Kid went on ECMO last night. Probably dead by the end of the week. From a totally preventable illness. Thanks in part to people not vaccinating their kids due to a manufactured controversy.

The reason to get vaccinated when its only 50% effective is that 50>0.

And this whole ‘not being comfortable injecting chemicals in my kid’s bodies’. Sorry, but that’s a load of crap. Do you even know what a chemical is? You feed your kid chemicals. you bathe them in chemicals. Hell, they’re made out of ‘chemicals’.

You should be ‘uncomfortable’ having your children die of preventable diseases. Nutrition has nothing to do with it.

I’m a pediatric subspecialist. I saw a child today with pertussis. 6 weeks old, too young to be vaccinated herself, and dependent on those around her being vaccinated. Respiratory failure, on a vent, talking about ECMO, probably going to die. Get a couple of them every year or so. Dead because people chose not to vaccinate themselves and their own kids despite the overwhelmingly positive safety and efficacy profiles of vaccines. Dead because people make it a false equivalency/both sides are saying something who could be right argument that puts the overwhelming weight of medical research on one side and Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Sears on the other. Dead because people assume that just because something happend after something means that that thing caused it, so even though people had seizures before Gardisil came into existence, if you have a seizure after the shot it must be because of the shot, not because you were going to have seizures anyway. Dead because people are concerned about ‘toxins’ in the vaccines, despite the fact that the dose is what makes the toxin, and the amount of these components is tiny, and their overall safety is well demonstrated. Dead because people say stupid stuff like ‘when I was a kid, we didn’t get vaccinated for x, we just got x, and were much better off for it’ despite the fact that a bunch of kids that weren’t the poster happened to actually die of x, and none of them do now because of vaccination. Dead because people were worried about ‘too many too soon’ when there’s absolutely no data to support this, and our immune systems ‘multitask’ every day, protecting us against every bacteria in our gut, fungi in our skin, and virus in the air simultaneously, so to say 3, or 5, or a dozen antigens in a vaccine is too many is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps I should refer the parents of the dying child to the movie, I’m sure they’d enjoy watching it to see that there are 2 ‘sides’ to the debate.

Oh, and the autism-mercury-mmr story is pretty much proof that the anti-vax people will grab on to anything to support their immunological luddite tendencies. Now its aluminium. I imagine after another 10 years and billions of dollars of research like we spent chasing Wakefield’s MMR story and eliminating mercury we can prove that the minute amounts of aluminum have no effect. I wonder what they’ll move on to afte that?

I’m a pediatric subspecialist. I saw a child today with pertussis. 6 weeks old, too young to be vaccinated herself, and dependent on those around her being vaccinated. Respiratory failure, on a vent, talking about ECMO, probably going to die. Get a couple of them every year or so. Dead because people chose not to vaccinate themselves and their own kids despite the overwhelmingly positive safety and efficacy profiles of vaccines. Dead because people make it a false equivalency/both sides are saying something who could be right argument that puts the overwhelming weight of medical research on one side and Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Sears on the other. Dead because people assume that just because something happend after something means that that thing caused it, so even though people had seizures before Gardisil came into existence, if you have a seizure after the shot it must be because of the shot, not because you were going to have seizures anyway. Dead because people are concerned about ‘toxins’ in the vaccines, despite the fact that the dose is what makes the toxin, and the amount of these components is tiny, and their overall safety is well demonstrated. Dead because people say stupid stuff like ‘when I was a kid, we didn’t get vaccinated for x, we just got x, and were much better off for it’ despite the fact that a bunch of kids that weren’t the poster happened to actually die of x, and none of them do now because of vaccination. Dead because people were worried about ‘too many too soon’ when there’s absolutely no data to support this, and our immune systems ‘multitask’ every day, protecting us against every bacteria in our gut, fungi in our skin, and virus in the air simultaneously, so to say 3, or 5, or a dozen antigens in a vaccine is too many is beyond ludicrous.

Perhaps I should refer the parents of the dying child to the movie, I’m sure they’d enjoy watching it to see that there are 2 ‘sides’ to the debate.

He’s consistent. In the context of stopped clocks being right twice a day.
But tbh I think he’s right here.
If I earn money, I’m taxed on it. It doesn’t matter how hard I work, I get taxed (unless its carried interest and my last name is Romney).
Essentially, athletes are being given money and taxed on it. That’s the way the system works. If you think they aren’t getting enough money, contribute to the olympic effort so their stipends can be higher.
Many of us could do fantastic things with sponsors and stipends. The athletes chose their path. I hope they are successful, but we don’t need to change the tax code if they are.

It seemed the least inflammatory of the possibilities. If you have a thesaurus and a suggestion I’d be happy to oblige.

Sorry, apparently the internet tagged my initial post to you-It was supposed to be referring to the actual article. I wasn’t trying to mark you as hyperbolic, only the initial posting.

But, you are correct, Dexamethasone is a steroid (corticosteroid, not anabolic) so it has effects on many biological functions. Of course, Aspirin is a prostaglandin synthesis inhibitor so it impacts tons of biological pathways as well. If you read a list of potential problems from a wiki without understanding their relative incidence or severity, you’d never take a medication.

Its the internet. What, do you want a copy of my CV? If you’d like to go out of the thread, I’d be happy to discuss my qualifications.
Read the actual article, read about CAH. See what they’re really trying to do.
Your initial post is inflammatory, hyperbolic, and mis-states the research being done.

Its an anti-inflammatory that is sometimes used in IVF to try to prevent inflammation from interrupting implantation and successful pregnancy. Its also given to mothers with preterm labor so the baby’s lungs will mature more quickly and be more likely to survive outside the womb. And apparently its a treatment to prevent CAH. Or its an agent of gay genocide, depending on how you read the scientific literature.

So, this represents all that is wrong with the internet.
A person lacking in basic understanding of a complex issue makes a post that is personal and hyperbolic yet completely mis-states the actual issue. Then everyone runs around affirming the original personal hyperbolic statement.
This is why we have Jenny McCarthy talking about Autism.
Its like discussing brain surgery with someone that has had the surgery done, rather than the surgeon doing it.

The study is to try and prevend CAH. It is done in people at risk for CAH.
CAH can cause intersex genitalia-neither apparently male or female. Its kind of a crappy lot to draw. Surgeries to correct, the possibility of infertility. Its a disease. If you can fix it you fix it. That’s all the study is.
Most lesbians don’t have CAH. Most women with CAH aren’t lesbians. And the drug they’re ‘experimenting’ with is dexamethasone, a common steroid that’s been used for decades, including in pregnant women for various reasons (it stimulates the fetal lungs to produce surfactant, helping them breath better)

So, it isn’t parents going and asking to commit genocide on their potentially gay fetus. Its parents trying to prevent a disease.

Quit being hyperbolic and making it into something it isn’t, it trivializes real problems.

While I despise him as an ‘actor’, I believe this movie clip is the correct response…

Its algebra, because I used variables in my example rather than numbers.
And how do you know the jobs will continue after the government stops paying for them? These were jobs that were not economically viable under the economic conditions at that time w/o government funding. The economy is not much better now than before, so when the stimulus funding runs out, where do you think the jobs will go?
If we’d handed the money to DARPA, at least we’d have a cool intergalactic death cruiser by now.

How is algebra right wing?
You tell me you want an economic stimulus to create jobs. You tell me the stimulus costs x and creates y jobs. x/y=right wing?
Now, those jobs may do awesome things. They may have secondary effects. But if the purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs, and it cost x…

I’m not saying the multiplier effect didn’t trickle down to other folks. What I’m saying is you should be able to create jobs with money. And the more jobs you create the better. So, if you are creating jobs you can have more salary out than you invest (if you’re doing a public-private co-op), the same amount of salary out as you invest (if you just write a check and send it to a random unemployed person) or less than you invest (if the jobs require infrastructure, tools, equipment, whatever that makes the job more expensive than the salary alone). It seems that investing .27-1 million/job is a pretty expensive job. I’d rather send the random unemployed person a check. And a shovel, maybe. Could have gotten a lot more people employed, or at least spending, that way.

That works out to over $270,000/job, if my math is correct. How does this compare to other government programs? It doesn’t seem to be much of a multiplier effect if it costs 5x the average annual salary to create a job.

It would be nice if the article would explain what exactly c-cpi versus the other cpi alternatives are, and why one might be a more or less rational way to calculate benefit increases. Just because one results in a greater or lesser benefit over time does not make it a better choice, unless your only goal is to have more or less of the benefit over time.