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.
(frozen comment) no subject
Likewise if you actually look up anti-vaxxer literature (ThinkTwice, VacTruth, et al) you'll see a lot of "chemicals are bad m'kay" type scare mongering coupled with appeals to nature, rather than appeals to "family values" or the safety/fear response that you would expect from a more conservative source.
(frozen comment) no subject
(frozen comment) no subject
(frozen comment) no subject
Where have I spoken about poor technophobic hillbillies? I explicitly said technophobic conservative hillbillies AND/OR the poorer segments of society. Have you been trying to use strawman fallacies again!? Weren't you warned against this multiple times?
(frozen comment) no subject
I did read them, your links just do not prove what you think they prove.
First Link: States with the highest coverage of polio vaccination are New England the Deep South, for once perpetual "anti-science" butt-monkeys like Mississippi and Tennessee actually come out looking pretty good on that map. If your intent was to show a "red-state & polio" correlation you failed.
Second link: same story as the first, highest rate of influenza vaccination is South Dakota, lowest is Nevada.
Third Link: unlike measles or polio HPV is not particularly crippling or contagious and childhood vaccinations for it are not required for in most states, it's value as a proxy is debatable at best.
Fourth and Fifth, same story as the first and second.
Finally the LA Times article I linked to in my initial reply explicitly contradicts your own narrative as it shows an inverse correlation to wealth, population density, and the vaccination rate for measles. TL/DR is that poor/rural school districts have much higher rates of vaccination because they can not afford not to. Towns like Malibu or Berkeley on the other-hand can and do.
Where have I spoken about poor technophobic hillbillies?
"Technophobic hillbillies" and the "poorer segments of society" were your choice of words not mine (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1950958.html?thread=148905198#t148905198).
(frozen comment) no subject
Do you not notice the difference between what I said (technophobic hillbillies AND/OR poorer segments of society) and what you claimed I said (poor technophobic hillbillies) - or have you just been stubbornly trying to troll for a reaction?
(frozen comment) no subject