Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excuse me. Are you giving advice on medicine now? I mean your political judgment is so good that you can get into medicine now?
I did not give out any medical advice, and would not on a message board. However, I'm very qualified to discuss vaccines as I worked in that area for 40+ years, retiring less than a year ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
So someone who would have argued these changes 15 years ago would have been deemed a wacko?
What changes? She's arguing something that's not happening. Vaccines are among the most tested of medications. Her comments about the FDA are nonsense. The FDA advisory committee for vaccines contains 17 members, all but two are academics with impeccable research and science credentials. The other two, admittedly are from Big Pharma, but they also have impressive scientific backgrounds. The two pharma representatives are also nonvoting members. They can provide input, but they have no say in final decisions made by the advisory committee.
Also, there have been actual antivaxers on the panel. Two representatives from the National Vaccine Information Center, a notorious antivaccine advocacy group, have served on the panel, Barbara Loe Fisher, and, more recently, Vicki Debold. Snopes defended Jill Stein
I did not give out any medical advice, and would not on a message board. However, I'm very qualified to discuss vaccines as I worked in that area for 40+ years, retiring less than a year ago.
What changes? She's arguing something that's not happening. Vaccines are among the most tested of medications. Her comments about the FDA are nonsense. The FDA advisory committee for vaccines contains 17 members, all but two are academics with impeccable research and science credentials. The other two, admittedly are from Big Pharma, but they also have impressive scientific backgrounds. The two pharma representatives are also nonvoting members. They can provide input, but they have no say in final decisions made by the advisory committee.
Also, there have been actual antivaxers on the panel. Two representatives from the National Vaccine Information Center, a notorious antivaccine advocacy group, have served on the panel, Barbara Loe Fisher, and, more recently, Vicki Debold. Snopes defended Jill Stein
Great. You are one of the vaccine people. And now you've come to a political forum to push your favored drugs along with your favored politician. No kidding. And I'm suppose to take your advice because of your astute judgments in both fields?
If I still lived in California, where the election is already decided, I'd vote for Stein out of principle and to give the Green Party more leverage (same reason I voted Nader in 2000). But I live in Ohio and have to vote practically, not ideally, because the race can always go either way here.
Heck if I know. You are the one that said there have been changes in the last 10 years.
OK, sorry. I was confused. 10 years ago the HPV vaccine was added to the schedule for females up to age 26. (It is now also recommended for males up to 21.) Stein would have no experience at all with it. TdaP and Menactra for adults were added in 2005. Stein likely had little to no experience with them either. Shingles vaccine came out in 2006 as well. Please note these vaccines were not available before these dates. Just a few years ago Prenar-13 pneumococcal vaccine was added for adults over 65 (in addition to pneumonia, below).
Back when Stein was practicing, adults got a tD every 10 years, a pneumovax after age 65 and flu vaccine every year. Even the flu vaccines have changed a lot since she practiced.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-01-2016 at 09:25 PM..
Great. You are one of the vaccine people. And now you've come to a political forum to push your favored drugs along with your favored politician. No kidding. And I'm suppose to take your advice because of your astute judgments in both fields?
If I still lived in California, where the election is already decided, I'd vote for Stein out of principle and to give the Green Party more leverage (same reason I voted Nader in 2000). But I live in Ohio and have to vote practically, not ideally, because the race can always go either way here.
Are you saying you have no principles Because you live in Ohio?
Are you saying you have no principles Because you live in Ohio?
My principles are voting with my brain rather than my heart. Voting third party in a swing state is a throwaway vote which only goes the way of the person you don't want to win.
As I have said before, I don't vote for the lesser of two evils and I definitely don't vote for cheaters, so Jill Stein will definitely be getting my vote. I think the only way to make real change in this country is to send the message that there needs to be real change in our political structure or we will start voting for someone else.
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Gary Johnson get a lot more votes than expected as well. Hillary and Trump will probably see the lowest voter turnout for them that I will ever see.
Actually, people are so interested in this election cycle that, despite the fact that there is disdain for both of them, there will be a lot of people voting .... maybe more than we've seen in a long time.
Also, the Clinton campaign, will be very active in getting out the vote. They will put a tremendous amount of energy into getting people to the polls.
And while it's good to be principled, sometimes the right this isn't the smart thing.
It's good to send a message but this is not the time to be stubborn, prideful and righteous. It's a "luxury" that this country can't afford right now.
These two candidates are not equally "evil". One, imo, absolutely is and the other (H.C.) is a typical politician who may or may not be able to make some positive changes. There is a chance that she'll do some good. There is absolutely no chance, given who he is and how people (ya know, like congress and others that a president needs to work with) feel about him, that trump will do any one any good. At all. Period. These are not two equally deplorable candidates with the potential to do equally horrific damage.
If trump is elected the country will be thrown into extreme chaos and the devisiveness will continue and actually get much worse and he won't be able to get a damn thing done. Your vote for Jill Stein will be contributing to a very, very bad situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
