|
paragon1 posted:*turns to page 19* You hesitate, brain cranking on a clever line, "and that's how daddy changes diapers," you grin, fumbling with the button a hair before the weasel song pops. Half a second later your displays dutifully show the world consumed in flame followed immediately by an exploding baby. You struggle to think of a good comeback involving latency. Laten-owned! No, that's dumb... SedanChair posted:Page 3: Page 3 You pretend to drop the remote and let it skid to a stop in front of your best friend's feet. "Oh no! While I would never advocate rights-transgressions, in a case like this it would sure would be doubly heroic! If only someone were close enough!" ... "Thanks hero! You're the best" you say bringing out a .45 and tapping a few suspect-control rounds into your heroic friend's brain. "Whoops. Oh well, my life was in danger, just look what this monster did to that baby." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Feb 11, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Page 19 A true CYOA. Well, at least I got justice for all those dead people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I understand the point of it. The issue I have with the thought experiment is that it's so contrived and impossible that it's not actually more accessible than the bare question. Part of the emotional response relies on the reaction to the cockamamie scheme of trying to derail a train with a fat dude's body. Even a person who did think it's okay to murder someone to save 5 would probably still look at that and be repulsed because killing someone for such a long-shot goal is totally irresponsible. That's why the hypothetical adds all this ridiculous stuff (you are 100% certain that the train will derail in time to miss the people, derailing a loving train is guaranteed not to kill anyone else on the train or around the tracks, nobody will ever find out, and you know the guy has no friends or family who will be sad, and there is a 0% chance of anything else working). Yeah okay, consequentialism comes to outrageous conclusions when you bar it from considering most of the consequences, good job. These thought experiments tend to be boring for me from a conversational standpoint because they basically have you in a situation where you have perfect knowledge, and often, ethical quandaries come about because we don't have the perfect knowledge. It's an intellectual exercise that doesn't do much other than prove that you can come up with enough poo poo, you might get someone to kill another person. Provided you were on a run-away trolley car. And that they were obese enough to stop the car. And that there are five people who will die if you don't. One of the five is a heart surgeon who is on his way to work to save a dying baby who happened to get stuck on the tracks. And the fat man is literally the Obese Hitler. And if you don't run him down with the train, he will launch a nuclear missile aimed at your city. Would you kill him now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
I was always bothered by those questions on a more meta level, 'cause what are the odds you're going to get an honest answer? Willingness to kill is the kind of thing people will keep quiet about. Unless you're asking the question to gague what they think the answer you or society want to hear is. No, to properly assess this, you're going to need anonymous surveys, or better yet, a massive campaign of rail infrastructure sabotage. Or if you're not a Libertarian, you stick a gun in their face and tell them what the answer is. Much simpler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Page 19 Good thing I kept my thumb on the previous page so I could retry!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:These thought experiments tend to be boring for me from a conversational standpoint because they basically have you in a situation where you have perfect knowledge, and often, ethical quandaries come about because we don't have the perfect knowledge. It's an intellectual exercise that doesn't do much other than prove that you can come up with enough poo poo, you might get someone to kill another person. I don't think the thought exercise is pointless. True, you have perfect information. And yet, people get upset about making the choice regardless. That's what's interesting about it (to me, anyway). It's not really a thought experiment about morality. It's a psychological test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
swampcow posted:I don't think the thought exercise is pointless. True, you have perfect information. And yet, people get upset about making the choice regardless. That's what's interesting about it (to me, anyway). It's not really a thought experiment about morality. It's a psychological test. I think the reason people get upset is that they can't actually reconcile all the rules of the experiment with how the world really works. Intellectually you should push the guy because the problem definition guarantees that it would work and rules out any other consequences beyond "1 guy dies, 5 guys live". But our gut tells us this is bullshit and pushing a guy to his death hoping he'll derail a train just right and save the day is appalling. If you change the scenario to a realistic one with the same principle, most people can answer it without a problem. For example: you have a new vaccine with a 1:100,000 death rate. If you give it to millions of children you can be certain there will be 10s of deaths, and its not reasonable to suppose that those children would necessarily be among the thousands who would die in epidemics every year anyway. Do you take active actions that you know will kill a few to save thousands more. Almost nobody disagrees about the answer to this question, and even those who do don't say "no, it's wrong because there's no amount of lives saved that can justify killing one person." They take issue with the premises and claim that vaccines don't work or that organic food and clean faces or prayer are what really eradicates smallpox.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. I remember a few of you trying to get me to talk about vaccines in the past. I'm sure you weren't really interested in my honest opinion, but surely you wanted a reason to criticize me as being an anti-vaccer because you probably assume that I am. I am not opposed to vaccines, however I am still appalled at the irresponsibility of the media towards Rand Paul's comments this week. Apparently you are not permitted to hold ANY nuanced views on vaccines whatsoever. Either you cheerfully submit to whatever number of vaccines the State recommends without argument or you are Jenny McCarthy. Even making the statement that people ought to have the choice to vaccinate or not rather than having it be mandated, which is the way things currently stand in most states, is considered heresy. The question of freedom of choice is obviously quite separate from the wisdom of the choices people might make. The alternative to freedom in terms of vaccination is what exactly? That public officials hold you down and stick drugs in your arm against your will? I have gotten vaccines and will continue to if and when it is prudent to do so. I will make that decision in concert with my doctor based on my risk factors, the science that is available and many other things that ought to be taken into account. What I will not do is blindly, like a drone, take every single injection that a State bureaucracy recommends without question. In a sane world this position would not be controversial in the slightest and the rational person, given their track record, would look skeptically upon the pharmaceutical industry that makes and profits from the sale of these vaccines and a State that has clearly show itself to have conflicts of interest with regards to its mandates and legislation. I've never been Rand Paul's biggest defender. However, given the comments he made that I have read, I find it outrageous that he has been savaged by the media and treated like an insane person for what are not very controversial comments. The libertarian view on infectious diseases is that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to infect other people with a disease. Now, in most cases this is a mild offense and inadvertent. However, if someone gets a dangerous infectious disease and does not either voluntarily quarantine themselves or act in the most responsible manner to protect others, then I believe it is justified to use force to isolate these people from society unless or until they get treated and are again safe to interact with the public. To claim that many vaccines dion't and haven't had dangerous side effects is absolutely incorrect. And many vaccines are largely ineffective. The flu vaccine, for example, has many years proven to be only 25% effective as the flu viruses mutate and change. For some people getting the flu vaccine makes sense. If you are elderly or especially at risk. For me personally, I don't get the flu vaccine. If I ever get the flu, and it hasn't happened in about a decade, I do the responsible thing and avoid human contact, see my doctor and I generally recover strongly within a week. Some people have allergic reactions to various vaccinations. The government recommends three or four times as many vaccines for an adolescent than they did thirty years ago. The long term empirical research has not yet been done on the health of younger people over the course of their lifetime who have had the full recommended schedule of vaccines. Furthermore, every disease is not Smallpox. If I don't get a flu shot I am not risking an epidemic that leads to mass death and the implication that I am simply for making the best health choices for my situation personally in concert with my doctors is offensive and anti-scientific. The humorous thing is that most left-progressives are continually harping on the regrettable reality of pharmaceutical lobbying and control over our healthcare system. Yet it stretches incredulity, as well as being a prime example of cognitive dissonance, to hold the former view while at the same time offering no skepticism whatsoever on the effect of corporate lobbying by vaccine manufacturers. Like I said earlier, I am a believer in vaccinations and the scientific principle of induced immunity. It can and does lead to great advances in public health, as was the case in the eradication of Smallpox. And if you are traveling to Africa, getting vaccinated is absolutely essential to protect your health. But the conflict of interest in Washington and the lack of trustworthiness of big pharma means that it is only prudent to express skepticism and make informed healthcare decisions in concert with your doctor, assessing your specific risk factors and health needs. Blindly following a list of recommended vaccines given by the State is not sufficient for me. There is a cost-benefit analysis that goes into every injection that you take. If some people are acting irresponsible, then they should be persuaded through exposure to the facts, to take the precautions to protect not only them but society at large from the spread of infectious disease. jrodefeld fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Oh my god. Jrod, no, don't do this. This is not the hill you want to die on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. "I know I still haven't explained healthcare in Libertopia, why Libertopia hasn't sprung up already in stateless regions if it's so great, or really anything else, but let me pontificate on something I don't actually care about, because red herrings are the only way I can think of to avoid confronting my profound ignorance of economics, healthcare, sociology, psychology, business, philosophy, logic and all other subjects not revolving around equivocation, because I am a coward." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Jrod do you think people should be forced into quarantine if they have Ebola and are highly contagious? I don't think we've covered that before, I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Why are you complaining about flu shots? Flu shots aren't mandatory except for people in certain professions who are free to quit and bootstrap themselves into another job if they don't like it. And why are you claiming doctors don't assess individual risks? There are whole classes of elderly or too-young or immunocompromised people that are recommended against vaccinating. That's why it's so hosed up to irresponsibly refuse to get a measles vaccine because you're putting those people at risk. Are you really claiming the liberal media is strawmanning Paul right now while also accusing doctors of blindly giving everyone a battery of shots just çuz? And if you're so suspicious of the integrity and good intentions of Big Pharma, then why are you opposed to the FDA? Do you know why of 10,000 to 20,000 estimated thalidomide births in the world, only 17 occurred in the United States? Because the FDA refused to approve the drug for marketing and sale in the US, citing a lack of test results (test results that the company had performed, but kept secret because of the side effects) Wikipedia posted:Several countries either restricted the drug's use or never approved it. Ingeborg Eichler, a member of the Austrian pharmaceutical admission conference, enforced thalidomide (tradename Softenon) being sold under the rules of prescription medication and as a result relatively few affected children were born in Austria and Switzerland. In the United States, pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey M.D. withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell company and refused Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in United States patients. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
haha JRod's argument is basically "gently caress you i won't do what you tell me" x 10000 wordsjrodefeld posted:The libertarian view on infectious diseases is that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to infect other people with a disease. Now, in most cases this is a mild offense and inadvertent. However, if someone gets a dangerous infectious disease and does not either voluntarily quarantine themselves or act in the most responsible manner to protect others, then I believe it is justified to use force to isolate these people from society unless or until they get treated and are again safe to interact with the public. you can often infect others without knowing you have a disease or showing severe symptoms, once again proving the libertarian fantasy of self-policing to be a ridiculous impossibility jrodefeld posted:That public officials hold you down and stick drugs in your arm against your will? why is libertarian rhetoric always so bodily violent? "if you don't pay your taxes the state will literally ROB YOU AT GUNPOINT" i think an essential part of being a libertarian is to be bullied in public school and carry that primal fear of bigger people beating you up boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Oh my god. Jrod, no, don't do this. This is not the hill you want to die on. Libertarians want to die on every hill  jrodefeld posted:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. I remember a few of you trying to get me to talk about vaccines in the past. I'm sure you weren't really interested in my honest opinion, but surely you wanted a reason to criticize me as being an anti-vaccer because you probably assume that I am. I think we might be criticizing you as an anti-vaxxer because this big ol' post you just made shows you are one. quote:I am not opposed to vaccines, however I am still appalled at the irresponsibility of the media towards Rand Paul's comments this week. Apparently you are not permitted to hold ANY nuanced views on vaccines whatsoever. Either you cheerfully submit to whatever number of vaccines the State recommends without argument or you are Jenny McCarthy. Even making the statement that people ought to have the choice to vaccinate or not rather than having it be mandated, which is the way things currently stand in most states, is considered heresy. The question of freedom of choice is obviously quite separate from the wisdom of the choices people might make. The alternative to freedom in terms of vaccination is what exactly? That public officials hold you down and stick drugs in your arm against your will? There is no "nuanced" view on vaccines. The science shows they work. The total eradication of smallpox shows they work. The eradication of rinderpest among animals shows they work. We have Polio on the ropes and we're either beating back or in a position to assail several other nasty conditions. The fact that, in the first world at least, you're fairly unlikely to ever get a huge number of once-endemic diseases shows that vaccines work. Does anyone want to take the risk of being the one poor bastard in a million who has a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine? Of course not. But it's the price paid for the total safety from the disease for society as a whole. This isn't like, say, obesity or whatever, infectious diseases are a unique threat and yeah, if people refuse to be vaccinated, public officials should totally hold them down and stick drugs in their arms against their wills. Because otherwise people die of measles and polio and yellow fever and all kinds of other nasty poo poo. quote:I have gotten vaccines and will continue to if and when it is prudent to do so. I will make that decision in concert with my doctor based on my risk factors, the science that is available and many other things that ought to be taken into account. What I will not do is blindly, like a drone, take every single injection that a State bureaucracy recommends without question. So you arrive at the same exact outcome - that vaccines are good and you should get them - but you go through some convoluted bullshit about how you've come to this conclusion all by yourself and you don't need no filthy CDC to tell you what to do, man. Well look I'm not a doctor or any kind of medical professional and I only understand vaccines in layman's terms, but if the government decides the outlay of vaccinating the entire country is worthwhile, it probably is. Of course, such corruption as you fear is a much smaller concern in a single-payer or nationalized healthcare system because the government pays for the vaccines, so they've little incentive to get people to get pointless ones. In a privatized system they can mandate you get vaccinations whilst expecting you to pay so I can see where the worry would emerge. Funny that though, that a free market would pose a greater risk of corruption. quote:The libertarian view on infectious diseases is that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to infect other people with a disease. Now, in most cases this is a mild offense and inadvertent. However, if someone gets a dangerous infectious disease and does not either voluntarily quarantine themselves or act in the most responsible manner to protect others, then I believe it is justified to use force to isolate these people from society unless or until they get treated and are again safe to interact with the public. And the government does not mandate flu vaccinations, meaning you can make the decision yourself depending on your risk factors such as being elderly or having an existing lung disease or something. So the situation is precisely what you claim to want. Very serious diseases are responded to with mandatory vaccines - just as you say you want, except we don't actually bother waiting for some fool to infect a thousand people before we lock them away, we just give them the vaccine in the first place - while less serious but still somewhat dangerous ones are largely up to the individual. These things change based on various factors including the severity of a strain of flu and the efficacy vs. potential risks of a given vaccine. quote:Some people have allergic reactions to various vaccinations. The government recommends three or four times as many vaccines for an adolescent than they did thirty years ago. The long term empirical research has not yet been done on the health of younger people over the course of their lifetime who have had the full recommended schedule of vaccines. Yeah but see, if people live long enough to have long-term health effects, the vaccines are already better than not getting them. This is the same as the "vaccines cause autism" debacle; so loving what? You know what's worse than autism? Dying from a hideous disease! Even if every fear about vaccines was true it would still not be enough to successfully argue against vaccines. quote:Furthermore, every disease is not Smallpox. If I don't get a flu shot I am not risking an epidemic that leads to mass death and the implication that I am simply for making the best health choices for my situation personally in concert with my doctors is offensive and anti-scientific. The Flu: Not a serious epidemic risk - noted healthcare professional jrodefeld. You remember the flu scares over the years? Swine flu, bird flu, all that jazz? You know why very serious, very well-educated people in the WHO, CDC, NHS, and so on get really worried about them? Because when you get a bad dice roll the flu is a serious loving thing that kills vast numbers of people, and sometimes it flips the tables so it kills healthy young adults the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic Incidentally, their freakouts that everyone now makes fun of are arguably why such flus never got off the ground and killed a hundred million people. But as I said, the regular seasonal flu these days is not seen as a big enough threat to warrant mandatory vaccinations in many countries, so again I don't even know what you're even arguing about because the situation is precisely as you demand it to be. e; Plus as VitalSigns says above, if you really are so concerned about Big Pharma, you know what the solution is? An empowered, well-funded FDA, weaker corporations, and maybe a dash of campaign finance reform to help keep business interests a little further away from Washington. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Jrode please prove to me that rights actually exist. I mean really if no one else actually agrees with your assertions do they exist at all, except your in head? I mean say that you lived in a society that valued its safety as a whole and it had a law on the books saying you must be vaccinated from a certain disease. Say you refuse on grounds the law violates what you perceive as you're personal liberty and the society either throws you in jail or has you and your family quarantined, do you actually have liberty than? Just because you say so, because if the society was able to do either to you, it doesn't sound like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
I love that FDA trials and medical journals aren't transparent or accessible enough for you jrod, but you somehow think everyone would be totally capable of evaluating the safety vs efficacy of every drug if only they went back to being trade secrets of the same Big Pharma corporations you claim have pulled off a massive heist to poison us all with MMR vaccines, undiscovered by any but snake-handling churches and crystal-rubbing suburban moms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. AKA - I want to change the subject now because I'm losing the argument and I can't win and if I directly respond to what people say, I will look like a greater idiot. I truly doubt you will respond to whatever you have to say. quote:I am not opposed to vaccines, however I am still appalled at the irresponsibility of the media towards Rand Paul's comments this week. Apparently you are not permitted to hold ANY nuanced views on vaccines whatsoever. The problem isn't that Rand Paul has nuanced views on vaccines, it's that Rand Paul has bad views on vaccines. When he says that there are "walking, talking children" who "end up with profound mental disorders after getting vaccinated," that is not the claims of a man with nuanced views. That's the claims of a crackpot spreading dangerous misinformation, making his claims suspect. quote:Either you cheerfully submit to whatever number of vaccines the State recommends without argument or you are Jenny McCarthy. Even making the statement that people ought to have the choice to vaccinate or not rather than having it be mandated, which is the way things currently stand in most states, is considered heresy. The question of freedom of choice is obviously quite separate from the wisdom of the choices people might make. The alternative to freedom in terms of vaccination is what exactly? That public officials hold you down and stick drugs in your arm against your will? See, this is why the Libertarian mindset makes no sense to me. All of the discussion is focused upon the individual without any consideration for the society. And so you talk about things from this philosophical mindset. Yes, if all things were equal, vaccinations should be a choice. IF all things were equal. However, when we have to deal with a little girl getting measles from her brother who was exposed to it due to a visit to a family clinic from a family who picked up measles at Disney World, and oh, that little girl has lymphoma meaning her immune system is shot, then all things are not equal. It's literally the case of saying "Hey, if you want to be part of our society, we need you to take every reasonable measure to carry deadly diseases that we can easily prevent." The problem too is that people who seem to think vaccines are bad tend to be of the batshit crazy variety, who use false evidence and incorrect facts to argue their points. They are people who hide behind their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't correspond with reality. You don't just get to disagree with the facts because you don't like them. You can't demand that we consider your factually incorrect viewpoint with the same amount of respect as we would one that has been proven to work. People my age didn't get the measles because you got vaccinated. Now, it's making a come back. And as someone who is immunosuppressed, I'm very scared. I'm scared I'm gonna get sick because someone else decided that they didn't want their kids to get autism and thought that vaccines caused it. If giving immunosuppressed people the freedom to interact with society means abridging your freedom to not get vaccinated, unless of course you have a legitimate medical reason why you can't get vaccines, well then, I think anyone would say "yeah, stick a needle in your loving arm and get over with it." quote:I have gotten vaccines and will continue to if and when it is prudent to do so. I will make that decision in concert with my doctor based on my risk factors, the science that is available and many other things that ought to be taken into account. What I will not do is blindly, like a drone, take every single injection that a State bureaucracy recommends without question. See, this is where you sound like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. You're a free thinker. You're not gonna listen to the bureaucracy! Guess what! When you were growing up, did any of your friends have polio? I doubt it, because there's a vaccine for it! Could it be that these vaccines were chosen by scientific methods to ensure public health while minimizing the risk to the people getting the vaccines. Because you mention risk factors. See, vaccines allow people who can't get vaccinated, whether it be because of immunological problems or because they have an allergy or you name it, to live safely because of herd immunity. But when people don't get vaccinated, the herd immunity breaks down. That's why we're seeing a rise in diseases that we give vaccines for. Diseases we practically wiped out! quote:In a sane world this position would not be controversial in the slightest and the rational person, given their track record, would look skeptically upon the pharmaceutical industry that makes and profits from the sale of these vaccines and a State that has clearly show itself to have conflicts of interest with regards to its mandates and legislation. In a sane world, one would look at the facts and see the rise in preventable diseases that we practically had wiped out that people normally would receive vaccines for and realize that maybe that skepticism was misplaced. That would require you to be capable of understanding data that doesn't come from Mises.org. quote:I've never been Rand Paul's biggest defender. However, given the comments he made that I have read, I find it outrageous that he has been savaged by the media and treated like an insane person for what are not very controversial comments. Except the part where he claims vaccines give people neurological disorders. quote:The libertarian view on infectious diseases is that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to infect other people with a disease. Now, in most cases this is a mild offense and inadvertent. However, if someone gets a dangerous infectious disease and does not either voluntarily quarantine themselves or act in the most responsible manner to protect others, then I believe it is justified to use force to isolate these people from society unless or until they get treated and are again safe to interact with the public. You are so loving dense. This is one of the stupidest things you've ever written. Where to begin. First off, people don't intentionally infect other people. Many people have to work while sick because they don't get sick leave and can't afford to take the day off. Something your libertarian ethics wouldn't do anything to prevent. Secondly, many diseases are communicable before people are symptomatic. So I could have the disease, I could be spreading it to people, and I might not know that I'm sick! Thirdly, these people can't just be quarantined. That's not reality. What if they need healthcare? What if they need medication from Walgreens? What do you do at the clinic they go to? What do you do? Literally, you just argued that we can use force to isolate people with the common cold from society. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING SOMEONE WHO WAS CAPABLE OF LOGICAL THINKING AND REASONING WOULD SAY! quote:To claim that many vaccines dion't and haven't had dangerous side effects is absolutely incorrect. And many vaccines are largely ineffective. The flu vaccine, for example, has many years proven to be only 25% effective as the flu viruses mutate and change. Nobody denies that vaccines don't have side effects, however, the side effects don't include turning people autistic. Also, we try to predict who will suffer side effects. And for many, the side effects are mild. And for those with more severe side effects, we don't give them the vaccines and let them benefit from herd immunity! Secondly, you are wrong, wrong, wrong about the flu vaccine. While it isn't 100% effective, based on how it is formulated, it is more than 25% effective, most years. In 2011, it was 63 percent effective. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalstate/influenza-flu-vaccines-review-meta-analysis/ GASP! An actual source for my statistic! Rather than your claim! What you're doing is you're taking the current stats for this year's flu shot, and then saying "SEE! IT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR MANY YEARS" because you literally are incapable of logic and reasoning. quote:For some people getting the flu vaccine makes sense. If you are elderly or especially at risk. For me personally, I don't get the flu vaccine. If I ever get the flu, and it hasn't happened in about a decade, I do the responsible thing and avoid human contact, see my doctor and I generally recover strongly within a week. You should. Because you're helping the elderly and those at risk by lowering your risk of getting the flu. Also, did you know you can spread the flu at least a day before you are showing symptoms. Yeah. That avoiding human contact thing doesn't stop the spread of the flu. And what happens when you see your doctor? You could be making people who come in contact with you sick! You're violating the NAP! quote:Some people have allergic reactions to various vaccinations. The government recommends three or four times as many vaccines for an adolescent than they did thirty years ago. The long term empirical research has not yet been done on the health of younger people over the course of their lifetime who have had the full recommended schedule of vaccines. This is fear mongering. You're arguing from a supposed lack of data. Thirty years ago, we didn't have all the vaccines we have today. Also, people who have allergic reactions - we understand not giving them the vaccines. Nobody is saying "Hey, take that vaccine even if you're allergic." But when Rand Paul says that you might get a neurological disorder from it, well, then, gently caress him and his loving awful haircut. quote:Furthermore, every disease is not Smallpox. If I don't get a flu shot I am not risking an epidemic that leads to mass death and the implication that I am simply for making the best health choices for my situation personally in concert with my doctors is offensive and anti-scientific. Did you ever hear of the flu epidemic. Did you ever hear of the loving flu epidemic of 1918, which killed 50 million people. Oh wait. That would require you to have knowledge and to not be talking out of your rear end. That would also require you to be capable of using logic and reasoning, which you are totally incapable of. quote:The humorous thing is that most left-progressives are continually harping on the regrettable reality of pharmaceutical lobbying and control over our healthcare system. Yet it stretches incredulity, as well as being a prime example of cognitive dissonance, to hold the former view while at the same time offering no skepticism whatsoever on the effect of corporate lobbying by vaccine manufacturers. But Jrod... I have facts. Distrust of large pharmaceutical companies is not an argument. But the fact that we have lowered infection rates of many diseases. I mean, if I were really just all about money grubbing, I would want people to get sick so I can give them a treatment and pills. So why am I giving them something that would keep them from getting sick? Maybe because it might kill them and dead people are really bad at paying their bills? quote:Like I said earlier, I am a believer in vaccinations and the scientific principle of induced immunity. It can and does lead to great advances in public health, as was the case in the eradication of Smallpox. And if you are traveling to Africa, getting vaccinated is absolutely essential to protect your health. No. You see, you have access to facts and science, and that is where your concern should come from. Your political views should not factor into it. But using science and facts instead of your political viewpoints would require you to be capable of using logic and reason. quote:Blindly following a list of recommended vaccines given by the State is not sufficient for me. There is a cost-benefit analysis that goes into every injection that you take. If some people are acting irresponsible, then they should be persuaded through exposure to the facts, to take the precautions to protect not only them but society at large from the spread of infectious disease. Give me something more to go on then than "It's given to you by the state, and I just don't trust the state." That's an absurd argument, especially when we can point to the rise of measles in places like California. It really is. You don't understand what you're talking about, and allowing your paranoia to consider things no rational person should consider. You are arguing from incompetence. You are saying "Hey, because the state is incompetent, then we really should be looking into these vaccines more." Except the state isn't that incompetent, and vaccines have plenty of science to support them. But understanding this would require you to be capable of utilizing logic and reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
I think you'll find forcing vaccines on children is doubly heroic because you're saving lives at great personal risk from their anti-vaxxer parents in court 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:why is libertarian rhetoric always so bodily violent? "if you don't pay your taxes the state will literally ROB YOU AT GUNPOINT" i think an essential part of being a libertarian is to be bullied in public school and carry that primal fear of bigger people beating you up And it's the most infantile, immediately reversible thing. "All I wanted to do was take a nap in this unoccupied living room, and suddenly a MAN WITH A GUN is going to ROB ME of my LIFE because I took a NAP on 'his' sofa!!! This is almost as bad as the time I drank out of the well 'on' 'Stephen's land' and he made a BET on the INTERNET that I would DIE in the next month!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
if someone who is infectious is taking hostile action against others, why is someone rendering themselves potentially infectious by not getting vaccinated not also being hostile? Also, are you for real bringing this up, without irony, during the largest measles outbreak in decades? Like, seriously, do you really not detect why Rand's rhetoric here might be demonstrative of his ignorance about public policy, and the very real consequences of the poo poo he's advocating for? Are you really this dense Jrod? Really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Oh Jesus. You just have retarded positions about everything don't you Jrod. Well everyone, lets dive in.jrodefeld posted:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. I remember a few of you trying to get me to talk about vaccines in the past. I'm sure you weren't really interested in my honest opinion, but surely you wanted a reason to criticize me as being an anti-vaccer because you probably assume that I am. I do assume that you are because of this post. Anyone who is loving stupid enough to defend Rand Paul on the issue of vaccination is plausibly within the group stupid enough to buy into the anti-vax nonsense. quote:I am not opposed to vaccines, however I am still appalled at the irresponsibility of the media towards Rand Paul's comments this week. Apparently you are not permitted to hold ANY nuanced views on vaccines whatsoever. Either you cheerfully submit to whatever number of vaccines the State recommends without argument or you are Jenny McCarthy. Even making the statement that people ought to have the choice to vaccinate or not rather than having it be mandated, which is the way things currently stand in most states, is considered heresy. The question of freedom of choice is obviously quite separate from the wisdom of the choices people might make. The alternative to freedom in terms of vaccination is what exactly? That public officials hold you down and stick drugs in your arm against your will? No, you are not permitted to hold nuanced views on vaccinations. At all. But lets be clear, that isn't what happened. Rand Paul, a medical doctor and sitting member of the US Senate was asked a question about whether he thought vaccines should be mandatory in light of an outbreak of preventable and dangerous disease to which he replied: quote:I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input. This is wrong. Not like morally wrong, or ethically wrong or the various types of wrong you typically are where the answer is subjective. Rand Paul is factually wrong. He is wrong about a point of fact. As a medical doctor and a senator he should know full well that the study linking mental disorders (autism) and vaccinations was called into question more than a decade ago, and the medical journal that published it issued a full retraction in 2010, pretty much exactly five years ago to the day he said it. Rand Paul got bent over a barrel because he was repeating information that has been commonly understood to be wrong for over half a decade. And for the record, he knows that he was wrong as well. His staff walked that poo poo back faster than Sonic the goddamn Hedgehog. Rand Paul went and got a vaccine booster shot the very next day because he realized just how colossally he'd hosed up. However, in true absolute bullshit Rand Paul fashion he had this to say: quote:“I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related – I did not allege causation,” Paul said in a statement. “I support vaccines, I receive them myself and I had all of my children vaccinated. In fact today, I received the booster shot for the vaccines I got when I went to Guatemala last year.” I want you to read that and consider whether or not we're being fair to Rand Paul. Because in his retraction he attempts to deny that he was implying causation when he said: "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." Rand Paul thinks you are stupid. He thinks that he can lie about something that he loving said on camera, just like he thinks he can lie about when he said that he had "worries" about the civil rights act in his first national interview after being elected despite the clip being easily viewable across dozens of platforms. So before we get into how wrong you are on everything else here I want you to realize that the media circus around Rand Paul has to do with the fact that he said an incredibly uninformed and frankly dangerous thing about vaccines despite the fact that he should know better. I still can't tell if it was intentional as a way of courting the crazy vote, or if he genuinely believes that vaccines cause autism but realizes now he probably shouldn't say that out loud. This is after all a guy who belonged to a group that didn't believe HIV caused AIDS until just recently. Its hard to tell what parts are just him being a moron. Perpetuating the myth that vaccines lead to autism is dangerous and irresponsible and the media is right to give Rand Paul a shitkicking over the issue. quote:I have gotten vaccines and will continue to if and when it is prudent to do so. I will make that decision in concert with my doctor based on my risk factors, the science that is available and many other things that ought to be taken into account. What I will not do is blindly, like a drone, take every single injection that a State bureaucracy recommends without question. So... how are you not an Anti-Vax guy? Because if what you are saying here is the truth I want to lay out a couple of basic facts: Vaccines are effective. The only vaccines that come to mind that do not fill this qualification are seasonal flu vaccines, which don't really fall into the discussion we are having because it is well understood they are imperfect by their nature, and they are not what is dicussed when talking about mandatory vaccination. Vaccines are safe. The chance of any serious complication is so minute as to be barely above statistical noise with nearly all vaccinations. Every health organization in the world including your doctor if he is doing his job will tell you that the most dangerous thing you can do with a vaccine is not take it, because your chances of complications are outweighed by the possibility of the disease. Now with that out of the way, let me be clear, the latter half of your post is anti-vax scaremongering. Can you point to a single instance in which the US government has mandated the use of an ineffective, dangerous or pointless vaccine? Because I for one do not believe that you can. You're trying to appear to be intellectual, that you're making 'logical' choices about vaccination here, but you aren't. You have no data to support your side and you are overwhelmingly faced with mountains of proof that things like the MMR vaccine are safe and effective, but you want to cling to your ideological believe that the government must be out to get you some how so you concoct elaborate conspiracy theories about how the state is mandating something pointless or dangerous. quote:I've never been Rand Paul's biggest defender. However, given the comments he made that I have read, I find it outrageous that he has been savaged by the media and treated like an insane person for what are not very controversial comments. You don't think making a doctor making factually incorrect statements about vaccination that he later has to withdraw is a controversial statement? Are you high right now? quote:The libertarian view on infectious diseases is that it is a violation of the non-aggression principle to infect other people with a disease. Now, in most cases this is a mild offense and inadvertent. However, if someone gets a dangerous infectious disease and does not either voluntarily quarantine themselves or act in the most responsible manner to protect others, then I believe it is justified to use force to isolate these people from society unless or until they get treated and are again safe to interact with the public. That is nice. So once my child has died of a preventable disease I can sue the person who I eventually (somehow) find out was responsible for her death. Your 'solution' speak to a total misunderstanding of infectious disease. How the gently caress do you think I'm supposed to track down the asymptomatic person who gives me a disease on a bus? Why in the name of god do you think that remunerations after the fact is a better solution than just mandating that everyone who can must receive safe, effective vaccinations. Are you that loving scared of needles or something? quote:To claim that many vaccines don't and haven't had dangerous side effects is absolutely incorrect. And many vaccines are largely ineffective. The flu vaccine, for example, has many years proven to be only 25% effective as the flu viruses mutate and change. Anti-Vax. Anti-Vax. Anti-Vax. Influenza is literally the only thing you can point to as being even remotely ineffective, and even then it is in the vaccination protocol for a very good reason. Also typical flu VE is estimated at roughly 50%, not 25. Likewise please provide evidence that the 'dangers' of vaccination are anything other than your bizarre fever dream. You started this all by claiming that we'd call you an Anti-Vax proponent. That is because you are. You are incredibly misinformed and spreading that misinformation as fact in an attempt to explain why you think we shouldn't have mandatory vaccinations. I can't decide if you are just stupid, or if you are buying into this because it fits your narrative of the corrupt, evil state. quote:For some people getting the flu vaccine makes sense. If you are elderly or especially at risk. For me personally, I don't get the flu vaccine. If I ever get the flu, and it hasn't happened in about a decade, I do the responsible thing and avoid human contact, see my doctor and I generally recover strongly within a week. Okay? As an adult you don't need the flu vaccine because the flu isn't going to be loving deadly to you. You'll also note that we don't mandate people in your age group get the flu vaccine because herd immunity via flu vaccine isn't really plausible like it is with so many other diseases. quote:Some people have allergic reactions to various vaccinations. The government recommends three or four times as many vaccines for an adolescent than they did thirty years ago. The long term empirical research has not yet been done on the health of younger people over the course of their lifetime who have had the full recommended schedule of vaccines. And we test for those allergic reactions before hand. The number of actual serious injuries/deaths from tested vaccines like MMR is so small that it is just barely above statistical significance, which is massively overweighed by the decrease in deaths from the illness. As for your 'fact', its true. The government mandates many more vaccines that we used to. This is because we vaccinate for twice the number of illnesses and do repeat vaccinations to ensure that they take hold and are delivered more safely. Your list counts receiving the MMR in two doses over a longer (and safer) period as a bad thing. What the gently caress does that tell you about your bullshit source? quote:Furthermore, every disease is not Smallpox. If I don't get a flu shot I am not risking an epidemic that leads to mass death and the implication that I am simply for making the best health choices for my situation personally in concert with my doctors is offensive and anti-scientific. Again with the loving flu shot. No one is calling for mandatory flu shots you knob. We are calling for mandatory vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella which were effectively eradicated until idiots like you started thinking that maybe that STATE forcing them to vaccinate was part of a sinister ploy with big pharma. quote:The humorous thing is that most left-progressives are continually harping on the regrettable reality of pharmaceutical lobbying and control over our healthcare system. Yet it stretches incredulity, as well as being a prime example of cognitive dissonance, to hold the former view while at the same time offering no skepticism whatsoever on the effect of corporate lobbying by vaccine manufacturers. Again, do you have any evidence that the vaccine load being prescribed is somehow faulty in any way? Because I don't think you do. There isn't cognitive dissonance because the US vaccine regimen is similar if not identical to one used in just about every first world country. Moreover, we have piles upon piles of evidence that prove the effectiveness of the routine being used. We know it is effective at reducing and eliminating disease, which is sort of the big loving goal. quote:Like I said earlier, I am a believer in vaccinations and the scientific principle of induced immunity. It can and does lead to great advances in public health, as was the case in the eradication of Smallpox. And if you are traveling to Africa, getting vaccinated is absolutely essential to protect your health. Great, you believe that vaccines defeat illness. Do you want a cookie for believing something a five year old understands? Because the important part in modern day isn't believing that vaccines exist, its understanding that mandatory vaccination is a key pillar in why we don't have outbreaks of loving polio. Both my wife and niece have had outbreaks of whooping cough in their lifetimes because their weakened immune system prevented them from receiving the vaccine. They rely on people like you to vaccinate their children to provide a wall of protection for everyone, and right now the concept of you breeding and deciding which vaccines your child really 'needs' is loving terrifying to me. quote:But the conflict of interest in Washington and the lack of trustworthiness of big pharma means that it is only prudent to express skepticism and make informed healthcare decisions in concert with your doctor, assessing your specific risk factors and health needs. If your doctor isn't a loving quack he'll tell you the same thing I do. Get vaccinated because it will protect you, the ones you love and total strangers. If he isn't a quack he'll probably also be in favor of mandatory vaccination because uninformed shits like you ruin it for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:if someone who is infectious is taking hostile action against others, why is someone rendering themselves potentially infectious by not getting vaccinated not also being hostile? Semi-related, I asked this ages ago but Jrod took another sabbatical and I completely forgot: Is overfishing an act of aggression?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:why is libertarian rhetoric always so bodily violent? "if you don't pay your taxes the state will literally ROB YOU AT GUNPOINT" i think an essential part of being a libertarian is to be bullied in public school and carry that primal fear of bigger people beating you up Well it's a little hard to make "okay everybody, to keep Chicago from burning down again and killing hundreds of people and destroying thousands of homes, we're going to take a little bit from everybody based on ability to pay to dependably fund a fire department to preserve our lives and property" sound like a bad thing, isn't it. Unless you say "and then and then the City Council marched in with guns and demanded I hand over my money or my life would be forfeit and then spent the money to benefit the lazy poors who aren't industrious enough to work hard and earn their way because their high-time-preference unevolved baboon brains would rather lie around and eat watermelon and drink Lean (not referring to any wide-nosed big-lipped race in particular mind you) and vote to split my wallet just like three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, that's democracy for you!" of course
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
A libertarian arguing against well-established medical practice due to distrust in corporations is the kind of comedy gold that makes this thread worth reading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:A libertarian arguing against well-established medical practice due to distrust in corporations is the kind of comedy gold that makes this thread worth reading. Honestly, I'm actually kind of mad. I don't get mad often at Jrod, but I really can't stomach people who stand up against the perceived evils of vaccines. Its just the stupidest loving thing imaginable. I mean seriously, his suggestion for people who get sick is to quarentine themselves. Great suggestion assfuck, too bad a case of Pertussis can be symptomatic for up to three months. I'm sure people in libertopia will be able to take three months off work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Last I checked there was no central state board of vaccinations, you got them at your doctor's recommendation and many public and private agencies require proof of immunization to receive services. What part of this should a libertarian find objectionable? That it's a public school sometimes? Would you send your kid to a private school that didn't require proof of immunization?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I want to follow up on our earlier conversations, but I'd like to talk about another subject for a minute. I don't intend to spend a great deal of time on it but I want to get this off my chest. I remember a few of you trying to get me to talk about vaccines in the past. I'm sure you weren't really interested in my honest opinion, but surely you wanted a reason to criticize me as being an anti-vaccer because you probably assume that I am. Kill yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Kill yourself. Honestly if I hadn't been really bored when he posted that this probably would have been my reply too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
I like the implication that Jrod is the only one who rationally assesses the costs and benefits, unlike all the other sheeple. His superiority complex always eventually leaks through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
When I agree with whatever Rand Paul says it's because I've done the research and weighed the evidence, but when you disagree with him that vaccines cause autism you're just saying that because the lamestream media told you to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrod do you think people should be forced into quarantine if they have Ebola and are highly contagious? I don't think we've covered that before, I could be wrong. Only if they are, for example, threatening to step over the property line of the Firestone company town, thereby committing an act of trespassing that can be responded to with lethal force by Firestone DRO officers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Caros posted:Honestly if I hadn't been really bored when he posted that this probably would have been my reply too. If you are spreading anti-vax bullshit the world and everyone in it is literally better off with you dead than alive, no matter what else you might do. Infectious diseases are the deadliest killer of all of mankind by far, and there should be zero tolerance of anything that aids their spread. No equivocation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When I agree with whatever Rand Paul says it's because I've done the research and weighed the evidence, but when you disagree with him that vaccines cause autism you're just saying that because the lamestream media told you to. Just like big pharma tells us that HIV causes AIDS, which Rand Paul might also be confused on. I can't stress that enough. This is Rand Paul in TYOL 2009 speaking before a group called the AAPS, who among other things believe: HIV does not cause AIDS, being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between vaccines and autism and that there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. Oh and that climate change is not anthropomorphic, because loving surgeons know all about that as we've discussed previously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5wx7jiZL9Q Some of the first words out of his mouth: "I'm not a newcommer to AAPS, I've been a member since at least 1990, maybe medical school but at least 1990." Nineteen years as a member of an organization that denies HIV causes AIDS. Edit: Fun links from their webpage include these gems. "If You Want to Live, Ignore the CDC," and "U.S. Must Learn from Nazi Doctor." If You Want to Live, Ignore the CDC posted:I almost feel sorry for Tom Frieden, director of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). So many of his pronouncements have been eviscerated by events within hours or days. He has become a punchline and should resign for the good of the country. Because as everyone knows, Ebola comes from down mexico way. Caros fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Jrod do you think people should be forced into quarantine if they have Ebola and are highly contagious? I don't think we've covered that before, I could be wrong. If people have Ebola and are genuinely diagnosed with the highly contagious disease (it is not disputable), then people can keep them away from others through force. This would simply be an act of self defense since the act of exposing oneself to large population areas with an extremely dangerous and contagious illness is almost for sure going to harm others against their will. In a libertarian society, this is no big issue because property is privately owned and people will want and demand that people be quarantined and removed from society while they have a highly contagious illness. I cannot say with certainty the best method to deal with epidemics in a free society (there are healthcare experts and entrepreneurs who will work out the specifics) but the principle is quite clear. Freedom means that people are free to use their bodies and their property as they wish provided they don't initiate force against others or their property. The spread of contagious diseases is certainly an act of force and any reasonable society would allow people to defend themselves from such an act of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
So spreading contagious disease is an act of force… but mandatory vaccinations to stop it are also an act of force… Isn't this the point where your operating system has a fatal logic error and shuts down?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If people have Ebola and are genuinely diagnosed with the highly contagious disease (it is not disputable), then people can keep them away from others through force. This would simply be an act of self defense since the act of exposing oneself to large population areas with an extremely dangerous and contagious illness is almost for sure going to harm others against their will. So certain death for Ebola sufferers then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I cannot say with certainty the best method to deal with epidemics in a free society (there are healthcare experts and entrepreneurs who will work out the specifics) but the principle is quite clear. Freedom means that people are free to use their bodies and their property as they wish provided they don't initiate force against others or their property. The spread of contagious diseases is certainly an act of force and any reasonable society would allow people to defend themselves from such an act of aggression. so when presented with the idea of asymptomatic illnesses your solution is to simply ignore the problem? i mean it sounds great to just repeat "don't initiate force against others or their property" like some kind of austrian sutra but this kind of religious fervor doesn't work out as well in the real world Caros posted:I mean seriously, his suggestion for people who get sick is to quarentine themselves. Great suggestion assfuck, too bad a case of Pertussis can be symptomatic for up to three months. I'm sure people in libertopia will be able to take three months off work. you can easily sell yourself and your family into bonded servitude if you're weak of spirit enough to get sick for that length of time. it's your fault for failing to establish sufficient capital reserves boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh and that climate change is not anthropomorphic Well, actually, I think they're right on this one. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why are you complaining about flu shots? Flu shots aren't mandatory except for people in certain professions who are free to quit and bootstrap themselves into another job if they don't like it. My beef is with the way that this issue is discussed. My issue is with how people who have objections to vaccines, even eminently sensible objections, are treated as lunatics. I appreciate the science and the need to eradicate dangerous contagious illnesses. But I still look upon vaccine guidelines with skepticism. I suspect that in fifty years we will look back and be forced to concede that the medical establishment overused vaccinations. There can be too much of a good thing. I recall in the 1970s (as it was a few years ago) the media hyped up the danger of Swine Flu as the next pandemic that we had to be afraid of. They marketed a vaccine but far more people died from adverse reactions to the shot than people even being diagnosed with Swine Flu. It turned out to be over hyped and over sold. I'm not saying that doctors blindly give everyone a bunch of shots for no reason. My doctor uses vaccinations sparingly and frequently disagrees with the Washington vaccination guidelines. But many doctors are not so critical and don't think for themselves as much as they should. The reason for bringing up this topic was what I consider to be overblown and ridiculous attacks against Rand Paul, who is by the way a defender of vaccinations on the whole. Yet if you voice any word of skepticism or critique of the guidelines, you are treated as a heretic. It's just uncalled for and it shuts down the possibility of important debate on the subject. Why am I opposed to the FDA? I am opposed to the FDA because they are a government monopoly on which drugs and medical treatments I am permitted to receive. If I disagree with an FDA restriction or decision, I am out of luck. Experimental and basically safe treatments are unavailable to patients who are dying of cancer and other diseases. I am opposed to the FDA because they are not immune from pharmaceutical lobbying. Due to lobbying pressure the FDA may approve a drug but ban an alternative but safe treatment because it would compete with the drug manufacturers who stand to lose out to competition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:Well, actually, I think they're right on this one.  That is what I get for posting this late!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:55
|
|