To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate

[sameech]

"Anti-Science" is code for "Damn Conservative Christians". I have known people who were anti-vax for religious reasons and I have known some who were post-modern leftist free love hippies. There is no general rule there IMO.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.

Also my Pneumonia booster shot.

Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out! But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.

 

[rdean]

Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.

Also my Pneumonia booster shot.

Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out! But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.

I suspect it was liberals who created that shot. Remember, flu virus "evolves". Something right winger don't believe happens.

 

[boedicca]

Just back from getting my 2014 new and improved flu shot.

Also my Pneumonia booster shot.

Go ahead, libs, cough your guts out! But please wait a week or so while the full immunity kicks in.

I got mine on Saturday!

 

[rdean]

Fine...I don't care.
Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.

Fine...I don't care.
Tell us more about how the Republicans are the pro-science party.

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like genetic engineering to increase food production. Ask virtually any leftist about GMO's and expect a barrage of anti-science vitriol that would make any Luddite blush.

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.

Which party has attacked GMOs?

The left. Are you not aware of the blatantly obvious. There is more of course such as the completely unfounded vitriol against fracking and nuclear (or ANYTHING that is energy based not solar/wind).

You find attacks against science all over the political spectrum. It is not mired in any particular party more than the other. It is a matter of WHAT is attacked. Any science that does not agree with the narrative is attacked weather or not it is merited.



In all fairness, the ‘anti science’ attack is almost always coming from the left against the right (at least here on this board). It is one of RDeans favorite statements. A characterization that is utterly incorrect. Neither party does not like any facts that disagree with given policies they wish to push.

The left may disagree with HOW the science is used. But that's a far cry from believing science is a "faith". Try to figure out why.

 

[Uncensored2008]

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.

Which party has attacked GMOs?

The party that attacked evolution was the democrats. At least in the Scopes trial.

Which party has attacked GMO's - are you kidding?

{
Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change.}


{the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”}

The Liberals War on Science - Scientific American

 

[idb]

One party attacks scientific breakthroughs like evolution.

Which party has attacked GMOs?

The party that attacked evolution was the democrats. At least in the Scopes trial.

Which party has attacked GMO's - are you kidding?

{
Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people.

Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change.}


{the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “everything unnatural is bad.”}

The Liberals War on Science - Scientific American

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?

 

[sameech]

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?

In Texas and places where it is windy they are.

 

[idb]

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?
Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.
There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?
Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?

In Texas and places where it is windy they are.

Well, that's going to shake up this board when that information gets out!

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?

Maher is a radical leftist.

Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Same house as Rush Limbaugh is in.

And seriously dude, that was pathetically weak.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.

Bullshit.

There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

ROFL

You whine that I prove leftists are anti-science and the best you can do is "well THAT doesn't count."

My argument is that those who support the scientific method are guided by facts rather than voodoo. The anti-nuke, anti-GMO, Pro=AGW nutjobs follow voodoo.

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?

When it started chopping up eagles and hawks.

I'm anti-wind myself, good reason to oppose that one.

Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?

Most wind farms are corporate owned.

What it boils down to is that the fringe opposes rationality, real science is based on rational analysis. 50 years ago the right was dominated by their fringe. But today the right is mostly moderate, where the left under Obama is run by the lunatic fringe. This fringe is decidedly anti-science.

 

[HenryBHough]

I have come to feel that liberals should go with their conscience and not vaccinate their git against anything. To vaccinate is to minimize the risk of fatal diseases and simply prolongs their misery. Plus it weakens the gene pool to the long-term detriment of humankind.

 

[idb]

So, which party does Bill Maher represent?

Maher is a radical leftist.

Is he in the House or the Senate...I can't remember.

Same house as Rush Limbaugh is in.

And seriously dude, that was pathetically weak.

Being anti nuclear, fracking etc is nothing to do with being anti or pro-science.

Bullshit.

There's no connection at all.
Is your argument that being pro-science means that you should allow everything and anything without discussion or oversight?

ROFL

You whine that I prove leftists are anti-science and the best you can do is "well THAT doesn't count."

My argument is that those who support the scientific method are guided by facts rather than voodoo. The anti-nuke, anti-GMO, Pro=AGW nutjobs follow voodoo.

And...when did Liberals suddenly become anti-wind power?

When it started chopping up eagles and hawks.

I'm anti-wind myself, good reason to oppose that one.

Does that mean that Conservatives are pro-wind power?

Most wind farms are corporate owned.

What it boils down to is that the fringe opposes rationality, real science is based on rational analysis. 50 years ago the right was dominated by their fringe. But today the right is mostly moderate, where the left under Obama is run by the lunatic fringe. This fringe is decidedly anti-science.

You said that one party was anti-science...there's no point trying to deflect.
You haven't been able to back your statement up, instead you point to one guy and claim that he represents Republicans - I think that's what you're claiming anyway.
If you're going to point to individuals I'm sure we can go toe-to-toe on that.

If you oppose fracking or nuclear power how does that mean you're anti-science?
You make no sense.
For example - I might oppose fracking because it contributes to CO2 pollution and I'm unhappy about that...how does that make me 'anti-science'?
You might support fracking despite the science showing that it contributes to CO2 poluution because you reject the scientific evidence that CO2 is bad for the climate - you reject the science.
Anti-science is rejecting the evidence and conclusions presented by the scientific method.

The right being mostly moderate would be news to those in Congress that are terrified of the looney, anti-science, anti-intellectual far right factions.

The arguments against wind power - including the deaths of birds - have mostly come from the conservatives on this forum...it's good to hear that they've had an epiphany.

 

[idb]

I see that the latest Republican revisionist memo has been released.
"Convince voters that we are actually the pro-science party and the opposite is true of the other side".

The truth isn't hard to find however.

 

[rdean]

Oh these right wingers. We all know that in the 1960's the conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party which is why the GOP is 90% white today. They suggest Lincoln was a confederate. They insist it was white conservatives that ended slavery.

You know what this reminds me of? When Obama took out Bin Laden, Republicans rushed to claim responsibility after letting Bin Laden go. It's outrageous. Every one one of their failed policies they blame on Liberals and every one of their so called successful policies started with liberals. The nerve of these people.

The Republican Party of 1930 is not the Republican anti science, anti vaccine, anti education Party of 2014. They know it. Who are they trying to fool? Tards?

 

[rdean]

I see that the latest Republican revisionist memo has been released.
"Convince voters that we are actually the pro-science party and the opposite is true of the other side".

The truth isn't hard to find however.

It's even easier than that:

Scientists leave GOP due to attitudes toward science The Salt Lake Tribune

And that is from the very conservative Salt Lake City Tribune.

 

[Darlene]

I see all of you are quick to assume I'm anti-science. I'm not. Science in many aspects intrigues me. I'm also not affiliated with any political party and I'm not religious. Silly people.
Anyways...
Like I've said earlier in this thread, I'd like to know more about the specific vaccines my children are going to receive (yes, I still vaccinate for some things).
Vaccines may have played a role in the decrease of diseases but you also need to remember that before vaccines and around the time they were created, there were poor living conditions.
I'm not disclaiming science altogether but I'm not going to trust it with all my heart.
Diseases of poverty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Nutrition Based Diseases

 

[Sallow]

With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?

I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.

What are your thoughts?

Vaccines have been with us for hundreds of years. It is the most successful medical procedure on the planet.

Make sure your kids are up to date on their vaccines.

 

[Darlene]

Always know what you're in for:
Vaccines Vac-Gen Side Effects

 

[koshergrl]

Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.

People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.

And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.

And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.

So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.

They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.

 

[Darlene]

Killer viruses are spread by contact between humans....regardless of the *conditions* if you have humans in close contact with each other...in schools, for instance...in the stores....at work...then the conditions are perfect for transmission of polio, TB, smallpox, influenza, measles.

People don't get those diseases because they're in bad conditions. They get them because they come into contact with people, and they aren't vaccinated.

And the more people who aren't vaccinated, the more die.

And the people who are at the highest risk...kids, old people, and people who are already sick.

So if you are okay with putting those people at risk because you have the mistaken belief that just because those diseases aren't as common now, they aren't as big a threat, go for it.

They aren't common now, here, because we have innoculations that protect us from them. It has nothing to do with *conditions*. The only *condition* that can protect you from influenza, small pox, or polio is the *condition* that completely isolates you from outside human contact.

Believe what you want but vaccines aren't the "save all" that everyone thinks they are. Seems that these days, people just do what they're told, believe what all the doctors say without question, etc. Reminds me of sheep.