11

The New Religion

Posted by khalling 9 years, 1 month ago to Culture
175 comments | Share | Flag

from the article:
Certainly, that is the tactic of choice at the prestigious, exclusive Hayground School in Bridgehampton, where an astonishing one-third of typically secular, sophisticated, ultra-liberal parents have, it seems, a “genuine” religious objection to vaccination of their children.

To parents who send their kids to local public schools that doesn’t cut it. A long-established local pediatrician, Gail Schonfeld, now refuses to accept patients the children of parents who won’t permit immunization. She believes in vaccines—in fact, considers them just plain good medical practice—and says if “parents don’t trust me with this, we won’t have a good working relationship.”
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/the-new-religion-of-not-vaccinating-will-kill-children/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 1 month ago
    What frightens me about mandating, even enforcing inoculation, is the lack of character of the federal government and the people who make it up. Yes, I agree with immunization, but voluntary. I do not and have not ever taken a flue shot. I don't need one, neither do my kids. My wife, working in a hospital, needs to take one because of her exposure. We are seldom, if ever, sickly.

    I would not put it past those in government, particularly nOw, to use mandatory inoculation recklessly to line the pockets of big-pharma to the detriment of the host.

    There simply is no trust. It is up to the individual or the parent to choose what is needed to remain healthy. No tears given, sympathy warranted, or liability granted should a parent choose not to inoculate and illness, or worse, befall their child.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WDonway 9 years, 1 month ago
    On the supposed relative mildness of measles, from my article: "in 1963, some three to four million Americans contracted measles each year. About 500 died each year, 48,000 had a serious enough case to be hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (a life-threatening brain swelling) from measles. This caused the CDC to categorize measles as the most deadly of all childhood rash/fever diseases."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 1 month ago
      As with any illness like that, by themselves, it may not be terribly life-threatening. The danger with measles is that it is extremely transmittable. If you come into contact with a sick person, and you are not vaccinated, you have about a 90% chance of catching it.

      Lets say you catch measles while otherwise sick with the flu, or something worse, like pneumonia. While the measles itself may not kill you, it can certainly play a contributing role in the death of the patient.

      This is a very easy disease to treat, its sad that so many accept a risk consciously without necessarily knowing what that risk may be, and it threatens those that can't be immunized because of allergies or whatever. If they unvaccinated are a small number, they are probably safe. If they are part of 10 or 15%, they are probably going to be part of an outbreak.

      I'm vaccinated, so is my entire family, so I can ultimately just observe the panic.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 1 month ago
    Parents who chose to NOT give their children these vaccinations are doing their children a disservice.
    when i grew up i experienced all of these illnesses as did almost every one i knew. yes we lived through them but if there was a vaccine I am quite sure my parents would have given it to me and my siblings and i believe all of the other parents would have done the same. i had several friends and cousins that had polio, and unfortunately the vaccine was not available then. I didn't get it until i was in the Army.

    Maybe some of the parents will think differently as the are attending to their child who is miserable while having the disease.

    so far the history of the vaccine is pretty outstanding with its success.

    one more reason to avoid religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WDonway 9 years, 1 month ago
    There is an argument that vaccines weaken our species because the "weak" are not eliminated by disease and so pass on their genes so that the species accumulates vulnerabilities. First, that argument applies to the invention of fire, clothing, hunting weapons, and anything else that makes survival easier so some people who would not have survived do survive. As for vaccines, their effect on the human immune system at large is trivial, laughable. A very interesting site is "Quack Watch" and I recommend it to all quacks and all who must listen to quacks. It says of the "impact" of vaccines in changing our overall immune response to the world: "We have, on and in us, about 100 billion bacteria, which is 10 to 100 times more bacteria than there are cells that make us. That is just our normal flora. These represent about 1,000 separate species of bacteria. Humans are born bacteria-free and acquire a complex and enormous normal bacterial flora in months. In the first year of life, babies ares exposed, for the first time, to all the bacteria of their parents and siblings and some from the family pet and the environment. The resultant antigen exposure is thousands of times greater than the exposure from the vaccine schedule."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 1 month ago
      That is very true. I always get a chuckle that the same mom's that panic about a vaccine are probably scrubbing their kids down with antibacterial scrub everyday, even though their mouth contains far more interesting bacteria than the public toilet seat they just piddled on in some weird squatting attempt to avoid touching it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 1 month ago
    The one study that the CDC does not support or do is a simple comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated incidence of autism. The rate for vaccinated/autism is 1 in 68. What is the rate for unvaccinated/autism?

    As to measles ever being an epidemic, 4,000,000 cases per year with 500 deaths per year is a death rate of 0.00125% and as a % of approximately 250,000,000 population, that's 0.000002%. That's a vanishingly small # approaching 0%.

    Polio was a devastating disease--measles is not. Parasitic diseases such as malaria are devastating and we stopped the fight against those. This push for total vaccination is NOT about fighting disease!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 1 month ago
      Ultimately, anything like that is a certainly a drain on medical resources that could otherwise be used treating more serious patients.

      I don't think autism has necessarily increased, when I was little in the 60's / 70's, we had 'weird kids', we didn't know anything about autism. Over time, more and more odd behavior was tossed into the 'autism spectrum'. So you see a rise, because there is more attempt to diagnose it.

      We can also make the same observation that depression / bipolar disorder / schizophrenia has increased sharply "since the introduction of vaccinations". One has nothing to do with the other, we have always had a certain level of crazy... about 25% of Americans can actually be diagnosed with some form of mental illness. Vaccinations have nothing to do with it, we just have more treatment and therapeutic options for people that otherwise drank or doped themselves to death in self-medicating activity or went into a manic rampage banging half the neighborhood until the wife or husband shot them for cheating on them (and suddenly -1 less on the bipolar/manic depressive headcount).

      Personally, I think the increased numbers have MUCH more to do with people delaying having children until later in life... many women actually enter menopause at about 35 (my wife did actually at like 33). If you are popping out babies at 30+, compared to the human body really being ready to between 18 & 23 or so, there is naturally going to be a higher risk of either immediately-noticed complications, or those that take a while. Is it an automatic cause? Of course not, but there are many more people having children much later in life now than in previous generations.

      My dad had polio when he was a kid, it crippled him for life. The doctors broke his 'good leg' 25 times between the age of 2 and 7 with a hammer and a chisel to slow its growth to match the other one. When that didn't work, they put 60 steel staples in it. When he was about 40, the steel staples had shattered into 300 fragments that had to be taken out meticulously by a surgeon from the muscle tissue. He also spent several years of his childhood in a 'iron lung'.

      Eradicating a disease is a good thing. I wonder if we had an HIV vaccine, if the same people objecting would rush out and get one of those... after all, compared to the others, HIV is completely avoidable with lifestyle choices. Would the schools insist on an HIV shot? Would the parents object or would they embrace it? Would the objection/embracing headcount match the measles vaccination hysteria?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
        Like your post, scojohnson. The only thing I'd like to point out is that more people are delaying first pregnancies until later in life. Before reliable birth control, it was common for women to have babies into their 30s, and even 40s.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by scojohnson 9 years, 1 month ago
      Actually, the numbers are different for autism. There was a marked-increase between 2006 and 2008, going from 1 in 100 to 1 in 88 (a 25% increase), but vaccinations were around long before 2006... so that by itself probably rules out vaccinations as a smoking gun.

      The number one risk of autism is being a boy. Ever seen an autistic girl? They are actually quite rare... 1 in about 255 compared to 1 in 54 boys.

      What does that tell you? The primary cause of autism is most-likley attributed to a mutation in a y chromosome.. and mutations are not caused by vaccinations.

      As for the numbers of unvaccinated... it would be an interesting question, since until recently (millennials having kids basically), unvaccinated kids were pretty rare... probably too rare to reliably run a study with. Add to that finding the ones that are both unvaccinated (maybe 1-3% 15 years ago) and 1 out of 100 that were autistic...

      Today that kind of study would be pretty easy to do with a medical records database... 15 years ago, practically impossible.

      As for the real causes of autism, we may never know, as it is unlikely that parents are completely honest with their medical professionals. Did the mom smoke dope and/or drink during the pregnancy? Was dad on an anti-psychotic drug at the time of conception? Was mom? Is mom willing to admit that she takes lithium to keep from burning her house down in a manic rage or barricading herself in a closet in a paranoid episode? Maybe mom is an attorney, but is also on lithium, is she going to admit it? Is the "dad" really the dad? or is it the milkman's kid? Are we looking at "dad's" medical records for history when we should really be looking at the milkman?

      Those are the types of very difficult questions that doing a study to determine the cause of something like autism. But honesty of the subjects in the survey is always an issue with very uncomfortable topics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Timelord 9 years, 1 month ago
      Is the flu a devastating disease? No? The spanish flu killed 5% of the population of the planet and there were cases worldwide, nearly everywhere.

      Can there be a strain of measles like that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 1 month ago
    Those that have a supposed "religious objection" to their children being vaccinated should then be overjoyed when their children gets "called home by God" for such preventable diseases as Measles, Polio, Diptheria and Whooping Cough. Sure is fun watching children - suffocate, drown in their own mucus, or fever to death Um Hmmm... Say Amen, Mom!

    There was a reason there were immunization programs, and all the kids when I was a kid got lined up and stabbed in the arm - that reason being, people were tired of seeing huge child mortality rates from diseases that were found to be preventable. They knew the risks - and yes, although extremely rare, kids got sick or died from the innoculations - but a lot more survuved because their parents weren't weenie sheeple and saw - and knew - people who died from this stuff.

    I personally remember - as a young child - meeting a woman who had been in an iron lung since she was 12. What I remember most - was the huge contraption she was confined to, the smell of the machinery, and having to view the world through a mirror above her head. You think it didnt leave an impression?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 1 month ago
    Maybe people are just tired of being told what to do, and they are rebelling. After the rebellion, it needs to be considered what is the right thing to do based on facts, not government edicts. I pretty much dont want to do whatever the government tells me to do, and I have to specifically put aside that emotion and evaluate for myself what is best.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago
    We have an interesting quandary, do we not?

    On the one hand, some members of this community, in memory of the poliomyelitis scourge and how Jonas Salk's vaccine seems to have put it under strict control, now believe all vaccines strike the same balance of safety v. efficacy as does the Salk vaccine.

    On the other hand, Rand never once defined "protecting people from infectious agents" as a proper direct function of government. It might be a matter for a court to decide, and for a legislature to decide whether an individual tort or even criminal harm results when one person transmits a communicable disease to another. But Rand never once supported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in any quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial character. Nor the Office of the Surgeon General.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by wiggys 9 years, 1 month ago
      was the discovery of the vaccine paid for by the government or by private industry? If by private industry that would certainly be best. If this type of interference by the government were all it did it wouldn't be bad, however taking all they do into account Rand is correct.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
        there is a symbiotic relationship between the CDC and pharma. There are also NIH grants supporting university research in these areas. Often that research is done in labs of pharma companies. so both really
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 1 month ago
    This is one of those contributions of Walter Donway (via khalling) with which I am for 100%.

    The work of one the founders of anti-vaccination - Dr Andrew Wakefield, has been shown to be fraudulent.
    Words used include- “dishonest,” “unethical,” and “callous.”
    It is appalling that this person has been favorably mentioned on this site.

    As to the validity of religious objections, see the article- “You can raise your child however you want until you are endangering your child and those around you. That right, you simply do not have.”

    No surprise that the objectors are often part of the green movement
    - the natural living, non-GMO eating, and the “nothing artificial” green movement -
    to which I include 'anthropomorphic climate change'- a religion more dangerous than Islamism which it supports.
    Where I may disagree with the article is in the suggestion that religious belief is being faked. No, this nonsense is religion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
      I agree with the article as well. But I still have healthy skepticism of govt telling me what I can or cannot do with regards to the safety of my child. from the article:
      "Iowa asks parents if “immunization conflicts with a genuine and sincere religious belief and that the belief is in fact religious, and not based merely on philosophical, scientific, moral, personal, or medical opposition to immunizations.”
      well that was a little chilling. religious beliefs count but "scientific objection" does not?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
    I think it should be noted, however, that it is just as fallacious to include ALL vaccines as it is to denounce ALL objectors.

    I've had my kids vaccinated for MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and tetanus, but I would adamantly refuse to get them vaccinated for HPV. The flu one I've never been a fan of as the only times I've ever done it I immediately got sick so that one is off my list as well. And I really don't agree with the chicken pox one unless you don't get it naturally as a kid.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
    I've done no research. Just looking at the surface arguments to date, non vaccination seems pretty dumb to me. Life being a gamble, shows me that the best bet is the one with and edge, which the folks who vaccinate have without a doubt.

    If you doubt this gambling method, you should know that I never lose at the racetrack. This will not make you rich but it has a certain satisfaction. It's simple; just bet the favorite to show. You're welcome.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago
      I never lose at the track, either;;; I never bet! -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
        Yours is the best procedure. Gambling, unless you're a true professional is a sucker's game, particularly if you are using it to actually make substantial wealth. I haven't been to the track in 30 years, but I did enjoy the spectacle. My mom had a favorite phrase that I never heard anyone else use. When talking of a constant prevaricator she would say, "She lies like a racehorse."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago
          now, sir, I have admired, ridden, shod, delivered
          and medicated horses . . . and I never caught one
          lying. . they pretend to want to move away from
          the barn, but you can tell that it's pretense. . they
          act like they will stand still for you to shoe them,
          but they won't. . for simple animals, they are
          pretty honest, don't you think? -- j

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
            I think she was referring to the horse's ability to win a race. It's statistics can look great, and it can even be the favorite and still lose by umpteen furlongs. Therefore, the horse was lying. Hey -- I dunno, after all, she was Polish.(Don't post me anything saying I denigrate Poles. I am 1/2 you know.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago
              Moms have a way of portraying things in wonderful
              ways -- mine gave me a sense of interpersonal
              grace which moderates everything I do. . she was
              a genuine southern belle, married to a man whose
              lifelong dream was to be a forester. . like an artist
              and a mechanic, they made quite a pair! . but I
              got only english heritage, so I am white privilege
              through-and-through (har-de-har-har). -- j

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 1 month ago
                My Mom was a sweet and loving woman who was a good cook and an immaculate housekeeper. But beyond that she had a hard time coping with life. I even invented a word to describe her: "copeless." She suffered from copelessness. However, she did one really wonderful thing for me. She taught me to read at an early age. We would sit on our couch, she would open a book and read to me. I would follow along as she pointed to the words. Only problem was, I sat opposite of her and learned to read upside down and backwards. Try explaining that to a first grade teacher.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 1 month ago
                  that's great! . when I started teaching people stuff,
                  I had to learn the same -- upside down and backwards.
                  and I had to learn to write like that, sort-of. . it did
                  help when tutoring kids in math and science.
                  genuine home-making moms are about to go
                  extinct. . it's a pity, because they weld a neighborhood
                  together and pass on civilization beautifully. -- j

                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 9 years, 1 month ago
    Question for everyone who supports mandated vaccinations... (or really anyone who thinks they're the greatest thing since sliced bread)

    How many adults do you know are regularly vaccinated? You do know they're finding out frequently that vaccines that conveyed "lifetime immunity" actually don't convey lifetime immunity and are then suggesting boosters?

    That said, how many "vaccinated" people do you know are not up to date, and therefore a gigantic "threat" to the entire universe?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 1 month ago
      I've read about vaccines' waning protection, too. So those who are in favor of mandating vaccines for children should broaden that to include forced booster vaccinations for all adults, too. And from there, it's a small step to forced medical interventions of any type the government dictates, for anyone.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WDonway 9 years, 1 month ago
    There is no federal law requiring vaccination to attend school, although a 1922 Supreme Court case did declare such requirements Constitutional. States vary considerably in laws about requiring vaccination, but all require; all, also, offer a choice in the sense of medical, religious, or philosophical exemptions. Also many states don't require vaccinations to attend private schools, only public schools; but two states even require vaccination of home schooled children. The fact is that if a parent doesn't want his children vaccinated there are ways legally to avoid it. Some private schools in California caused a national "scandal" at incredibly low rates of immunization of children attending. Many of their parents go to natural healers, faith healers, and other "alternative" practitioners.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 1 month ago
    There are two flaws throughout this viral debate: (inadvertent word pun)

    1) 100 some odd cases nationwide is not an outbreak or an epidemic. We had more than 100 measles cases in one week in one grade school when I was a kid.

    2) No one seems to be differentiating between deadly and crippling diseases like smallpox and polio and those like measles that statistically may only be a bit more dangerous than the vaccines. (And that, only because there is insufficient data over other long term negative effects of the vaccines.

    I would rather have my next generation of descendants immunized by measles and chicken pox directly than by a vaccine.

    Polio and smallpox though would be a definite yes.


    Flu vaccine is an urban legend IMO.


    Last flu I had was in 1964, the first time I needed every day’s pay just to survive. Went to work with it, suffered through the day with it and then it was gone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by cjferraris 9 years, 1 month ago
      When I was in the military, I was forced to take the flu shot every year. Since I've been out (30+ years now) I have not taken any flu shot. Some years, I'd have the flu, other years, no problems. But of each of the 4 years I got flu shots in the military, I would contract the flu. I'm not going to say that I got the flu from the vaccine, but they developed the flu vaccines back in the '80s (and I'm sure still today) based on what they're projecting on which strain is going to be prevalent. I vaccinated my kids based on the ones I got as a child and my children had no problems.

      Now, I currently think that you need to educate yourself and not just give into the hype. Get a Dr. that you trust and even then, question him/her, just like you would your financial advisor.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
        Amen. I don't do the flu virus since the one and only time I ever did, I immediately got so sick I missed three days of work. Thanks, but I'll take my chances and wash my hands. Often.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
        I remember in the 60.'s in the Army when they were preparing all missile batteries to be "strack" qualified (ready for any place in the world) we were given multiple vaccinations for multiple diseases. We got them with the pressure guns which was interesting. After the vaccinations the battery would be taken off line because history had shown that most of the troops would get sick and unable to work. I forget how many vaccinations each man had to take, but it may have been as many as ten.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
      I contend that all these immunizations are making the species weaker, and more susceptible to being wiped out. That isn't any consolation to a mother dealing with a sick child or one who dies. But if they die, it is because they were weaker than the virus. Vaccinating everyone makes them temporarily stronger, but their offspring do not gain that strength. Thus, they also must be vaccinated. Eventually, either the virus mutates to a strain that we cannot vaccinate against quickly enough, or we lose the ability to vaccinate widely, and a plague sweeps the lands.

      As you say, natural vaccination is better, in the long run and from a species survival perspective. Similarly, these anti-microbial hand soaps for children should not be used. Kids need to be exposed to germs to build up their tolerance. For adults, fine, our immune systems are pretty much set, but for children, banish the anti-microbe soap for the good of the children.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
        So, using your logic, Robbie, we should outlaw insulin.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
          Not at all. Insulin is a substance that the body produces to process sugar. While the disease diabetes can be passed genetically, it does not have to be.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
            But it often is, and certainly the tendency to the disease is. Do you agree that keeping diabetics alive potentially weakens the race?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
              Absolutely no. I've just been diagnosed as pre diabetic. I'd prefer no death sentence thank you very much.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                creepy ass topic isn't it? I have to say, one of my biggest fears is knowing my son is dependent on a pharma. And strapped to quarterly Dr.s appts (cha ching) to even be able to acquire what he needs (another big cha ching), and he can only get so much in advance. The system is rigged and increasingly expensive. Being at the mercy of others for your survival is rather unhinging. :(
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
                  Yes it is, and especially because its your child. My point was that The logical conclusion of Robbie's argument was to withhold medical care in order to preserve the strength of the race, and I find that bone chilling that anyone could propose that, and get 5 upvotes
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
                Sum itch, that's exactly my point, that Robbie thinking its better for weak people to die than to vaccinate them is like denying a diabetic insulin. I agree with you! Life is precious, and we should use medical interventions like vaccines to preserve it. Robbie said we should let the weak die in order to preserve the strength of the race. I don't know how my point was obfuscated.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
                  You can't inoculate against Diabetes. It isn't a communicable disease. Leprosy is the same way.

                  Inoculations only work against communicable diseases and the focus is generally on those which are air-borne and virulent.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
              Diabetes isn't really a good example for your argument. The dissemination mechanism of Type I Diabetes (also known as juvenile-onset Diabetes) is unknown at this point. There has been no causal link established through genetics.

              I have a daughter with Type I and a father-in-law with Type I. My daughter has had it since she was two and my father-in-law since 16, but science has not yet found any causal evidence linking Type I Diabetes with genetics. My entire family and my wife's entire family even voluntarily gave blood to be used for establishing a DNA-based link to diabetes, and we were told by the scientists that they could find no correlation at all.

              Now there are genetically-linked risk factors for Type II Diabetes, but Type I and Type II are completely different animals. Type II Diabetes can be controlled through diet (unless it gets ignored for too long and turns into Type I). Type II is the result of a lifestyle choice and can be remedied with the same. Type I is a permanent condition until they get things like islet-replacement therapy or stem cell treatments working.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
              This is a difficult issue, like many that involve medical implications that involve life. At a personal level, I think that it needs to be addressed. At the species level, it weakens the ability of us to survive long term.

              I say that as one who suffers from "hay fever." I worked on my grandparent's dairy farm every summer from about 8 to 15. This deficiency is certainly a detriment to the gene pool of the species homo-sapiens. I'm happy not to have been eliminated prior to my creation, but am realistic enough to understand that passing along such tendencies to my progeny make them and their subsequent progeny less capable of success.

              Do you suggest that diabetes is a condition that should be propagated?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                Holy hell.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                  Once again, you seek to intentionally stick your finger in the eye of others. Why do you feel the need to do so?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                    Why do I need to express exasperation? Cuz you exasperate me. Why DO you take my exhaustion as a personal affront? Get over yourself. If you want to take that as a poke in the eye then go right ahead...it's still a free country (well, not really, but....) Jesus Macaroni already!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                      And yet, I'm likely to be censured for expressing the same, even though I deleted such. Ce la vie.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                        You expressed "the same"? I think you got lost on the ugly 'express' way and went awry.
                        You were trying to make something up for affect (unless you really meant it....did you?), these weren't genuine exclamations of exasperation, (like mine were), they were a nasty attempt to make a point...and a poke. FAIL.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                          Yes, they were an attempt to make a point. And other than being incendiary, they do. But being incendiary, they were inappropriate and I attempted to delete them.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                            I'm noticing an apology isn't quite makin' it outta the gate there. Yet you were all free with the apologies when you thought I was offended earlier, over much less.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                        as you usually conflate issues, here's the point. . free speech is about whether the govt can stop you from stating comments-even vile things. The situation in France and Denmark was not about free speech-it is a bout using violence. The French govt just doesn't have the balls to stop these people who are willing to use violence. It's about the violence and govts not supporting free speech. Scott can say-not in my livingroom. private. No one in the Gulch is going to kill you for your inane comment. or poke you in the eye.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 1 month ago
                          Free speech is about the right to say what you want without having to fear violence. I don't see it as making any moral difference whether or not the person using or threatening the violence happens to belong to the gang that currently rules the place you live. "The government" is merely a gang like any other.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                            anarchist point of view. One is violence. period. Freedom of Speech is about the GOVT stopping you. There are too many other questions inherent in your statement. You can't come into my house and say whatever you want and claim free speech. In your example, if someone threatens violence it is about the govt stepping in and protecting you from the violence.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                          It is you conflating things in this case. My comments to Shrug here, have nothing to do with my comments on another thread.

                          This comment was made concerning the continual "poke in the eye" of those of us who have expressed a position of religious faith. We have expressed why we admire AS and still retain that position of faith. Yet some, and in particular LS, continually seek to stick a proverbial finger in the eye.

                          As you know, I made a mistake, and am likely to suffer the repercussions of same. While not intended as offensive, I recognized that they could be seen as such and sought to remove those sentiments. Unfortunately those sentiments were captured and are being reposted.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                            If I were a religious person using said "pokes in the eye" would you take such issue with it? Must I be confined to "gee willickers" and "darnit"s whenever I'm annoyed? Only the holy can use certain names when they're frustrated? This whole topic seems silly to me. Why do you care what I say anyway? You're trying to make something personal that isn't.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                              1) curious that you chastised me recently for commenting on a reply that you made to someone, and now you are doing the same here.
                              2) my kids chide me for being "square" in that I often will "curse" by saying "dag namit". I think that cursing itself shows a lack of capability in expressing oneself more capably. While I will do so on the very rare occasion, and in writing even less, I find it a very low form of communication.
                              3) It is my belief in having had interchange with you over a course of time, that you use this terminology as a means of antagonizing those who have a perspective of faith. That seems unnecessarily antagonistic. Just my opinion.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 1 month ago
                                1) You were talking ABOUT me.. yes I comment on comments made about ME.
                                2) I find expressing myself therapeutic, and a high form of communication as it doubles as a release and reminder of the general mood of the conversation.
                                3) I am not antagonisitic. I think you look for reasons to find offense, in particular, where faith is concerned so you can appear to take the "high ground" in some delusional, superior fashion. As if you have the morality market cornered.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                            well frankly it's confusing since the "deleted comment" is referred to on multiple posts including this one. Also "the poke in the eye" reference. Fair game on my post to bring it up. This post is about vaccinating , as a reminder
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                I thought you were catholic not a christian scientist. are you supporting anti-life? Are you suggesting that penicillin kept weaker people alive to add to the gene pool-so therefore it should not be used? are you suggesting cholera should run rampant every few years and wipe out millions of people? what happened to this post?!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 1 month ago
                  Yes, I am. But I am a scientist, nonetheless (well, really an engineer, but I believe in scientific thought). I'm not supporting anti-life.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
      I would agree that compared to other diseases, measles is not necessarily a large risk. Still hundreds of americans died from measles every year prior to the vaccine. Strengthening of the immune system: on one hand this is a solid argument. doctors want you to get viruses which are not serious. so no need to use anti-bacteria soap. Just wash your hands thoroughly. On the other hand, viruses like measles need a host and they . mutate and strengthen when they hit a healthy host. JAN! where is she when I need her on this post!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
      Well said. Don't know who downvoted you twice and then was unwilling to even post their objection.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 1 month ago
        blarman; are you referring to my post, or one below?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
          No it was this one. When I saw it, it was at -1. I up-voted you back to zero and someone else has voted you back up to 1 since then.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 1 month ago
            Thanks!

            In a debate among group members over a point of disagreement, a down vote is the last refuge of a man without an argument.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
              It is also used when the comment is intentionally inflammatory or degrading as well. To such, no rebuttal is necessary.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                ok. I still tell you if I did it. If I disagree I just disagree. no need to down point for disagreements in my opinion
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 1 month ago
                  I find this entire preoccupation with up and down points... pointless. Are we so addicted to the approval of others?

                  On Facebook, the "like" button shows agreement and you can see exactly who pushed the button. Maybe if the Gulch's Nero-esque thumb plays showed by name who did it, we could inquire of the individual what their thinking was, in either direction.

                  As for improving the genetic material of the human race by killing off or letting die the "weaker" members, there's no way to know how the evolutionary roulette wheel will spin. Except for extensive and continual inbreeding, there is enough variety in the species to keep immune systems survivable. We certainly have no way of knowing whom to breed into and out of the gene pool.

                  And physical fitness is not all there is. Would Robbie kill off physical weaklings who could produce humanity-saving intellectual contributions?

                  And what if we eliminated those whose ideas are by way of being diseases, like the religious and irrational and psychopathic or anyone we disagree with? Oh, wait, that's already being done, by wars and fanatic murders and legally sanctioned assassinations.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
                    On the Gulch, it's also used as a membership check. If someone gets downvoted enough, they are prevented from posting or voting on others' posts - effectively ostracizing them. It was implemented after someone went on an epic downvoting tirade and was literally downvoting every post being made.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 1 month ago
                      Interesting. Did they identify who it was? So malicious downvoting can be a kind of assassination. That should not count against the victim. I still think each vote should show who did it. No secret ballots in this context.

                      No wonder Facebook has only "likes", no dislikes, to minimize endless feuds and quarrels.

                      Some people just live to fight, even in groups where all the members allegedly share similar values. Sniff divergence on the smallest issue and the name-calling starts. Sheesh.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 1 month ago
                        I don't know if the culprit was ever outed. There has been talk as a feature upgrade to have the ability to see who up-voted/down-voted a post, but nothing has been tested yet.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
                          you're partially correct. YEs, there was a problem with massive downvoting done by trolls who set up multiple accts. What was implemented was the rule that new accts had to reach a point total of 100 to have voting "rights" If you are reading comments from a suspected troll, you can downvote those comments as you see them, possibly flag them for admin to check out. What's not allowed is massive down voting-going through all of their comments and posts and voting them down at once. That alerts admin. as well.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 1 month ago
                            I appreciate the diligence of the admins here in maintaining civilized standards of conversation and exercising restraint in use of the downvote. Adding a comment for each vote I find awkward when a comment may end up far down the rope from where it applies. I reserve the right to downthumb an insulting, nasty, aggressive remark without a justifying editorial and would be fine with just having my name appended to the vote. Or would it be a horrendous chore to amend the program?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ puzzlelady 9 years, 1 month ago
                            Elsewhere today I encountered another discussion about why trolls for hire are ubiquitous. My comment:

                            The explanation is far simpler than it seems:
                            Their brains are infected; it's a battle of memes.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago
    Drop dead, Gail.
    You haven't a clue of how to be a good doctor.
    You are a perfect example of why medical care costs a fortune, and quality of care is declining.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
      Think about it. Gail has done people a big favor. You and I would know not to take our child to her!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
        I disagree. At some point if you are willing to resist reason and ignore expert advice, then that expert can say -sorry, this isn't working out. Ultimately if she is catering to patients who refuse to be vaccinated against say measles, she is endangering other patients when the ones with measles show up for an appt!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 years, 1 month ago
          You characterized a parent who is reluctant to vaccinate as "willing to resist reason and ignore expert advice."

          When one watches his or her child react badly to a vaccine (as I did), and listens to doctors deny what happened, and then watches it again with the next series of vaccines, and again no medical professional will acknowledge the reality of what is happening... I would say it is a choice at that point between blindly listening to the experts' advice and ignoring reason, OR ELSE honoring reason and ignoring the supposed experts. I'm certainly not the only parent who has experienced this, as I've read dozens of similar stories online. There's an unwillingness to trust that a parent (who certainly knows the child better than the doctor) can be an accurate witness to the harm caused by vaccines, and I think that's a huge mistake.

          If the medical community would better acknowledge the cases of harm that occur, and try to ascertain WHY they occurred, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug and insist that vaccines are "safe," there wouldn't be such mistrust of those who advocate and administer vaccines.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
            which is why I said the part about reason. and I am sorry your child had such an adverse reaction to the vaccines. You make a great point about acknowledging those who experience adverse reactions to the vaccines and why. But it is also important to remember that these vaccines are not just slap dashed together. Years of research go into their formulations, then they must stand up to rigorous FDA testing and clinical trials. I do think there are agendas out there. being skeptical is healthy.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sumitch 9 years, 1 month ago
    If someone truly believes that they can't support vaccines based on legitimate religious teachings, yes, but they don't have the right to infect others so they should be quarantined, if the child gets seriously sick they do not have the right to free emergency room visits and they don’t get to wail and beat their chests if the child dies.

    A person must live with the consequences of their actions. No blaming others allowed unless it truly is another’s fault such as a doctor prescribing the wrong medicine.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo