![[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)
From:(no subject)
From:(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:(frozen) (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 18:08 (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)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/2/15 18:11 (UTC)(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: 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)
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 18:30 (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)
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 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)
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: 4/2/15 05:13 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(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)
From:(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)
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)
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)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: