School immunizations

[TomK]

One problem here is that some see posting something different to their own opinion as an insult. You can reply with evidence or by asking questions but it ends up with those making stuff up getting upset and complaining. The best thing to do is actually answer the questions. If you can't do that then perhaps your argument is rather weak and you shouldn't be surprised if someone points that out.

[Chas]

I agree. So are you going to answer my question?

[jahson777]

Some people don't mean to be condescending, which means to talk down to. ;-)

[glinda]

Chas.. keep in mind he does it willy nilly to all those he decided is inferior to his vaulted position amongst the stars. Maybe one can take a lesson from the drama playing out on the national stage. Narcissism is a tricky condition whereby those so afflicted do not know themselves to be. As is obviously the case with our wannabe..

[SBH]

This thread is sick and is in need of a shot. Be sure to wash your hands after using Punaweb.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Some people don't mean to be condescending, which means to talk down to. ;-)
...
he does it willy nilly to all those he decided is inferior to his vaulted position amongst the stars.

We here on Punaweb, all come from different backgrounds. We've had a variety of experiences growing up, in our education, and work environments. TomK I assume, may work in a more demanding and exacting position, one that requires a higher degree of of precision in measurements, language, and accurate definitions than most of us. More than my job, to be sure.

When scientists discuss or describe an event or theory, the details are important. Asking and answering questions are an important part of the process. It's how we as humans learn.

Take the Theory of Evolution for example. It consumed decades of systematic consideration and organization of the evidence before Darwin (or Wallace) presented his (their) ideas to the world. Scientists debated observations in On The Origin Of Species for decades more after it was published, but it was the details Darwin noted, and their implications that brought us to our understanding of the concept of evolution today. Not a simple belief or disbelief of the idea.

When TomK asks for a question to be answered, or for information, or for the source of information, those details are important to him (and us) when he determines how much weight, or truth, or fact that information may have, and therefore, how much it may apply to the discussion.

Now as Rob pointed out, no one has to answer a question here. We haven't been brought in for questioning. We're not down at the police precinct with a light hanging over our head. No one's presented us with a subpoena, or served us papers to appear in the Court of Punaweb.

We each come to Punaweb for different reasons and have different expectations of what's expected if we post. When TomK, as a scientist asks us why we made a certain statement, I don't find that he's talking down to anyone, or is condescending. In fact, to me it appears he's treating us as an equal, on level ground as he would conduct himself with colleagues and associates when discussing a new idea or concept in his profession. Certainly scientists need to be pressed for more information and greater detail in the regular course of events, probably daily.

For example some scientists recently claimed the interstellar object Oumuamua, discovered by PAN-STARRS on Maui, may be an artificially constructed artifact sent from another civilization to our solar system. I bet the two scientists who put forward that idea have been asked a lot of questions since they published. And because they choose to answer those questions, their hypothesis is considered slightly less of a crackpot theory than if they were "some guy" who thinks it just makes sense Oumuamua is a starship because it has a funny rocket-like shape compared to other stuff shooting around in outer space. "Some guy" could be right, who knows, but personally, I still might wonder why he says what he says, or thinks what he thinks, even though he's under no obligation to explain himself further.

When TomK asks us questions, consider this, he's not dismissing your comments as out of hand, he's giving them a platform for serious consideration.

"I want great climate, we’re going to have that.” President Donald J. Trump, while viewing the massive wildfire devastation 11/17/18. (The J stands for Jenius)

[jahson777]

HOTPE, "Some people don't mean to be condescending, which means to talk down to. ;-)" this is just a joke, i was being condescending in a way by defining it. I have seen post from many that seem condescending but i actually dont think that was the intent. I have nothing against the difference of opinions or correcting misinformation with facts, it is in my opinion that it can be done with respect and class though.

[terracore]

"Hey, if hookers and blow will get everyone to get their shots, and thus protect those that can't, I think the ends justify the means. Good idea HotPE!"

I'm offended. I'm offended I didn't think of that first.

Since I always trust Punaweb for medical advice, what about this: I grew up before the chickenpox vaccine and despite many exposures to other ill children I never got it. Now that I have more days behind me than I have ahead of me, if I got chickenpox now it could be life threatening. In order to stay safe, I have to rely on herd immunity to keep from getting sick.

I know you're wondering, if I love vaccines so much, why don't I just get the vaccine? Well, I was going to. I even got a titre test done to make sure that I didn't once get the disease but never developed symptoms. The test determined I'd never had chickenpox. So here's the problem: If I never get the vaccine, or chickenpox, I will never get shingles. If I get the vaccine, I may get shingles because it's a modified live vaccine and there are no known tests done on people in my predicament. I've asked every doctor I've ever seen about this conundrum and 50% tell me that if I get the vaccine I could eventually get a scorching case of shingles. The other 50% tell me they don't know. The last doctor told me that since most people who get shingles are at least 60 years old, nobody will really know if people who got the vaccine will get shingles until after 2055 when the vaccine turns 60 years old. She also told me there are no new (non-live) vaccines in development. She suggested I rely on herd immunity but wrote me the Rx for a vaccination if I chose to get it.

ETA: I just discovered that there is a new shingles vaccine that does not use live virus called Shingrix. It would probably provide immunity against chickenpox, however it's never been studied.

[Rob Tucker]

There is a vaccine for shingles.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingle...index.html

[Wao nahele kane]

At this time there are scientist and doctors that dispute the safety of the adjuvants within some vaccines. The articles are plentiful on the matter.
That said, the credentialed people who oppose the use of these adjuvants do NOT oppose all vaccinations only some of the adjuvants used in the vaccines.

This matter needs further investigation and until such a time, pretending that people are anti-science because they prefer to err on the side of caution with regard to some of the vaccines in question is disingenuous rhetoric.

In the meanwhile, the best policies are to work at mitigating the spread of these virus through common sense practices. Such as, not allowing sick children into class, engaging in and teaching clean hygene habits to avhoid contracting such viruses.

Pretending those who prefer to avoid vaccines that contain scientifically questionable adjuctives are being anti-science, isn't going to cut it.