(02-03-2015 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Then you need to be more clear with your use of pronouns.

And you need to be more responsible and ask for clarity before going off the rails and accusing people of trolling or what not just because you misunderstood what they posted. This issue clearly matters to you a lot and that played a big role in your gross overreaction.

I'd like to think you would be above that, being you are in a position of power here.

That was disappointing.

(02-03-2015 11:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fairness, it certainly is a government policy question, as well as a public health issue.

Fair to say especially with all of the undocumented illegals running around this country, in public schools etc.?

(02-03-2015 01:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  And you need to be more responsible and ask for clarity before going off the rails and accusing people of trolling or what not just because you misunderstood what they posted. This issue clearly matters to you a lot and that played a big role in your gross overreaction.

I'd like to think you would be above that, being you are in a position of power here.

That was disappointing.

That is retarded.

(02-03-2015 01:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 11:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fairness, it certainly is a government policy question, as well as a public health issue.

Fair to say especially with all of the undocumented illegals running around this country, in public schools etc.?

Sure

As a kid my mother used to have to take us all over to get shots because of all sorts of rules and regulations. The purpose of all of that is as legitimate as it comes. I fail to see why anybody should not be held to the same sort of standard, regardless of legal status or anything else.

(02-03-2015 01:51 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  And you need to be more responsible and ask for clarity before going off the rails and accusing people of trolling or what not just because you misunderstood what they posted. This issue clearly matters to you a lot and that played a big role in your gross overreaction.

I'd like to think you would be above that, being you are in a position of power here.

That was disappointing.

That is retarded.

Spare me

You were wrong and you know you were. There was simply no justification to lash out at me like that.

Enough of this nonsense.

(02-03-2015 11:06 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Politically, what he said was not smart, even if true. He is going up against the medical establishment. It would be interesting, however, if he did come out with evidence and we could have an actual debate (after all Paul is a doctor) instead of just throwing out the "settled science" argument big medicine likes to use.

I transcribed Rand Paul's interview from CNBC that everyone's been quoting from, but then lost the text... I'm not about to do it again.

Basically, he did not advance any ideas that i'm not comfortable with... he mentioned that for his children, he split the vaccination schedule where he delayed the vaccine for Hepatitis B (transmitted via STD and/or blood transfusions) a few months out of concern that it was too many vaccines at once.

There were two ideas that he advanced that are hallmarks of Andrew Wakefield and his adherents... one being the "too many vaccines at once meme", and the other being "mental problems came after vaccines". Had he merely said that "Given reports of kids who've had problems after vaccinations, I chose to alter the schedule that I had my kids follow so that they were not given all at once", I don't think there would've been much of an uproar. But merely mentioning both of these ideas in context sets off a number of red flags where Wakefield's adherents can see him as a champion and proponents of childhood vaccination can see him as an apologist. The reality is that he did neither, but the (mostly incorrect) perception that he did side with Wakefield prolongs the arguments ad infinitum.

Defensive? Sen. Rand Paul on voluntary vaccines

(02-03-2015 01:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Spare me

You were wrong and you know you were. There was simply no justification to lash out at me like that.

Were done here.

Your first post was hugely ambiguous at best, and you're more sensitive than a postpartum college feminist professor.

But yea man -- your posts show you're a total badass! Do you MMA bro?

(02-03-2015 02:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Spare me

You were wrong and you know you were. There was simply no justification to lash out at me like that.

Were done here.

Your first post was hugely ambiguous at best, and you're more sensitive than a postpartum college feminist professor.

But yea man -- your posts show you're a total badass! Do you MMA bro?

That's Rich!

You totally overreact calling me RobertN, suggesting I'm trolling & laughing at you. When I call you out on it you play spin doctor and claim I'm the sensitive one.

Hilarious!

I expect this type of childishness from some of the posters here, but I never expected it from you.

(02-03-2015 02:04 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 02:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:55 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Spare me

You were wrong and you know you were. There was simply no justification to lash out at me like that.

Were done here.

Your first post was hugely ambiguous at best, and you're more sensitive than a postpartum college feminist professor.

But yea man -- your posts show you're a total badass! Do you MMA bro?

That's Rich!

You totally overreact and call me RobertN, suggesting I'm trolling & lauging at you and now you claim I'm the sensitive one.

Hilarious!

I expect this type of childishness from some of the posters here, But I never expected it from you.

^ full drama queen mode...

(02-03-2015 11:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is the perfect kind of situation for tort law to work perfectly. You don't have to have big heavy handed laws crushing folks. You just open them up to liability. It's the best form of regulation.

Here is how I came to do some research on vaccines and autism, effectiveness, Andrew Wakefield. Just before my first child's second birthday (the one where they typically vaccinate for MMR, with Thimerisol and the whole bit), the local news ran a story where they interviewed a Dean of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky. This brought up the whole issue - one child there was diagnosed with Autism after the parents had the child vaccinated (it turns out that there were symptoms prior to that, but this was not part of the story). So, the TV news interviews the Lawyer who laid out the whole scenario, along with the professor.

Deconstructing this, these are the takeaways:

• The UK Chemistry department is crap
• The Dean of any department at a University isn't the best professor in the Department, it's merely the ******* willing to put up with University bureaucracy
• Credible professors have to be willing to step up, otherwise some expert testimony whore will come in and ruin the reputation of the whole department
• TV News is absolute crap, and not journalism at all
• The stories that come in over TV news are, as often as not, public relations stunts by lawyers wanting to build up support for their position
• Courts have never been a very good venue to rule on matters where the words "sound scientific basis" have any meaning whatsoever
• The most enlightening single study I read was one that tracked news stories about some vaccine scare and how many kids died subsequent to each media frenzy (this is the point that I concluded that Oprah Winfrey and Jenny McCarthy are mass murderers).
• By the time I talked to our pediatrician, we'd worked ourselves into a frenzy and were ready to go march outside of the news station (then both independently decided we had better things to do with our lives)
  

I have never, ever, been comfortable trusting courts or lawyers to come up with decisions that appear to have been positively impacted by what would be good scientific judgement, especially when juries are involved. Anything regarding risk or statistics is likely to be distorted, misunderstood, and misrepresented.

All of that said, I still believe that torts are the best form of regulation. I've had it drilled into my head for a long time that you either regulate something or open it up to legal remedy through torts. If you try to do both, then you're basically trying to destroy the industry, whatever it is.

(02-03-2015 02:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 11:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is the perfect kind of situation for tort law to work perfectly. You don't have to have big heavy handed laws crushing folks. You just open them up to liability. It's the best form of regulation.

Here is how I came to do some research on vaccines and autism, effectiveness, Andrew Wakefield. Just before my first child's second birthday (the one where they typically vaccinate for MMR, with Thimerisol and the whole bit), the local news ran a story where they interviewed a Dean of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky. This brought up the whole issue - one child there was diagnosed with Autism after the parents had the child vaccinated (it turns out that there were symptoms prior to that, but this was not part of the story). So, the TV news interviews the Lawyer who laid out the whole scenario, along with the professor.

Deconstructing this, these are the takeaways:

• The UK Chemistry department is crap
• The Dean of any department at a University isn't the best professor in the Department, it's merely the ******* willing to put up with University bureaucracy
• Credible professors have to be willing to step up, otherwise some expert testimony whore will come in and ruin the reputation of the whole department
• TV News is absolute crap, and not journalism at all
• The stories that come in over TV news are, as often as not, public relations stunts by lawyers wanting to build up support for their position
• Courts have never been a very good venue to rule on matters where the words "sound scientific basis" have any meaning whatsoever
• The most enlightening single study I read was one that tracked news stories about some vaccine scare and how many kids died subsequent to each media frenzy (this is the point that I concluded that Oprah Winfrey and Jenny McCarthy are mass murderers).
• By the time I talked to our pediatrician, we'd worked ourselves into a frenzy and were ready to go march outside of the news station (then both independently decided we had better things to do with our lives)
  

I have never, ever, been comfortable trusting courts or lawyers to come up with decisions that appear to have been positively impacted by what would be good scientific judgement, especially when juries are involved. Anything regarding risk or statistics is likely to be distorted, misunderstood, and misrepresented.

All of that said, I still believe that torts are the best form of regulation. I've had it drilled into my head for a long time that you either regulate something or open it up to legal remedy through torts. If you try to do both, then you're basically trying to destroy the industry, whatever it is.

Nailed it.

That's part of the reason we have so many issues within our economy.

(02-03-2015 01:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 11:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fairness, it certainly is a government policy question, as well as a public health issue.

Fair to say especially with all of the undocumented illegals running around this country, in public schools etc.?

The irony here is that California seems to have exported the Measles to Mexico.

(02-03-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:50 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 11:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fairness, it certainly is a government policy question, as well as a public health issue.

Fair to say especially with all of the undocumented illegals running around this country, in public schools etc.?

The irony here is that California seems to have exported the Measles to Mexico.

Why is that ironic?

(02-03-2015 01:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Then you need to be more clear with your use of pronouns.

And you need to be more responsible and ask for clarity before going off the rails and accusing people of trolling or what not just because you misunderstood what they posted. This issue clearly matters to you a lot and that played a big role in your gross overreaction.

I'd like to think you would be above that, being you are in a position of power here.

That was disappointing.

When I read your post, the "as well" made me figure you were referring to Rand Paul's comments rather than GTS's comments, though it wasn't completely clear. I would have simply asked who you were referring to.

(02-03-2015 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:48 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Then you need to be more clear with your use of pronouns.

And you need to be more responsible and ask for clarity before going off the rails and accusing people of trolling or what not just because you misunderstood what they posted. This issue clearly matters to you a lot and that played a big role in your gross overreaction.

I'd like to think you would be above that, being you are in a position of power here.

That was disappointing.

When I read your post, the "as well" made me figure you were referring to Rand Paul's comments rather than GTS's comments, though it wasn't completely clear. I would have simply asked who you were referring to.

And I would have had no problem just explaining the confusion for you. It would have been no big deal at all. After all, I misunderstood his meaning as well. It happens.

That's all GTS should have done. Instead he went 180 degrees the opposite direction and then played spin doctor with it. Instead of just admitting he was wrong for overreacting and acknowledging that it was a simple, harmless misunderstanding.

His reaction and behavior that followed was a real eye opener.

Did you say Andrew Wakefield? He's widely credited as the hack who started this thoroughly debunked link from the MMR vaccine to Autism.

Quote:An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Wakefield had been paid £435,000 to advise lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR and that he'd given children at his son's birthday party cash in return for blood samples for his research. A subsequent two-and-a-half-year General Medical Council (GMC) hearing concluded in January 2010 that Wakefield was guilty of serious professional misconduct, and that he had acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his research. He had, the panel concluded, subjected 11 children to unwarranted invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies without necessary ethical approval. The Guardian reported at the time that the GMC hearings also found that, before the paper was published, Wakefield had filed a patent as the inventor of a vaccine to eliminate measles and treat inflammatory bowel disease. In May 2010, the GMC struck him off and the Lancet eventually retracted the 1998 paper.

Andrew Wakefield: autism inc

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-...-to,37839/

(02-02-2015 10:50 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Ugh. That will be a much replayed soundclip by Democrats. Christie wasn't much better.

And that was decidedly NOT the libertarian position from Rand. If you wanted to go libertarian on vaccines, you'd do it like this:

1) All vaccines optional.
2) If you opt out of a vaccine*, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of a vaccine*, and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as the transmission vector that caused another person to contract the illness because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to take the vaccine themselves, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.


* Only applies to a known white list of low risk high success rate vaccines for major illnesses. Stuff like MMR and polio. Trivial crap and low effective crap like the flu does not apply.

What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of restraining yourself from NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment for your own HIV when you get it. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

(02-03-2015 10:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-03-2015 09:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  What is the libertarian view on homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

Let's look at what I think it should be based upon the logic of what you say it should be for vaccines:

1) All homosexual sex is optional.
2) If you opt out of NOT having homosexual sex, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of treatment. No insurance help. No government help. You're on your own.
3) If you opt out of restraining yourself from having homosexual sex, and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as your homosexual sex being the transmission vector that caused another person to contract HIV because they were too young/unhealthy/at risk to be able to fight off HIV, you are responsible for the FULL health care costs of their treatment. You have to go into bankruptcy and have assets liquidated before the government or insurance covers any unfulfilled costs.

Does that sum up the "libertarian" view of homosexual sex and HIV transmission?

My view on all STDs, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factors, is that they should not be covered with exception of the following circumstances:

- Failure of a safe sex device which was reported to a licensed medical practitioner within the next two business days. No getting it and them coming back a month later when you realize you got it and going "doh golly musta broke".

- Rape

- Incest

- Case involving a pregnancy

- Case involving pass through to a fetus through whatever means, and the ongoing care after that fetus is born.

That would go hand in hand with making safe sex products easily attainable and cheap ... and making FULL STD workups (a lot don't even include herpes or hepatitis!) easily attainable and cheap. I'm talking about your local pharmacist being able to take the blood work and send it off.

If someone creates a fetus, and the fetus is born, he/she is responsible for creating the baby. Why shouldn't the people involved be responsible themselves to pay the FULL cost of healthcare for the baby if it has HIV, until they go broke, if one/both knew they had HIV prior to having sex? On the other hand, what if they create a healthy fetus and they decide to abort it-- who pays for the abortion? Who pays for the woman's psychiatric care later in life when she regrets having the abortion? What if the abortion causes her to become sterile in the future and she wants to adopt kids? Should health insurance pay for the cost of that, or the guy she had sex with who got her pregnant when she aborted her baby?

And if I understand you right, you're saying a guy who gives a woman the Human Papilloma virus should be made to go bankrupt paying her bills (if he can't pay them all before then), if she gets cervical cancer?