MTG's latest, have a party and let kids get infected by the measles so they can get immunity.
My guess is the MAGA crowd will start these ASAP.
My guess is the MAGA crowd will start these ASAP.
Measles Parties: Unfortunately, most of MAGA will think it is a good idea
- Thread starter dawgfood0612
- Start date
A group of people, in Georgia -
Georgia, our State, built upon good people - have sent MTG to Congress.
It’s humiliating.
Georgia, our State, built upon good people - have sent MTG to Congress.
It’s humiliating.
She is a moron. You notice how she has been shoved into the shadows all of a sudden. Say what you want about pubs. Right now the Dems look like a group of misfits. It has allowed Stephen a smith emerge as a serious democrat candidate for president. Aoc is next. The lunatics are running the show for the left at the moment.
I'm not sure that anybody wants to get into a "Who can say or promote the stupidest thing" contest.
There are ample examples from all sides. I'm game if someone wants to debate this point. But, it's not productive for anybody.
There are ample examples from all sides. I'm game if someone wants to debate this point. But, it's not productive for anybody.
What actually "upsets" me is the contention that (from the title): "Unfortunately, most of MAGA will think it is a good idea"
That's a stupid contention, devoid of any evidence and ignorant of the absolute stupidity coming from multiple left-wing sources and an invitation to a losing argument.
That's a stupid contention, devoid of any evidence and ignorant of the absolute stupidity coming from multiple left-wing sources and an invitation to a losing argument.
The anti-vax movement is made up of an unholy stew of irrational people from the far left and the far right.
Vaccines are one of the great medical advancements in the history of humanity and a significant contributor to the change from 10% infant mortality one hundred years ago to less than .06% today.
I don’t think that most of MAGA is anti-vax, but there’s no contention that distrust of traditional sources of authority, be it government, medicine or otherwise, is a trend that has impacted rational thought in that group, and thus negatively impacted vaccine rates.
I personally believe (and this has been really poorly expressed) that most are fully confident in 'classic' vaccines. The issue is w/ "new" tech, including mRNA (and I'm game to explore and debate that specific issue further, in the future) that is NOT as fully explored with long term studies, that fully explain the cost/benefit analysis of the vaccine. There are legitimate concerns with that technology. To deny otherwise is precisely the "anti-science" position that is being decried.
I would hope that you would agree that something "new", that's absolutely not "just like" past vaccines, should be fully tested and that anybody that is being offered the "new" tech, should have the full backing of scientific information.
The problem is that many advances are being pushed, without full disclosure of possible issues and side-effects.
What is so bad about the (very reasonable, imo) position I've outlined?
The big problem is that the drive-by media attention has pushed doubt on vaccines that are clearly safe individually. I'm still open for discussion for how those are administered and if putting all of them in a single dose or two is smart. I think that's a reasonable discussion.
But, labeling concerns due to lack of full information as "anti-science" is actually more "anti-science" than the concerns.
Also, I also think labeling it "MAGA" is a disservice and makes it political when it shouldn't be. It's dismissive when the push is from places like RFK Jr's left-leaning "MAHA".
You're basically mislabeling something that doesn't fit neatly into a political category, imo.
(not everything is about Trump)
I don’t trust this source.
And MTG is a complete disgrace. An uneducated buffoon. Not sure why the party does not primary her every election.
Now do Hank Johnson!
I live in her district and I can tell you why she has a secure seat even though she is embarrassing. She votes the way her constituents want her to vote almost without fail. People will put up with a lot as long as you'll vote the way you campaign.
Really need her and Assoff out. Assoff leading the charge for men to play on women’s sports. Not sure he understands what sports are though. I’m sure he was into the arts.
It’s not our fault republican children are stronger than kids who drink soy milk.
That’s a very fair point. I guess I can’t blame her, I guess I blame her constituents.
But think about that. She’s in a safely red area, no Democrat is getting elected there. So why not demand a conservative house member who is also not crazy?
I just don’t understand why people put up with that. She works for you - would you ever let a direct report act that way?
The vaccine debate has always been interesting to me because a good friend of mine lost his first born as an infant to an allergic reaction to the childhood vaccines. His other 2 children were screened and the docs advised against vaccinating them. So, those one in 10 million or more odds struck a little different chord with me than with most folks.
Imo the biggest issue with the normal childhood vaccine schedule is the effectiveness of the vaccines has actually made the individual risk of an adverse reaction larger than the risk of the diseases because the diseases had largely been wiped out. Maybe after the recent outbreak of measles more folks will reaccess the risk factor.
If only we hadn't invited measles into our country. Why do Dems take everything so serious?
My wife has a cousin and she and her husband are friends and big donors. They like her touch of crazy because they got tired of their way of life being under constant ridicule and they wanted someone that would throw it back in the face of the establishment. They would much rather have a pub they know is crazy and isn't afraid to fight than a Mitt Romney pub that won't embarrass them but may also cave on issues that matter to them. It's simple a trust issue.
When I was a baby, we got small pox injections because it was still around. Still have the scar. I got measles, German measles, mumps, and chicken pox. We all did, and survived. For polio, we drank the vaccine from little Dixie cups. I was shocked to find they have a vaccine for measles. When I was 12, my fingers were caught in a car door and I had to get my first tetanus shot. In those days a horse was vaccinated and its immunity was passed on by a shot. I became extremely ill from the horse serum shot. Missed a week of school. Maybe these days we inject too much into our kids. I want to dispel a rumor that I was a contemporary of Louis Pasteur. I was not. Have fun arguing, this is my 2¢
I accept that answer. It’s not my choice, but I understand that position.
BTW, what issues did Mitt Romney cave on? He was the Republican nominee for President not that long ago.
Voting to convict Trump in the Ukraine case off the top of my head.
Last edited:
Most of MAGA was/is against mandatory vaccines. The government shouldn’t be telling people what they have to inject into their bodies. Period
Especially one that hasn’t been properly vetted.
The Covid Vac has caused a lot of medical problems and if you disagree with that you are just stubborn.
Everyone I know that got the Vax wishes they did not get and are really sick if they gave it to their kids.
No clot shots at our house and we couldn’t be happier about it.
I'm not a vaccine expert, but I do have some experience with biotech (transgenics mainly) and have worked on a few projects that have look at various methods to illicit immune responses and immunity in animals. To my knowledge, no studies have found a clear link with mRNA viruses and increased incidence of side effects like myocarditis and other autoimmune issues. There have been some studies that have found weak associations but the findings are not consistent across (or sometimes even within) studies. In addition, some have proposed ideas for why/how an mRNA would lead to autoimmune issues, but again nothing even close to definitive has been found.
We also need to define what "long-term" means. Any negative impacts from vaccines are likely to be acute or show up within a couple of years at most (like development of an autoimmune disease). I heard a advocate for "organic" foods state recently that transgenic crops have only been on the market for about 40 years, so we don't know the long-term human health impacts of these foods. Lol, 40 years is not long enough?
If I know anything about scientists (because I am one) it is that we love to study stuff. So, it isn't the independent research scientists pushing tech before it has been properly tested. Vaccine companies and (unfortunately) policy makers sometimes, maybe.
Does THIS study count? ( not a snarky question). It identified a small but significant risk of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination, with an incidence rate of approximately 2.7 cases per 100,000 persons vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech. The CDC and FDA acknowledged this risk but argue that most cases are mild and resolve with treatment.
However, long-term outcomes remain under investigation, which is why I advocate for more info.
A couple others:
Spike protein produced by mRNA might trigger inflammation or clotting. LINK
mRNA has been linked to rare allergic reactions and liver issues LINK
I have no idea if these are legit issues or not, but again: I want more info.
A 2023 review in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery discusses the need for long-term monitoring of mRNA vaccine platforms. LINK However long term is defined 🤣
Which is why I think it's totally reasonable to ask questions and want more information. Doing so does not make one a 'denier', which was my point.
I would put AOC in that category also. She is in a district that’s safe for her also. And she is dumb as dirt also.
Hate the term, just another way to divide people.
Last edited:
Right. I could bring up Jasmine Crockett and end this conversation but I won’t. If Dollar General were a person, there you go.
There’s no major disagreement between us.
I started by pointing out the anti-vax crowd is made up of the far-left and far-right.
I don’t have the time to do the research, but my perception is that if we go back fifteen years or more, the vast majority of anti-vaxers would fall far more in the category of lunatic left than right. I think the expansion of the group over the past ten years has come more from the right than the left, and the MAGA anti-science and anti-authority stance (which we can agree on, I assume) has played a big role in that.
Just in case it requires clarification, despite our political differences and who I assume you voted for, I’ve never put you in the MAGA category. In my mind, MAGA is a subset of Trump voters who better fit the characterization of strong anti-science, anti-authority and, to be direct, a disconnect from basic truths that are inconvenient to their preferred political narratives.
If I’ve incorrectly segregated you from the MAGA brethren, feel free to correct me!
Last edited:
LOL, thanks and in re-reading my post, this: "You're basically mislabeling something that doesn't fit neatly into a political category, imo.There’s no major disagreement between us.
I started by pointing out the anti-vax crowd is made up of the far-left and far-right.
I don’t have the time to do the research, but my perception is that if we go back fifteen years or more, the vast majority of anti-vaxers would fall far more in the category of lunatic left than right. I think the expansion of the group over the past ten years has come more from the right than the left, and the MAGA anti-science and anti-authority stance (which we can agree on, I assume) has played a big role in that.
Just in case it requires clarification, despite our political differences and who I assume you voted for, I’ve never put you in the MAGA category. In my mind, MAGA is a subset of Trump voters who better fit the characterization of strong anti-science, anti-authoritarian and, to be direct, a disconnect from basic truths that are inconvenient to their preferred political narratives.
If I’ve incorrectly segregated you from the MAGA brethren, feel free to correct me!
(not everything is about Trump)"
Definitely sounds like I'm talking to you. That was really really bad wording on my part. I was speaking in general, especially because you made it clear previously that was not what you were doing (you had already said "The anti-vax movement is made up of an unholy stew of irrational people from the far left and the far right"). Words are hard sometimes, even if they sound right in your head when you're writing.
i don[t about else but interest in less government because it always invovled fraud waste. Secure border get energy dominace and everything else will take care of itself. you don't get those two done nothing else matters
Agreed. I think some real blame for that distrust has to go to the way a lot of folks behaved and shamed people during covid, from government agencies, politicians, and most of all the media. Some of it un-intentional but some of it very intentional because the stupid public couldn’t be trusted to make their own decisions. Lots of people shamed to a really vitriolic level on some things that ultimately had real merit.
I agree with everything you said and generally don’t agree with the anti-vax crowd, but I can totally understand why they don’t blindly trust the “experts” anymore.
A dose of mea culpa should accompany anyone, especially the media, who now shames the anti-vaxers.
Just when i think the Republicans cannot get any more insane, MTG takes it up a notch.
The first study is simply a retrospective analysis of what they saw in the group of people. These types of studies are common because they are relatively cheap (just using data that was already gathered from other sources). They are not intended to be definitive studies. This is not to discount this type of study, as they can be important in finding things that warrant additional studies. Scientists, specifically those that get published in rigorous journals, are very good a identifying and communicating the flaws of their research. In this first study in the conclusion section the authors write:
Our study has several limitations. First, a definitive diagnosis of myocarditis is based on the results of endomyocardial biopsy, which was performed in only one patient. The definition of myocarditis that was used in our study does not establish the diagnosis, although it corresponds to the way in which myocarditis is diagnosed in clinical practice. Second, cases could have been missed if the diagnosis had been made in an out-of-network hospital and the reporting to the insurer had been delayed or if the diagnosis had not been entered into the outpatient medical record. In addition, some patients with myocarditis might not have fulfilled the study criteria for the diagnosis because of our lack of access to details regarding the index hospitalization or the lack of recording of specific data in the discharge notes. These issues would presumably lead to underestimating the incidence of myocarditis. Third, data were missing for many of the items related to the clinical course. Fourth, because of the lack of a simultaneously enrolled comparator group, no inferences can be made regarding causality between the vaccine and subsequent development of myocarditis. Finally, the study design did not call for the collection of data regarding the incidence of myocarditis after Covid-19.
There is a similar type of study from Korea (I think). These are interesting and but really only take home message is "there might be a minor issue here that warrants some further investigation".
I read through the second paper linked and I didn't see anything of concern. It basically just describing how immunity develops post vaccine. Inflammation is common, because inflammation is an immune response (vaccine or not).
The third link is the vaccine info sheet from Moderna. Seems pretty upfront about the risks. This is no different than the disclaimer at the end of every drug commercial on tv (that people ignore, lol).
Your link regarding long-term monitoring didn't work. That being said, I wasn't referencing the need for the scientific community figure out the duration of time they need to monitor things, but was talking more generally about the public. When advocates get data that they don't like, the easy response is just to say we haven't studied the subject long enough. These arguments are everywhere from the anti-vax crowd, but also a lot of anti-GMO and environmentalist groups. It is just an easy out and if enough people buy into it, they can delay progress.
Thanks, I appreciate the information & perspective.
