http://luzribeiro.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
luzribeiro.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2015-02-03 05:51 pm
luzribeiro.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2015-02-03 05:51 pm
Entry tags:
Oh, NOW the science has crystallized for ya, eh?
Measles 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
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
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
Now that's just crazy-talk. That would never happen!
And... I'm not even being sarcastic with that. Case in point: Obama. I was infuriated with Obama over his own "evolution" on issues like gay marriage and others. All of a sudden, he believes something with no real willingness to even admit to, on camera previously, ever holding a contrary view. I wanted to know why in the hell it took him so damn long to come around to the right position? The seemingly most obvious answer: it wasn't politically convenient to do so, yet.
Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of politics in this world, though I've found that as frustrating as it is, it seems to just be more productive to welcome the progress being made than to harp on questions of motivations and contradictions. If the specter of "political convenience" causes a politician to shuffle his feet on an important issue, but that "political convenience" means the difference between getting re-elected and then making a real difference vs. another guy getting elected who is actively planning to move "backwards" in terms of policy, do we blame the guys playing the game for playing it the way that it's rigged, or lament the facts of the game itself, yet still welcome the progress being made once it's finally put into motion? It's the ugly give-and-take of American politics, and all too often I think constituents and voters allow "perfect" to become the enemy of "good."
At the end of the day, I don't care why Hilary Clinton is supporting vaccination now. I care that there's a sea-change in public perception that will (hopefully) lead to more kids being vaccinated, and less children being killed or permanently injured by preventable illnesses. Having the voice of a potential future President backing that with her bully-pulpit doesn't make me anything but excited.
no subject
The end result of the alarming rate of old and forgotten preventable epidemics now returning to what is presumably the most advanced society in the world, being reversed thanks to the shifting political and scientific consensus on the matter - that I have no problem with.
no subject
There is a certain irony that mere months ago, pundits and politicians in my country were screaming about Africa (the entire continent, not just certain areas of it) because of the Ebola outbreak there, wagging their fingers in judgement and screaming about quarantines and embargoes.
Now, our nation is home to an outbreak of a disease that we should have seen the last of decades ago, and the world is laughing at us.
We might expect said pundits and politicians to have the good grace to be rightly chastened and embarrassed, but I'm not holding my breath.
no subject
I suppose the reason that many people in the developed world are now neglecting the role of vaccines is because these diseases have been absent from public view for so long that people don't remember the times when they used to frequently decimate entire nations. So they've learned to just take their absence for granted, and presume they don't need precaution against them any more. Which is an invitation for those diseases to come back.
no subject
I'll need some citations on that, please. Do you know what the mortality rate for measles was before and after vaccination started?
prior to the vaccine, the percentage of the entire US population that died from measles was .000237%
More uncomfortable facts here.
http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/
So how about polio? Did vaccines actually eradicate polio? Well, no, not really. See polio was on a massive decline when the vaccines were introduced. Spiffy science backing this up here:
http://vaxtruth.org/2012/03/the-polio-vaccine-part-2-2/
Ignoring the site name, I checked the referenced sources. Seems legit.
So..even if those dreaded diseases come back, so what? I had the measles and the mumps. Not claiming confirmation bias, but I actually was alive and part of the first wave of these killed virus vaccines. I didn't know anyone who died from measles (and yes, I know it does happen, but we know now it is very VERY rare).
So your position can pop up 15 sources all in little neat links and make uninteresting sentences, and the other side can pop up 15 sources, we can all spend the night attacking each others sources..
And the band played on...
DISCLAIMER: I have no opinion on the efficacy of vaccinations. My position is one of personal choice. If a mother has the choice to end a pregnancy, she should have the choice as to what medical procedures she will allow on her children.
no subject
You know there's that magic called Google, right?
More arbitrary interpretation of the facts. No one is talking of COMPLETELY eradicating a disease. What we're talking about here is virtually removing it as a threat, to a point where it has become a non-issue:
You know, context and all that jazz that you pretend to care for.
You should ask that question to the families of the hundreds of thousands who are going to suffer complications, especially those among them who would die in result of that.
Like I said, your anecdata is still not data.
I'm not attacking your sources. I'm contesting your interpretation of them. And what you're doing is masquerading anecdata as data. Which is bullshit. That's exactly NOT how science works.
Your opinion on the efficacy of vaccinations is a bit irrelevant here. The scientific fact is that, according to past experience, a massive outbreak of a virus vastly increases the chances of said virus to mutate, and go out of control. It potentially creates a huge problem that goes way beyond the people who've been directly affected.
"But what happens when one person's individual choice leads to the otherwise preventable infection of another person who chooses differently? How do you assign property rights and responsibilities to an airborne virus? (http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/25/should-vaccines-be-mandatory)"
You're free to ignore the site name, that'd be your problem.
no subject
What am *I* adding to the discussion? I'm discussing an issue that's relevant to the day. Do you honestly believe political hypocrisy should remain unchallenged just because everybody else does it?
Any politician who is a potential future leader of the most powerful and influential nation in the free world, IS particularly notable, and warrants extra scrutiny, wouldn't you agree?
I'd love to read that follow-up post, by the way. Do it!
no subject
You didn't have to say it, but from what you've said thus far, your position seems to come across as one of acceptance that political hypocrisy is acceptable just because "everybody does it". While I acknowledge that this may be your position, I just cannot agree with that sort of approach, and prefer to call it out whenever I have the time. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I also don't agree that a leader's positions on public health, or their proneness to changing their positions, is as irrelevant as whether Putin picks his nose and eats it. But I appreciate that it may be insignificant enough for you to not give a damn about it - but still not to a point where you wouldn't invest a good amount of time in discussing it on an online forum. After all, we do need a case-in-point example on the issue of hypocrisy every now and then.
no subject
Right on, right on.
In some of the news coverage on a case of the measles from California, they showed some interns taking photos of the infected child, because they had never encountered children who had measles before. It was just that rare. Same deal with polio victims. Growing up, I would see a few victims of polio, teenagers or adults wearing the leg braces (they had been infected before the vaccine was discovered). But now it's unheard of.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I wonder why that happens? Seems to happen often, these side effects. Speaking of side effects -
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
no subject
No it doesn't.
He is still alive, but not quite kicking!
Not funny.
no subject
Often is less than 1%?
Episodes of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus are rare. Between 2000 and 2011 – a period in which more than 10 billion doses of oral polio vaccine were given worldwide – 20 cVDPV outbreaks occurred, resulting in 580 polio cases. In the same period, wild poliovirus paralysed over 15 500 children. - See more at: http://www.polioeradication.org/Polioandprevention/Thevirus/Vaccinederivedpolioviruses.aspx#sthash.Br7utrLh.dpuf
no subject
But you point is still valid. It is very rare to contract the disease. Even more rare to actually die from it, based on the sources I provided above.