![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMeasles Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field
Hillary Clinton hits GOP with pro-vaccine tweet
Well, ain't that the moment quite a few had been waiting for. As the media has spent the day painting all Republicans as anti-science, flat-earth types (a view that's not entirely devoid of merit, by the way) in light of comments made by Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul on vaccinations, plenty of conservatives must have wondered when Hillary Clinton would finally emerge from her Twitter silence and declare her position. And lo and behold! The bandwagon didn't take long to get overcrowded:
Well, she couldn’t be much more clear than that, could she. "Grandmothers know best", perhaps, but what about those years before she was a grandmother? Because, hey, there was a time when Hillary Clinton also flirted with the theory that vaccinations increase autism risk, the anti-vax group she had been pandering to at the time bearing the ominous name Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning.
Back then, Clinton wrote that she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines". And in response to the question of whether she would support more research into a link between vaccinations and autism rates, Clinton wrote: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out".
Shall we call the current development "evolution of views", potentially a result of a possible obtaining of the insight about that purported link between vaccination and autism that she had been talking about? Or could that merely be skillful pandering to the base and an attempt to put the GOPers in a position where they'd have to either look dumb and Medieval (hey, monthly topic anyone?) or be compelled to acknowledge that she might have a point?
I guess what I'm asking is, was the science "more unclear" when she last ran for president (and lost), than it is today? Just to remind, both Hillary and Obama used to give some credence to the anti-vaccine theories at the time.
As for the issue of whether vaccines are a conspiracy of Big Bad Guvmint + Big Pharma to make us all sick, establish mind control over the enslaved populace, and curb population growth - that's a whole other story, and quite a fascinating one, at that.
Hillary Clinton hits GOP with pro-vaccine tweet
Well, ain't that the moment quite a few had been waiting for. As the media has spent the day painting all Republicans as anti-science, flat-earth types (a view that's not entirely devoid of merit, by the way) in light of comments made by Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul on vaccinations, plenty of conservatives must have wondered when Hillary Clinton would finally emerge from her Twitter silence and declare her position. And lo and behold! The bandwagon didn't take long to get overcrowded:
Well, she couldn’t be much more clear than that, could she. "Grandmothers know best", perhaps, but what about those years before she was a grandmother? Because, hey, there was a time when Hillary Clinton also flirted with the theory that vaccinations increase autism risk, the anti-vax group she had been pandering to at the time bearing the ominous name Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning.
Back then, Clinton wrote that she was "committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines". And in response to the question of whether she would support more research into a link between vaccinations and autism rates, Clinton wrote: "Yes. We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out".
Shall we call the current development "evolution of views", potentially a result of a possible obtaining of the insight about that purported link between vaccination and autism that she had been talking about? Or could that merely be skillful pandering to the base and an attempt to put the GOPers in a position where they'd have to either look dumb and Medieval (hey, monthly topic anyone?) or be compelled to acknowledge that she might have a point?
I guess what I'm asking is, was the science "more unclear" when she last ran for president (and lost), than it is today? Just to remind, both Hillary and Obama used to give some credence to the anti-vaccine theories at the time.
As for the issue of whether vaccines are a conspiracy of Big Bad Guvmint + Big Pharma to make us all sick, establish mind control over the enslaved populace, and curb population growth - that's a whole other story, and quite a fascinating one, at that.
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 15:56 (UTC)But the funniest thing is this is even an issue over there.
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 17:14 (UTC)Unfortunately for the narrative your typical anti-vaccination advocate in the US is not some ignorant hick from the fly-over states, they're the same people who are demanding that all their food be "organic" and GMO-free, in other words the sort of people who attend $10,000+ per plate campaign fund-raisers (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/wealthy-la-schools-vaccination-rates-are-as-low-as-south-sudans/380252/). Which is why the NYT is trying to pre-empt the issue.
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 17:55 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:03 (UTC)Citation badly needed that resistance to vaccination is more prevalent among people with environmentally orientated lifestyle patterns, than among technophobic conservative "pro-family" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401532.html) hillbillies, government-hating conspiracy wackos (http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/10/03/vaccine-conspiracy-theorists-more-likely-to-see-conspiracy-everywhere/) and/or the poorer segments of society (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448155/).
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:10 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 19:10 (UTC)Both sides also have anti-fluoridation whackos. Take from that what you will.
Yet there is a fundamental difference. Among these two groups, it is only the GOP that has anti-science nutbars sitting on Congressional committees, and spewing their base idiocy from Capitol Hill. We've got some real nuts over here on the left, but our nuts aren't chairing the House Science Committee.
So yeah, at the end of the day, people are people, and you're going to have people of all kinds in every group. But only one group keeps (gleefully, I might add) electing these ignoramuses to national office.
(And while nuts on both sides have led to a shameful measles outbreak here in the U.S., it's primarily one side's nuts that are refusing to act to prevent future droughts, famines, scarcity wars, and potential human extinction.)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 17:51 (UTC)And now you're no longer talking about vaccines but organic food?
I am someone who has renamed Marin country the Magical Fairy Vectorland. We should be able to agree on the vaccine stuff, right? But then I have to be pro DDT and I cannot follow you there.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:08 (UTC)Hillary 2000: "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/)"
Wanna bet how Hillary 2015 would sound on that issue?
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 17:52 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:16 (UTC)Then it must have been Mrs Clinton's position that has! After all, there's some evolution from 1) "we must check if those who claim autism is caused by vaccines aren't right" -to- 2) "science is clear on the issue, people - vaccines work!" Or am I, and the number of media outlets that I've cited above, the only ones to have noticed it?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:54 (UTC)As you correctly noted, Hillary Clinton never said anything against vaccination. Nothing remotely in the same light as Michele Bachmann making ridiculous statements as a presidential candidate, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/michele-bachmann-continues-perry-attack-claims-hpv-vaccine-might-cause-mental-retardation/2011/09/13/gIQAbJBcPK_blog.html) a sentiment Senator Rand Paul hinted at that in his statement the other day, so it's pertinent. "I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."
I think doctors and health organizations have made more of an effort to strengthen their position and publicize evidence that vaccines are not linked to autism.
Oh definitely, a lot of the donkey work for getting the research that was done is a lot more accessible and public, and it's extremely easy to access it now. But now that all things being equal, if Rand Paul and Chris Christie made statements on vaccinations that could have put them in a bad light, that's on them. And not expecting some push back on it from a political competitor would be naive (Ms. Clinton never mentioned "Republicans," or their Senator Rand Paul or Governor Christie by name, although the timing sure makes it seem likely it was a jab at them.) Considering what they've said in light of all the information since 2008, maybe their ambiance (and specifically what Rand Paul said) is worse than any perceived notion of uber-hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:30 (UTC)"There are three groups of people who object to required vaccines: "One is people who are very much scared about their kids getting autism, which is an idea that has been completely discredited. Two, is entitled people who don't want to put any poison in their kids and view this as poison, which is ignorance more than anything else. And three, people who are anti-government in any way."
The stats in your last link look pretty scary, don't they?
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 19:12 (UTC)I don't get mad at parents who don't vaccinate. They're trying to do what's best for their children, and I simply try to educate them better and hope that they're willing to listen. I do get mad, however, at the people lying to these parents for the sake of profit. They belong, in my opinion, in jail.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:30 (UTC)Proposition: it is, theoretically, possible for politicians, being human after all, to be wrong about an issue at one point, yet become better educated on it subsequently and modify their views accordingly. This has never been actually proven to have occurred (these are politicians, after all) but it is possible. In theory, at least. ;)
Speculation: If such a thing were ever to occur, it is likely impossible for such a politician to admit to their new viewpoint without his or her motives being automatically called into question.
Related question (possibly rhetorical): Which is worse: the politician who holds a viewpoint that becomes unpopular, and pretends to change his/her mind to pander to voters, or the politician who has held a viewpoint that started off as unpopular but refuses to admit to holding that view (or doing anything politically to further it) until after it becomes popular?
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:37 (UTC)Nothing to see here. Moving on to the next question.
I like your hypothetical dichotomy, too. It would've been a fascinating topic, had it ever happened IRL - particularly in the context of the above-cited cases (Hillary and Obama). I mean, with all that sophisticated system of recording what politicians said and when they said it, a politician must be insanely suicidal to start going around denying they held a view they know full well they were on record having held. Right?
You know what, allow me to present you with a third alternative to your rhetorical question. How about a politician stays honest about their views and either sticks to them, or acknowledges they were wrong and they now know better? Here's a hypothetical/rhetorical question for you: how do you think such a humanlike confession would reflect on their popularity?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 21:14 (UTC)A year from now, when our election discussions are heating up - a measles outbreak would allow a pro-vaccine candidate to sit back with the lead and laugh as the clock runs out.
(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 21:29 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/2/15 07:44 (UTC)What's your criterion for "something that warrants attention"?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/2/15 05:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/2/15 07:45 (UTC)DQ, by the way.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/2/15 18:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/2/15 20:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 03:19 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 18:13 (UTC)Well, more like following what the science offered.
was the science "more unclear" when she last ran for president (and lost), than it is today?
Well, the Lancet study was retracted in 2010. Before that happened, Obama and Hillary both said it needed more investigation (~2008). Now that the study is well debunked and falsified and they say so.
(no subject)
Date: 5/2/15 18:18 (UTC)That's the point. She saw a chance opening up to score points, and she didn't disappoint.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 11/2/15 15:10 (UTC)>>credible citation for a scientific study that shows a casual relationship between autism and vaccines? If so, you could actually change my mind.<<
I've already given you 30 credible citations for scientific studies that show a casual relationship between autism and vaccines.
Don't like it? Oh, well...
The Big Pharma certainly benefits from the autism epidemic. These are evil people.
Science is not hard. It's only the fake science that is hard, because it's designed to confuse.
It's easy to see the cause of autism with naked eye. Mercury does this sort of thing to the brain. Mercury and other garbage that's in the vaccines.
>>Tell me, how much were you paid by the anti-vaccine lobby to create this LJ account and start spewing standard conspiracy theory?<<
LOL!
This is actually funny. The Big Pockets of the “anti-vaccine lobby”???
The Big Pharma has like a zillion times more money!
Eio
(no subject)
Date: 11/2/15 15:39 (UTC)68 Studies supporting vaccine/autism causation (August 27, 2013)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/68_studies.html
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: