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.
I have been following presidential elections since 1960, when I was 11. In no instance other than Hillary Clinton do I recall a candidate of one of the two major parties being referred to in serious news articles and in serious conversation by their first name.
if you waste your vote on stein, you're putting our country in danger, i'm holding you personally responsible for the next tragedy that happens on hillary's watch after jan 20.
you don't want that on your watch or conscience, do you?
At least you admit Miss Jill is pandering. Ms. Clinton has at least publicly changed her mind. I never said I was a Clinton supporter. (If you are going to refer to Ms. Clinton as "Hillary", I will refer to Miss Stein as "Jill".
If you have to resort to calling someone a shill, you're admitting defeat.
I'm not assuming when you made that a clear fact. By saying that tweet is anti-vax, otherwise Stein's opinion, then being against corporate control of the FDA is being anti-vax.
You failed to address if you support or do not support corporate greed in pharmaceutical companies. And you also failed to source your fact about Wakefield's retracted study NOT being caused by greed from wanting his own patented vaccine to go through. By using Wakefield's fake study and Martin Shkreli I sourced my reasons to be against corporate control of the FDA as there is already WAY too much greed in pharmaceutical companies and I think that is inhumane and unethical as they are in the healthcare industry. I think to be humane and ethical in healthcare you should strive for the cheapest and most effective option. But Wakefield and Shkreli prove otherwise, you not saying anything opposing them says enough about you. I don't want these same pricks lobbying the government to make the FDA deem their products safe, they should be evaluated as safe on an unbiased account for the good of our health, the public's health. Don't you agree with that? So what is wrong about Stein's tweet that I stated earlier? How is that SO anti-vax if we just want an unbiased and unlobbied FDA?
His role matters because he has the same education by all technicalities as Jill Stein. They obviously went on to very different roles in society as he went onto research and Stein went into clinical practice of patients, the normal doctor route. He is an internist with specialties in oncology and hematology.
The only vaccine that I can think of off the top of my head related to hematology and/or oncology is the HPV vaccine. I got that vaccine quite some time ago. But "hematology and oncology products" is very vague and it is more than likely his work dealt with one vaccine rather dealt with other products to fit health issues in those particular areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Stein (I refuse to call her "doctor", BTW) hasn't worked in pediatrics since she did her rotation in medical school. I already explained, she had little reason to know much of anything about vaccines, and no reason to know anything about childhood vaccines. Here are some graphs about organic food consumption and autism. Coincidence? I think not! https://www.google.com/search?q=grap...w=1749&bih=831
You made it pretty clear by your connotation that since she wasn't a pediatrician she wasn't as knowledgeable on vaccines. I think any good-quality doctor, as there are bad ones, would stay up to date on all medicines and continue with education as much as possible to give the best quality care to their patients. This include vaccines, as MOST, (but really everyone) should be getting vaccinated, so that means some of her patients if not the heavy-majority has gotten vaccines. In case of side effects of vaccines that are NOT autism and are very rare, she should know what to look for. This includes knowing about vaccines. If you have worked in healthcare for a few decades then you should know that all parts of the body tie together, in some way or another. For an example I discovered my autoimmune disease when I finally got treatment for clinical depression.
I call things like I see them, letting Clinton slide on pandering but not Stein makes you a textbook definition of $hill.
I'm not assuming when you made that a clear fact. By saying that tweet is anti-vax, otherwise Stein's opinion, then being against corporate control of the FDA is being anti-vax.
That proves I'm getting paid by "Big Pharma" to be a shill? I wish! My check must be "in the mail".
You failed to address if you support or do not support corporate greed in pharmaceutical companies. And you also failed to source your fact about Wakefield's retracted study NOT being caused by greed from wanting his own patented vaccine to go through. By using Wakefield's fake study and Martin Shkreli I sourced my reasons to be against corporate control of the FDA as there is already WAY too much greed in pharmaceutical companies and I think that is inhumane and unethical as they are in the healthcare industry. I think to be humane and ethical in healthcare you should strive for the cheapest and most effective option. But Wakefield and Shkreli prove otherwise, you not saying anything opposing them says enough about you. I don't want these same pricks lobbying the government to make the FDA deem their products safe, they should be evaluated as safe on an unbiased account for the good of our health, the public's health. Don't you agree with that? So what is wrong about Stein's tweet that I stated earlier? How is that SO anti-vax if we just want an unbiased and unlobbied FDA?
So I haven't gotten down on my knees, literally and figuratively and made some big confession against "Big Pharma"! So what? What does that have to do with Ms. Stein being anti-vax? And you think I support that fraud Wakefield? Where do you get that idea. You, OTOH, don't even know he's from the UK, not the US.
His role matters because he has the same education by all technicalities as Jill Stein. They obviously went on to very different roles in society as he went onto research and Stein went into clinical practice of patients, the normal doctor route. He is an internist with specialties in oncology and hematology.
You're moving the goalposts. End of discussion.
The only vaccine that I can think of off the top of my head related to hematology and/or oncology is the HPV vaccine. I got that vaccine quite some time ago. But "hematology and oncology products" is very vague and it is more than likely his work dealt with one vaccine rather dealt with other products to fit health issues in those particular areas.
Hepatitis B is also an anti-cancer vaccine. It's also important for contacts of oncology patients to be vaccinated against everything they can, so they don't make the patient, whose immune system may be repressed by chemo/radiation/the cancer itself, sick.
You made it pretty clear by your connotation that since she wasn't a pediatrician she wasn't as knowledgeable on vaccines. I think any good-quality doctor, as there are bad ones, would stay up to date on all medicines and continue with education as much as possible to give the best quality care to their patients. This include vaccines, as MOST, (but really everyone) should be getting vaccinated, so that means some of her patients if not the heavy-majority has gotten vaccines. In case of side effects of vaccines that are NOT autism and are very rare, she should know what to look for. This includes knowing about vaccines. If you have worked in healthcare for a few decades then you should know that all parts of the body tie together, in some way or another. For an example I discovered my autoimmune disease when I finally got treatment for clinical depression.
Well, I don't think Ms. Stein knows much about vaccines. She has amply demonstrated such. Her patients weren't getting vaccines. There were very few indicated for adults back in her day.
I call things like I see them, letting Clinton slide on pandering but not Stein makes you a textbook definition of $hill.
Well, you can call me done, since you're impugning my character.
You have a problem with someone being right about childhood things? Did you know it is damaging to a child's brain to be watching cartoons more than 30 minutes per day.
I wanted a rule in our library's children's department to keep children off the computers during electrical storms for their safety. I was told that was not necessary with our safety devices. My husband had been doing computer hardware for major businesses for about 40 years and told me that if the library received a direct lightning strike the safety devices wouldn't matter.
I was told if I found evidence that proved it was not safe that I could caution the parents to please not let the children on the computers with the headphones. I never found the evidence although I consider my husband an expert on the subject but I was surprised to find information about the workings of the children's brain and the influence of too much TV watching.
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.
