Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 9:01:58 GMT -5
concept is better left for the unpublished space. that's how and why we have antivaxxers. as far as the posturing, give it a rest. you sound like a schoolyard bully, poking for a fight. You might want to check reply #16 in regards to who started the posturing and sounding like a schoolyard bully poking for a fight. Return arguments are never used when not needed. I remember a similar post from you, that was not following the COC. My posts here follow the COC. You are a moderator, be one, you shouldn't be taking sides. Regardless who wins the current round, or if you like them or not. It takes two to have a disagreement.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,489
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 24, 2020 9:42:13 GMT -5
we have anti-vaxxers because of the availability of non-peer reviewed "concepts" that have never been proven. that they chose to believe it is a choice, yes. but if it wasn't widely available for them to drink the Kool-Aid, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be willfully ignorant.
as far as posting, I wasn't posting as a moderator. I didn't use the mod tag. I'm allowed to post as a poster, as I have been. I'm allowed, as anyone else is, to post my thoughts. and my thoughts are that you are posturing, and it makes you look like an ass. if you're comfortable with that, then I guess I've said my piece.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 11:09:47 GMT -5
we have anti-vaxxers because of the availability of non-peer reviewed "concepts" that have never been proven. that they chose to believe it is a choice, yes. but if it wasn't widely available for them to drink the Kool-Aid, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be willfully ignorant. as far as posting, I wasn't posting as a moderator. I didn't use the mod tag. I'm allowed to post as a poster, as I have been. I'm allowed, as anyone else is, to post my thoughts. and my thoughts are that you are posturing, and it makes you look like an ass. if you're comfortable with that, then I guess I've said my piece. There are plenty of anti-vaxxers right here where I live in the bible belt, in fact an overabundance. They are quite vocal about it, yet not one of them has ever mentioned non-peer reviewed papers. Nor has any media publication referred to that also. If you have a link to one that is aimed at the general public and not a doctors advisory site, (because I don't count those as the general public doesn't understand them), I would be happy to read it. It's just a guess on my part, but just going by the general overall response, it's fear of side effects that worries them. They just don't want to introduce something into their bodies. Statistically that's an unfounded fear, as the disease is more of a threat than the vaccine that has been extensively tested. That's where my choice answer comes in, as in it's their choice to not vaccinate. Those who do not vaccinate are only a threat to others that do not vaccinate in most situations, those like minded people sharing a risk so to speak, there are special situations of course. I agree, yes I was posting as an ass in response. It what was required for where the conversation was going. He's sarcastic and belittles me, I do the same, we have our thing. We tear into each other quickly, so no long drawn out arguments occur. Doesn't really happen very often, but it will happen again as our professions intersect. Especially between Bio-weapons and novel virus similarities.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 24, 2020 12:32:11 GMT -5
we have anti-vaxxers because of the availability of non-peer reviewed "concepts" that have never been proven. that they chose to believe it is a choice, yes. but if it wasn't widely available for them to drink the Kool-Aid, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to be willfully ignorant. as far as posting, I wasn't posting as a moderator. I didn't use the mod tag. I'm allowed to post as a poster, as I have been. I'm allowed, as anyone else is, to post my thoughts. and my thoughts are that you are posturing, and it makes you look like an ass. if you're comfortable with that, then I guess I've said my piece. There are plenty of anti-vaxxers right here where I live in the bible belt, in fact an overabundance. They are quite vocal about it, yet not one of them has ever mentioned non-peer reviewed papers. Nor has any media publication referred to that also. If you have a link to one that is aimed at the general public and not a doctors advisory site, (because I don't count those as the general public doesn't understand them), I would be happy to read it. It's just a guess on my part, but just going by the general overall response, it's fear of side effects that worries them. They just don't want to introduce something into their bodies. Statistically that's an unfounded fear, as the disease is more of a threat than the vaccine that has been extensively tested. That's where my choice answer comes in, as in it's their choice to not vaccinate. Those who do not vaccinate are only a threat to others that do not vaccinate in most situations, those like minded people sharing a risk so to speak, there are special situations of course. I agree, yes I was posting as an ass in response. It what was required for where the conversation was going. He's sarcastic and belittles me, I do the same, we have our thing. We tear into each other quickly, so no long drawn out arguments occur. Doesn't really happen very often, but it will happen again as our professions intersect. Especially between Bio-weapons and novel virus similarities. No, they get their information from other, non peer reviewed crap that is on the internet. Just because scientists write journal articles like this, it does not mean they have any more merits than any other site. All it means is that scientists who know how to read scientific literature can blow it off as having no merit. However, the logical conclusion that someone else would read from this article is that it is relevant. Antibodies cross react, this is not unusual. It was a battle we always fought with polyclonal antibodies. When we went looking for specific reactions, monoclonal antibodies were preferred. When I was publishing research papers, most of my crap went into the trash can.....not the internet. Just because I thought it had merit didn’t mean it did and looking back, I would have gotten laughed out of any journal publication had I tried publishing it. Fortunately, I worked with 2 men who did the peer review for journals and could tell me what was wrong. Later, they taught me what they knew. At the end of my career, I was reviewing abstracts for research meetings. There was a lot of crap produced out there. Now all the crap winds up online rather than the trash can. Because too many people can’t see the holes in the literature and it was written by scientists, it must be good. I am really happy my bad articles never made it past a couple sets of eyes, much better for MY reputation....and ego.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,365
Member is Online
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Sept 24, 2020 12:49:27 GMT -5
People who refuse to vaccinate are a risk to people other than anti-vaxxers. There are people who, for medical reasons, cannot receive vaccines, patients on chemotherapy and immunosuppressant medications, whose immune systems is compromised, and those who, despite being vaccinated, have not developed adequate immunity. And given the advances in medicine, the population who is vulnerable continues to increase. Anti-vaxxers are a significant risk to public health
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 14:00:32 GMT -5
There are plenty of anti-vaxxers right here where I live in the bible belt, in fact an overabundance. They are quite vocal about it, yet not one of them has ever mentioned non-peer reviewed papers. Nor has any media publication referred to that also. If you have a link to one that is aimed at the general public and not a doctors advisory site, (because I don't count those as the general public doesn't understand them), I would be happy to read it. It's just a guess on my part, but just going by the general overall response, it's fear of side effects that worries them. They just don't want to introduce something into their bodies. Statistically that's an unfounded fear, as the disease is more of a threat than the vaccine that has been extensively tested. That's where my choice answer comes in, as in it's their choice to not vaccinate. Those who do not vaccinate are only a threat to others that do not vaccinate in most situations, those like minded people sharing a risk so to speak, there are special situations of course. I agree, yes I was posting as an ass in response. It what was required for where the conversation was going. He's sarcastic and belittles me, I do the same, we have our thing. We tear into each other quickly, so no long drawn out arguments occur. Doesn't really happen very often, but it will happen again as our professions intersect. Especially between Bio-weapons and novel virus similarities. No, they get their information from other, non peer reviewed crap that is on the internet. Just because scientists write journal articles like this, it does not mean they have any more merits than any other site. All it means is that scientists who know how to read scientific literature can blow it off as having no merit. However, the logical conclusion that someone else would read from this article is that it is relevant. Antibodies cross react, this is not unusual. It was a battle we always fought with polyclonal antibodies. When we went looking for specific reactions, monoclonal antibodies were preferred. When I was publishing research papers, most of my crap went into the trash can.....not the internet. Just because I thought it had merit didn’t mean it did and looking back, I would have gotten laughed out of any journal publication had I tried publishing it. Fortunately, I worked with 2 men who did the peer review for journals and could tell me what was wrong. Later, they taught me what they knew. At the end of my career, I was reviewing abstracts for research meetings. There was a lot of crap produced out there. Now all the crap winds up online rather than the trash can. Because too many people can’t see the holes in the literature and it was written by scientists, it must be good. I am really happy my bad articles never made it past a couple sets of eyes, much better for MY reputation....and ego.Really ? (first bolded) There we go. (second bolded)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 14:02:44 GMT -5
People who refuse to vaccinate are a risk to people other than anti-vaxxers. There are people who, for medical reasons, cannot receive vaccines, patients on chemotherapy and immunosuppressant medications, whose immune systems is compromised, and those who, despite being vaccinated, have not developed adequate immunity. And given the advances in medicine, the population who is vulnerable continues to increase. Anti-vaxxers are a significant risk to public health That's the reason for the printed words at the end of line 9 in post #32 "there are special situations of course." However, don't let that stop the bloviating, stating of the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Sept 24, 2020 14:05:51 GMT -5
No, they get their information from other, non peer reviewed crap that is on the internet. Just because scientists write journal articles like this, it does not mean they have any more merits than any other site. All it means is that scientists who know how to read scientific literature can blow it off as having no merit. However, the logical conclusion that someone else would read from this article is that it is relevant. Antibodies cross react, this is not unusual. It was a battle we always fought with polyclonal antibodies. When we went looking for specific reactions, monoclonal antibodies were preferred. When I was publishing research papers, most of my crap went into the trash can.....not the internet. Just because I thought it had merit didn’t mean it did and looking back, I would have gotten laughed out of any journal publication had I tried publishing it. Fortunately, I worked with 2 men who did the peer review for journals and could tell me what was wrong. Later, they taught me what they knew. At the end of my career, I was reviewing abstracts for research meetings. There was a lot of crap produced out there. Now all the crap winds up online rather than the trash can. Because too many people can’t see the holes in the literature and it was written by scientists, it must be good. I am really happy my bad articles never made it past a couple sets of eyes, much better for MY reputation....and ego.Really ? (first bolded) There we go. (second bolded) I"m guessing you have never done something professionally that was shoddy. Unfortunately, I have. I submitted an abstract to a research meeting that I was perfectly capable of defending. I gave a good presentation, but because in the process of moving my lab, I did not prepare for the questions afterwards as well as I should have and wound up getting raked over the coals. Yes, it did have an impact upon my reputation and bruised my ego. This was MY goof. I knew I had not prepared well enough for this meeting, I thought I could 'wing' it and I screwed up. It was the last time I ever did anything like this again. So yes. reputation and ego.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 14:15:17 GMT -5
Really ? (first bolded) There we go. (second bolded) I"m guessing you have never done something professionally that was shoddy. Unfortunately, I have. I submitted an abstract to a research meeting that I was perfectly capable of defending. I gave a good presentation, but because in the process of moving my lab, I did not prepare for the questions afterwards as well as I should have and wound up getting raked over the coals. Yes, it did have an impact upon my reputation and bruised my ego. This was MY goof. I knew I had not prepared well enough for this meeting, I thought I could 'wing' it and I screwed up. It was the last time I ever did anything like this again. So yes. reputation and ego. More often than not, so your guess would be wrong. Weapons design/research/production is a huge mish mash of unintended screwup. It's called research because we don't know what's going to result. That's why I cruise through all types of others thought process, it triggers possible ideas. I don't have much, if any, ego.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 16:55:09 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2020 18:12:20 GMT -5
why are we concerning ourselves with an exposure that has about 1/7000th that of COVID19? Good question. Why are you concerned with exposure numbers on this ? Dengue exposure is close to a statistical zero in the U.S. this would imply that I have no idea why you are interested in this in the context of a COVID19 pandemic.
that implication is correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 19:17:57 GMT -5
Good question. Why are you concerned with exposure numbers on this ? Dengue exposure is close to a statistical zero in the U.S. this would imply that I have no idea why you are interested in this in the context of a COVID19 pandemic.
that implication is correct.
With some time spent on bio-weapon research, I get ideas from what others speculate. I thought I might be able to start a conversation along those lines. What i get is; billisonboard Distinguished Associate Joined: Dec 20, 2010 Because hickory nuts and acorns are starting to ripen? I grade this thread 'mostly fail'. The depth just wasn't here.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 24, 2020 19:47:47 GMT -5
this would imply that I have no idea why you are interested in this in the context of a COVID19 pandemic.
that implication is correct.
With some time spent on bio-weapon research, I get ideas from what others speculate. I thought I might be able to start a conversation along those lines. What i get is; billisonboard Distinguished Associate Joined: Dec 20, 2010 Because hickory nuts and acorns are starting to ripen? I grade this thread 'mostly fail'. The depth just wasn't here. After reviewing this thread, starting with the title, I think the failure of the discussion to follow "along those lines" is that you never introduced it as what you wanted to discuss. Your OP referenced a study, so I did basic research on it. I found it had no real impact on COVID-19 (in this country), the topic you suggested with your thread title. I am guilty of making light of the thread after that. I do feel for you in regards to lack of depth. I will at times attempt to start a political science discussion and they quickly become the same old same old political bashing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 24, 2020 20:36:39 GMT -5
speaking personally, i genuinely didn't understand.
i still don't. but that's ok. i don't have to understand. i will just bow out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 10:16:42 GMT -5
With some time spent on bio-weapon research, I get ideas from what others speculate. I thought I might be able to start a conversation along those lines. What i get is; billisonboard Distinguished Associate Joined: Dec 20, 2010 Because hickory nuts and acorns are starting to ripen? I grade this thread 'mostly fail'. The depth just wasn't here. After reviewing this thread, starting with the title, I think the failure of the discussion to follow "along those lines" is that you never introduced it as what you wanted to discuss. Your OP referenced a study, so I did basic research on it. I found it had no real impact on COVID-19 (in this country), the topic you suggested with your thread title. I am guilty of making light of the thread after that. I do feel for you in regards to lack of depth. I will at times attempt to start a political science discussion and they quickly become the same old same old political bashing. You were right to make light of it, ill executed at best. I laughed when I read your post.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 25, 2020 10:49:17 GMT -5
After reviewing this thread, starting with the title, I think the failure of the discussion to follow "along those lines" is that you never introduced it as what you wanted to discuss. Your OP referenced a study, so I did basic research on it. I found it had no real impact on COVID-19 (in this country), the topic you suggested with your thread title. I am guilty of making light of the thread after that. I do feel for you in regards to lack of depth. I will at times attempt to start a political science discussion and they quickly become the same old same old political bashing. You were right to make light of it, ill executed at best. I laughed when I read your post. I was thinking about a political governance(?) topic that is really bugging me. The current president announced he was sending $13b to Puerto Rico. He announced he was sending $200 each to 33 million Medicare recipients, spending over $6 billion. Question: How does a president have access to that amount of discretionary funds? Not how does President Trump ... but a president. Any chance it could go two posts without a Trump attack?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 25, 2020 10:52:45 GMT -5
concept is better left for the unpublished space. that's how and why we have antivaxxers. as far as the posturing, give it a rest. you sound like a schoolyard bully, poking for a fight. Conceptualizing is one way progress comes about, for anything. No, it's not why we have anti-vaxxers. We have anti-vaxxers due to choice, wright or wrong depending on your pedestal, it's still due to choice. Shouldn’t it be wright or rong?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 10:59:31 GMT -5
You were right to make light of it, ill executed at best. I laughed when I read your post. I was thinking about a political governance(?) topic that is really bugging me. The current president announced he was sending $13b to Puerto Rico. He announced he was sending $200 each to 33 million Medicare recipients, spending over $6 billion. Question: How does a president have access to that amount of discretionary funds? Not how does President Trump ... but a president. Any chance it could go two posts without a Trump attack? Without research I believe it's through FEMA, as PR is a territory of the US. Similar to federal aid supplied to California for the fires. Quick look found this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 25, 2020 11:27:15 GMT -5
I was thinking about a political governance(?) topic that is really bugging me. The current president announced he was sending $13b to Puerto Rico. He announced he was sending $200 each to 33 million Medicare recipients, spending over $6 billion. Question: How does a president have access to that amount of discretionary funds? Not how does President Trump ... but a president. Any chance it could go two posts without a Trump attack? Without research I believe it's through FEMA, as PR is a territory of the US. Similar to federal aid supplied to California for the fires. Quick look found this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_AgencyPerfect. I almost put something in along the lines of "not Puerto Rico" - "not Medicare" and obviously I should have. "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; ..." $20 billion in discretionary spending on these two items.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 13:25:47 GMT -5
Perfect. I almost put something in along the lines of "not Puerto Rico" - "not Medicare" and obviously I should have. "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; ..." $20 billion in discretionary spending on these two items. 2018 shows a budget of 18 billion for FEMA. Also this was found. Quote; The Budget Control Act imposes a restriction on regular funding for disaster relief through a three-part formula that was established in 2018; the limit for funding in fiscal year 2019 is just under $15 billion.
In practice, Congress and the president typically exempt disaster relief spending from budgetary restrictions after major disasters.
Since 2012, combined regular and emergency disaster relief funding has totaled just under $195 billion – substantially more than $15 billion a year.
Quote; The past two years have seen extraordinary need for emergency disaster assistance and related expenditures by the federal government, while Hurricane Michael will likely require tens of billions in new disaster relief in the next year. Disasters are by nature unpredictable, but sound budgetary practice requires attempting to estimate costs for potential contingencies such as storms. The Budget Control Act (BCA) has such a mechanism for attempting to budget for natural disasters—an adjustable cap based on past experience.
In practice, this mechanism is a largely pointless constraint, as Congress typically exempts any disaster spending above this cap from budgetary restrictions. This Insight presents the budgetary treatment of disaster relief and recent historical trends in federal disaster spending. www.americanactionforum.org/insight/federal-disaster-relief-and-the-federal-budget/ Also, HARRY S. TRUMAN 33rd President of the United States: 1945 ‐ 1953 Executive Order 10427—Administration of Disaster Relief January 16, 1953 By virtue of the authority vested in me by the act of September 30, 1950, entitle "An Act to authorize Federal assistance to States and local governments in major disaster, and for other Purposes", 64 Stat. 1109, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1355 ff.), hereinafter referred to as the act, and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:SECTION 1. The following-described authority and functions shall be exercised or performed by the Federal Civil Defense Administrator:
(a) The authority conferred upon the President by section 3 of the act to direct Federal agencies to provide assistance in major disasters.
(b) The authority conferred upon the President by section 5 (a) of the act to coordinate the activities of Federal agencies in providing disaster assistance, and to direct any Federal agency to utilize its available personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and other resources, in accordance with the authority contained in the act. More at the link. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-10427-administration-disaster-relief
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,362
|
Post by Tiny on Sept 25, 2020 13:54:07 GMT -5
I don't have much, if any, ego. I almost snorked the ice tea I was drinking out my nose... lol lol lol lol lol I can't breathe!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL ok, ok, I can breathe again... snicker, lol lol LOL LOL LOL ok, I can't breathe! haa haa haaa. OK, ok.. breathing, again... ok. I"m ok. snork... heee hee hee... Jeez, how about a little warning before you drop something that funny??
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 25, 2020 17:07:11 GMT -5
Clearly there needs to be discretionary funds in the US budget for the President to use for emergency situations. But looking at a couple of recent examples - Should this include $13 billion for assistance three years after a disaster? Should $6.6 billion be available for issuing $200 to every Medicare recipient to assist in their out of pocket drug expenses? Or should such expenditures require specific Congressional appropriations?
I think there needs to be a reduction in discretionary funds available to the President. That would require he (or she some day) to gain Congressional approval for such expenditures.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 21:31:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 19:35:18 GMT -5
Clearly there needs to be discretionary funds in the US budget for the President to use for emergency situations. But looking at a couple of recent examples - Should this include $13 billion for assistance three years after a disaster? Should $6.6 billion be available for issuing $200 to every Medicare recipient to assist in their out of pocket drug expenses? Or should such expenditures require specific Congressional appropriations? I think there needs to be a reduction in discretionary funds available to the President. That would require he (or she some day) to gain Congressional approval for such expenditures. Pretty obvious he's using it to gain the vote from those who empathize with the plight of Puerto Rico. Congress would have to move to restrict the dispersal, the Budget Control Act has an adjustable cap for that reason From what I see, no one in Congress would touch that, after all the condemnation earlier. It was a winnable political move on his part. Although not a natural disaster, it was a similar political move achieved by President Obama with funding DACA. Kudos for him to be sharp enough to pull it off.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,431
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 25, 2020 19:57:25 GMT -5
Clearly there needs to be discretionary funds in the US budget for the President to use for emergency situations. But looking at a couple of recent examples - Should this include $13 billion for assistance three years after a disaster? Should $6.6 billion be available for issuing $200 to every Medicare recipient to assist in their out of pocket drug expenses? Or should such expenditures require specific Congressional appropriations? I think there needs to be a reduction in discretionary funds available to the President. That would require he (or she some day) to gain Congressional approval for such expenditures. Pretty obvious he's using it to gain the vote from those who empathize with the plight of Puerto Rico. Congress would have to move to restrict the dispersal, the Budget Control Act has an adjustable cap for that reason From what I see, no one in Congress would touch that, after all the condemnation earlier. It was a winnable political move on his part. Although not a natural disaster, it was a similar political move achieved by President Obama with funding DACA. Kudos for him to be sharp enough to pull it off. I guess. This is just one of those areas that my true conservative nature comes out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 29, 2020 11:37:13 GMT -5
There are plenty of anti-vaxxers right here where I live in the bible belt, in fact an overabundance. They are quite vocal about it, yet not one of them has ever mentioned non-peer reviewed papers. Nor has any media publication referred to that also. If you have a link to one that is aimed at the general public and not a doctors advisory site, (because I don't count those as the general public doesn't understand them), I would be happy to read it. It's just a guess on my part, but just going by the general overall response, it's fear of side effects that worries them. They just don't want to introduce something into their bodies. Statistically that's an unfounded fear, as the disease is more of a threat than the vaccine that has been extensively tested. That's where my choice answer comes in, as in it's their choice to not vaccinate. Those who do not vaccinate are only a threat to others that do not vaccinate in most situations, those like minded people sharing a risk so to speak, there are special situations of course. I agree, yes I was posting as an ass in response. It what was required for where the conversation was going. He's sarcastic and belittles me, I do the same, we have our thing. We tear into each other quickly, so no long drawn out arguments occur. Doesn't really happen very often, but it will happen again as our professions intersect. Especially between Bio-weapons and novel virus similarities. No, they get their information from other, non peer reviewed crap that is on the internet. Just because scientists write journal articles like this, it does not mean they have any more merits than any other site. All it means is that scientists who know how to read scientific literature can blow it off as having no merit. However, the logical conclusion that someone else would read from this article is that it is relevant. Antibodies cross react, this is not unusual. It was a battle we always fought with polyclonal antibodies. When we went looking for specific reactions, monoclonal antibodies were preferred. When I was publishing research papers, most of my crap went into the trash can.....not the internet. Just because I thought it had merit didn’t mean it did and looking back, I would have gotten laughed out of any journal publication had I tried publishing it. Fortunately, I worked with 2 men who did the peer review for journals and could tell me what was wrong. Later, they taught me what they knew. At the end of my career, I was reviewing abstracts for research meetings. There was a lot of crap produced out there. Now all the crap winds up online rather than the trash can. Because too many people can’t see the holes in the literature and it was written by scientists, it must be good. I am really happy my bad articles never made it past a couple sets of eyes, much better for MY reputation....and ego. the article that started it all was peer reviewed. it was a study of 12 children in the Lancet. the study was horribly flawed, should never been published, and has never been duplicated.
that study has done irreparable harm to the perception of vaccinations, and perhaps more broadly, the Lancet and science.
|
|