February 4, 2015

"There’s 400 headlines now that say 'Paul says vaccines cause mental disorders.' That’s not what I said."

"I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that," said Rand Paul.
It just annoys me that I’m being characterized as someone who’s against vaccines.
The annoyed Senator was doing a photo-op, getting a Hepatitis A booster shot in the Capitol physicians office. He's right, by the way, there are lots of headlines saying that he said vaccines cause mental disorders.

I had a number of stories on the phoney-baloney kerfuffle over vaccines I might have clicked on this morning, and I'm going to confess that's the one I chose because I wanted to see the photograph of Rand Paul in his white T-shirt, with his bare arms extended. He's getting the shot in his right arm. (Is he left-handed? Yes, and so were  7 of the last 17 presidents.) Why is his right hand balled up in a fist? I thought you were supposed to relax your arm when you get a shot. Is he trying to make his arm look more muscular for people like me who were going to look at the news report for the ulterior reason of wanting to check out his physique? Will the other candidates give us that close of a look? Let's not forget the extent to which Obama exposed himself:



Obviously, that sort of thing helps. This is not just me with a mental disorder. Bill Clinton knew it and used it....



... used his wife too. Did she make an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision to engage in this mutually agreed-upon activity and was her consent ongoing throughout this behavior?

78 comments:

madAsHell said...

Wait until they find out that Jonas Salk was a Jew!!

MadisonMan said...

When I get blood drawn I clench and unclench my fist to make me veins better targets.

Anyway, I don't think Paul's fist is clenched/balled up in a fist -- I think he's holding something.

traditionalguy said...

Rand really believes that he can slyly have it both ways on what is a yes or no issue of public health rules that require children to be vaccinated against epidemic killers. Those epidemic killers were defeated by use of the mandated vaccination tactic 70-50 years ago.

Rand is too smart for our own good.

madAsHell said...

Drudge has a nice photo of Hillary...slightly sloshed....with young men.

It's not good optics. I think someone is going to be fired.

Paco Wové said...

"400 headlines now"

Welcome to the news media, Dr. Paul.

Writ Small said...

Moments prior to Paul's statement that "parents own the children" he said this: "I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

Even though his broader message was one of choice and not explicitly anti-vaccine, handing that quote to the press was a serious rookie mistake. His position on vaccines wrong, but not crazy. His inability to interact with the press intelligently is worrying.

Jane the Actuary said...

Here's the issue:

every reasonable politician believes that vaccines save lives. But some politicians are less willing than others to say that vaccines should be mandatory, without exception. And it's Republicans who are being asked to take a stand on this, and Democrats who are being praised for saying things like "vaccines are good."

(Sorry, no links. But you know you've seen it. If I had links I would have put them in a blog post which I would tackily link to at this point. But I didn't, so I won't.)

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Having gotten maybe 50,000 allergy shots during the brief time I have so far spent on your lovely green planet, you will find no better expert than myself to tell you that the way to do it is to stand with your arms hanging down perfectly relaxed.

If you do your triceps workout the night before, however, it'll hurt no matter what.

News you can use.

JHapp said...

As usual, the GOP responses were easily twisted. They don't seem to think ahead. Just once could they say something like "So will you take your son for an anti-rape vaccination if Obama issues an executive order?"

traditionalguy said...

Bill must be really hard up to romance Hillary. She is 40 years older than his usual lust objects. But then maybe her brain injury acts like a Rofhenol and makes her an easier prey for one night.

BDNYC said...

Drudge has a nice photo of Hillary...slightly sloshed....with young men.

It's not good optics. I think someone is going to be fired.


I think that's from 2008. Whoever is responsible would have been fired many years ago.

Bob Boyd said...

The Democrat machine is deciding what the Republican candidates will talk about.
This issue hurt Perry and Bachmann in the last primary season. If I remember right Perry supported mandatory HPV vaccines for women then apologized for it after Bachmann attacked him. Then she wound up looking foolish for saying vaccines cause mental retardation.
Its a no win situation. If you're for mandatory vaccine, you're meddling in a personal medical choice. If you're against it, you're a superstitious science denier.

traditionalguy said...

Is the subconscious issue here the use of "long needles." The male dominated medical profession could easily use the short needles.

But they have this Patriarchial Obsession with sticking young children being held down with the longest one.

Please comment, Doctor Paul.

Hagar said...

Rand Paul's statements were more than a "rookie mistake." They were totally wrong in that context.
And, unless the videos have been edited, he added no qualifiers at the time.

BDNYC said...

It's fun to think back to 2007-2009, when Obama was considered cool. I hope people are embarrassed by that shirtless pic, or the one on the Hawaiian beach.

Back in those days Obama was being asked his thoughts on everything from college basketball to Kanye West to the police "stupidity" in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Presidents shouldn't be cool.

Michael K said...

"I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."

That was more than a rookie mistake. It has ended his campaign although for me it ended when he attacked Cheney using DNC talking points. Back to eyes, Dr Paul.

Hagar said...

Gennifer Flowers still lives - after her comments on the size of Hillary's backside.

MayBee said...

Look.
Just because serious side effects are very rare, that doesn't mean there aren't any.

This is from the NHS:
Rare side effects of the MMR vaccine

Bruise-like spots

In rare cases, a child may get a small rash of bruise-like spots about two weeks after having the MMR vaccine. This side effect is linked to the rubella vaccine and is known as idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP).
It's been estimated that ITP develops in one in every 24,000 doses of the MMR vaccine given. There is a greater risk of developing ITP from measles or rubella infection than there is from having the vaccine. ITP usually gets better without treatment but, as with any rash, you should seek advice from your GP as soon as possible.
Seizures (fits)

There is a small chance of seizures (fits) occurring six to 11 days after having the MMR vaccine. It sounds alarming, but it's rare, and only happens in only about one in every 1,000 doses. In fact MMR-related seizures are less frequent than seizures that occur as a direct result of a measles infection.
Allergic reaction

In extremely rare cases, a child can have a severe allergic reaction (known medically as anaphylaxis) immediately after having the MMR vaccine. Again it's an alarming prospect, but if the child is treated quickly, they make a full recovery. Medical staff who give vaccines are trained to deal with allergic reactions.
-----

That's just MMR. I don't know if they make parents sign consent forms any more for vaccinations, but it is a scary thing. Even if you absolutely believe in vaccinations.
Some babies have very adverse side effects.

sonicfrog said...

OK. Here's the deal.

If you know that vaccines don't kill people, and you believe they save lives... Then why on Earth do you throw out this line:

"I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input."

He was unwilling during the interview to refute the idea that vaccines are dangerous, and instead gave the idea a boost. Why? If he believes vaccines are safe, he should have said just that. But he didn't.

So this is a kerfuffle of his own making.

eric said...

If Republicans and/or Conservatives want to put someone other than a Democrat in the White House in 2016, they're going to have to humble themselves and realize the manipulation that comes from the media.

Rand Paul is probably my 8th or 9th choice for President. He isn't at the top of my list.

Regardless, I'm not going to attack him here in order to make my candidate look better. Because next week, it'll be my candidate that the media is trying to make stumble.

Might want to remember that, Michael K.

eric said...

If you know that vaccines don't kill people, and you believe they save lives... Then why on Earth do you throw out this line:

I'll take a shot at this.

Because it was all said together with the first line of the paragraph before that.

Paul said:

I think public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea.

So, he has in his head that parents need to be educated. But he needs to justify that line, why does there need to be such public awareness?

Because of the stories we all hear.

Larry J said...

Writ Small said...
Moments prior to Paul's statement that "parents own the children" he said this: "I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines."


It is a statistical fact that a very small percentage of people who take any given vaccine will have a bad reaction. It happens and it's no comfort that the percentage is small if it happens to your child. What parents have to do is weigh the odds of a bad reaction to the odds of a bad outcome if the child gets sick with the disease the vaccine could've prevented.

Jane the Actuary said...
Here's the issue:

every reasonable politician believes that vaccines save lives. But some politicians are less willing than others to say that vaccines should be mandatory, without exception.


There must always be exceptions because some children are allergic to the vaccine or have other medical conditions that prohibit them from taking the vaccine. For that small percentage of children, the vaccine will almost certainly do more harm than good. Parents should consult with their physician about which vaccines are appropriate for their children and when they should be taken. This isn't a good area for politicians to be dictating mandatory, no-exceptions rules. One size fits all works poorly for clothing, education, and medicine.

MayBee said...

This currently on ABC News website:

“Like all biological products, you can never say anything is 100 percent safe,” explained Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University. “But after millions of doses given around the world, I can tell you that adverse events are extremely rare.”

One person in six reports having a fever within a week of being given a measles shot, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 5 percent of people experience a mild rash and about 1 percent of people notice some swelling in their glands.

A severe allergy to the shots occurs less than once in a million doses, according to agency statistics. And autism, coma or brain damage as a result of the vaccine is so extraordinarily rare, Schaffner said, it is hard to pinpoint immunization as the true cause.

-----------------

Again. I am pro-vaccination. But it can be very scary, wondering if your baby will have the "extremely rare" terrible result.

AReasonableMan said...

traditionalguy said...
Rand really believes that he can slyly have it both ways on what is a yes or no issue of public health rules that require children to be vaccinated against epidemic killers. Those epidemic killers were defeated by use of the mandated vaccination tactic 70-50 years ago.


I suspect that after a prolonged period of being perceived as a contender Paul is starting to feel it slipping away and, despite having bravely spoken truth to power in the past, is reluctant to do the same to his modest number of supporters.

It is a shame, because Paul is the most interesting candidate on either side of the ideological divide and he has been pretty good at having it both ways up till now. But everyone wilts a little under the spotlight of a presidential race.

Fernandinande said...

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration says vaccines can cause encephalopathy and encephalitis.

CDC says you can get
"Deafness
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage"

Rare but possible.

eric said...

MayBee wrote;

Again. I am pro-vaccination. But it can be very scary, wondering if your baby will have the "extremely rare" terrible result.

Same here. Obviously vaccinations work.

But action is harder than inaction.

I have four children. If we were captured by ISIS and they told me, "Choose one child to be killed or we will kill all four." I don't know that I'd be able to do it.

Because there is a small part of me that hopes they don't mean it. That they really wouldn't do it.

I have a lot of sympathy for parents who don't want to vaccinate their children. Especially when it comes to non deadly diseases.

B said...

How did an outbreak of measles in liberal enclaves become a story about the GOP?

MayBee said...

From 2002 Washington Post:

"Since the provision's appearance, some Democrats and trial lawyers have charged that it represented a timely payback for the pharmaceutical industry's financial support in the midterm elections. "President Bush and conservative Republicans are going to give the pharmaceutical companies whatever they ask for," said Michael Williams, an Oregon lawyer who represents several families of autistic children and believes billions of dollars could be at stake. "

MisterBuddwing said...

Would you allow yourself to be vaccinated against a deadly disease if there was literally a one in a million chance the vaccine will kill you?

That was the dilemma posed back in 2002, when then-President GW Bush ordered the military to receive smallpox vaccines. And if my shaky memory serves, someone *did* die - the unlucky loser in that one in a million lottery.

(President Bush also received the vaccine, with no ill effects reported.)

jr565 said...

I didn't realize he was getting a Hep shot when talking about this. If he was wouldnt that kind of suggest he was ok with vaccinations?

Brando said...

"How did an outbreak of measles in liberal enclaves become a story about the GOP?"

Damn good question. The Left found an opening in the GOP armor as some more libertarian-leaning politicos (namely Christie and Paul) made defensible statements that people should vaccinate their children, but then made the mistake of continuing to discuss the issue pointing out (correctly, from a legal perspective) that ultimately parents have the power to decide to not vaccinate their children. And, the pile-on.

Hopefully whoever becomes the nominee is learning from this and stays on their toes.

jr565 said...

If it weren kid Id probably have an issue of having s kid get all his shots on one day. And might question why we should give a kid a hep a vaccine as a baby when they won't actually likely be exposed to hep a. And even if vaccines don't cause autism they have led to some issues (like all medical drugs and procedures). And so parents do have a right to exert some authority as to how their kids are to be treated.
Basically you have to weigh the damage if the vaccinations versus the damage of the potential disease you might get or give
If you aren't vaccinated. It's not as cut and dried as "vaccinations are necessary you must vaccinate" for all diseases? If a new vaccine comes out tomorrow we should be forced to give it to out kids?

Perfectly ok with a measles vaccination being mandatory and yet so havent had a flu shot. If
I was told it wasandated that I have one I might protest it.

Kieth Nissen said...

Has anyone noticed that the response to those who voice any, even the slightest reservations about vaccines are attacked in roughly the same way climate skeptics are attacked? there are, apparently, some things that do not need thinking about and must not be thought or, perish the thought, spoken about lest the great lumpenproletariat lose their way.

Sigivald said...

"I said I’ve heard of people who’ve had vaccines and they see a temporal association and they believe that.”

I'm willing to believe that he meant to say that; he is, after all, a physician.

But he didn't actually say it like that, which is a shame.

Having 'heard of cases' is not a clear statement that you believe the cases in question to be mere post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is what the science supports and what the clarification upholds.

Achilles said...

You can wax eloquent about how as many people should be vaccinated as possible. But if you say anything about parental choice or that you oppose government mandates? All of the little tyrants are out in force. Or should we call you sheeple?

jr565 said...

Those going after the anti vacciners are being a bit bullying. THey are using the fact that Jenny Mccarthy was wrong about vaccines causing her kids autism to suggest that vaccines have no problems.

jr565 said...

For example there are links between vaccines and encephalitis, seizures, comas and brain damage.
SO Paul saying vaccines cause mental disorders doesn't even have to mean he is saying they cause autism specificailly. But what are the rates? Its not like 1 in 10 shots gives people brain damage. It, like all medicine has inherent risks for a small population.
But parents are responsible for their kids, so may have an issue with being forced to do give their kid a shot that might give them encephalitis.

Titus said...

Rand Paul, whom I like, and made a stupid comment, should not show his arms-he looks incredibly weak with those girl arms.

Gabriel said...

The most dangerous thing any normal parent does with their kids is drive them around.

Vaccines are many orders of magnitude less dangerous to your child than strapping them into the car and going somewhere with them.

F'ing innumeracy, how does it work?

n.n said...

Vaccines are part of a risk management protocol. They are not benign and are selectively administered based on age, health, gender, orientation, exposure, etc.

Strange, but the big news is still premeditated murder (i.e. pro-choice) of over one million wholly innocent, uniquely vulnerable human lives annually, and the "stork" fairytale that justifies the unprecedented collateral damage.

Well, now that we are scientific, does this mean we can construct nuclear power plants to produce "green" energy? There are over 400 civil reactors operating worldwide. France uses them to produce over 70% of their electricity; America around 20%.

Gabriel said...

@Achilles: You can wax eloquent about how as many people should not dump their trash and sewage into their own front yards instead of having it properly disposed of. But if you say anything about parental choice or that you oppose government mandates? All of the little tyrants are out in force.

Fixed it for you.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and the things you do have measurable, specific adverse effects on other people, and this is a perfectly appropriate matter for law.

Revenant said...

I'm glad to hear Paul clarify what he meant. Poor phrasing plus a press hunting for "gotchas" is not a winning recipe for Republican politicians.

Bob Ellison said...

I saw a panel discussion FNC where they had their regular M.D., Marc Siegel (who consistently comes across as sensible and smart) and another doctor, some pediatric specialist, possibly a professor. Both agreed that everyone who is medically capable (doesn't have leukemia, for example) should get the MMR vaccine and the other standard ones.

The pediatric guy put it quite well at the end, saying something like "when my patients ask me whether it's safe to get my kids vaccinated, I tell them yes, vaccination is the best way to protect your children and their community."

He was addressing two points: "herd immunity" (a community good) and individual immunity (private to the kid getting the shot).

It seems as though only in the last two weeks or so has anyone been talking about herd immunity. I'm glad they are, but if you stress only that point, you risk idiots like Dr. Rand Paul talking about individual choices. The anti-vaccine movement will never die completely, and we've got to fight it with both points:

Get vaccinated, for yourself and for your community.

walter said...

Damn it, Ann..
I had almost rendered that pasty Clinton beach bonding image unseen.

Revenant said...

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose

Of course, in practice few people actually believe that. They tend to be more of the "your right to swing your fist requires licensing and may only be practiced under close supervision".

So many terrible government abuses are justified in the name of "protecting the children" -- war on drugs, anti-gun movement, etc. -- that reflexive hostility to new government mandates is understandable.

I do think that the measles vaccine is a clear case where a government mandate is called for, though. The benefits far outweigh the risks, and it is questionable whether anyone's rights are actually being violated (do parents really have a natural right to deny children medical care?)

Anthony said...

Blogger Kieth Nissen said...
Has anyone noticed that the response to those who voice any, even the slightest reservations about vaccines are attacked in roughly the same way climate skeptics are attacked?


Well, only the conservative/Republican ones at any rate.

Big Mike said...

Welcome to the real world, Rand.

Michael K said...

"Might want to remember that, Michael K."

Rand Paul has three strikes in my estimation. I think his chances of being the nominee are 0.000000001.

I'm talking about primaries. Strike one: attacking Cheney with DNC talking points that are factually untrue.

Strike Two: a number of isolationist statements never retracted.

Strike Three: the stupid vaccine comments.

Michael K said...

"Would you allow yourself to be vaccinated against a deadly disease if there was literally a one in a million chance the vaccine will kill you?"

There was a serious matter with the early rabies vaccine which was the first. In 1885, the first child e]was given the new vaccine. It was not until 1915 that the efficacy was proven. Of 6,000 people bitten by rabid animals, 0.6% died after being immunized. Of those not immunized, 16% died. Rabies vaccine is a much more dangerous process that requires repeated injections.

The phony "elites" that are opposed to immunization are becoming a Darwinian experiment.

There are vaccines that are less important, like HPV which got Perry into trouble with his Texas voters.

MMR is not one of them. It is second only to polio in importance.

My kids got both the polio vaccines, the Salk and the Sabin. So did all my family. There were a significant number of problems with both vaccines early on.

Big Mike said...

What I wish Rand had said -- and for all I know he actually said it! -- is that, speaking as a doctor, there are classes of children who cannot be vaccinated against measles because of medical conditions or allergies. The risk of illness and death for these children goes up as the number of vaccinated children around them goes down.

Gabriel said...

@Revenant:I do think that the measles vaccine is a clear case where a government mandate is called for, though. The benefits far outweigh the risks, and it is questionable whether anyone's rights are actually being violated.

I would make the case differently.

a) "the benefits far outweigh the risks" Why does the government get to do your risk/benefit calculation for you?

b) "it is questionable whether anyone's rights are actually being violated" That's exactly the point at issue, isn't it? If it's questionable why do we err on the side of government coercion?

This is how I would make the case.

a) For the people who are responsible and get the vaccines, they cannot be completely certain they have the immunity the vaccine is intended to confer. Similarly, people who don't dump trash and sewage into their front yards can still get plague or cholera or whatever from someone else's trash and sewage.

b) For the people who choose not to get the vaccine, if they infect someone else there is no way to prove it was their specific germs that did it. Similarly, if there is a group of people in an area dumping trash and sewage into their own front yards, and some kind of outbreak occurs, you can't pin it on specifc people.

c) People who aren't vaccinating are reaping some of the benefits of vaccination without assuming all of the risks.

Because of these three elements, neither torts nor markets can match the benefits with the vaccinated and the costs with the unvaccinated. Consequently, government action is least bad alternative.

Larry J said...

MisterBuddwing said...
Would you allow yourself to be vaccinated against a deadly disease if there was literally a one in a million chance the vaccine will kill you?


Yes, if there was a greater chance that I would be exposed to the disease and that if I contracted the disease, I would die or become severely ill. If you're talking about a disease that I had almost no chance of being exposed to (because it's confined to an area that I'll never visit), then no. In the case of measles, they claim the rate of serious reaction to the vaccine is about one in a million. The chances that someone who catches the measles becoming extremely ill or dies is much higher.

eric said...


Yes, if there was a greater chance that I would be exposed to the disease and that if I contracted the disease, I would die or become severely ill. If you're talking about a disease that I had almost no chance of being exposed to (because it's confined to an area that I'll never visit), then no. In the case of measles, they claim the rate of serious reaction to the vaccine is about one in a million. The chances that someone who catches the measles becoming extremely ill or dies is much higher.


I'm pretty sure you're wrong on the math here.

There are two parts to the math.

First, you're talking about everyone who receives the vaccination and then you're not just talking about death, you're talking about serious injury, which raises it from 1 in a million.

Second, you're talking about everyone who gets the measles, rather than everyone in the population. In other words, your math assumes you get the measles, but to be more correct, you have to factor in the chance that you don't even get the disease.

For example, last year, just over 600 people out of about 350 million, got the measles. Of those, zero died.

That's in the USofA. Which is another calculation. If you're doing your calculation in the Philippines, you'll need to rework the numbers.

But your math makes a lot of sense as to why so many people are pissed off at those who choose not to vaccinate. Because simple math means simple answers. Why even think about it? The government has promised you it's safe, don't you trust your government? Just do it. Don't argue.

Revenant said...

Why does the government get to do your risk/benefit calculation for you?

It isn't. I'm doing the risk/benefit calculation, and based on that saying "I am fine with the government enforcing this". That's what people should do whenever the government tries to do anything, whether it is "mandate vaccines" or "maintain a police force" or "wage a war".

"it is questionable whether anyone's rights are actually being violated" That's exactly the point at issue, isn't it? If it's questionable why do we err on the side of government coercion?

Let me clarify: if nobody's rights are violated it is fine for the government to do it. *If* people's rights are violated, it *still* might be fine for the government to do it. Basically everything the government does violates somebody's rights, after all. Government can only be justified on a utilitarian basis.

Say parents have a right to deny medical care to their children. Well, do they have a right to expose other people's children to measles? No? Ok, are they agreeing to confine their children to a plastic bubble until age 18? No? Ok, so now we're balancing the right to swing a fist vs. other peoples' right not to be punched, so to speak.


Revenant said...

Strike Two: a number of isolationist statements never retracted.

Yet another person who doesn't know what the word "isolationist" means.

EMD said...

Hopefully whoever becomes the nominee is learning from this and stays on their toes.

Ha ha ha. They'll step in it no matter what, because "it" always changes and only Republicans are susceptible to "it"

EMD said...

I wish people could just fucking talk without parsing every word like they're either the devil incarnate or the second coming.

We bemoan when politicos can't "be themselves" and require "handlers" but is there any surprise that's the status quo when every word is overexamined?

Michael K said...

"Yet another person who doesn't know what the word "isolationist" means."

I'm sure you can explain it to poor ignorant me.

Anyway here is a list of topics you could use to educate me.

machine said...

on the wrong side of science...again!

Revenant said...

I'm sure you can explain it to poor ignorant me.

Sure, I'll be happy to. An isolationist is a person who believes his country should avoid diplomatic, economic, and military involvement with other countries. This describes exactly zero current office holders from either party. Rand Paul's foreign policy is one what puts American national interests ahead of those of other countries, favoring engagement when it serves our national interests and disengagement when it doesn't. This is the foreign policy followed by almost every country in the world except America. The term for it is "patriotic" not "isolationist".

There, that wasn't so hard.

By the way, using The New Republic to attack Paul after criticizing him for using "DNC talking points" to attack Cheney shows a lack of self-awareness on your part. I did peruse the article, however, and was struck by its complete lack of examples of supposedly isolationist policies.

The closest it came was his opposition to sending foreign aid to Israel and other countries. Anyone who thinks it is "isolationist" to be against borrowing money from the Chinese just to give it away to other countries is a half-wit.

jr565 said...

Another problem with vaccines is
That the premise might be faulty. Supposedly these vaccines are for life. Only more and more
People
Are shaping they lose immunity after a few years and have to he the shots
Again. People therefore
May be walking around thinking they are free of diseases but carrying it. M mon was risk that she lost her immunity to measles
Last
Time she went to
The doctor and I was told I had noon unity at all for
Hep A. And we both had been immunized for those dies sea in the past. If being immune from diseases requires 90% of the population to be immune but a smaller percentage actually are, are we
Getting the benefits we think we are

Michael K said...

"There, that wasn't so hard."

Nope. Not when you close your eyes. Nothing to see here.

You don't like sources that lean left, I guess. They do get a few things right, though.

Paul’s evolving views have been on display most recently amid the national debate over how to confront the brutal Islamic State.

In June, when the militants had already seized large swaths of Iraq, Paul seemed skeptical about the value of targeting them with U.S. airstrikes.

“I’m not so sure where the clear-cut American interest is,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He noted that the Iraqi military had folded in the face of the group’s attacks: Why should the U.S. military have to intervene?

“What’s going on now, I don’t blame on President Obama. Has he really got the solution?” Paul said. “Maybe there is no solution.”


OK. Maybe not. At least not now when we left the Iraqis to their own devices. I assume you supported Obama's withdrawal.

You sound a bit like "Reason" and I don't think they are realistic.

" favoring engagement when it serves our national interests and disengagement when it doesn't. This is the foreign policy followed by almost every country in the world except America. The term for it is "patriotic" not "isolationist"."

No, the policy is called "fantasy" as you can't go back and change your mind when your policy turned to crap. You sound like Will Rogers on the stock market.

" The way to make money is to buy low and sell high. If it doesn't go up, don't buy."

Great strategy.

traditionalguy said...

The story of the field trials of Jonas Salk's killed-live polio virus trials in 1954 was a wonder to behold, but a half million children participated at their schools with no guarantees of not being infected...and IT WORKED. That was the single most importand event that happened in the Twentieth Century. (Well, except for June 4, 1942 near Midway)

Revenant said...

You don't like sources that lean left, I guess. They do get a few things right, though.

Unless you're speaking to a mirror, that's a silly thing to say. You're the one whining about people quoting Democrats. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and observing that your links don't cite any actual isolationism.

OK. Maybe not. At least not now when we left the Iraqis to their own devices.

And here we see the core of the problem that still faces the war-happy branch of the GOP: a chronic inability to base policy on what is instead of what we wish could be.

Was the invasion of Iraq a huge mistake on our part? Yes. It we replaced an Iranian enemy with a would-be Iranian ally, at the cost of around a trillion dollars.

Was leaving when the Iraqis asked us to a mistake? Maybe, although since the new Iraqi government is pro-Iranian it is unclear that we'd benefit from a strong government in that country either.

Was it a mistake to back the anti-Assad rebels when we knew a lot of them were terrorists and radical Muslims? Probably.

So now the people who loudly argued in favor of mistakes 1 and 3 are demanding that we launch another war against an enemy who hasn't managed to kill ANY Americans who didn't specifically fly to the region unescorted.

And when people suggest that this may be a mistake, and that we should identify a clear American interest AND a means by which military action will make things better, those people are called "isolationists".

But the thing is: regardless of whether you're happy those things happened, they did happen. So rather than screaming about how awful ISIS is an leaping into war with them, you need to identify a clear American interest and a means by which warfare will achieve it.

And in case you're wondering, "they might, maybe, if they win the war and then we do nothing for a long time and then other stuff happens, be able to launch a terrorist attack against the USA" is not an example of "an American interest". That is just a boneheaded inability to recognize that we live in a world with hundreds of millions of people who passionately want us dead, and bombing 50,000 of them will not change that.

No, the policy is called "fantasy" as you can't go back and change your mind when your policy turned to crap.

Changing a policy because it doesn't work is realistic. Sticking to a policy after it turns to shit -- for example, "endless war in the Middle East" -- is irrational.

Michael K said...

" I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy and observing that your links don't cite any actual isolationism."

No, you are showing yourself to be a Ron Paul nut.

Gooday, sir !

Revenant said...

No, you are showing yourself to be a Ron Paul nut.

No, I'm a Rand Paul nut. :)

So basically your entire argument consisted of ad hominems and quotes from Democrats? This is like talking to Rhythmn and Balls.

furious_a said...

There must always be exceptions because some children are allergic to the vaccine or have other medical conditions that prohibit them from taking the vaccine. For that small percentage of children, the vaccine will almost certainly do more harm than good.

Which "herd immunity" allows, as long as a critical mass of vaccine-tolerant people get vaccinated.

Speaking of which, look at the R-noughts of the diseases against which the Prius-driving Whole Foodies refuse to vaccinate their children.

RecChief said...

you forgot to get your Drudge on and include a picture of a shirtless Putin, riding a horse

richard mcenroe said...

traditionaguy -- hey, his daddy managed it with earmarks, how hard can it be to pull off with a few sick kids?

mikee said...

Hillary consented to Bill's affairs - she knew about and had absolute proof of them from at least his Presidential candidacy, including publicly aired tapes of Bill and Gennifer Flowers agreeing to lie about their multi-year affair. Hillary was an enabler of Bill's rapes, his sexual assaults, his harrassments, his public lies.

Let her wear her behavior proudly, for she cannot deny it.

Let everyone see her wear it, like the Emperor in his new clothes.

And let them vote for her and her vile behavior if they dare. I will revile them as I revile her.

SOJO said...

Clinton really needed to put a tshirt on.

eric said...

Not that anyone will see this, as these threads tend to be abandoned (At least, I forget about them as they move down the page) as they get older.

Michael K, if you see this, what do you think of the information from this website?

I don't know the first thing about that site, but the links they provide appear legit.

Terry said...

Correlation does not equal causation, Eric.
They didn't invent vaccines because there was no need for them.

Terry said...

"Rand Paul's foreign policy is one what puts American national interests ahead of those of other countries"
Not Mexico's foreign policy, Revenant.

eric said...

Terry, what's you're point?

We all know correlation does not equal causation.

But that's how all studies are done. Endlessly. Its like saying, yeah, 90% of the sick kids are not vaccinated and 10% are vaccinated, but correlation doesn't equal causation.


Is that really you're only response?

Rusty said...

Revenant said...
I'm sure you can explain it to poor ignorant me.

Sure, I'll be happy to. An isolationist is a person who believes his country should avoid diplomatic, economic, and military involvement with other countries. This describes exactly zero current office holders from either party. Rand Paul's foreign policy is one what puts American national interests ahead of those of other countries, favoring engagement when it serves our national interests and disengagement when it doesn't. This is the foreign policy followed by almost every country in the world except America. The term for it is "patriotic" not "isolationist".


So. Just a littoral navy, then?

n.n said...

eric:

re: vaccinated vs unvaccinated health

It may reflect a difference between acquired and induced immunity. Not to mention that a vaccine is more than merely a serum of antigens. These are some of the reasons why administration of vaccines is generally selective.

Also, so-called "herd immunity" is primarily meaningful with established pathogens and vectors. There is some overlap, but alien strains (e.g. mutation), and novel paths (e.g. migration/immigration), ensure that an immunized herd is still vulnerable.

Scott said...

Somewhat off-topic, but I do feel the need to comment on something I have seen here.

I drive a Prius, shop regularly at Whole Foods, and listen to NPR on many of my daily commutes. I am also a black-hearted conservative whose only common features with most on the left is that we are all based upon carbon.

I bought the damn car because I got a great deal, and am a gadget hound FFK! If it ran on the rendered corpses of baby seals I would still have bought it. As for Whole Foods, I like their meat selection and they have a good collection of sauces that won't disturb my diabetes too much. NPR I less excuse for, but it is good white noise (both literally and figuratively, now that I think of it....)

There, got that off my chest...