General US Politics

[eclipse]

Anti-vaccination refers to people who think that there needs to be more research on the negative effects of vaccines despite these negative effects not existing or being largely trivial (outside of outliers such as clipsey's allergies). He also assigned a member of his cabinet that for some reason is skeptical of vaccinations, despite there being zero link between autism and vaccines. The intensity of vaccines on children isn't even a thing or an issue, ever, because the "intensity" is only an issue derived from the non-existent link between vaccines and autism.

I'll expand on this. I happen to know someone who is very anti-vaccination, and it drives me nuts. This is the reasoning I've gotten out of her:

- Some children drop dead from vaccines

- The ingredients in the vaccine are not healthy

- There's too many of them at once

While each does have some form of merit. . .

- The things we're vaccinating against killed far more people than children who have died from some allergic reaction to a vaccine or something

- The CDC publishes every last ingredient, and if those ingredients were truly harmful, we'd have reports of a lot of people getting deathly ill off of vaccines

- Maybe, which is why I can see delayed schedule as a compromise

Personally, the only thing I'd do is get an allergy test first. My family has a history of very sudden and severe allergic reactions. Then, I get my kids vaccinated.

Vaccination is an interesting issue, because it's both personal and social. I don't think the government has any place in pure social issues, but given the ramifications of having a large chunk of the populace not vaccinated, I don't mind laws such as "if your kid isn't vaccinated, and it's anything but a legit allergy, GTFO public school".

[Rezzy]

I'll expand on this. I happen to know someone who is very anti-vaccination, and it drives me nuts. This is the reasoning I've gotten out of her:

- Some children drop dead from vaccines

- The ingredients in the vaccine are not healthy

- There's too many of them at once

While each does have some form of merit. . .

- The things we're vaccinating against killed far more people than children who have died from some allergic reaction to a vaccine or something

- The CDC publishes every last ingredient, and if those ingredients were truly harmful, we'd have reports of a lot of people getting deathly ill off of vaccines

- Maybe, which is why I can see delayed schedule as a compromise

Personally, the only thing I'd do is get an allergy test first. My family has a history of very sudden and severe allergic reactions. Then, I get my kids vaccinated.

Vaccination is an interesting issue, because it's both personal and social. I don't think the government has any place in pure social issues, but given the ramifications of having a large chunk of the populace not vaccinated, I don't mind laws such as "if your kid isn't vaccinated, and it's anything but a legit allergy, GTFO public school".

I can see the argument that people should be free to decide whether to vaccinate or not as a personal freedom issue, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to the benefit society has for public health. Just as we don't allow people to leave their poop in the streets, we don't allow a bunch of Typhoid Marys to walk the streets and pose a very real health risk to everybody at large.

[Excellen Browning]

I can see the argument that people should be free to decide whether to vaccinate or not as a personal freedom issue, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to the benefit society has for public health. Just as we don't allow people to leave their poop in the streets, we don't allow a bunch of Typhoid Marys to walk the streets and pose a very real health risk to everybody at large.

Libertarians BTFO once again

[Tryhard]

Libertarians BTFO once again

Rezzy calls herself a libertarian though, lol. And I've never seen libertarians say that for things like vaccinations that governments must not get involved in (where they want a smaller government, not 'no government') aside from a crazy fringe group that would likely be more akin to anarchists.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Tryhard

[Radiant head]

anarchists want to abolish capitalism, not just "government" which is way different from "free market" libertarians.

[Rezzy]

Rezzy calls herself a libertarian though, lol. And I've never seen libertarians say that for things like vaccinations that governments must not get involved in (where they want a smaller government, not 'no government') aside from a crazy fringe group that would likely be more akin to anarchists.

Yeah, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I don't believe in the abolition of all government, I just think it should be limited. Vaccination is a good example of where the government should be involved, because

A: It's a matter of public health, like sanitation.

B: It's cheap and cost effective without any undue financial burden.

C: The scientific evidence that vaccination works is about as solid as scientific evidence gets.

D: It's a simple solution to implement vaccination, unlike other scientific issues, where there's mass disagreement on exactly how to fix the problem or how bad the problem is.

E: There is a freedom trade-off, but the elimination of small-pox overrides any concerns about unsubstantiated claims of adverse effects.

There may some Libertarians who disagree with my stance, but like any ideology, not all Libertarians are in 100% agreement on all issues, nor should they be.

[Tryhard]

anarchists want to abolish capitalism, not just "government" which is way different from "free market" libertarians. 

true, so more like anarcho-capitalists, which can also be known as "free market anarchy".

edit: quite amazing. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/news-features/this-republican-politician-allegedly-told-a-woman-i-no-longer-have-to-be-pc-before-grabbing-her-crotch-20170116-gts8ok.html

Edited January 17, 2017 by Tryhard

[FrenchPotato]

Welp, this forum is going way too fast for me, so don't expect much activity from me here.

Anyway, if you think that the vaccination/autism correlation is bs, check the studies first. Here is a link to a facebook post from 2011 listing 30 scientific studies that defend Trump's claims on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-joyce-goes/30-scientific-studies-that-demonstrate-vaxes-can-cause-autism/10150278904786311/

Also, "less intensive" means "not giving them all at once", mainly. They'll still get them all, but not at the same time, so that the body can handle it better.

Also, Trump is not stupid. He'd do serious researches on the subject and ask several scientists before doing anything about it.

[Lord Raven]

11 minutes ago, FrenchPotato said:

Anyway, if you think that the vaccination/autism correlation is bs, check the studies first. Here is a link to a facebook post from 2011 listing 30 scientific studies that defend Trump's claims on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-joyce-goes/30-scientific-studies-that-demonstrate-vaxes-can-cause-autism/10150278904786311/

Also, "less intensive" means "not giving them all at once", mainly. They'll still get them all, but not at the same time, so that the body can handle it better.

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2014/03/75-studies-that-show-no-link-between.html <- 75 scientific studies that show no link between vaccines and autism.

Quote

Also, Trump is not stupid. He'd do serious researches on the subject and ask several scientists before doing anything about it.

Whether or not he personally is stupid is irrelevant to the subject at hand, because politicians willfully ignore fact in front of the public to push an agenda. However, his inability to accept global warming as an issue and deny the work of many more scientists citing that vaccines are not linked to autism is an issue. In the face of actual fact, he is indeed an idiot.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Ansem]

5 minutes ago, FrenchPotato said:

Welp, this forum is going way too fast for me, so don't expect much activity from me here.

Anyway, if you think that the vaccination/autism correlation is bs, check the studies first. Here is a link to a facebook post from 2011 listing 30 scientific studies that defend Trump's claims on the matter: https://www.facebook.com/notes/lisa-joyce-goes/30-scientific-studies-that-demonstrate-vaxes-can-cause-autism/10150278904786311/

Also, "less intensive" means "not giving them all at once", mainly. They'll still get them all, but not at the same time, so that the body can handle it better.

Also, Trump is not stupid. He'd do serious researches on the subject and ask several scientists before doing anything about it.

here are 75 scientific studies that attack trump's claim on the matter

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2014/03/75-studies-that-show-no-link-between.html

please do not insult those of us that are dedicating our life to science and medicine by citing papers you dont understand. 

also a little searching on your facebook studies 

Paper number 1 Thimerosol implicated in deterring synapse formation

Has weight to it, I read a little about it, however the PI literally says 

"Our findings do not directly implicate thimerosal as a single causative agent for triggering neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism."

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/4736

Paper number 2 about trace mercury in vaccines leading to autisim by Robert Natafa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nataf

 

List goes on but I'm not gonna put effort arguing a fact. Its right whether or not you believe it. 

 

 

 

[Tryhard]

Whether they do or not is irrelevant to me to begin with (though I firmly believe they don't). You're basically saying autism is not preferable compared to immunising people from various lethal diseases.

[FrenchPotato]

4 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2014/03/75-studies-that-show-no-link-between.html <- 75 scientific studies that show no link between vaccines and autism.

Whether or not he personally is stupid is irrelevant to the subject at hand, because politicians willfully ignore fact in front of the public to push an agenda. However, his inability to accept global warming as an issue and deny the work of many more scientists citing that vaccines are not linked to autism is an issue. In the face of actual fact, he is indeed an idiot.

So if I link more studies than you to prove my point I win? I thought it would take a bit more of logic, like considering the pros and cons.

I linked studies that support the theory, you linked others that don't. Anyone who actually care would compare the pros and cons before telling what they think is true. The fact that at least tens of scientific studies support the theory mean that it is a serious matter and that it would take some work to know the truth.

Trump has his reasons to think that the theory is true, you have yours to think it's wrong. I don't feel like putting in the work and compare the pros and the cons, but you can do so if you want to.

[Lord Raven]

14 minutes ago, FrenchPotato said:

So if I link more studies than you to prove my point I win? I thought it would take a bit more of logic, like considering the pros and cons.

I linked studies that support the theory, you linked others that don't. Anyone who actually care would compare the pros and cons before telling what they think is true. The fact that at least tens of scientific studies support the theory mean that it is a serious matter and that it would take some work to know the truth.

Trump has his reasons to think that the theory is true, you have yours to think it's wrong. I don't feel like putting in the work and compare the pros and the cons, but you can do so if you want to.

Vaccines causing autism has been refuted time and time again by various scientists, and the most recent studies (shown in the link that Mimikyu and I have linked) have shown that vaccines and autism don't have a link.

The pros and cons to vaccines are pros: they do not cause autism, they prevent disease, cons: they cause autism? One of these has to be true, and as it stands the methodology that leads to vaccines causing autism is flawed or the conclusion is not read correctly.

For instance, Mimikyu has actually done more research on your particular sources, noting that;

Quote

"Our findings do not directly implicate thimerosal as a single causative agent for triggering neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism."

And one of them is more about mercury than vaccines.

 

EDIT: to further expand on Mimikyu's work, this is the third source and its conclusion is ultimately just a shrug. It's purely theoretical with no sort of experimentation or observation. We can keep going if you'd like, but as of now anything you're seeing is either someone making a conclusion the author does not come close to making or otherwise flawed methodology. The author of the original paper himself states that his methodology was flawed. Many of these papers do not mention autism either, and paper #5 is about the effect of thimerosal by gender.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Lord Raven

[Nobody]

48 minutes ago, FrenchPotato said:

So if I link more studies than you to prove my point I win? I thought it would take a bit more of logic, like considering the pros and cons.

I linked studies that support the theory, you linked others that don't. Anyone who actually care would compare the pros and cons before telling what they think is true. The fact that at least tens of scientific studies support the theory mean that it is a serious matter and that it would take some work to know the truth.

Trump has his reasons to think that the theory is true, you have yours to think it's wrong. I don't feel like putting in the work and compare the pros and the cons, but you can do so if you want to.

What pros and cons?

Most scientists think there's absolute no relation between vaccines and autism. The number that do believe that are a very small fringe group, and as mimikyu pointed out, you misunderstood the results of many of the studies you yourself posted. 

Another thing to note is that causation and correlation are not the same thing. It's 100% expected that, autism will be better better diagnosed (and therefore more cases will be found) in countries where vaccination is more widespread, simply for the fact that their medicine is better.

Trump obviously has his reasons, i don't deny that at all. Political reasons. His reason is to appeal to the people that believe in this, not any scientifical reason at all. 

"He does not want vaccination to end he just wants it to be less intensive

": What are the benefits of this? Have a considerable amount of doctors came publicly to say that this would be a good idea? To me it just sounds like you're defending Trump regardless of your knowledge of the subject just because it's Trump that's defending this.

This pros and cons talk just sounds childish and not scientifical. WHAT ARE EVEN THE CONS?

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Nobody

[Tryhard]

Well anyway, recent events. This happened as I posted earlier but I still can't believe this isn't satire.
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/news-features/this-republican-politician-allegedly-told-a-woman-i-no-longer-have-to-be-pc-before-grabbing-her-crotch-20170116-gts8ok.html

Trump building another golf course going against what he just said in regards to conflicts of interests. I also don't even know how it even makes sense - is the golf industry really that booming in Scotland? Most people in Scotland fucking hate him.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-expanding-scottish-golf-resort-after-vow-to-freeze-foreign-deals_us_587c0c7ee4b09281d0eb84f7
Well, the huffingtonpost could be any other source - just describing what he's currently doing in his hmm, business ventures.

And lastly, he said the approval polls were rigged against him.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/314513-trump-approval-polls-are-rigged-against-me

Even I am amazed about how much shit has come up on the path to inauguration.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

I really don't know what the definition of political correctness is anymore.

[Rezzy]

10 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Well anyway, recent events. This happened as I posted earlier but I still can't believe this isn't satire.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/news-features/this-republican-politician-allegedly-told-a-woman-i-no-longer-have-to-be-pc-before-grabbing-her-crotch-20170116-gts8ok.html

 

This almost sounds like something from the Onion.  I guess the string of pussy grabbing is due to start, now.

Are there any reputable sources that can confirm this?  I've seen too many stories floating around, lately, to really take anything at face value anymore.

[Lord Raven]

Just now, Rezzy said:

Are there any reputable sources that can confirm this?  I've seen too many stories floating around, lately, to really take anything at face value anymore.

http://greenwich.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/cops-greenwich-republican-insulted-town-worker-then-pinched-her-groin/696124/

local news in connecticut; there's also video evidence (not released)

[Tryhard]

1 minute ago, Rezzy said:

This almost sounds like something from the Onion.  I guess the string of pussy grabbing is due to start, now.

Are there any reputable sources that can confirm this?  I've seen too many stories floating around, lately, to really take anything at face value anymore.

It's real. Just google his name for many sources.

[Rezzy]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

http://greenwich.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/cops-greenwich-republican-insulted-town-worker-then-pinched-her-groin/696124/

local news in connecticut; there's also video evidence (not released)

I'm surprised I didn't hear about this before now, considering it happened over a month ago.  I've known plenty of dirty old men, but he must be senile, if he thinks stuff like that is going to fly.

[Lord Raven]

I'm hearing snippets of these senate hearings and strap in folks, these next four years are going to be worse than the Bush years.

[Res]

17 hours ago, Rezzy said:

I'm surprised I didn't hear about this before now, considering it happened over a month ago.  I've known plenty of dirty old men, but he must be senile, if he thinks stuff like that is going to fly.

Well, there is video evidence of Trump telling the world he did exactly what this man did, and he was voted fit to be president, so why wouldn't this man also assume he could get away with it? 

Betsy DeVos's confirmation hearing was a mess, and tax credits for anything (education or healthcare - since they've also been proposed for the latter) do nothing to help lower-income families.  

[Phoenix Wright]

22 hours ago, FrenchPotato said:

So if I link more studies than you to prove my point I win? I thought it would take a bit more of logic, like considering the pros and cons.

I linked studies that support the theory, you linked others that don't. Anyone who actually care would compare the pros and cons before telling what they think is true. The fact that at least tens of scientific studies support the theory mean that it is a serious matter and that it would take some work to know the truth.

Trump has his reasons to think that the theory is true, you have yours to think it's wrong. I don't feel like putting in the work and compare the pros and the cons, but you can do so if you want to.

ask yourself a very important question: have you already accepted the narrative and now are searching for evidence of the narrative (ie, confirmation bias), or are you actually interested in the scientific question of whether vaccines can cause autism?

the answer, you may be interested to know then, is clear: vaccines do not cause autism; however, they save millions of lives every year. these studies, some written nearly 80 years ago, are at best speculation--theory. but theory is worthless without observation, and observational evidence has shown that vaccines do not cause autism.

also, i'd be surprised if trump could do algebra, let alone biomedical research. it is delusional to think trump is listening to scientists on this matter. if he were, we'd be farther along in solving our climate crises right now.

[Rezzy]

8 hours ago, Res said:

Well, there is video evidence of Trump telling the world he did exactly what this man did, and he was voted fit to be president, so why wouldn't this man also assume he could get away with it? 

 

It's kind of crazy, since I've met no one who condoned his behavior.  He lost probably millions of votes from the leaked tape, and the people I know who supported Trump did it in spite of that, not because of it.

Then you get this crazy guy.  "I was on the fence about Trump, but his pussy grabbing stance has won me over."  I joked earlier about there being a pussy-grabbing spree once Trump got elected, but now what I said in jest has happened at least once, and I'm surprised it didn't get more press.  I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to use that as a justification.

[Excellen Browning]

I think its fair to assume most of the people who would not vote trump and his cronies for being criminals and apparently rapists in specific wouldn't have voted him anyhow.

Mind you this doesn't mean Clinton ran a poor campaign. It just means that a large part of the population buys into his nonsense, or perhaps thought "a billionaire can't possibly be a moneygrubbing bastard, he's too rich for that" like that bitchman from nirvana. And then thought this was flawless reasoning.