< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Rise of Ambiguity - Breakout Thread

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 July 2019 12:07
 
GAD - 07 July 2019 12:03 PM
icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

Jefe:

Great. I don’t dispute this.
So what is your motivation for questioning the schedules from a position of non-expertise?
Do you wish to reduce the profitability of the industry?

Edit: Projects in my workshop call.  I’ll be on and off throughout the day, but safety demands that I give my power-tools my full attention when operating them, so I will be spotty on responses until later in the evening.]

Hmmm - that sounds a bit like GAD talking wink

While I might not have said this explicitly I would have thought that my intentions were clear:

Our systems is rife with profiteering and our results are mediocre. The comparison of vax schedules is just one facet of the bigger system. As a possibly related point, this topic has become so charged and polarized that it seems no criticism of big pharma vaccinators can be raised without risk of being smeared. In this thread, you’ve been fairly civil, but this thread is the exception.

So what I want is a better, more affordable healthcare system. I’m not “anti-profit” as GAD (and now you?) suggest. But profiteering runs in opposition to affordable healthcare.

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by people the wrong people, all defined by you.

I would have thought you’d eventually grow out of your strawmanning phase, but I guess the rest of us are just stuck with it?

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 July 2019 12:18
 
icehorse - 07 July 2019 12:07 PM
GAD - 07 July 2019 12:03 PM
icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

Jefe:

Great. I don’t dispute this.
So what is your motivation for questioning the schedules from a position of non-expertise?
Do you wish to reduce the profitability of the industry?

Edit: Projects in my workshop call.  I’ll be on and off throughout the day, but safety demands that I give my power-tools my full attention when operating them, so I will be spotty on responses until later in the evening.]

Hmmm - that sounds a bit like GAD talking wink

While I might not have said this explicitly I would have thought that my intentions were clear:

Our systems is rife with profiteering and our results are mediocre. The comparison of vax schedules is just one facet of the bigger system. As a possibly related point, this topic has become so charged and polarized that it seems no criticism of big pharma vaccinators can be raised without risk of being smeared. In this thread, you’ve been fairly civil, but this thread is the exception.

So what I want is a better, more affordable healthcare system. I’m not “anti-profit” as GAD (and now you?) suggest. But profiteering runs in opposition to affordable healthcare.

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by the wrong people, all defined by you.

I would have thought you’d eventually grow out of your strawmanning phase, but I guess the rest of us are just stuck with it?

And I would have thought you would have stopped crying strawman as a cheap excuse for having nothing to say.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 July 2019 12:38
 

GAD:

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by people the wrong people, all defined by you.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s common to isolate a problem and document a goal to solve the problem, before you know how to solve it. With that in mind…

The problem I’m discussing is that the wealth and income disparities we’re seeing now are not sustainable. The goal I’d propose is to figure out the correct checks and balances so that successful people can make fantastic profits, but not at the risk of destabilizing the entire economy. (Notice that this refutes your claims that I think there are “wrong people” or that I know the “correct solution”.)

A possible starting point for a solution would be to look at Ike’s policies or Elizabeth’s Warren’s proposals. I’m sure neither is perfect, but they’re definitely better than what’s in place now.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 July 2019 12:59
 
icehorse - 07 July 2019 12:38 PM

GAD:

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by people the wrong people, all defined by you.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s common to isolate a problem and document a goal to solve the problem, before you know how to solve it. With that in mind…

The problem I’m discussing is that the wealth and income disparities we’re seeing now are not sustainable. The goal I’d propose is to figure out the correct checks and balances so that successful people can make fantastic profits, but not at the risk of destabilizing the entire economy. (Notice that this refutes your claims that I think there are “wrong people” or that I know the “correct solution”.)

A possible starting point for a solution would be to look at Ike’s policies or Elizabeth’s Warren’s proposals. I’m sure neither is perfect, but they’re definitely better than what’s in place now.

Nothing is destabilizing the entire economy, it is as strong as it has ever been. And of course you like Warren, she is a complete wacko loser but she hates them big companies like you do.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7081
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
07 July 2019 13:27
 
icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

Jefe:

Great. I don’t dispute this.
So what is your motivation for questioning the schedules from a position of non-expertise?
Do you wish to reduce the profitability of the industry?

Edit: Projects in my workshop call.  I’ll be on and off throughout the day, but safety demands that I give my power-tools my full attention when operating them, so I will be spotty on responses until later in the evening.]

Hmmm - that sounds a bit like GAD talking wink

I’m most definitely not GAD.  Just ask him.

icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

Our systems is rife with profiteering and our results are mediocre.

No arguments here.

icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

The comparison of vax schedules is just one facet of the bigger system.

The obvious follow up would be - is immunization one of the areas that contributes to this shortfall?
A question you seem to rush right past to your assumptions based on immunization numbers. (The correlation =/= causation fallacy.)
You still haven’t responded to the real and actual differences I highlighted above.

Further, recent trends in populations choosing to forego vaccination are demonstrating an up-swing in locally contracted diseases with a resultant upswing in severe complications and deaths.  Not to mention endangering those in the locales who are immuno-compromised by the inability to get vaccinated for various reasons.

icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

As a possibly related point, this topic has become so charged and polarized that it seems no criticism of big pharma vaccinators can be raised without risk of being smeared. In this thread, you’ve been fairly civil, but this thread is the exception.

Well, if you’re going to use fallacious modelling, your position re vaccines bears (and deserves) skepticism if not criticism.
If you are blindly questioning the efficacy (from a non-expert position) based merely on numbers and not on medical data or the actual different vaccines scheduled regionally, it would seem that your position is….under-considered.

icehorse - 07 July 2019 11:48 AM

So what I want is a better, more affordable healthcare system.

More vaccines should result in fewer contracted preventable diseases among the populace.  That directly translates to a healthier populace. It’s not like these vaccines are whimsically selected to generate the most profit.  They undergo rigorous testing and are adjusted by resultant data.  I should repeat that.  Before immunizations are scheduled publicly they undergo rigorous testing for efficacy and effect.

As I previously posted, these are the vaccinations scheduled in the US, but not in both France or Germany.
Which of these, to you as a lay-man, seems redundant? 
(The follow-up to which, if they are not redundant, should be that no real reduction is indicated by your position based solely on number of vaccinations scheduled…if you accept the data and incorporate it into your understanding of the question.)

DT Tetanus and diphtheria toxoid childrens’ dose 2, 4, 6, +15 months;  Yes
HepA_Pediatric Hepatitis A pediatric dose vaccine 12, +18 months;  Yes

Hib Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine 2, 4, 6, +12 months;  Yes

MenACWY-135 conj Meningococcal ACWY-135 conjugate vaccine >11, >16 years;  Yes and recommended at M2 or M9 (depending on vaccine) for infants with certain high-risk conditions

MenB   >10 years; (x3)  Yes recommended at +Y10 for those with certain high-risk conditions; recommended +Y16 to Y23 for those who desire immunity


***Back to my workshop.  I’m doing finishing work, so it’s a paint ‘n wait kinda day…

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 July 2019 15:33
 
GAD - 07 July 2019 12:59 PM
icehorse - 07 July 2019 12:38 PM

GAD:

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by people the wrong people, all defined by you.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s common to isolate a problem and document a goal to solve the problem, before you know how to solve it. With that in mind…

The problem I’m discussing is that the wealth and income disparities we’re seeing now are not sustainable. The goal I’d propose is to figure out the correct checks and balances so that successful people can make fantastic profits, but not at the risk of destabilizing the entire economy. (Notice that this refutes your claims that I think there are “wrong people” or that I know the “correct solution”.)

A possible starting point for a solution would be to look at Ike’s policies or Elizabeth’s Warren’s proposals. I’m sure neither is perfect, but they’re definitely better than what’s in place now.

Nothing is destabilizing the entire economy, it is as strong as it has ever been. And of course you like Warren, she is a complete wacko loser but she hates them big companies like you do.

From a recent article in the Washington post:

- Forty percent of American adults don’t have enough savings to cover a $400 emergency expense such as an unexpected medical bill, car problem or home repair.

- Forty-three percent of households can’t afford the basics to live, meaning they aren’t earning enough to cover the combined costs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cellphone, according to the United Way study. Researchers looked at the data by county to adjust for lower costs in some parts of the country.

- More than a quarter of adults skipped necessary medical care last year because they couldn’t afford it.

- Twenty-two percent of adults aren’t able to pay all of their bills every month.

- Only 38 percent of non-retired Americans think their retirement savings is “on track.”

economy stats - wa post

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 July 2019 15:48
 
icehorse - 07 July 2019 03:33 PM
GAD - 07 July 2019 12:59 PM
icehorse - 07 July 2019 12:38 PM

GAD:

LOL! You are “anti-profit”, why pretend you aren’t. Yes, yes, now the no I’m not, just to much and by people the wrong people, all defined by you.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s common to isolate a problem and document a goal to solve the problem, before you know how to solve it. With that in mind…

The problem I’m discussing is that the wealth and income disparities we’re seeing now are not sustainable. The goal I’d propose is to figure out the correct checks and balances so that successful people can make fantastic profits, but not at the risk of destabilizing the entire economy. (Notice that this refutes your claims that I think there are “wrong people” or that I know the “correct solution”.)

A possible starting point for a solution would be to look at Ike’s policies or Elizabeth’s Warren’s proposals. I’m sure neither is perfect, but they’re definitely better than what’s in place now.

Nothing is destabilizing the entire economy, it is as strong as it has ever been. And of course you like Warren, she is a complete wacko loser but she hates them big companies like you do.

From a recent article in the Washington post:

- Forty percent of American adults don’t have enough savings to cover a $400 emergency expense such as an unexpected medical bill, car problem or home repair.

- Forty-three percent of households can’t afford the basics to live, meaning they aren’t earning enough to cover the combined costs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cellphone, according to the United Way study. Researchers looked at the data by county to adjust for lower costs in some parts of the country.

- More than a quarter of adults skipped necessary medical care last year because they couldn’t afford it.

- Twenty-two percent of adults aren’t able to pay all of their bills every month.

- Only 38 percent of non-retired Americans think their retirement savings is “on track.”

economy stats - wa post

And? Let me tell you a dirty little secret, no one took anything from those people, they just aren’t great people, probably not even good people and their situation is their fault. 

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
07 July 2019 16:00
 

GAD:

And? Let me tell you a dirty little secret, no one took anything from those people, they just aren’t great people, probably not even good people and their situation is their fault.

And who do you think is going to buy the crap your billionaire buddies make?

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 July 2019 08:17
 

A way to reframe the question:

Icehorse, what is the specific outcome of vaccines that you are concerned about or have identified?

Speaking for myself (thought I think Jefe might agree), I’m willing to hear about an issue concerning vaccines.  If it turns out for example that a specific vaccine does have common and dangerous complications, or a specific combination of vaccines, then that should be cause for concern.  If companies are overcharging for vaccines, that is an issue that could be regulated (for example if companies are price-fixing).

Is there a specific concern, or was this just a comment about a general feeling of distrust?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 July 2019 08:24
 
Garret - 08 July 2019 08:17 AM

A way to reframe the question:

Icehorse, what is the specific outcome of vaccines that you are concerned about or have identified?

Speaking for myself (thought I think Jefe might agree), I’m willing to hear about an issue concerning vaccines.  If it turns out for example that a specific vaccine does have common and dangerous complications, or a specific combination of vaccines, then that should be cause for concern.  If companies are overcharging for vaccines, that is an issue that could be regulated (for example if companies are price-fixing).

Is there a specific concern, or was this just a comment about a general feeling of distrust?

My concern is that - some percentage of the time - people are injecting our kids for no reason other than profit.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  469
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
08 July 2019 08:28
 

Okay, what is the evidence for this?

How are you identifying when a vaccine is given for profit reasons and not medical reasons?

Note, if you cite the difference between the average number of vaccines in the US and Europe, I’m literally going to repeat the question, because just citing that number is not giving an answer to the above questions.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17531
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
08 July 2019 08:32
 
icehorse - 08 July 2019 08:24 AM
Garret - 08 July 2019 08:17 AM

A way to reframe the question:

Icehorse, what is the specific outcome of vaccines that you are concerned about or have identified?

Speaking for myself (thought I think Jefe might agree), I’m willing to hear about an issue concerning vaccines.  If it turns out for example that a specific vaccine does have common and dangerous complications, or a specific combination of vaccines, then that should be cause for concern.  If companies are overcharging for vaccines, that is an issue that could be regulated (for example if companies are price-fixing).

Is there a specific concern, or was this just a comment about a general feeling of distrust?

My concern is that - some percentage of the time - people are injecting our kids for no reason other than profit.

Where? Every kid, rich or poor, in the US gets shots, the only ones who don’t are the ones with wacko parents. And what shots do they get, the ones that stop the biggest most communicable diseases that have plagued society, saving millions of lives and billions of man years of suffering and costs to society. Yet all you can do is whine that you don’t like it that someone has more money then you.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7081
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
08 July 2019 09:02
 
icehorse - 08 July 2019 08:24 AM

My concern is that - some percentage of the time - people are injecting our kids for no reason other than profit.

Those ‘only for profit’ injections should be easily identifiable.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7618
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
08 July 2019 10:36
 
Jefe - 08 July 2019 09:02 AM
icehorse - 08 July 2019 08:24 AM

My concern is that - some percentage of the time - people are injecting our kids for no reason other than profit.

Those ‘only for profit’ injections should be easily identifiable.

And Garret,

The short answer is: “I don’t know”. I suspect that a good answer to these questions would take a team of experts.

But zooming out, there are two reasons I bring this up:

1 - Because my intuition is that there is some profiteering going on here.
2 - Because I find it interesting how this topic seems to be treated differently than most of the topics we discuss on this forum. For whatever reasons, critics of vax schedules are held to higher standards than critics of other policies. It could be as simple as pushback against full-blown anti-vaxxers, but I suspect there’s more to this “higher bar” phenomenon than that.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7081
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
08 July 2019 14:03
 
icehorse - 08 July 2019 10:36 AM
Jefe - 08 July 2019 09:02 AM
icehorse - 08 July 2019 08:24 AM

My concern is that - some percentage of the time - people are injecting our kids for no reason other than profit.

Those ‘only for profit’ injections should be easily identifiable.

And Garret,

The short answer is: “I don’t know”. I suspect that a good answer to these questions would take a team of experts.

So…. are you ignoring the data I provided?  About the actual diffetences in vaccines scheduled?

icehorse - 08 July 2019 10:36 AM

But zooming out, there are two reasons I bring this up:

1 - Because my intuition is that there is some profiteering going on here.

Show us some evidence…
Otherwise your ‘intuition’ is simply speculative at best.

icehorse - 08 July 2019 10:36 AM

2 - Because I find it interesting how this topic seems to be treated differently than most of the topics we discuss on this forum. For whatever reasons, critics of vax schedules are held to higher standards than critics of other policies. It could be as simple as pushback against full-blown anti-vaxxers, but I suspect there’s more to this “higher bar” phenomenon than that.

1) bullshit - I hold many topics to a high bar for evidence and critical examination….  not just your pet herrings
2) when people’s health and lives are at stake, a high bar seems like a requirement…
3) you are not ‘a critic of vax schedules’ but rather are using a fallacious measure to base your self-admittedly non-expert platform upon, and seem (i say seem intentionally here) to be immune to actual data or facts pertaining to those schedules…

If you were a critic of schedles, you’d know more about (the schedules and the vaccines within) them than simply how many are administered on different regions.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 >