refusing mmr but will do them seperate, if you don't accommodate then you are doing harm to your patient. I think that pediatricians often take a "my way or no way at all" attitude towards parents and that is counterproductive and I agree with Carson that a culture of accommodation of patient/parent needs and concerns is the direction we should be going in. And pediatricians are just as likely to take a hardline on something that is false or their own opinion, like the time to introduce solids, when nursing should stop, how a child should go to bed at night, etc. as they are something like vaccines.
Wait, one already exists!
We are saved!
For most people, you only get chicken pox once. Being infected effectively acts as a vaccine against future infection. Symptoms for chicken pox increase as you age, so before there was a vaccine it made sense to get infected as a young child. Better to suffer a mild flu with itchy rashes than a major illness in your late teenage years or older.
Chicken pox contracted when you're an adult, especially by the elderly due to immunity wearing off over the decades, is called shingles. Hospitalization is common. There are extreme, painful rashes that actually indicate areas of nerve damage from the virus and symptoms can last months.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As long as Trump wins some early primaries in evangelical strongholds, I think he'll hold on and keep anyone else from surging.
Cruz is having a moment right now, but Cruz is a complete idiot without any friends. And a Trump/Cruz ticket would all but guarantee the GOP getting 0% of the Hispanic vote.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dear-media-stop-freaking-out-about-donald-trumps-polls/
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
.......
Who would you rather?
I mean, it's sad, but at least Trump is a phony. The last thing I want from this party is a true believer on top.
This assumes of course that when the GOP primary voters read up on trump they won't like him. I don't think that's a safe assumption. Also 538 has been saying all along that Trump will fade but he hasn't done that yet, so I have to wonder how much is 538 hoping they'll be right eventually. Didn't Nate get his shit pushed in a bit with prediction models of a british election recently?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I still can't believe that Trump is the 'real' republican favorite. I know we like to mock here, but I know plenty of Republican and Republican leaning folks and while they are very ill informed on the financial impact of their policies, and the hardships and barriers in the way of the poor, they aren't INSANE. I know that Trump getting nominated would be good for the Democrats, since he would send every single person who even knows a non-white person out to vote for whmever opposes him, but I just don't want to see a democracy based on the policy of...
"Vote for me, because my opponent literally wants to round people up and lock them in camps exactly as Hitler did. He knows that is what it is like and still thinks that it's OK. I think he may have also grown a Hitler moustache and started parading around armies of brownshirts."
He has not advocated concentration or work camps. Let's not be hyperbolic. His actual stances are crazy enough on their own.
Counterpoint: it's the information age so I can find 800 different sources backing up any given irrational bat-shit insane prejudice I don't care to examine within 300 seconds. And then take my choice of online communities of people constructing their goddamb identities around maintaining and defending that bat-shit insanity and who will be happy - no, eager - to validate me for doing the same and Other anyone who tries to question it.