|
jrodefeld posted: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. it's amazing that you can say something like this but still maintain unerring faith in both corporate honesty and the ability of individuals to self police maybe the problem is that you're just a smug know it all who adheres to whatever half baked philosophy elevates you most above the seething hoi polloi jrodefeld posted: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. also for a dude who claims to value nuance you have this bizarre tendency to cast issues in extreme dichotomies "one single word of criticism and you're treated like a blasphemer" sounds like recto-cranial projection to me, slugger boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Feb 11, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Jropde answer me this. If you lived in a society that required you be vaccinated and arrested you because you acclaimed that was against your "personal beliefs or "liberty". Would your liberty actually exist if they refused to recognize it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
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. Diagnosed by who and how? Using what funds? Using what credentials? If we're just blasting sick people with shottys, who's going to willfully subject themselves to a test that might have them exiled in a casket? 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. A centralized government response system working in conjunction with state and local systems stopped the spread of ebola and a centralized government funding and research system is currently producing a vaccine. 2 deaths total in the US from ebola.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
There are no sensible objections and they, like you, are lunatics. You'll seriously get all upset about people calling Rand Paul a quack after he links vaccines to autism , but you'll defend all your heroes when they say blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic things. gently caress you you piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. This is because there are no sensible objections, you racist loving lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
DarklyDreaming posted:Is overfishing an act of aggression?
Under a simple analysis, I can take as many fish from the lake as I want, so long as 25 of them remain. At any point, he'll be able to exercise his claim. He kills the lake and everyone walks away. No harm done; NAP is intact. A more nuanced analysis might show that any competitive fishing activity infringes on the senior claim. Each fish caught hastens the collapse of the fishery and diminishes the value of the senior claim. Hence, any resource-extraction operation is immune to competition so long as its extraction rate is unsustainable. But then we're left with a perverse incentive system which rewards short-term speculators rather than good stewards, and which also locks out new entrepreneurs while granting enormous power to senior claimholders. If the resource is over-committed then a man cannot earn his place by innovation or cleverness; he cannot mix his labour with the bounty of nature because that poo poo is already owned. His only option is to buy a share from some hereditary fatcat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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. Your objections aren't eminently sensible. Your objections amount to "That sure is a lot of vaccines compared to a few decades ago." You are a loving moron with no medical training who thinks that he knows better than the vast majority of the medical community. You think you know better than 95% of doctors, where the other 5% are of a group that also doesn't beleive HIV causes AIDS. You are loving wrong and not only that it is dangerous! Your wrongness encourages the wrongness of others which puts people at risk for dangerous diseases. Seriously Jrod, look at the measles outbreak in California. That is what happens when idiots follow your advice and thing that the number of vaccines they are giving their kids is dangerous. We aren't over prescribing the loving MMR vaccine, as evidenced by the fact that we are having outbreaks in places that are not properly vaccinated. How do you not understand this. 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. You do realize that the vast majority of mandatory vaccinations are not for the flu right? And that the flu vaccine is notoriously different from typical manditory vaccination on account of the flu mutating heavily? Do you think MMR or Tetanus or Pertusus vaccines have the problems you are talking about, or are you just quoting problems from Natualcare.org or whatever bullshit source is feeding you this garbage? quote: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. If your doctor uses vaccinations sparingly for children then he is contributing to a serious public health epidemic and should lose his loving license. If you mean that he just doesn't give you new flu shots every year then you have the same sort of doctor as most people who aren't very old or young. quote: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. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT HE EFFECTIVELY SAID THAT VACCINATION CAUSES AUTISM, AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT HAS LED TO THOUSANDS OF NEEDLESS INFECTIONS? The attacks against Rand Paul are entirely within the measure of the poo poo he stepped in. Why should I trust a goddamn thing from the mouth of a man who is so ignorant he is perpetuating one of the most damaging medical myths of the twentieth century. Why should I give him the loving time of day when the first words out of his mouth are at best misinformation and at worst a baldfaced lie. quote: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. Because you are an idiot. Oh, wait, sorry I just wanted to answer the first question you asked there. Caros fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. In a libertarian society, medical research and testing would be done at private universities and private medical organizations who compete with each other for the trust and support of patients across the nation. We would surely have several independent, competing FDA-like ratings and testing organizations. When you buy a prescription drug or medical device, your first question no doubt would be "who tested this?" A highly well regarded medical testing and approval organization would put its stamp of approval on various drugs and treatments. Instead of "FDA approved" it would say "Approved and tested by the Medical Research Institute for the treatment of X". If one rating and testing agency were to permit too many dangerous and ineffective drugs or treatments to be approved by them, then their credibility would drop and people would seek out a better and more reliable medical rating and testing agency. And this is done in concert with trained doctors who you trust, who have a good track record. What happens when your government FDA becomes compromised and corrupt? You have no recourse. FDA-approved drugs and products are recalled all the time, after they have killed a couple hundred people of course. And, like I said earlier, if they ban a product for any reason, you cannot choose to seek out that treatment. It is illegal. There are safe and effective treatments that are available in Europe and elsewhere that are illegal in the United States. This is what I object to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. Answer the loving question Jrod, how can your "rights" exist if no one acknowledges them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
He's not an anti-vaxxer, he's a vaccination realist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Libertarianism makes any preventative measures before a treatment kills people functionally impossible so hundreds of people have to die just to find the people who are selling sawdust as heart medication. Repeatedly. Don't think you're being unique here jrodefeld, the Ron Paul thread did this song and dance back in fuckin' 2007.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. Since words really aren't helping, how about a video it is fun, and informative!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I For a money shot, the pharmaceutical lobby spent four billion marketing to you, the consumer last year. From 1997 to 2013 they spent two and a half billion on congressional lobbying. And they spend twenty four billion dollars a year lobbying physicians. To put that in perspective, they spend six times more annually that they do on consumers, and roughtly one hundred and fifty times what they spend on lobbying. Why in fucks name do you think your doctor is going to be acting in your best interests again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. why do you think doctors are paragons of independent credibility and doctor-bureaucrats are necessarily statist drones? you dont seem to accept that doctors are just as capable of wrongdoing as government. i think you just have an irrational hatred of government
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
like really you lean hard on the idea that private entities cannot collude to defraud the consumer as well as a private-public coalition which is just like wow have you ever read any economic history that wasn't 100% in support of your pet ideology? cause you have to have some massive holes in your education to believe that nonsense
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
I'm curious what credentials jrod's doctor has. Surely like Rand he boldly eschews statist certification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think you just have an irrational hatred of government If a man is moral, then he will not assist in the mission of an aggressive and coercive institution. We can acknowledge that there are some government employees whose work does not directly involve stealing-at-gunpoint (IRS) or sadistic-medical-experimentation-on-unwilling-subjects (FDA). Nonetheless, a rational man will recognize that his service provides the government with credibility, legitimacy, and moral sanction. Any man who works for the state is therefore immoral and untrustworthy. Some may claim that there exist legitimate public-interest activities (e.g. volcano monitoring) which would not or cannot be performed by private interests. They are wrong. By definition, unrestricted private enterprise will perform every function which serves human needs and for which there exists sufficient technology, labour, and capital. A man who demands a special immunity to free-market forces should be treated in the same way as a man who insists on a personal exemption from the Second Law of Thermodynamics - he should be regarded as insane. Government workers are therefore lazy, incompetent, immoral, and insane. A compassionate man may seek to redeem them, but a rational man will always distrust them. I expect that you Marxtatists won't understand any of this because it's based on logic 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:If a man is competent, then he can earn a high wage in the private sector. Any man who accepts a modest wage in return for government work is therefore lazy or incompetent. Curses, I am banished! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
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? In the first place, it might have been reasonable to calm down and maybe ask Rand what he meant in his truncated interview with a rather hostile host. Instead of an honest inquiry to get him to elaborate on his views and see if he actually thinks what people are accusing him of thinking, tons of media outlets dishonestly started to attack him. You know when major news outlets go on and on about a story far disproportionate to its news value, there is a political agenda at work. When there is a concerted effort to discredit someone with a certain degree of intensity, I am going to call them out. I understand how politics works but this is not conducive to honest discussion. I've heard several interviews with Rand since this controversy and it turns out that everything he beliefs about vaccines runs counter to what people are claiming he believes. Now people are going on and on about what a "scandal" his vaccination comments created. I'll admit his statement about "mental disorders" was confusing, but reporters ought to have asked him to clarify. You probably assumed he was referring to Autism but that is not at all clear. A later interview Rand explained that he was trying to say that many people believe this, even though he does not. He didn't make this clear in the original interview but I think it is reasonable to give someone a chance to explain their views outside of a contentious live tv interview segment where an aggressive host was putting Rand on the defensive from the jump. Once you take out this statement from his remarks, there is literally nothing Rand said that was controversial. I look objectively at the facts and these events are frequently dishonestly reported to further political and ideological agendas. I'm well aware of the measles situation at Disney World. I've been following it closely. In fact, I've read an interesting article by Kathryn Muratore, former Chemistry professor who is a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology: quote:A hysteria has swept the country. We should calm down and look at the actual facts dispassionately and objectively. The risk of death from Measles in the developed world is less than 0.2 percent. It is a serious illness and any increase in the incidence of an infectious and potentially serious disease should be taken seriously but we must not lose perspective. Look at this graph that shows the number of deaths from Measles and other common illnesses that we vaccinate against over time: http://blog.drbrownstein.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Vaccine-graph-us-deaths-1900-19651-1024x636.jpg Obviously the take away is that deaths from these contagious diseases were dropping at a drastic rate for years and years before these vaccines were introduced. Now, surely the vaccines played a very important role in reducing their incidence further. However to claim that people were dying in mass numbers from Measles before we had the vaccine and the vaccine turned everything around single-handedly is flat out incorrect as the above graph demonstrates. For my parents generation, measles growing up was like chicken pox. It was expected that you would get it at some point in your childhood and for most people it was not a very big deal. Even 1950s and 1960s level medicine was capable of treating the infection and most people recovered fine. Now, it is certainly an improvement when you can get inoculated and your risk of getting the infection drops even further, but the hysteria about the condition ought to be tempered with a dose of reality. We now have a vaccine for Chicken Pox and predictably the rate of infection for this has dropped. But there has been a significant rise in incidence of the more dangerous Shingles later in life. I got chicken pox when I was young and so did most of my friends. I am unlikely to get Shingles as an adult. Whether you accept it or not, there is nuance and perspective the desperately needs to be introduced into this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
No it really doesn't. Stop trying to spread this bullshit, you are part of a problem that is killing people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
hm how interesting that jrodefeld cites a doc who writes for lewrockwell and von mises institute, the unabashed font from which all objective facts flowquote:So, is the solution to fighting terrible diseases (or not-so-terrible diseases), to crack-down on personal exemptions to vaccinations? Is it to jail parents who decide against MMR? Is it to create a public database of all non-vaccinated people? Is it to file criminal charges against anyone who catches measles, and therefore becomes contagious? here's more of that apocalyptic rhetoric again. god it must be so terrifying to be a libertarian, with the constant threat of government thugs kicking down your door to force you to eat wheat bran and flush your cheap scotch down the crapper i wonder if it's even possible for any of these loons to advocate for their ideal society without framing it as a noble opposition against the horrible nazi forces of the big government that everyone else oddly seems to be in favor of
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
A molecular biologist has literally 0 authority talking about epidemics. Stop making fallacious appeals to authority, especially seeing as how you continuously dismiss settled science that has much higher backing than your bullshit.
Political Whores fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:A molecular biologist has literally 0 authority talking about epidemics. Stop making fallacious appeals to authority, especially sing as how you congenitally dismiss settled science that has much higher backing than your bullshit. i think you need to calm down, and look at the facts objectively *proceeds to further demonstrate buffoonery in wholesale quantity*
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:We should calm down and look at the actual facts dispassionately and objectively. The risk of death from Measles in the developed world is less than 0.2 percent. It is a serious illness and any increase in the incidence of an infectious and potentially serious disease should be taken seriously but we must not lose perspective.  The thing about diseases is the more prevalent they are the more chances they have to mutate into an actual epidemic. P.S. Even the 380 people who died from Measles in 1960 is an order of magnitude higher than the number of people who would have had serious adverse reactions for vaccinating everyone in the country that year, not just the new children. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted: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? He didn't only say that parents should have a choice. Rand Paul said that vaccines cause "profound mental disorders", an idea that has been thoroughly discredited by all scientific evidence. He later recanted after experiencing a total shitstorm of negative press for having a profoundly stupid opinion on this matter. The irony is that you're trying to say that he's not like Jenny McCarthy, but he was mocked because he was espousing a view that is actually held by Jenny McCarthy. Seriously, does your intellectual dishonesty know no limits? jrodefeld posted:I've heard several interviews with Rand since this controversy and it turns out that everything he beliefs about vaccines runs counter to what people are claiming he believes. Yeah, sure enough, he stated a moronic opinion on vaccines and when the public reacted to that he suddenly has a new and completely different opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients. You claim others are strawmanning you, but Rand's/your objections to vaccination are only "reasonable" in comparison to a complete strawman of the other side. You are arguing against the position that any theoretical government vaccination mandate is good and just, which is clearly a ludicrous idea. Your opponents are instead arguing in favor of the actually existing laws regarding vaccination, or at most for the claim that the existing bureaucracy is the most qualified group to determine vaccination laws . But of course nobody here, or anywhere, would blindly accept every hypothetical regulation. The reason that you and Rand seem like crazy people is because you can't or don't distinguish between specific existing laws and absolute, totalitarian mandates. If Rand Paul wants to dispute the necessity of the measles vaccine, then he could easily say very clearly "I don't think the benefits of the measles vaccine are enough to legally require it". Instead he chose to make a argument about vaccination in general. This is because he is not honestly trying improve a specific area of government policy, but rather using the issue to make a PR appeal to anti-vax and anti-government wingnuts. Only after everyone saw this plainly obvious fact did he (and you) move the goalposts. But unfortunately, everyone in this thread is smart enough to realize that you don't give a poo poo about policy specifics because you want to destroy the government entirely, even if that means killing people with epidemic disease. e: I am even leaving aside the fact that Paul gave credence to despicable lies regarding vaccination and mental disorders, since others have already covered that at length. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:In the first place, it might have been reasonable to calm down and maybe ask Rand what he meant in his truncated interview with a rather hostile host. Instead of an honest inquiry to get him to elaborate on his views and see if he actually thinks what people are accusing him of thinking, tons of media outlets dishonestly started to attack him. You know when major news outlets go on and on about a story far disproportionate to its news value, there is a political agenda at work. When there is a concerted effort to discredit someone with a certain degree of intensity, I am going to call them out. I understand how politics works but this is not conducive to honest discussion. Golly gee, vaccination/race realist jrodefeld, I would assume that such an intelligent man as Rand Paul would be capable of expressing himself in a way that makes it clear as to what he means. Now, let me go look at what it is exactly that he said to spark a controversy... Actual Human Being Rand Paul posted:"I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines..." Okay, jrodefeld. Explain to me why I, or anyone else, should give him the benefit of the doubt. There is literally no way a reasonable person is going to interpret this sentence as anything other than "vaccines caused the profound mental disorders". This is how words work! This is how English works! He said something that implied that he thinks vaccines cause autism.. There's no need to loving question him to clarify what is a perfectly loving crystal clear statement! jrodefeld posted:I've heard several interviews with Rand since this controversy and it turns out that everything he beliefs about vaccines runs counter to what people are claiming he believes. Now people are going on and on about what a "scandal" his vaccination comments created. Yes, because clearly he was just misquoted (in a sentence that was entirely clear, from someone who we assume is an intelligent person, or at least you do) and not backpedaling because he said a really lovely thing. jrodefeld posted:I'll admit his statement about "mental disorders" was confusing, but reporters ought to have asked him to clarify. You probably assumed he was referring to Autism but that is not at all clear. What other possible mental disorders have been regularly linked to vaccines? Give me actual evidence, in the news, of non-autism or related to autism disorders that have been linked to vaccinations. But isn't it interesting, jrodefeld, how every single one of your libertarian thinkers and allies gets the benefit of the doubt, from Hans Hermann "Race Realist" Hoppe, to Walter "It's Okay If You Killed 90 Jews" Block, to Stefan "Women Hoover Up Cash With Their Vaginas" Molyneux, but anyone who's not on your team - especially if they're a part of  BIG GOVERNMENT , is clearly evil and out to strip you of your rights.Weird how someone who claims themselves to be a critical thinker is always there to bat for his team no matter what they do, even when it's objectively terrible. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. jrodefeld posted:A later interview Rand explained that he was trying to say that many people believe this, even though he does not. He didn't make this clear in the original interview but I think it is reasonable to give someone a chance to explain their views outside of a contentious live tv interview segment where an aggressive host was putting Rand on the defensive from the jump. Once you take out this statement from his remarks, there is literally nothing Rand said that was controversial. Yes, jrodefeld, when you take something controversial out of something controversial, that does, in fact, make it not controversial! x - x = 0! Good job, buddy! Are you telling me that Rand Paul is such a goddamn idiot that he cannot figure out how to say "Some people believe" instead of "I have heard"? Like, are you telling me he is so loving terrible at speaking that somehow he manages to make a statement come out as a completely different statement just because the scary television host was hurting his poor feelings and he just got s-s-so jumbled up and couldn't figure out how to make words come out of his mouth? Why should I not instead just assume that he's backpedaling, because that sounds like it makes way more logical sense than "he can't figure out how to talk so good". You know, in addition to the controversial idea he said in a totally different interview that vaccines shouldn't be mandatory, which is also completely terrible and lovely. Weird, right? He just says these things that end up being completely not what he means when people disagree. jrodefeld posted:I look objectively at the facts and these events are frequently dishonestly reported to further political and ideological agendas. You literally have never looked at anything objectively in your life, judging from what you've posted. jrodefeld posted:I'm well aware of the measles situation at Disney World. I've been following it closely. So remind me how that came about then? How do you think measles spread? Because it sure as gently caress wasn't from vaccinated people... jrodefeld posted:In fact, I've read an interesting article by Kathryn Muratore, former Chemistry professor who is a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology: Wow, you read something that wasn't just a link to mises.org or a related si-- Oh. Never mind. jrodefeld is just regurgitating information "critically and objectively" again, especially since the gist of that article seems to be "BUT WE DIDN'T NEED THOSE VACCINES IN THE OLD DAYS!" and "THOSE DISEASES PROBABLY WON'T KILL YOU ANYWAY THESE DAYS." along with an appeal to authority because she is a ~scientist~. jrodefeld posted:We should calm down and look at the actual facts dispassionately and objectively. The risk of death from Measles in the developed world is less than 0.2 percent. It is a serious illness and any increase in the incidence of an infectious and potentially serious disease should be taken seriously but we must not lose perspective. What are we losing perspective on, exactly? Because your antivax rear end not getting immunized puts anyone who can't get vaccinated at risk. I don't see what perspective I'm losing there! That by having to get vaccinated... something will happen blah blah big government? There is no perspective to lose unless it's the stupid libertarian perspective, which I think we can afford to lose. jrodefeld posted:Look at this graph that shows the number of deaths from Measles and other common illnesses that we vaccinate against over time: ... you do realize that even if a disease isn't fatal, it still needs to be treated, right? And treating those symptoms costs money, right? And that's easier to ensure people don't get the loving disease at all, right? Especially since the people who are most likely to get it (and die from it) are people who can't get vaccinated because they have hosed up immune systems, you sociopathic little goblin. jrodefeld posted:Obviously the take away is that deaths from these contagious diseases were dropping at a drastic rate for years and years before these vaccines were introduced. Now, surely the vaccines played a very important role in reducing their incidence further. However to claim that people were dying in mass numbers from Measles before we had the vaccine and the vaccine turned everything around single-handedly is flat out incorrect as the above graph demonstrates. Yes, because medicine improved. Who here has been claiming that measles murdered literally everyone who got it until the vaccine came out? (The answer is nobody.) jrodefeld posted:For my parents generation, measles growing up was like chicken pox. It was expected that you would get it at some point in your childhood and for most people it was not a very big deal. Even 1950s and 1960s level medicine was capable of treating the infection and most people recovered fine. Now, it is certainly an improvement when you can get inoculated and your risk of getting the infection drops even further, but the hysteria about the condition ought to be tempered with a dose of reality. You know what's better than being able to treat an infection? Being able to ensure nobody gets it in the first place. Wowie zowie!!! jrodefeld posted:We now have a vaccine for Chicken Pox and predictably the rate of infection for this has dropped. But there has been a significant rise in incidence of the more dangerous Shingles later in life. I got chicken pox when I was young and so did most of my friends. I am unlikely to get Shingles as an adult. Weird how you don't give a citation for this, especially since the CDC is pretty clear about the fact that kids immunized for chicken pox rather than getting it "in the wild" have a reduced chance of shingles (source): CDC posted:Although uncommon among children, the rate of herpes zoster in U.S. children has been declining since the routine varicella vaccination program started. Varicella vaccine contains live attenuated VZV, which causes latent infection. The attenuated vaccine virus can reactivate and cause herpes zoster; however, children vaccinated against varicella appear to have a lower risk of herpes zoster than people who were infected with wild-type VZV.[10] The reason for this is that vaccinated children are less likely to become infected with wild-type VZV, and the risk of reactivation of vaccine-strain VZV is lower compared with reactivation of wild-type VZV. [10] is a link to this article: Incidence and clinical characteristics of herpes zoster among children in the varicella vaccine era, 2005-2009. Weird, right? And there's more research that shows that shingles incidence in the elderly was going up prior to the introduction of the chicken pox vaccine, and the actual introduction of it appears to have had no effect on the incidence of shingles. Also, you know what's a good way to prevent shingles? A shingles vaccination. Good thing we have that when you turn 60, jrodefeld! jrodefeld posted:Whether you accept it or not, there is nuance and perspective the desperately needs to be introduced into this discussion. The only perspective I see from you is that a libertarian thinker said that vaccines are bad, therefore you think they're bad because ??? reasons ??? but you're trying desperately to make that align with you not wanting to get sick and die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
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. And reading comprehension is apparently lacking with many if not most of you. I didn't argue "against well-established medical practice". Rather, I said it is wrong to use force to make people get vaccines against their will. You must use persuasion and evidence to get them to practice good health habits. I know this is shocking to you. I want you to actually put the loving gun down. I want you to behave like a civilized person and deal with people on a voluntary basis. I think it makes sense to have mandatory vaccine requirements for public schools but attending public schools should itself be voluntary. Different businesses and public areas can and will no doubt have certain requirements to prove sufficient good health so as to prevent outbreaks of infections. I genuinely wonder if any of you actually consider the notion of whether their might be a peaceful and voluntary solution to a social problem before you reach for the loving gun of the State and send your storm trooper uniformed pigs out to crack some loving skulls on your behalf. For the record, I don't claim that I know which vaccines make sense and which medical treatments are the best. I leave such decisions to my doctors. My doctor has told me that he opposes the cluster of inoculations that are typically given to infants and adolescents and he proposes spacing out these vaccines much farther apart. He furthermore argues that there can and are detrimental effects to the development of natural immunity in the immune system, especially in very young children. This study "Annual vaccination against influenza virus hampers development of virus-specific CD8⁺ T cell immunity in children" is supportive of this claim. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21880755 Furthermore some vaccines, specifically the HPV vaccine given to young girls, have had significant enough side effects to prompt multiple lawsuits against the manufacturer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18805844 To dismiss all of these studies and claims outright is intellectually dishonest. It is particularly infuriating trying to have any sort of nuanced discussion about the subject as I know that you all are not trained doctors or scientists yet you posture as if you are. People who voice any concern about vaccines or their side effects and complications should be engaged with in an honest manner. Not everyone who objects to what the CDC has said is anti-intellectual like Jenny McCarthy. The human body is incredibly complicated. I would encourage more long term studies to be undertaken to study the long term effects of heavy vaccination versus little or no vaccination on human health over a lifetime. The claim that their aren't reputable studies that support concerns over the safety of certain vaccines is absolutely, flat out incorrect. But regardless of this hard data, the real issue is your insistence on initiating violence against people who disagree with you. If the evidence is so conclusive and persuasive, you should be able to voluntarily persuade enough people to get vaccinated to create the sought after herd immunity where those stubborn hold outs will have little effect on overall public safety. Put the loving guns down. Act like a civilized person for a change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:And reading comprehension is apparently lacking with many if not most of you. I didn't argue "against well-established medical practice". Rather, I said it is wrong to use force to make people get vaccines against their will. You must use persuasion and evidence to get them to practice good health habits. A subscriber to Austrian economics says that we should forgo important public health regulation in favor of appealing to evidence.  Let me blow your mind, jrod: anyone who is persuaded by the evidence doesn't have to be compelled by the law. My storm trooper pigs (and I, personally, employ several squads of them) exist to protect us from the people who reject the evidence and, doing so, endanger the lives of their children and the rest of the population. These people are committing violence against their children, and against me, and it is my natural right to defend myself, with force if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Caros posted: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 didn't say that was the solution. It was sort of an aside but I was simply making the point that in the case of a genuine pandemic, forced quarantine IS compatible with libertarianism. You absolutely can force someone who is a clear danger to the public to be separated from others until they are treated and are no longer a threat. This would be applicable in a state of emergency, like an outbreak of Ebola. If you get Ebola you NEED to be separated from the rest of society immediately. gently caress your job. Such a person can be forcefully removed from society if they don't comply voluntarily. Someone asked earlier on about epidemics in a libertarian society so I was responding to that. I understand that people can spread diseases all over the place before it is diagnosed. But a libertarian society can and will have mechanisms of forced quarantine that should be able to isolate and crack down on outbreaks of disease.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This would be applicable in a state of emergency, like an outbreak of Ebola. If you get Ebola you NEED to be separated from the rest of society immediately. gently caress your job. Such a person can be forcefully removed from society if they don't comply voluntarily. So who is going to do this, exactly? Who's going to have that authority? Who will decide what diseases are quarantinable and what aren't? What do you do about someone like the original Typhoid Mary? You keep making assertions with no basis at all about how libertarian society is just going to ~magically work~.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:28
|
|
|
More importantly, who tests for Ebola? The private hospitals that only a few can afford?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Not HPV vaccine side effects. You are a crank jrod. You are on the level of a 9/11 truther. Seriously anybody who gives you the benefit of the doubt at this point is a saint.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
I'll put the gun down if you promise to pick it up and eat a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
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. Rand Paul didn't say anything about Autism. His statement on the live tv interview was ambiguous and could be interpreted differently. At a bare minimum a responsible journalist would have tracked him down and asked him for clarification on what he meant and if he felt there was a link between vaccines and autism. The problem is that people who already hated Rand were looking for anything and everything to discredit him with. The very fact that he is a medical doctor, has personally gotten his vaccinations as have his entire family, makes the notion of him being an anti-vaxer highly unlikely to say the least. You know, if anyone I personally didn't like did an interview and said something like this, something that was sort of ambiguous and controversial, I would seek out a clarification before I start trashing them. That is common courtesy. Has Rand ever said anywhere that he believes vaccines cause autism? Has he ever said he opposes vaccinations? Is there any evidence that he tried to persuade his patients NOT to get vaccines as a general rule (not in specific cases where they were allergic of whatever)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
Jrod has also effectively derailed the discussion yet again because he is a worthless coward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Way to strawman my argument. No I don't think people are capable on their own of evaluating which drugs or vaccines they may or may not need. I would trust doctors to make those decisions. Doctors, not State-sponsored entities that may have conflicts of interest or taxpayer subsidized and propped up pharmaceutical lobbyists who use the State to push their drugs and profit from distorting the market to their advantage. Doctors who would have independence and who would use their best judgment to determine the best medical treatment for their patients.  Hey you know what didn't protect tens of thousands of people in Europe and Canada from being born with Thalidomide deformities? "Doctors who had independence and used their best judgment". Do you know why? Because the company suppressed research and kept knowledge of the side effects secret so they could make more money instead of losing that R&D investment! Do you know what did protect Americans? The FDA! Trained, independent regulators who looked over the company's application six times and rejected it every time with "you didn't include enough research". What's the conflict of interest? Regulators don't get paid more if they approve a drug. But they sure as gently caress get crucified if the drug they approve causes tens of thousands of birth defects. But drug companies get caught paying kickbacks to doctors all the time! I may never be able to know with certainty whether my doctor is recommending a drug because it's the best or because he gets money from the manufacturer, but at least I know an independent agency approved it as safe. jrodefeld posted:In a libertarian society, medical research and testing would be done at private universities and private medical organizations who compete with each other for the trust and support of patients across the nation. We would surely have several independent, competing FDA-like ratings and testing organizations. When you buy a prescription drug or medical device, your first question no doubt would be "who tested this?" A highly well regarded medical testing and approval organization would put its stamp of approval on various drugs and treatments. Instead of "FDA approved" it would say "Approved and tested by the Medical Research Institute for the treatment of X". If one rating and testing agency were to permit too many dangerous and ineffective drugs or treatments to be approved by them, then their credibility would drop and people would seek out a better and more reliable medical rating and testing agency. And this is done in concert with trained doctors who you trust, who have a good track record. Why wouldn't the drug companies buy favorable ratings from these services? The financial industry was able to do this and get junk bonds rated AAA. All the financial industry had to do was shop around the rating agencies reminding them that their business depends on getting access to securities, and if they're too harsh welllllll then maybe they won't get so many contracts and their competitors will get the business. As a consumer, how am I supposed to know which agencies are trustoworthy? We didn't find out about the rating agencies until after everyone lost their shirts in the collapse! And even then, we're still using them! What am I going to do, call up Goldman Sachs and say "Hi I'd like to start a new rating agency that doesn't give any sweetheart deals and rates your schemes with complete honesty, can I come down and look through your books?" Yeah I'm sure they'll fall all over themselves to show me their swindles and let me throw a wrench into the sweetheart deals they get with the existing big three. jrodefeld posted:What happens when your government FDA becomes compromised and corrupt? You have no recourse. FDA-approved drugs and products are recalled all the time, after they have killed a couple hundred people of course. And, like I said earlier, if they ban a product for any reason, you cannot choose to seek out that treatment. It is illegal. There are safe and effective treatments that are available in Europe and elsewhere that are illegal in the United States. Ah safe and effective treatments available in Europe. Like Thalidomide, right?  at you complaining of the FDA letting a few hundred deaths happen while you gaze wistfully at Europe where doctors took drug company propaganda at face value and crippled tens of thousands.What is your complaint, that the FDA disapproves too many drugs and approves too many drugs? What? Are they slow plodding bureaucrats too fearful to let the Job Creators innovate new drugs, or are they lax gullible rubber stampers who will take a drug company's word on anything. I love that your standards are literally impossible to satisfy. FDA relaxes its standards  Hundreds dead, why aren't they paying attention!FDA raises its standards They're hiding European miracle cures from me!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
paragon1 posted: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. I have to say, paragon1, that your posts have by far been filled with the most hate and vitriol of anyone on here. And they have been full of inaccuracies as well. You don't even state my position correctly before you proceed to spew vitriol in my direction. I stated clearly and unequivocally that I belief in the science of vaccination and I get the shots that me and my doctor agree is in my best interest. Yet this doesn't matter to you? Still, the world would be far better if I was dead "no matter what else I might do", simply because I feel like the complications of over vaccinating the public might be under reported? Because I have a different opinion?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Furthermore some vaccines, specifically the HPV vaccine given to young girls, have had significant enough side effects to prompt multiple lawsuits against the manufacturer. Your link describes 5 anecdotal cases of [HPV vaccine ... demyelination] and calls for further study. Here's an actual study involving 4 million women which found no such association (at the 95% confidence level). Thus - the system works. Young women are a high-risk group for MS. Physicians reported MS-like symptoms, temporally associated with vaccination, but lacked the data to determine whether these cases represented a novel phenomenon or simple coincidence. Researchers gathered the necessary data, and settled on the null hypothesis. No black helicopters or chemtrails were needed. And if you want to base an entire society on the sanctity of contract, then you've got to accept the fact that the mere filing of a lawsuit does not establish the truth of the plaintiff's claims, nor does it impugn the credibility of the accused.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:So certain death for Ebola sufferers then. Don't be loving stupid. Quarantine doesn't mean "certain death". They would get medical treatment at a hospital. A libertarian society will provide treatment for those that need it. All I'm saying is that you can't be diagnosed with Ebola and just choose to go to work and walk around infecting people. People will not permit such a thing and nor should they.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Rand Paul didn't say anything about Autism. His statement on the live tv interview was ambiguous and could be interpreted differently. Rand Paul posted:I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines..." I'm sorry, what kind of profound mental disorder results in a child who is no longer a "walking, talking normal" child? That sounds like autism to me... Oh wait right you're the guy who thinks Rothbard's "the Nazis were right about the blacks, just look at the Bell Curve" and "we need to send the blacks back to Africa, just listen to Malcolm X who by the way almost makes you think for a second that black people aren't inferior when he talks" are ambiguous statements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 10:50
|
|