The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Northwestcoug]

Paul said he has heard of cases and questions the CDC's recommendations about how vaccines should be given. He is still very much in the pro-vaccine camp. The facts are, however:

(1) There has been lots of cases that the court has ruled that vaccines may have been responsible for brain injury. Or actually responsible enough to award large amounts of money. These seem to be well documented: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/ Apparently there was enough proof to award billions of dollars in damages. It seems that you and JL think courts award money based on poor bullshit and not any actual proof. Of course, I would have to agree that some cases are awarded on BS but there are lot of examples here. If all of these cases were awarded on bullshit arguments then I have lost all my faith in lawyers and the courts to get anything right.

(2) A significant number of pediatricians and pediatric specialists also question the CDC's recommendations as well: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...2#.VNIfBFr5m-L In fact, 21% of the pediatric specialists said they would deviate from the CDC guidelines. Paul gave a very reasonable argument for why someone may want to deviate from the government's guidelines, IMO.

Did Paul say that vaccines are bad? No.

Did Paul say there is no way in hell he would vaccine his kids? No. In fact, he vaccinated his kids.

Did Paul say vaccines cause more harm than good? No.

Did Paul say he believes there is a solid connection between vaccines and mental disorders? No, he said he heard of some cases (Read the document in #1 and you would have heard of some cases as well or otherwise you would be lying).

Whatever Ted. You and I are arguing different things.

1) Did you read this paper? I scanned it. It was more of a history of vaccine-related litigation. Autism weighs heavily into the discussion, but curiously the name 'Wakefield' is nowhere to be found. He's the fraudulent researcher who has done more to push a link between vaccines and autism than most anyone. Since his Lancet paper has been retracted, there isn't one reputable scientific paper that proves a link between autism and vaccines.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting there aren't any nervous-system related disorders that may be causally related to vaccines. But they seem extremely rare and extremely hard to prove causation. Read the paper and see how stringent the requirements are to pursue litigation based on the government's vaccine injury program.

2)From the abstract:

No statistical difference was found between general and specialty pediatricians on how they vaccinated their children up until 2009 (95% vs 93%). When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%)...

Until 2009, general pediatricians and pediatric specialists have largely adhered to ACIP recommendations, but due to vaccine safety and other concerns, both groups, albeit a higher percentage of specialists, reported greater numbers willing to diverge from these recommendations.

Gee, I wonder what could have given them concerns about vaccination safety. Could it have been Wakefield's fraudulent Lancet paper, the one that had yet to be retracted when this survey was published? Again, Paul is insinuating autism-related injury. He should know better than to publicly give credence to the autism/vaccination debate. And if he doesn't, then he is an incompetent physician and bad politician.

And for the last time, yes, vaccines do have side effects. In very rare cases some serious ones. Find me a paper that shows changing the CDC's guidelines decreases their incidence. Until then, I stand by my statement that Paul and others who should know better are basing their vaccination strategies on flimsy evidence. And potentially harming their children and the public to boot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Paul said he has heard of cases and questions the CDC's recommendations about how vaccines should be given. He is still very much in the pro-vaccine camp. The facts are, however:

(1) There has been lots of cases that the court has ruled that vaccines may have been responsible for brain injury. Or actually responsible enough to award large amounts of money. These seem to be well documented: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol28/iss2/6/ Apparently there was enough proof to award billions of dollars in damages. It seems that you and JL think courts award money based on poor bullshit and not any actual proof. Of course, I would have to agree that some cases are awarded on BS but there are lot of examples here. If all of these cases were awarded on bullshit arguments then I have lost all my faith in lawyers and the courts to get anything right.

(2) A significant number of pediatricians and pediatric specialists also question the CDC's recommendations as well: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...2#.VNIfBFr5m-L In fact, 21% of the pediatric specialists said they would deviate from the CDC guidelines. Paul gave a very reasonable argument for why someone may want to deviate from the government's guidelines, IMO.

Did Paul say that vaccines are bad? No.

Did Paul say there is no way in hell he would vaccine his kids? No. In fact, he vaccinated his kids.

Did Paul say vaccines cause more harm than good? No.

Did Paul say he believes there is a solid connection between vaccines and mental disorders? No, he said he heard of some cases (Read the document in #1 and you would have heard of some cases as well or otherwise you would be lying).

Ted, you are just repeating the same things at this point. I'll just respond to the court case thing. The fact that a skilled legal team could potentially swing a jury to award massive damages has NOTHING to do with scientific evidence. It just doesn't. I can't believe you keep doubling down on that.

Consider two facts:

1. There was a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit related to silicon breast implants. Scientists later overwhelmingly proved that the evidence used in the case was total junk.

2. The now fully-debunked paper in the Lancelet journal linking vaccines to autism involving fudged data was submitted by a doctor (former doctor) who had a secret deal with a legal team to become an expert witness and make $$$ suing vaccine makers.

So again, the fact that there have been judgments, even big judgments, means absolutely nothing when it comes to scientific evidence and responsible health policy.

[Uncle Ted]

Whatever Ted. You and I are arguing different things.

1) Did you read this paper? I scanned it. It was more of a history of vaccine-related litigation. Autism weighs heavily into the discussion, but curiously the name 'Wakefield' is nowhere to be found. He's the fraudulent researcher who has done more to push a link between vaccines and autism than most anyone. Since his Lancet paper has been retracted, there isn't one reputable scientific paper that proves a link between autism and vaccines.

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting there aren't any nervous-system related disorders that may be causally related to vaccines. But they seem extremely rare and extremely hard to prove causation. Read the paper and see how stringent the requirements are to pursue litigation based on the government's vaccine injury program.

I scanned the paper mostly myself but I am aware of Andrew Wakefield's, et.el.'s bullshit study. This litigation study was done years after Wakefield confessed that he had doctored the results of the (only?) 12 subjects and the "et. el." all dropped their names off the paper.

There have been cases of bad vaccine batches causing problems, for example. However, if the batch is good and the kid comes into doctor's office to get his shots in very good health to begin with then there is most likely a 99.99% chance he will be just fine getting vaccinated. The 0.01%'er will get screwed by the shots. Still the odds are good and kids should get vaccinated. The benefit greatly outweighs the chance of getting sick from the disease the vaccine should prevent.

2)From the abstract:



Gee, I wonder what could have given them concerns about vaccination safety. Could it have been Wakefield's fraudulent Lancet paper, the one that had yet to be retracted when this survey was published? Again, Paul is insinuating autism-related injury. He should know better than to publicly give credence to the autism/vaccination debate. And if he doesn't, then he is an incompetent physician and bad politician.

And for the last time, yes, vaccines do have side effects. In very rare cases some serious ones. Find me a paper that shows changing the CDC's guidelines decreases their incidence. Until then, I stand by my statement that Paul and others who should know better are basing their vaccination strategies on flimsy evidence. And potentially harming their children and the public to boot.

So someone finally started to question the Wakefield study (and his 12 data points!?!) around 2009 or actually even before that. By early 2010 the Wakefield study had been totally shot down and a panel had ruled he had been "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The abstract states in part, as you point out:

No statistical difference was found between general and specialty pediatricians on how they vaccinated their children up until 2009 (95% vs 93%). When asked about vaccinating a future child, a significant proportion of respondents would deviate from CDC guidelines, specialists more than general pediatricians (21% vs 9%)...


Until 2009, general pediatricians and pediatric specialists have largely adhered to ACIP recommendations, but due to vaccine safety and other concerns, both groups, albeit a higher percentage of specialists, reported greater numbers willing to diverge from these recommendations.

So after 2009 the percentage of general and specialty pediatricians that say they would not vaccinate their own children actually goes up (from 5% to 7%)?!? In addition, until 2009 general pediatricians and pediatric specialists have largely adhered to ACIP recommendations but after up to 21% say they would deviate from the CDC/ACIP guidelines?!? WTF, don't these shithead Docs read the news? I guess medical school are teaching pure shit and not so much science these days given that the percentage of anti-vacinate Docs seems to be going up so some reason that can't possibly be related to the bogus Wakefield study. Are the medical schools crap these days or is there some other reason for these percentages are going up even after the Wakefield study was totally discredited?

Paul isn't insinuating autism-related injury (note he vaccinated his own kids). That is the tort lawyers job and it seems like they are doing a good job given that vaccines are taxed (something like a dollar per shot) so the government has money to settle vaccine related injury says something. If vaccines are proven completely safe why doesn't the government just simply enact tort reform (limit the settlement size) on vaccine related injury and drop the tax?

[Northwestcoug]

Paul isn't insinuating autism-related injury (note he vaccinated his own kids). That is the tort lawyers job and it seems like they are doing a good job given that vaccines are taxed (something like a dollar per shot) so the government has money to settle vaccine related injury says something. If vaccines are proven completely safe why doesn't the government just simply enact tort reform (limit the settlement size) on vaccine related injury and drop the tax?

Bullshit. He absolutely is insinuating autism. 'Mental disorders' was his term.

Go ahead and find someone else to argue about vaccine safety, because you're not listening to what I'm saying.

[ERCougar]

Yep. The anti-vaxers used to be more on the left, but it seems to be spreading to the nuts on both sides. Anti-GMO's are typically lefty. Anti-evolution and anti-climate change nuts are mostly right-wingers.

The left has become far more rational on this issue. Hillary's tweet:
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"

As a MD, Paul should be ashamed of himself, even in his defense of a modified schedule, which has no evidence behind it and is a total bullshit pandering to the antivaxxers. I would think this kind of political gameplay would go against the libertarian philosophy. Same old same ol'.

[Uncle Ted]

Bullshit. He absolutely is insinuating autism. 'Mental disorders' was his term.

Go ahead and find someone else to argue about vaccine safety, because you're not listening to what I'm saying.

LOL... Double bullshit! Why would Paul say "I think vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we've had. I'm a big fan and a great fan of the history and the development of the smallpox vaccine for example." and vaccinated his own kids if he thought vaccines were not largely safe? All Paul said was that he's heard of cases that vaccines may lead to "mental disorders". I have also heard of cases that vaccines may lead to mental disorders. That legal study is full of them. That doesn't mean Paul believes them. If someone truly believed that vaccines causes autism then they wouldn't be vaccinating their own kids, IMO.

[Northwestcoug]

LOL... Double bullshit! Why would Paul say "I think vaccines are one of the biggest medical breakthroughs that we've had. I'm a big fan and a great fan of the history and the development of the smallpox vaccine for example." and vaccinated his own kids if he thought vaccines were not largely safe? All Paul said was that he's heard of cases that vaccines may lead to "mental disorders". I have also heard of cases that vaccines may lead to mental disorders. That legal study is full of them. That doesn't mean Paul believes them. If someone truly believed that vaccines causes autism then they wouldn't be vaccinating their own kids, IMO.

Keep on repeating the same argument, Ted. In the meantime, read ER's post above. Maybe that will help solidify what I've been repeatedly saying in this thread.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The left has become far more rational on this issue. Hillary's tweet:
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"

As a MD, Paul should be ashamed of himself, even in his defense of a modified schedule, which has no evidence behind it and is a total bullshit pandering to the antivaxxers. I would think this kind of political gameplay would go against the libertarian philosophy. Same old same ol'.

Hillary sent out a tweet yesterday and therefore the left is far more rational on this? You're a pretty easy guy to satisfy. If Jeb Bush and Scott Walker send out tweets will you then say the right is more rational on this?

That article from the Atlantic on the schools in LA having low vaccination rates was from last fall. I doubt that the left has become substantially more rational on this in the past four months, that convenient tweet from Hillary Clinton (apparently quite convincing to you) notwithstanding.

Being anti-vaccination has never been a religious right issue, it's never been a conservative issue. It has been an issue with granola idiots and they're not right-wingers. It was also a thing for the circles that people like "pro-science" Bill Maher runs with (the same people discussed in the Atlantic article).

[old_gregg]

Hillary sent out a tweet yesterday and therefore the left is far more rational on this? You're a pretty easy guy to satisfy. If Jeb Bush and Scott Walker send out tweets will you then say the right is more rational on this?

That article from the Atlantic on the schools in LA having low vaccination rates was from last fall. I doubt that the left has become substantially more rational on this in the past four months, that convenient tweet from Hillary Clinton (apparently quite convincing to you) notwithstanding.

Being anti-vaccination has never been a religious right issue, it's never been a conservative issue. It has been an issue with granola idiots and they're not right-wingers. It was also a thing for the circles that people like "pro-science" Bill Maher runs with (the same people discussed in the Atlantic article).

bill maher is such a stupid piece of shit

[Jeff Lebowski]

bill maher is such a stupid piece of shit

He certainly is.

But it tickles me to see CMBF act like he is a pro-science guy.

[ERCougar]

Hillary sent out a tweet yesterday and therefore the left is far more rational on this? You're a pretty easy guy to satisfy. If Jeb Bush and Scott Walker send out tweets will you then say the right is more rational on this?

That article from the Atlantic on the schools in LA having low vaccination rates was from last fall. I doubt that the left has become substantially more rational on this in the past four months, that convenient tweet from Hillary Clinton (apparently quite convincing to you) notwithstanding.

Being anti-vaccination has never been a religious right issue, it's never been a conservative issue. It has been an issue with granola idiots and they're not right-wingers. It was also a thing for the circles that people like "pro-science" Bill Maher runs with (the same people discussed in the Atlantic article).

Yes, granola idiots and physicians and governors!

Just curious...who's your pick for the democratic nominee for the 2016 presidential election? (See thread title)

[Color Me Badd Fan]

All those idiotic bible-thumpers out in Mississippi are virulently anti-evolution and anti-science, yet they have somehow managed to have the highest vaccination rate for their school age children in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us...ules.html?_r=0

Maybe Vermont can catch up after they're done fighting with all the cold-pressed juice idiots who are absolutely terrified of injecting that mercury and formaldehyde laden poison into their bodies.

[Uncle Ted]

The left has become far more rational on this issue. Hillary's tweet:
"The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest"

Grandma Clinton now has changed her tune a bit...

"I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible
environmental causes like vaccines."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/03/obama-and-clint.html

As a MD, Paul should be ashamed of himself, even in his defense of a modified schedule, which has no evidence behind it and is a total bullshit pandering to the antivaxxers. I would think this kind of political gameplay would go against the libertarian philosophy. Same old same ol'.

As a MD you should write an op ed in one of your professional journals and ask why the hell 21% of the pediatric specials (yes, your fellow MDs) don't follow the government's guidelines in vaccinating their own kids and why 7% don't even vaccinate their kids at all. The MD professionals or AMA or whatever should be ashamed of their own. What the fuck is up with that?

Paul has made it very clear he has no problem with getting voluntarily vaccinated... Why the hell makes you think he is in the antivaxxers camp?

[Uncle Ted]

Keep on repeating the same argument, Ted. In the meantime, read ER's post above. Maybe that will help solidify what I've been repeatedly saying in this thread.

I read and responded to ER's post. How's that?

Why is it that you both think Paul is an antivaxxer? Repeat after me... "Paul is not an antivaxxer. Paul just wants you to be able to make the decision rather than the government to get vaccinated."

[old_gregg]

I read and responded to ER's post. How's that?

Why is it that you both think Paul is an antivaxxer? Repeat after me... "Paul is not an antivaxxer. Paul just wants you to be able to make the decision rather than the government to get vaccinated."

really?

"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,"

Paul just wants you to be able to make the decision rather than the government to get vaccinated.

well i'd like to make the decision about whether my kids are permitted to bring loaded firearms to school without the goddamn government interfering!