|
CommieGIR posted:I wish they'd take the kids more often. The US has been suffering a rash of faith healing/natural woo healing deaths among infants and toddlers. The problem there is that the American system for such things can be so ungodly awful that it can be better to just leave kids with lovely parents.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"With our method, the Given their methods this may be more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I've often pondered what we ought to count as "good intentions". Should it be sufficient to sincerely believe that one is doing what's right, even while remaining willfully ignorant of evidence to the contrary? If you blindly assume yourself to be unquestionably right, can there be any reason to believe that you sincerely want to do what's right (as opposed to seizing any lame-o excuse to believe that you are, real world consequences be damned)? Does invoking religious doctrine change anything? None because kids shouldn't be at the mercy of how arbitrarily stupid their parents might be. At a certain point the kid is just getting neglected and needs to be taken away and cared for. On the other hand, I have a sincere heartfelt belief that my kid can survive on prayer instead of food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Last I heard, organic maple syrup was recommended as the sugar component in those Mastercleanse things. The one where you drink a mixture of lemon juice, syrup, and red pepper for a few days instead of eating to cleanse your body of "toxins." Those are such a crock of poo poo. You end up drinking so much fluid that your body just does the needful on it's own. And it also infuriates me since my Sister (who has a PhD in biochem) goes on about this brand of 'detoxification' and when I tell her that she should really know better she just shuts me out. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
The human body has already an incredibly well-developed and field-tested method of getting rid of 'toxins' (whatever the gently caress those are) It developed over many, many millions of years and we're alive thanks to it. It's doubtful some quack with a printed-off phd is going to do a better job at developing a better system than millions of years of evolution under the harshest conditions possible on planet earth. In Bad Science Ben Goldacre did a whole chapter on toxins and how the need to go through these 'detox' programs are not out of some physiological need, the body will take care of that on its own, but a psychological reason because we believe we're purging bad habits or the 'old way' we were living and it makes things nice and clean and complete. I seem to remember something about something similar being done to child soldiers when they get introduced to a normal life, it's incredibly helpful for both the children themselves and the community if they have some sort of 'cleansing ritual' as it makes the transition from being a killer to being a regular child more palatable. I'll have to re-read it the book to make sure I'm not misremembering stuff. e: http://www.forcedmigration.org/rfgexp/rsp_tre/student/nonwest/nw_12.htm Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I seem to remember something about something similar being done to child soldiers when they get introduced to a normal life, it's incredibly helpful for both the children themselves and the community if they have some sort of 'cleansing ritual' as it makes the transition from being a killer to being a regular child more palatable. I used to work on a reservation and at least a few Native tribes have rituals and ceremonies for people returning from the military. They follow the same basic idea about transition and cleansing. I can't help but think that there's value in that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
So similar question, so I don't look like an rear end at the pediatrician. Just found out my sister and I both had severe reactions to casein based vaccs. (We both have varying degrees of milk allergies. It sucks) There are vaccines out there if my kid turns out allergic to one of the inactive ingredients, right? I'd rather risk my kid winding up with anaphylaxis than risk them being Typhoid Mikey in school, but the inactive stuff is easily reformulated for these right? Especially cause it seems the big ones are the ones with casein like TDaP. And uh, no, our kid us getting the TDaP. I'm just really glad I live somewhere sane, and enough of my husband's family remember horrible diseases that I got more poo poo for not having my TDaP booster before getting pregnant than any plans to vaccinate. (See above. Still planning on getting it, but now by OB is aware that I may have a severe reaction to it) If there aren't egg/casein free vaccines yet, then why the gently caress not? I can't help but think it would only increase rates of vaccinations in kids . All it takes is one kid with an unknown allergy to reset things with the anti-vaxx group. Even though that kid was just going to wind up finding about the allergy some other kind of way, finding out about it via a vacc seems like it can causE probs I
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
I am not a doctor. As always, the best practice is to ask the healthcare provider in advance of the vaccination. Having the exact names and manufacturers of the other vaccs you had the bad reaction to would also help clinicians make sure it's not a response to something else in them. I can't speak to reformulation- my guess is that there's only so much demand that would justify side payment to industry for manufactuing in another form (my understanding is that casein-based vaccs are more stable). On TDaP specifically: the only immediate resource I have is the pink book. The CDC doc I found on TDaP specifically may be out of date, since it was last updated in 2015. Based on it, it looks like one form of TDaP, made by Boostrix, uses casein, but another, by Adacel, does not. The contraindications guidance for practitioners here under "Allergy" discusses other more common allergies, but not casein. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
AA is for Quitters posted:So similar question, so I don't look like an rear end at the pediatrician. You won't look like an rear end if you ask your doctor a sensible question like this. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:You won't look like an rear end if you ask your doctor a sensible question like this. HTH. Yeah answering questions like that is literally part of a doctor's job. If you have any question at all for your doctor just ask during an appointment. Be all like "yo, doc! Answer mah questions!" and they probably will. A doctor that absolutely refuses to even consider answering is a lovely doctor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Cool. I just don't want to look like I'm trying to avoid vaccination because of an actual legit allergy. (That hopefully our boy won't get, since my hubby has no food allergies in his family) I can't help but think this poo poo feeds into the anti vacc crowd, since all it takes is someone posting about how vaccines almost killed their baby dvd others latch on to it. Like I don't want to tell anyone about my fears because I still have every intention of getting my kids vacc'd, I just may have to have them done in the ER with epi on hand. Although here's hoping if there's any allergy it winds up being purely a rash/hives like mine. (And lactose intolerant, but that's a different story. I can have lactose without casein and only wind up violating the Geneva convention. A lactose free, casein heavy cheese gives me gifts for hours) You'd really think with it being more and more common for food allergies to be diagnosed early that they'd start using other transmission mediums. I get why casein (And egg for the flu shot) work so well, but if it encourages more of the crunchy types to vaccinate, especially since they're starting to show that there's some overlap between gluten and casein sensitivities, it's one less argument the crunchy types can use. Having seen a friend go through pertussis, I would not wish that on anyone. Nor measles. Or mumps. Or meningitis. (Never seen rubella or diphtheria in person, but why the gently caress not get them done?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
I promise you, after having searched for those CDC resources, vaccine component allergies feed into antivaxxers big time. On the other hand, so does the color of the sky outside, a butterfly flapping its wings in Guatemala, and the Mets getting far in the world series.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
AA is for Quitters posted:Cool. I just don't want to look like I'm trying to avoid vaccination because of an actual legit allergy. (That hopefully our boy won't get, since my hubby has no food allergies in his family) IIRC with flu specifically, it's a live attenuated vaccine that they can't easily grow any way other than in eggs, hence the eggs. There are egg-free inactivated versions but you have to specifically request them AFAICT from a brief search..
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
The one area in which antivaxx and the rest of the world agree are "don't get a vaccination if you have evidence that it's going to seriously hurt you." The problem is that antivaxxers often have a very tenuous grip on what constitutes evidence. "My baby chose a non-GMO gluten-free lifestyle and she told me in a dream that she doesn't want her body polluted by dirty vaccines" is not good evidence, "my family has a documented history of being allergic to something found in many vaccines" is a totally good reason to be cautious. Talk to your doctor
QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The one area in which antivaxx and the rest of the world agree are "don't get a vaccination if you have evidence that it's going to seriously hurt you." The problem is that antivaxxers often have a very tenuous grip on what constitutes evidence. "My baby chose a non-GMO gluten-free lifestyle and she told me in a dream that she doesn't want her body polluted by dirty vaccines" is not good evidence, "my family has a documented history of being allergic to something found in many vaccines" is a totally good reason to be cautious. Talk to your doctor The other stupid thing is you get anti-vaxxers finding out that their baby can't get one vaccine because it will harm them and deciding that absolutely all vaccines are thus bad for the baby. This is stupid; some people can't get specific vaccines but 99% of the rest of us can which is, you know, how herd immunity works. If less than 1% of people can't get a specific vaccine for whatever reason it isn't a huge deal. You only sound like an anti-vaxxer if you get into the realm of "I don't know doc, I heard that literally every vaccine is filled with Satan and Hitler. Are you sure they're safe?" Yes. Yes they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
I haven't been following this thread but I wanted to pop in here to say that David "Avocado" Wolfe is an unironic flat-earther, who truly believes that the world is flat and frequently repeats this on Twitter. I hope flat-eartherism becomes ensconced in the dogma of conspiracy narratives like chemtrails and the Illuminati.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Copy-paste from my post in YCS: Here's my issue with the current crop of leftist candidates, they are usually all for consumer protection, but the moment a consumer needs to be protected form the horrible fraudulent billion dollar Please Bernie no in 2010 posted:To me, the increasing integration of CAM and conventional care just makes sense. Research shows that more people are demanding and turning to integrative care because it parallels their personal values and desire to be treated as a whole person. For a wide variety of reasons, more and more people are not simply content to go to a doctor’s office, get a diagnosis and take a pill. They want to know what the cause of their medical problem is and how, when possible, it can be best alleviated through natural, non-invasive or non-pharmaceutical means. For those that don't know, CAM or integrative healthcare means combining non-proven and ineffective healthcare like homeopathy, acupuncture with regular science-based medicine. Blending the distinction between an actual doctor and a (often well meaning) quack. This support unfortunately is not only hypothetical, according to the quacks Bernie is responsible for Obama care covering alternative medicine: quote:The current chair is Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), who is credited with inserting the licensed complementary and alternative medicine professions into the workforce Section 5101 of the Affordable Care Act. He’s also a strong advocate for vast expansion of access to integrative services across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) This provides undeserved legitimacy and subtracts from the funding for actually effective, science based medicine. My question for Bernie supporters, please write your candidate and have him desist from ruining US healthcare with quackery. The fact that there is a NIH position for alternative medicine is already an affront. Edit: for more on bernies history with alternative medicine http://time.com/4249034/bernie-sanders-alternative-medicine-cancer/ IAMNOTADOCTOR fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Wow, that's...really bad. What do you mean by HRC having a quack physician? Also, could you link your YCS post?
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Complementary medicine can include thing make people feel safe and respected--what "treating the whole patient" usually means. He is misinformed about medicine and knows that people are demanding a thing. For a legislature, that's not the worst thing when you have Orrin Hatch defending homeopathy single-handed for like 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Wow, that's...really bad. What do you mean by HRC having a quack physician? Also, could you link your YCS post? Here's the link, haven't written anything else. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3765994&pagenumber=257&perpage=40#post457476680 And here's the Clinton doc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hyman_(doctor)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Here's the link, haven't written anything else. Oy vey, that guy. Well, I'm crossposting it in a couple other threads of relevance. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Good lord that mans bibliography. Charismatic Quacks are the loving worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Bill Clinton was also into homeopathy, so it makes sense they'd have an "alternative" doctor, heh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Bill Clinton was also into homeopathy, so it makes sense they'd have an "alternative" doctor, heh. Can't tell if this is a statement of fact or a dick joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-docs-buck-trend-would-allow-vaccine-opt-outs-except-for-measles/ Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. quote:Amid growing calls to limit vaccine exemptions for children in public schools, several Seattle doctors have come up with a controversial plan: Allow personal and religious opt-outs for all shots — except the one that prevents measles. Meanwhile, Washington State is still in the middle of a whooping cough outbreak. But hey, you know. parental liberty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:But hey, you know. parental liberty. I'm in complete agreement, but as a reminder, one of the main obstacles in the vaccination debate is how deeply entrenched parental rights are in Constitutional jurisprudence. It's some of the older caselaw in the country, and it's the basis for a range of destructive problems in education, too. Here's a direct link to the Pediatrics proposal. It's less than 4 pages and worth a read to see some really astonishing "argumentation." edit: my god this is the worst reasoned argument I've ever seen in an academic article. They don't even care that their risk evaluation for measles versus other VPDs is post hoc. This gives bioethics, not a field known for its rigor, a bad name. The three reasons for the proposed policy: 1. More politically achievable- other states haven't successfully passed laws removing NMEs yet, so we shouldn't do it. The circularity here is astounding- prescriptive to descriptive to prescriptive again. 2. Political sustainability- there will be less of a backlash than against eliminating all NMEs (by making school vaccination requirements "less coercive"). 3. Easier to enforce a single vaccine than a collection. The measles vaccine is relatively simple to administer and track. Cripes, this makes pro-life arguments for abortion clinic regs look legitimate. The tracking and administration of vaccines is a solved problem. Note the lack of ethical arguments here- there are throwaway references to "liberty" and "coercion", but it doesn't actually do any work in the argument. I was a dumb and missed an out-of-order paragraph at the end of the article that argues the application of "Least Restrictive Alternative" is the basis for the ethical part of their argument. I've copied and annotated this graf below. quote:Perhaps the most persuasive argument against invoking a sweeping policy that eliminates NMEs from all vaccines is that it violates the ethical principle of least restriction. It's theoretically possible to make a similar argument for a phased introduction of mandatory, no-NME vaccine policies based on the diseases the vaccines treat (I don't agree with it, but you could do it). The thing is that this would be a really controversial claim and would need a lot of work and evidence to support why it was necessary- a lot of sources and citations to show that a phased mandatory vaccine policy would produce better health outcomes and would smooth over the political obstacles to implementation. This article provides no evidence, and is instead focusing on one disease for very poorly substantiated reasons, and acting like its selective NME policy should exist unto perpetuity. There are references to ethical problems with mandatory vaccination, but they're never remotely explained or described! On the bright side, it's fairly clear that Pediatrics published this only in order to tear it to shreds. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Walled, sadly. my bad-you're not missing much unless you like feeling embarrassed that someone is getting to publish elementary school-level arguments in Pediatrics. I'll see if there's a legal mirror I can give you. edit: no luck so far, but here's a response, also paywalled, sadly, that absolutely disassembles them. Here's the ethics graf. Nancy Kass is one of the leaders of the Berman center for Bioethics at Johns Hopkins- she's basically as close to an ironclad source as can exist- her work is very very very good, and she's more careful with her arguments than most other major bioethics figures. That's not to say that she's right about this, or anything in particular- just to indicate why she's being mentioned by name. quote:Apart from their comments on R0 and the public health impact of vaccine-preventable infections, Opel et al1 inappropriately assert that, with the exception of measles vaccine, honoring religious exemptions is ethically required as the LRA. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:my bad-you're not missing much unless you like feeling embarrassed that someone is getting to publish elementary school-level arguments in Pediatrics. To be fair, they're simply adapting themselves to their audience. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:To be fair, they're simply adapting themselves to their audience. ...I handed you that on a silver platter. I've updated my two posts to explain the ethical arguments both the articles make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-docs-buck-trend-would-allow-vaccine-opt-outs-except-for-measles/ These people should lose their licenses to practice medicine. Same goes for any doctor who pushes holistic garbage. They should be blacklisted and prohibited from working in the medical community until they demonstrate they're actually going to work for their patients' well-being as they're supposed to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Seattle Children's and KC Public Health have generally been great organizations to deal with, but every nice shoe gets dogshit on it once in a while, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Again, the lead author, Opel, is a prof of bioethics. That's pretty intolerable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
...wait, didn't California pass a law eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions? Or was it less strict than that? EDIT: Yeah, California's law eliminates personal and religious exemptions for vaccination. So the first argument in that paper falls flat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:...wait, didn't California pass a law eliminating nonmedical vaccine exemptions? Or was it less strict than that? The argument of the paper is basically "oh, yeah, CA and VT did it, but there's no way it will happen in other states, and besides, it's unethical because reasons"
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
One might argue it's unethical to let plague bombs into public schools, while we're making a list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The argument of the paper is basically "oh, yeah, CA and VT did it, but there's no way it will happen in other states, and besides, it's unethical because reasons" Well they can't argue it's illegal because the SCOTUS ruled years ago that mandating inoculation for public health concerns is within the government's authority. So if a state says "gently caress your personal stupidity, you're getting the shot unless you will have an adverse reaction to it" they don't have a choice. Getting vaccinated should be required by Federal Law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Volcott posted:One might argue it's unethical to let plague bombs into public schools, while we're making a list. I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back quote:Look, I’ve done the research on these issues, I’ve read the statistics, and I’ve carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-docs-buck-trend-would-allow-vaccine-opt-outs-except-for-measles/ They've let a deadly preventable virus come back to life. Their whole movement should be punished and humiliated by making them lose court cases and then forcibly inoculated live on TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The argument of the paper is basically "oh, yeah, CA and VT did it, but there's no way it will happen in other states, and besides, it's unethical because reasons" On top of that, Mississipi and West Virginia have never had religious or personal exemptions to vaccination. They've also never had rampant outbreaks due to lack of vaccination! Vermont still allows religious objections 
Rebochan fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 00:41
|
|