tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post1661025393193105914..comments2024-03-28T14:52:13.218-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To The Debate…Jim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-7290808678739883512011-10-07T16:15:01.225-05:002011-10-07T16:15:01.225-05:00Every once in a while I believe the Republicans go...Every once in a while I believe the Republicans go to a "Crazy Hole" somewhere, dangle a rope and see who climbs up. That's how they choose their candidate.tymefixernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-34768650588425018882011-10-05T11:38:37.630-05:002011-10-05T11:38:37.630-05:00I don't watch debates. I don't read articl...I don't watch debates. I don't read articles about them. I don't watch political speeches (yes, including the State of the Union address). I stay abreast of facts as best I can in our post-journalistic world. Based on my efforts to get the facts, I evaluate them, and form my own opinions. I doubt seriously that those in government, and those who have "access," know anything which would change my opinion (despite their not-infrequent statements that they know classified stuff which, if I knew it, would change my mind). Of course, some of my fact-gathering includes hearing or reading about the vitriol which seems to pervade mostly the gatherings of the "right."<br />I have added your blog to my blogroll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-12785015589935805172011-09-30T11:25:08.781-05:002011-09-30T11:25:08.781-05:00Why do politicians with similar ideologies debate?...Why do politicians with similar ideologies debate?<br />In this case, comic relief.<br />Seriously, I watched the Obama-Clinton debate in Ohio three years ago, and was amazed.<br />I din't expect Obama to win. He came off smarter than Hilary. I promptly wrote in Edwards, proving that both Obama and Clinton were smarter than me.<br />The current set of debates don't seem very valuable, but may convince some other GOP candidate to enter the race. Maybe the Grand Old Party will come to it's senses, and elect Huntsman. Heh-heh.John Healyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03618374685709266085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-57635146961340040442011-09-29T20:57:02.968-05:002011-09-29T20:57:02.968-05:00Not only is having people of the same ideology deb...Not only is having people of the same ideology debate issues lame enough, then throw in the tea party crowd who applauds Ron Paul every time he says something crazy. Why not have a primary debate set up where the opposition candidates debate with incumbent party leaders on important issues. I like that idea,much more potential for bloodshed!Kendallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-22260201529146569342011-09-27T11:40:11.421-05:002011-09-27T11:40:11.421-05:00Wine Guy
Top is also USAF, First Shirt is definit...Wine Guy<br /><br />Top is also USAF, First Shirt is definitely used in the Army, don't know about the other two.Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16588657943011198242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-61928610429183106422011-09-27T03:34:26.421-05:002011-09-27T03:34:26.421-05:00gunny = Gunnery Sergeant (USMC).
Top = First Serg...gunny = Gunnery Sergeant (USMC).<br /><br />Top = First Sergeant (USMC and USA)Wine Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-44726750402935069492011-09-25T15:11:00.145-05:002011-09-25T15:11:00.145-05:00see you on G+? Bernard ben Tremblay here. (Google ...see you on G+? Bernard ben Tremblay here. (Google refuses to allow any punctuation in names.) Hope so<br /><br />^5<br />--ben<br /><br />p.s. in Canada I'd address CWO as Sir ... which is a word I dont' use often. Is that so state-side as well? The "gunny" and "top" stuff confuses me. ;-)Bernard (ben) Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097630017893920397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-48295361210476933772011-09-24T08:02:10.232-05:002011-09-24T08:02:10.232-05:00Excellent post, as always. We'll undoubtedly b...Excellent post, as always. We'll undoubtedly be able to keep counting the ways in which Michele reveals herself as insane, but the gardasil dispute might be her sole moment of clarity. While we've been having fun with her delusions, it's tangential to a valid point. Unfortunately, the messenger overshadowed the message.<br /><br />Look at it this way: If Rod Blagojevich had mandated gardasil vaccinations after taking campaign contributions from Merck, after his chief of staff took a job as Merck's lobbyist, how many counts would have been added to the indictment?Scotty in Illinoisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-37120302522170776972011-09-23T02:15:26.397-05:002011-09-23T02:15:26.397-05:00As an official Crazy Person (Bipolar, N.O.S.-- sym...As an official Crazy Person (Bipolar, N.O.S.-- symptoms fit Type 1 but my meds don't), I would like to state that Bachman will never have my vote. Even off-meds, I'm not *that* crazy.Sharon Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09878631693072592000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-29786332271405279732011-09-22T23:30:03.905-05:002011-09-22T23:30:03.905-05:00Kothi, might I ask what type of health care profes...Kothi, might I ask what type of health care professional license you hold? There are many fields, and it's difficult to determine from your writing. You paint a rather unusual picture of care, or perhaps I've been lucky. Yes, sometimes we do move patients along, because we've 20 others waiting to be seen with equally legitimate needs. Sometimes we do the quick fix so the person doesn't climb the walls and refer them to mental health because that is their field of expertise, not ours. No, we cannot fix it all on the spot and some people cannot be fixed. In any event, I'd be curious to know the field you practice in since you leave me a bit confused. It might help me and others to orient to your frame of reference.<br /><br />No time for further comment - homework to do and that's a priority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-4386382026512039582011-09-22T22:57:29.386-05:002011-09-22T22:57:29.386-05:00Anonymous- I should have clarified. What I meant...Anonymous- I should have clarified. What I meant by "medical establishment" I don't actually mean the front line staff- doctors, nurses, etc, but the administration, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies, (which is why I started the sentence with No, ...) but it appears I chose I poor term to describe those who are more in the profit end and less in the provider end of care- emphasis on Establishment, not so much on medical. Perhaps administrative and/or profit players is a better term. <br /><br />They often, as I've seen, with my 21 years as a health care professional, will, not necessarily out of malice, but perhaps due to their mission, job description, what have you, put the issues of efficacy, cost conservation, and even profit ahead of individual patient needs, and even in some cases over general patient needs, and this also indirectly effects public health guidelines. <br />And yes, doctors, too, though here I would say seldom vs. often, do also "follow the money" at times, choosing certain procedures over others, (usually when equally safe, but even in some cases when not) for the bigger reimbursement buck, or in other cases for expediency, and others just to get a patient off ones back. <br />One evident example I have seen (many, many times) has been the over prescription of anxiolytics (because those anxious clients drive are SO annoying in the middle of a busy day with more imminently pressing medical issues) without even so much as thought toward an addiction screen or a consult to a mental health professional. But of course, the insurance companies won't pay for the length of time such a contact might require, or perhaps the client is very pressing the provider for a quicker solution. And big pharm (and don't get me wrong - I am VERY VERY grateful for the many drugs we have and are necessary, and the the research and development behind them- however- ultimately, pharmaceutical companies operate by profits) is happy not to showcase the potentially harmful consequences of such cavalier prescriptive practices. Of course, a conscientious general provider (and no doubt, the majority are), in time, would note increased med seeking behavior if it progressed to that, and hopefully refer to mental health provider, but often at this point, we're talking about rehabilitative, vs. preventative care.<br />But here we digress from the original post... of course, Michele Bachman doesn't truly give a damn how corporate health institutions effect patient care and even, to some extent, public health decisions, she is just interested in inflicting her personal Jesus on the rest of us.Kothihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13427465445011958475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-28468639133761084272011-09-22T22:17:09.016-05:002011-09-22T22:17:09.016-05:00Kothi, whom I noticed is apparently a friend of Ka...Kothi, whom I noticed is apparently a friend of Kate's judging by her blog, I take great exception to your comment "the medical establishment often places influence peddling and financial gain over safety, and it's enough to make one not blindly trust any number of health guidelines." Often? Really? Eighteen years of nursing and I never noticed that. I can only assume you are neither educated as a health care professional nor work in the field. Damn near every doctor I have worked for, or around, would willingly get out his or her warm bed at 2:00am and take of your child's emergency without a thought. And it's usually something like the disaster of green snot. They don't just do it for the money, either. Not every doctor sells out to the "medical establishment" as you refer to it. Remember, they are highly educated, independent and critical thinkers (usually -there's always the slow ones). They are not spoon fed information which they then blindly follow. Remember, too, most of us in health care are pretty overworked and managing multiple patient demands. Can't breathe in one room, maybe pre-term labor in the next, and oh crap, that guy looks gray and he's complaining of chest pain. Then there there are the drug seekers, gotta have that vicodin. There are bad eggs in every walk of life, but to say the medical establishment often places influence peddling over safety? Don't buy it. Most of us work our ethical asses off taking care of people who are happy to condemn us. But we do it anyway, because somewhere along the line, we believe in service to others, no matter how they treat us. At some point, you have to have the faith in yourself you are doing the right thing as much as you can possibly determine. That is why we sleep so well at night, plus we are exhausted from taking care of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-36904508313003498592011-09-22T21:03:07.473-05:002011-09-22T21:03:07.473-05:00Yes, what Kate said :-D
I am also pretty consci...Yes, what Kate said :-D <br /><br />I am also pretty conscientious about health care decisions, especially for my children, and while not eager to associate myself with the conspiracy nut-cases, and do not always have unmitigated trust for the medical establishment, either. <br /><br />to Anonymous 8:17 (that sounds disconcertingly like a bible verse) - re: <br />Are the nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners who provide immunizations and the scientists who research the crap out of vaccinations, not conscientious?<br /><br />No, but the medical establishment often places influence peddling and financial gain over safety, and it's enough to make one not blindly trust any number of health guidelines.<br /><br />While I realize most vaccines have not had thimerosal for around ten years, it did exist in the past (not THAT long ago, when we did, in fact, have the scientific method, NIH, CDC, etc, all with ethical people researching this stuff) After it became known, after about 70 years of using the preservative, that some infants could have accumulated more than the EPA standards for mercury, THEN they changed the policy of using Thimerosol as as a preservative. The outcome studies (the thoroughly reliable and valid, cross-sectional, large size ones) take time to perform. And some things don't come to light until much after a drug or vaccine is out. <br /><br />My kids got all the standard vaccines at the schedule given- I made this decision after exploring the research. However, if my daughter was 12 today, I am not ABSOLUTELY certain I would be crazy if it was mandated. This would not be because of some medieval concept of chastity, but b/c I would have to evaluate the likelihood of her being sexually active in the imminent future against the time this vaccine has been out to study AS thoroughly as I would like (post trials, when it's been out in the community at large). Depending on that probability, I might wait a couple years, and also get her input. I really do hope my kid isn't having sex at 12 because of all the risks (emotional, physical, occupational) but I hope to educate her thoroughly about all the pros and cons, and hope to have an open enough relationship with her that she could do the decision making without feeling she had to hide anything. And of course, if she is sexually active, I think the vaccine would certainly be warranted and would outweigh potential, unknown adverse findings. Thankfully, I have many years til this age (phew!) and I would like to think all the kinks will be worked out and it'll be no question that she would choose to get it right away. <br /><br />But it is complicated, and in this day and age, quite responsible to not blindly trust the medical establishment's view (or to blindly believe the hippy blogs either), and also take the time for not just good science, but excellent science, to work through.Kothihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13427465445011958475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-20162810663570929002011-09-22T15:45:19.303-05:002011-09-22T15:45:19.303-05:00@neurondoc:
I know, I know - we don’t want a rese...@neurondoc:<br /><br />I know, I know - we don’t want a reservoir that allows infectious disease to become endemic. We’re actually experiencing that here in Austin with our immigrant population, not because of anti-vaxxers (though we have them) but just because they didn’t have much in the way of preventive care.<br /><br />And yes, I was being glib, cynical, and selfish. But as someone who is old enough to remember having at least one kid with leg braces from polio outbreaks in almost all of my elementary classes, I have little tolerance of anti-vaccination types.Okra Godhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399111072856850171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-44705066911526799992011-09-22T13:14:16.631-05:002011-09-22T13:14:16.631-05:00Great post as usual, Jim.
I live in Texas and it...Great post as usual, Jim. <br /><br />I live in Texas and it's not really hard to get out of vaccines here. Not that I think you should, but the only enforcement of getting your kids immunized is enrolling in school and there is a piece of paper you can sign to exempt your kid from the required vaccines. <br /><br />My major beef with the antivaxers is that they have kept Autism research from researching treatment because they keep the money focused on the discredited link between vaccines and Autism. And I just got my high functioning Autistic, ADHD son immunized for HPV. I told him he was protecting his future wife. He's such a great kid he agreed it was a good idea.<br /><br />On yet another side note, the CHIP plan in Texas (rick perry's state) doesn't pay for the HPV shot, at least not for boys.Lyntillahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056021601522505783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-35711826980025615602011-09-22T13:07:17.894-05:002011-09-22T13:07:17.894-05:00The seemingly universal republican belief that I s...The seemingly universal republican belief that I should not have control of my uterus and the contents thereof would keep me from voting for any of the candidates. The intentional spreading of misinformation regarding vaccinations is beyond appalling. The only way to avoid HPV without a vaccination is to never, ever have sex with anyone. That is not a good public health policy, for myriad reasons.<br /><br />I had both of my boys vaccinated, and I didn't even know about the penile cancer link. I figured (a) genital warts was reason enough, but (b) if I could stop even one person from carrying and spreading the virus that nearly killed me (and also made it very dangerous for me to produce said person - which I did as a <b>choice</b>), then it was incumbent upon me to do so. <br /><br />Two fewer carriers out there in the world cannot possibly be a bad thing, and anyone who thinks it is should be subjected to months of doctors with implements up their cooch trying to find a way to stop enthusiastic abnormal cells from morphing into cancer.RR Kovarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05165990070862127913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-32490108575571563362011-09-22T11:20:34.704-05:002011-09-22T11:20:34.704-05:00I think you might be missing something if you are ...I think you might be missing something if you are just listening to what the candidates in primary debates are saying about the issues. Of course there is not much difference there. But that's not really what the debates are about. They are about style more than substance. They are about how the candidates handle themselves. How well they communicate. How well they connect with the audience. All of that is critical.<br /><br />For example, the primary between Obama and Clinton didn't have much to do with the issues at all. But the style differences between the candidates were huge. And voters needed to see that and understand that. Those differences, which are really about how the candidate views the office, and how effective the candidate might be in that office, might be a lot more important than what the candidate's own feelings are about particular issues.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12552117060181130126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-83979474746879036972011-09-22T11:16:31.992-05:002011-09-22T11:16:31.992-05:00Jim
Another great post. It seems I look forward to...Jim<br />Another great post. It seems I look forward to reading your posts as you make so much more sense than the majority of the professional bloggers/MSM bozos. I did throw up a little in my mouth when I read the Newt thing though. Thanks for that picture. Political debates are what they are. I agree with you that they are becoming less relevant in the primaries. I look forward to the debates for the general election.Bufordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09562503298407472200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-26041135504974955542011-09-22T00:55:34.582-05:002011-09-22T00:55:34.582-05:00Kate, the issue with vaccines is a collective immu...Kate, the issue with vaccines is a collective immunity. If you took your child to the grocery store, she is at risk. Some diseases, such as measles, are highly contagious. In fact, there have been lab-confirmed cases in Minnesota in 2011. So, if an infected person has been in the store, and sneezed, that virus can literally hang around in the air and on surfaces for 2 hours. If your daughter is exposed and is unimmunized, she is likely to get it. Generally outcomes are worst in the very young. So, if your daughter never went anywhere outside the house the risk is quite minimal. But most kids are out and about with their moms. People incubate and transmit disease before they have obvious symptoms. Think chicken pox and how it spreads. Suddenly all the neighborhood kids have it, or they used to anyway before the vaccine, and the index case infected them before the first pox erupted. <br /><br />It’s not just your daughter, but all the other people who pass through her life however briefly and barely noticed, and that is a very hard thing to control. Just be aware of the consequences of not immunizing and understand how each disease is spread, level of communicability and the risk to your daughter and others before you make that choice. Public health measures are not so much about the individual, but our collective wellbeing. The community is the patient. So, I’m not really sure I agree with your statement “coming to their own conclusions for their own situation.” The unimmunized ride on the coattails of the immunized. <br /><br />By the way, DTaP is Diptheria, Tetanus, and acellular Pertussis. So, three things in one. The acellular Pertussis is a big improvement over the Pertussis used years ago. Good response, reduced side effects.<br /><br />The websites are slanted because that is what the science supports. If you dig deeply and go into studies about why it is the way it is, it makes sense from a public health viewpoint. I did choose to delay hep b at birth for the same reasons you did, plus what a way to greet the world. But, I understand why it’s done the way it’s done. I did, however, start the series at 2 mos. for each child. As neurondoc pointed out, there aren’t many issues with it, and “immunity against this evil disease is a good thing.” Watching someone die of liver disease is about the most horrible thing ever, no matter how they got it - alcoholism, virus, cancer, etc.<br /><br />Way to go on the breastfeeding. No substitute there, although I understand it is not for everyone, but worked great for my family. No ear infections, rarely sick, and out all the time. Good luck with number two. Babies are awesome. <br /><br />Now that I think of it, Minnesota had an outbreak of hib disease about 2009. Then there’s the measles. This have anything to do with Michelle Bachman?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-47109645591480087222011-09-21T23:41:09.318-05:002011-09-21T23:41:09.318-05:00Anon @ 8:17
Thank you for your thoughts. By "...Anon @ 8:17<br />Thank you for your thoughts. By "conscientious vaccinations" I meant that I considered the pros and cons of each vaccine within the context of my own family's situation before deciding whether it was right for my daughter, rather than blindly following the AAP recommended schedule. I in no way intended it as a slight on any healthcare professional.<br /><br />The 6 vaccines recommended at 2 months are from the AAP schedule (HepB, Hib, DTap, PCV, Polio and rotavirus). I forgot that rotavirus is given orally. I live in Minnesota, by the way.<br /><br />I understand that vaccines are preventative. When I spoke of indication, I meant that MY daughter's risk of contracting some of the diseases is exceptionally low. As a breastfeeding only child who stayed home with me almost exclusively (and I am positive that no one in our family has HepB), I felt that protection against HepB, polio and MMR were not medically indicated <i>for her</i>. As soon as she started daycare and was around other kids and people we don't know, we got her the polio and MMR vaccines. Now that she's bigger and into more rough-and-tumble play, I'm going to get her the HepB. We did Hib, DTap, PCV and rotavirus when she was an infant (2 each at 2, 3, 4 and 5 months) for just the reasons you gave: those are particularly dangerous diseases. I'm currently pregnant with number two and we'll probably do a different schedule with him because who knows what his sister might bring home ;)<br /><br />So, yeah, I've been pretty conscientious about it.<br /><br />The AAP and CDC sites are pretty good, but definitely slanted towards "just go ahead and get them all". I found Dr. Sears Vaccine Book extremely helpful and much more thorough and less judgmental in going into detail all the pros and cons of each vaccine/disease combination.Kate Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030466281145135115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-39085954315170668262011-09-21T23:17:02.370-05:002011-09-21T23:17:02.370-05:00Kate Hanson, guess I will be the first, but hopefu...Kate Hanson, guess I will be the first, but hopefully not rip you to shreds. I am the RN in the anonymous post regarding Gardasil and availability for males. First of all, what is “conscientious vaccination?” Are the nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners who provide immunizations and the scientists who research the crap out of vaccinations, not conscientious? Truly, we are not brainwashed, mindless drones eager to poke needles full of toxins into the sweet-smelling buttery flesh of innocent babies. We actually care about our patients, advocate for them, and often worry about them when we go home. Their parents do often annoy us, however. Immunizations represent a topic of particular annoyance, too, I might add, thanks to those who choose to disregard actual science.<br />I will add I am also a mother, confronted with the same decisions as you. I want the best for my kids. So, I get the mom viewpoint.<br />Don’t know what state you are in (Texas?) but 6 shots at two months? What schedule do they have? The CDC recommends eight different antigens combined into 3 shots, and one oral vaccine, rotavirus. Will it overwhelm the immune system? Since most kids breath, therefore are exposed to all kinds of stuff such as mold and pet dander, never mind soaps, dirt, crawling on the floor and eating the most disgusting thing they can find (in my son’s case, the cat litter box, after it had been used and before it was cleaned). He didn’t get sick, although I was pretty disgusted.<br />As far as using “any medication without true indication” well, we are in prevention mode here. You don’t normally take aspirin to prevent a headache. You do get immunized to prevent a disease. Prevention is key with communicable diseases, and the very young, perhaps too young to be immunized, are the most susceptible. In that category are also of course the elderly, immunocompromised, etc. By not vaccinating your child, you are leaving him or her susceptible to disease. By not vaccinating yourself, you are leaving your family and other contacts susceptible. Vaccine preventable diseases routinely make the rounds. Pertussis, which is reasonably common, may be an annoyance for you, but lethal to your young child. Haemophilus influenzae type B (hib) percolates around, causes 3 million illnesses & an estimated 386,000 deaths yearly (and yes, it happens in the US), and 15% to 35% of survivors have permanent disabilities such as mental retardation, deafness (WHO 2005). By the way, H. flu (a bacterium) causes pneumonia and meningitis. Both of my kids got the vaccine.<br /><br />If you are in need of reliable immunization information, I suggest the following websites:<br />http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/immunizations.cfm<br />http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/<br />http://www.immunize.org/<br /><br />BTW, the thought of a shirtless, flabby Newt hip thrusting anywhere is just too much to consider.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-6444997341004632382011-09-21T23:07:02.680-05:002011-09-21T23:07:02.680-05:00Jim, sounds like you know WAY too many crazy peopl...Jim, sounds like you know WAY too many crazy people.Kate Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030466281145135115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-65202329341508109312011-09-21T22:58:41.951-05:002011-09-21T22:58:41.951-05:00Kate, I don't see anybody ripping you to shred...Kate, I don't see anybody ripping you to shreds over that comment, at least I hope not. Some may disagree, but not to the shred ripping level. <br /><br />I have no issue with informed parents making informed decisions on behalf of their own families. I'm a parent myself. <br /><br />Where I have a problem is the same place I always have a problem, i.e. I cannot and will not suffer fools gladly. The vast majority of anti-vaxxers are hysterical loons who endanger their own kids and mine based on thoroughly debunked psuedo-scientific nonsense that they persist in believing. They are as fervent in their idiotic beliefs as creationists. I know a few of these folks, they are zealots - they're armed with the wisdom of the internet and the support of other ill-informed hysterical loons and no amount of science or reason can convince them that they are wrong.<br /><br />Then there are the folks who believe that vaccines are a government conspiracy to do some kind of something something to citizens in order to something something nefarious scheme. These people are also loons. Conspiracy nuts of the worst kind. I also know people like this, they add 2 and 2 and get ~27. <br /><br />And as noted in the post and comments, a number of folks, especially the anti-HPV types - specifically a certain type of ultra conservative right wing Christian fundamentalist mindset - won't let their daughters get the HPV vaccine (but will make them get all the others) because they have some kind of bizarre Protestant Victorian age hang up when it comes to <i>anything</i> even vaguely related to sex in any way. Sex is dirty and disgusting and a duty - and oh yes, I know a number of these folks. These people are firmly convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that if they get their daughter vaccinated against HPV she will become a rutting whore. These are the same pinched faced assholes who make their kids sign virginity pledges and take their daughters to purity balls and they're the ones who scream the loudest about the sanctity of marriage and the abomination of homosexuality - and then they go home and jerk off to gay porn in the bathroom. Their religion has twisted their goddamned minds to the point that they actually think it better to risk their daughter's very life so that they can control her uterus. It's fucking bizarre. Hell, it's revolting - and I'm not easily revolted. <br /><br />It's those people who I will rip to shreds. Always. Relentlessly.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-62873642618071423732011-09-21T22:51:23.891-05:002011-09-21T22:51:23.891-05:00You know, I actually thought ... or, at least, con...You know, I actually thought ... or, at least, considered the possibility ... that whoever is secretly running things for the GOP staged the whole incident in order to make Perry appear more reasonable.<br /><br />As a Democrat, I've been sort of enjoying this Republican Primary Campaigning Season, because it seems to be all about falling over each other to appeal to the party base -- but when the general election comes around, whoever becomes the party nominee is going to have to do a complete 180 and start appealing to the middle. And (Huntsman aside) it's going to be damned difficult to appeal to the middle when there's all of this video of said candidate saying crazy-ass things in order to appeal to the far right.<br /><br />And while what came out of this debate is that Bachmann is batshit insane, it let Rick Perry say, "I believe in vaccines" without him having to actually SAY IT. Good heavens! It's almost as if he admitted a belief in SCIENCE!nzformehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13982194544873836336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-77409058798558414342011-09-21T21:04:00.664-05:002011-09-21T21:04:00.664-05:00I was biting my tongue, but now I have to put in m...I was biting my tongue, but now I have to put in my two cents [bracing myself for attack] I am not anti-vax, and I hate the disinformation some of them spread. But I do believe in conscientious vaccination, so I can kind of see where the anti-vaxxers are coming from. The AAP recommended vaccine schedule is formulated to conservatively cover the worst-case scenario, and for many families that is simply overkill. No wonder some parents start questioning the motives of the pro-vax crowd.<br /><br />For instance, as neurondoc said: <i>There is precedent in the Hepatitis B vaccine. Hep B is a blood borne and sexually transmitted disease and babies are vaccinated against it. There is no specific reason to vaccinate babies of women who do not have active Hep B; it could probably be done in late childhood or early adolescence.</i><br /><br />For this very reason, I did not get my daughter the HepB vaccine as recommended by the AAP. I know my STD status and I was fortunate to be able the stay home with my daughter when she was very young. So, instead of getting inundating her tiny body with the SIX recommended vaccines when she was two months old, I focused on the couple of vaccines that were truly necessary for our situation. Was I protecting her immune system? I dunno for sure, but it gave me piece of mind. Also, with only 2 different vaccines at a time instead of 6, it would have been easier to tell what went wrong if she HAD had an adverse reaction. And I just don't like using any medication without a true indication.<br /><br />I believe that each parent has to weigh these benefits and risks for themselves and come to their own conclusions for their own situation. Unfortunately, it is VERY difficult to get accurate information about vaccines and the diseases they protect against because the debate is so polarized. Both sides can get pretty rabid about it, and it's not helping anyone.<br /><br />By the way, in my state at least, it is relatively simple to opt-out of any vaccines you might oppose, which I appreciate. In Texas it is a little more complicated, but still very doable.<br /><br />Oh, and my daughter is ABSOLUTELY getting the HPV vaccine when she's 12. The immune system matures by age 6; 12 years old is practically grown up, physiologically; and there is no good reason on this earth not to afford her the protection against cervical cancer. Michele Bachmann is a lunatic.<br /><br />OK. Go ahead and rip me to shreds.Kate Hansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08030466281145135115noreply@blogger.com