(10-17-2014 02:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-17-2014 02:00 PM)john01992 Wrote:  there is no basis for this at all. you quoted an incorrect link from an FNC columnist.

I quoted the link I did at that time because YOU said it was a fox talking point, so I looked up the Fox talking point you were referencing, because YOU didn't link it. I work in healthcare and unlike you, I don't take things at face value so I read the actual NIH study. The fact that they thought enough about it to do the study at all is telling to someone who deals with them regularly. Their job is health and safety, not politics.

Quote:there is no basis for it and some have a very hard time admitting that, and my takeaway is that pre existing stigma's against illegals is the cause for that.

Exactly as I said. You came into the conversation with that opinion, not only about the situation but about the responders. You have chosen not to be convinced in part by whom you have chosen to engage and how. You won't engage with me on the fact that being concerned about illegal immigration in regard to communicable diseases, INCLUDING d68 is legitimate,,, because that would show that it wasn't racist... and instead have only engaged with people who either over-state the reality or don't know enough about epidemiology to make you change your mind. Is it likely that this strain came from Latin America? No. Is it 'proof positive' that it didn't? Also No. SHOULD there be other clusters? Probably. MUST there be? No. If you believe it, there is reason to believe it. It IS possible. If you don't believe it, there is no proof it is.

The concern about communicable diseases, including enteroviruses crossing our borders illegally is legitimate and not racist.... whether or not they yet have.

(10-17-2014 02:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  it's pretty clear this thread is aimed at those who take this talking point as fact and not a call out on those who simply ask whether or not it is possible. and since I am the OP (last I checked unless the voices in my head say otherwise) I think I have the authority to say what the purpose of this thread was & was not intended to point to.

Not really. You have the authority to say what you meant, but not how readers took it. It seems pretty clear to me that you came into the discussion with an unstated preconception (you admit this, I believe) and have challenged people to prove your preconception wrong... which is a virtually impossible barrier, especially when you seem to have a reason to NOT be proven wrong (because the response comes from people whom you believe (again, your preconception) to all be racists simply because they have a different political persuasion than you)

Preconceptions are at their heart, examples of bigotry. That doesn't mean you can't have them, but it does mean that you need to be aware of them if you are actually seeking 'serious discussion'... which is why I pointed yours out... and rather than 'adjust' to them (try and see things from another perspective) you have essentially doubled-down on them.

Just my opinion, but one that certainly seems easily supported by the facts.


Perfect example... the term 'talking point' doesn't refer to a fact... and the word 'legitimate' is a matter of perspective. If you don't think it is legitimate, then why did the NIH investigate it? Why was it brought up in conjunction with/on the heels of the transportation of a disease for which the person was accused of a crime for doing, but you refused to call it 'illegal'?

you denied that it was a major talking point, I only raised the FNC talking point because that shows the opinion is popular enough that someone thought it needed to be addressed.

there being no basis for it is not an opinion. it is a fact based on the information we have available. guess what, I read the study on VJ as well. 10 cases out of 3,300 patients. the text has only 3 references to D68 and it specifically states that they found it in "low amounts." the study wasn't about D68, they tested patients for HRVs.